It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Doesn't Light speed theory debunk "Young earth" theory?

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


What perplexes me more, is that I have given this exact issue to a few young earth believer friends I mine, and even though they understand what I've asked them, they still hold the same initial belief.

I just cannot comprehend both why and how it is possible to be so clearly wronged, then continue believing in incorrect ideology, knowing full well that it is incorrect! It is the definition of insanity. At the very least, if you cannot accept that an organized religions ideologies are incorrect, why could you not at least accept that the less silly ideologies (old earth creation) is more likely than the absolute proven incorrect ones?




posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Ghost147
reply to post by Akragon
 


What perplexes me more, is that I have given this exact issue to a few young earth believer friends I mine, and even though they understand what I've asked them, they still hold the same initial belief.

I just cannot comprehend both why and how it is possible to be so clearly wronged, then continue believing in incorrect ideology, knowing full well that it is incorrect! It is the definition of insanity. At the very least, if you cannot accept that an organized religions ideologies are incorrect, why could you not at least accept that the less silly ideologies (old earth creation) is more likely than the absolute proven incorrect ones?


I've recently found that some "Christians" get seriously stressed at the thought of the bible having flaws, or being incorrect...

And I mean real physical and emotional stress... (unfortunately)

Kinda dealing with it in real life actually...

Oh lord... why me?




posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


During biblical times the philosophy had the cosmos consisting of what we now know is just our solar system. They called the other planets the 'Wanderers', and they revolved around the Earth along with the Sun. When that's the scope of the Universe is becomes more understandable why a figure like 6000 years would be used. Fallible men used fallible knowledge to think up YEC. Among the other truth claims about the Universe in the Bible.
edit on 28-1-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Akragon


Science says the universe is Millions and MILLIONS of years old... and backs it with mathematical equasions/physics that make my brain fart out and hide...



I have seen no scientific evidence, not a dot, no mathematical equations....nothing to suggest the age of the universe

Not from anyone here and unsurprisingly nothing from your good self
Your question even suggests that you havnt evidence and you fish for it

Science is not a religion yet so many around here have a faith in science



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


As I've previously stated... I am no mathematician, or physicist... or a scientist for that matter...

But im sure there are people here who are well versed in those subjects...

Perhaps someone will kindly speak up...

Maybe its just me but I have more faith in people with degrees in these subjects then I do in a book written millennia ago that says the earth is 6k years old, we all came from Adam and eve, and a talking snake told them to eat a special apple that "god" forbad them to eat


edit on 28-1-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 



I have seen no scientific evidence, not a dot, no mathematical equations....nothing to suggest the age of the universe

Science is not a religion yet so many around here have a faith in science


So reading between the lines what you actually mean to say is you have seen it but you discount the science as mere faith.

"Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang,[2] and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time."

The scientists sure think they are measuring something. Clearly there is math involved. Perhaps you'd like to take it to the science forum with a thread titled 'Scientists have no evidence of the age of the Universe' and then refute all the replies you receive. I know I'd enjoy that thread.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by borntowatch
 



I have seen no scientific evidence, not a dot, no mathematical equations....nothing to suggest the age of the universe

Science is not a religion yet so many around here have a faith in science


So reading between the lines what you actually mean to say is you have seen it but you discount the science as mere faith.

"Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang,[2] and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time."

The scientists sure think they are measuring something. Clearly there is math involved. Perhaps you'd like to take it to the science forum with a thread titled 'Scientists have no evidence of the age of the Universe' and then refute all the replies you receive. I know I'd enjoy that thread.



Prove the cooling time is a constant...evidence not assumption

Prove the radiation amount at the time of the big bang, more questions than answers

and your little cut and paste job doesnt say anything other than what they have done
Where is the evidence, the figures, numbers, the science

Do you know how science is done, what constitutes science
edit on 28-1-2014 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


You seem to have misunderstood my intention. I wasn't inviting this debate to take place between you and I. I'm not qualified. My "cut and paste" was only to show they are doing something you said they were not. Which is….using science…using math…

You seem quite confident so again, if you would, dedicate a thread to this. Sounds like you think no one will muster any evidence.

