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: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   

borntowatch

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


Yes, actually, I do. You see, when conversations like those occur, there is at least a small volume of chance that someone who is reading (most likely not the initial poster, as they tend to be severely close minded) will be influenced by the topic at hand. Whether it be through new-found information, or simply a well worded argument that is relatively simplistic in nature and easy to understand.

What gets us no where is insulting someones beliefs, mentality, or ideologies, while immediately stating afterwards "I'm done", and leaving the conversation. There is no value to this form of "conversation".

The more topics there are based around those subjects, the better.



I am not looking for a fight, just not worth it.
...
Your model and theory has many holes as has been pointed out. Thats enough for me.


Doesn't the latter kind of go against your former statement? You blatantly say that a theory has tons of holes in it, then quit and leave? How productive. Perhaps, instead of just looking for a fight (which is exactly what you're doing, you just don't want to defend against the information), you should enlighten yourself?




posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 


You'll get the same answer from all of them... the bible is true because the bible says its true...

its completely pointless arguing these things with "creationists"... they're die hard for their book

I was actually hoping that someone who is decently proficient in physics or mathematics to show up and help me out...

Even considering making a thread calling for someone to assist me here...

I have no proof, I have a grade 12 education in these subjects.... the op is a question I asked to those that might know more then I do

lets hope someone shows up and puts some of this issue to rest


edit on 30-1-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


There really isn't anything that needs answering. The concept of the speed of light and it's existence alone, provides us with the answer. Any light that is seen from a distance farther than 6000-12000 light years, regardless of the distance beyond those numbers (in light years) instantaneously disproves an age date of 6000-12000 years.

Of course, virtually all things and matters that exist today require the age of the universe to be what it is, approximately.

Not only that, but there are organisms that are still alive today that are older than some of those time frames. For example, there are individual trees that are over 5000 years old. And clonal colonies that date past 80,000 years (clonal meaning self replicating from a single specimen).

There is even a clonal species of sea grass that dates at over 200,000 years.

These numbers can be derived from techniques that even a creationist could agree with; counting rings on a tree.

It certainly isn't just light that disproves a young earth notion. Although, there only needs to be one thing to prove something incorrect for that thing to be considered incorrect anyway.




posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 


Well our Creationist friend stated specifically "I've seen no scientific proof of anything that proves that the world isn't 6-10k years old"

Can you possibly post some proof for these people?

A link?

Some info on these different proofs... some sort of scientific evidence of their age... basically anything that would put this ridiculous issue to rest?

Personally I find it completely obvious... but these people just flat out deny it, and won't even bother to look for the evidence because clearly it proves their book wrong... and "heaven forbid" an ancient religious text gets proven wrong

God help us all!!




posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackManINC
 



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.

The Bible essentially says the Earth and its oceans were created before the Sun. Says early man lived nearly a thousand years. Whales were among the first life. If you don't think there is incompatibility there about our origins you must be getting your science from the Bible.

By the way my gripe is not just with Christianity.

reply to post by borntowatch
 



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

So don't make it about religion. That's not what I suggested. Keep it very scientific. You said science has zero evidence pertaining to the age of the Universe. No religion in that premise. Science forum is just more appropriate, and it will attract more qualified people.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   

BlackManINC
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?


I was there.

You can't prove that I wasn't.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

BlackManINC
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?


I was there.

You can't prove that I wasn't.


Cool, you were there, now show us the data you collected.
We have a winner



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   

borntowatch

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

BlackManINC
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?


I was there.

You can't prove that I wasn't.


Cool, you were there, now show us the data you collected.
We have a winner


I have a better answer. I can't prove that he wasn't there, but his mother that bore him into this world sure as hell can, that is unless he is claiming to be God, or is claiming that reincarnation is real or something, of which he will have to also prove with his 'calculations'. Since we know that time is relative, we know that there isn't any way to empirically test the unidirectional speed of light. Thus, observed time may very well be just as "true" and fundamental as calculated time. Only God truly knows exactly how old the universe really is. We just know that it isn't anywhere near 12 to 20 billion years old or even millions of years old, and the worlds own flawed evolutionary time scale of the big bang shows it as I pointed out before. The fact that all kinds of unsubstantiated fairy tales have been proposed like dark matter in an attempt to make the big bang more "plausible" just shows that the idea of a big bang has no credibility and is as every bit a faith as it was in some of the oldest religions on the planet ages ago. Its the reason why even some evolutionary scientists have decided to distance themselves and the theory of evolution itself from the big bang theory altogether.
edit on 31-1-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackManINC
 



There is only 1 thing I can prove, no matter how good the explanation or the argument, evolutionists will not agree on creation
Tree ring dating and 200000 year old seagrass as proof. Oh dear me, they believe that stuff is infallible

Oh, I can also prove some creationists will not agree on evolution.

I am not here to wage wars, just explain the creationists views as best I can without arguing, dont want to get sucked into petty little battles

creation.com...
why 200000 year old seagrass is a silly premise

creation.com...
Tree ring dating faults

I am of the opinion that prayer can be as effective



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   

BlackManINC
...Its the reason why even some evolutionary scientists have decided to distance themselves and the theory of evolution itself from the big bang theory altogether.


I'm not quite sure how you believe you have the credentials to comment on scientific matters such as Evolution, when you are presenting a very elementary grade misunderstanding about it.

The Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the cosmos. The way a planet/galaxy/nebula/universe forms deals with astronomy, not biology. There for, it doesn't make any sense to say that "evolutionary scientists are distancing themselves and the Theory of Evolution from the Big Bang" considering they have nothing to do with each other, at all.

You are confusing the definitions of the word "Evolution". Just as I could say "the gravity of this situations is quite extreme", does not mean that I am referring to the Theory of Relativity. The word evolution and the phenomenon of Evolution are also entirely separate things.

While we're on the subject of definitions, the Theory of Evolution and the phenomenon of Evolution are also separate things. Just as the Theory of Relativity (or the 'Theory of Gravity') and