Here is the forum: Science & Technology


Do you know how science is done, what constitutes science

No idea. I primarily bang sticks together.
edit on 28-1-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
everyone has their cornhole of agendas, especially those who investigate into others affairs. Sometimes it's best just to take things for face value not to make an ass of yourself even if they are an ass as well.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


As somebody who believes in old universe creation the answer of coarse is you are 100% correct.

Genesis 1:1 covers this time frame.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   

borntowatch

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by borntowatch
 



I have seen no scientific evidence, not a dot, no mathematical equations....nothing to suggest the age of the universe

Science is not a religion yet so many around here have a faith in science


So reading between the lines what you actually mean to say is you have seen it but you discount the science as mere faith.

"Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang,[2] and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time."

The scientists sure think they are measuring something. Clearly there is math involved. Perhaps you'd like to take it to the science forum with a thread titled 'Scientists have no evidence of the age of the Universe' and then refute all the replies you receive. I know I'd enjoy that thread.



Prove the cooling time is a constant...evidence not assumption

Prove the radiation amount at the time of the big bang, more questions than answers

and your little cut and paste job doesnt say anything other than what they have done
Where is the evidence, the figures, numbers, the science

Do you know how science is done, what constitutes science
edit on 28-1-2014 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)


First, the OP calls it light speed "theory", key word in quotation, so I have a better answer, how about they prove that there ever was a big bang in the first place. They weren't there from the beginning of this so called big bang, so how could they possibly know what the temperature was? Even assuming that the universe is billions of years old, they admit that this still isn't enough time for light to travel from one end of the universe to the other as they will admit. They call this the "horizon problem". Its the same kind of nuisance they have with irreducible complexity. Their evolutionary models are having a hard time scooting around these issues. Using their own little big bang model, space already had a uniform temperature much larger than light could have possibly emitted some 300,000 years after the big bang. So how can every region of the universe have the same uniform temperatures if there wasn't enough time for light to get there in the first place? This is a problem for the evolutionary big bang model, not for a creation model. The omnipresence of the Biblical God is quite evident, so he could have easily created the distant regions of the universe with a uniform temperature from the very beginning, this is clear cut simple logic.

If their 'evidence' of the big bang was so convincing then there wouldn't even be an argument or disagreement about it even among there own evolutionist camp to begin with. The reason why the so called "evidence" for it is so dubious is simple, its because the entire idea of evolution and the big bang can be traced back to some of the oldest religions on the planet, especially Hinduism. There is nothing "scientific" about the big bang theory, and its not even a "theory". All they did was replace the religious terminology of old with Latin sounding terms to make it sound scientific. Even the more recent sub theory called the oscillating big bang theory is nothing more than reincarnation applied to the universe that's been given a "scientific" guise.

Big Bang Mysticism - Religion Masquerading as Science:

edit on 29-1-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackManINC
 



They weren't there from the beginning of this so called big bang, so how could they possibly know

The omnipresence of the Biblical God is quite evident

Just amazing how everyone else's feet is held to the fire but your own. Scientists weren't there from the beginning so how could they possibly know. But!… no issue for you and fellow believers. You weren't around for the beginning to the Universe, or what came prior, or privy to eternity. Yet no problemo! You have the definitive answers anyways.


he could have easily created the distant regions of the universe with a uniform temperature from the very beginning, this is clear cut simple logic.

Indeed. Flawless logic. Well done. God is all powerful and therefore it could hypothetical do anything and solve any problem. I think most of us understood the logistics of omnipotence. The crucial part here is proving its existence to begin with. Alas, that burden only seems to apply to your opponents.


If their 'evidence' of the big bang was so convincing then there wouldn't even be an argument or disagreement about it even among there own evolutionist camp to begin with.

Science unlike religion doesn't believe it has infallible knowledge about the nature of all reality. It understands we have limitations and there is much much left to be discovered. Intrinsic to that is argument and disagreement. This will continue to be the case and science will still make great discoveries!

edit on 29-1-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 02:09 AM
link   

I think most of us understood the logistics of omnipotence. The crucial part here is proving its existence to begin with. Alas, that burden only seems to apply to your opponents.

this is one of the reasons i don't try to prove the existence of God. "God's will be done" is something a Christian comes to understand themselves. It can't be taught.
edit on 01/24/14 by Jarring because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   

BlackManINC

borntowatch

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by borntowatch
 



I have seen no scientific evidence, not a dot, no mathematical equations....nothing to suggest the age of the universe

Science is not a religion yet so many around here have a faith in science


So reading between the lines what you actually mean to say is you have seen it but you discount the science as mere faith.

"Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang,[2] and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time."

The scientists sure think they are measuring something. Clearly there is math involved. Perhaps you'd like to take it to the science forum with a thread titled 'Scientists have no evidence of the age of the Universe' and then refute all the replies you receive. I know I'd enjoy that thread.



Prove the cooling time is a constant...evidence not assumption

Prove the radiation amount at the time of the big bang, more questions than answers

and your little cut and paste job doesnt say anything other than what they have done
Where is the evidence, the figures, numbers, the science

Do you know how science is done, what constitutes science
edit on 28-1-2014 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)


First, the OP calls it light speed "theory", key word in quotation, so I have a better answer, how about they prove that there ever was a big bang in the first place. They weren't there from the beginning of this so called big bang, so how could they possibly know what the temperature was? Even assuming that the universe is billions of years old, they admit that this still isn't enough time for light to travel from one end of the universe to the other as they will admit. They call this the "horizon problem". Its the same kind of nuisance they have with irreducible complexity. Their evolutionary models are having a hard time scooting around these issues. Using their own little big bang model, space already had a uniform temperature much larger than light could have possibly emitted some 300,000 years after the big bang. So how can every region of the universe have the same uniform temperatures if there wasn't enough time for light to get there in the first place? This is a problem for the evolutionary big bang model, not for a creation model. The omnipresence of the Biblical God is quite evident, so he could have easily created the distant regions of the universe with a uniform temperature from the very beginning, this is clear cut simple logic.

If their 'evidence' of the big bang was so convincing then there wouldn't even be an argument or disagreement about it even among there own evolutionist camp to begin with. The reason why the so called "evidence" for it is so dubious is simple, its because the entire idea of evolution and the big bang can be traced back to some of the oldest religions on the planet, especially Hinduism. There is nothing "scientific" about the big bang theory, and its not even a "theory". All they did was replace the religious terminology of old with Latin sounding terms to make it sound scientific. Even the more recent sub theory called the oscillating big bang theory is nothing more than reincarnation applied to the universe that's been given a "scientific" guise.

Big Bang Mysticism - Religion Masquerading as Science:

edit on 29-1-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)


Evolution is a faith in humanity

Very good post, might have to borrow some of your info at some stage
Still learning and appreciate your time and effort

I think we can safely say the OP has been answered and rebutted

edit on 29-1-2014 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Wait... I always thought the "young Earth" theory was something circulated among atheists to make Christians look stupid. Are you saying it's an actual thing?



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Could be...

That would make more sense honestly...

Apparently the two Christians above believe they refuted light speed theory too...

ye learn something new every day.... well some of us do at least




posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

borntowatch

BlackManINC

borntowatch

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by borntowatch
 



I have seen no scientific evidence, not a dot, no mathematical equations....nothing to suggest the age of the universe

Science is not a religion yet so many around here have a faith in science


So reading between the lines what you actually mean to say is you have seen it but you discount the science as mere faith.

"Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang,[2] and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time."

The scientists sure think they are measuring something. Clearly there is math involved. Perhaps you'd like to take it to the science forum with a thread titled 'Scientists have no evidence of the age of the Universe' and then refute all the replies you receive. I know I'd enjoy that thread.



Prove the cooling time is a constant...evidence not assumption

Prove the radiation amount at the time of the big bang, more questions than answers

and your little cut and paste job doesnt say anything other than what they have done
Where is the evidence, the figures, numbers, the science

Do you know how science is done, what constitutes science
edit on 28-1-2014 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)


First, the OP calls it light speed "theory", key word in quotation, so I have a better answer, how about they prove that there ever was a big bang in the first place. They weren't there from the beginning of this so called big bang, so how could they possibly know what the temperature was? Even assuming that the universe is billions of years old, they admit that this still isn't enough time for light to travel from one end of the universe to the other as they will admit. They call this the "horizon problem". Its the same kind of nuisance they have with irreducible complexity. Their evolutionary models are having a hard time scooting around these issues. Using their own little big bang model, space already had a uniform temperature much larger than light could have possibly emitted some 300,000 years after the big bang. So how can every region of the universe have the same uniform temperatures if there wasn't enough time for light to get there in the first place? This is a problem for the evolutionary big bang model, not for a creation model. The omnipresence of the Biblical God is quite evident, so he could have easily created the distant regions of the universe with a uniform temperature from the very beginning, this is clear cut simple logic.

If their 'evidence' of the big bang was so convincing then there wouldn't even be an argument or disagreement about it even among there own evolutionist camp to begin with. The reason why the so called "evidence" for it is so dubious is simple, its because the entire idea of evolution and the big bang can be traced back to some of the oldest religions on the planet, especially Hinduism. There is nothing "scientific" about the big bang theory, and its not even a "theory". All they did was replace the religious terminology of old with Latin sounding terms to make it sound scientific. Even the more recent sub theory called the oscillating big bang theory is nothing more than reincarnation applied to the universe that's been given a "scientific" guise.

Big Bang Mysticism - Religion Masquerading as Science:

edit on 29-1-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)


Evolution is a faith in humanity

Very good post, might have to borrow some of your info at some stage
Still learning and appreciate your time and effort

I think we can safely say the OP has been answered and rebutted

edit on 29-1-2014 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)


No problem, I just can't take anybody using evolution or the big bang as an argument against the Bible seriously. Its like using a religious argument against another religion, only its been given the veneer of 'science' so that it would seem more reasonable to the world. When it comes down to it, this is the reason why atheists/secularists/evolutionists only have a serious bone to pick with Biblical Christianity, because its the only religion in the world that isn't compatible with their beliefs about the origins of life.
edit on 29-1-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by borntowatch
 


You seem to have misunderstood my intention. I wasn't inviting this debate to take place between you and I. I'm not qualified. My "cut and paste" was only to show they are doing something you said they were not. Which is….using science…using math…

You seem quite confident so again, if you would, dedicate a thread to this. Sounds like you think no one will muster any evidence.

Here is the forum: Science & Technology


Do you know how science is done, what constitutes science

No idea. I primarily bang sticks together.
edit on 28-1-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


I'll join in on this. Awaiting the thread, eagerly! please post a link to it here so we can find it



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Ghost147

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by borntowatch
 


You seem to have misunderstood my intention. I wasn't inviting this debate to take place between you and I. I'm not qualified. My "cut and paste" was only to show they are doing something you said they were not. Which is….using science…using math…

You seem quite confident so again, if you would, dedicate a thread to this. Sounds like you think no one will muster any evidence.

Here is the forum: Science & Technology


Do you know how science is done, what constitutes science

No idea. I primarily bang sticks together.
edit on 28-1-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


I'll join in on this. Awaiting the thread, eagerly! please post a link to it here so we can find it


Seriously???

Do you think ats needs another thread that will just turn into petty little arguments about religion
I cant be bothered,the dancing cat is your man, its what he does best

I am not looking for a fight, just not worth it.
Please believe what you want to believe and allow me the same

Your model and theory has many holes as has been pointed out. Thats enough for me.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join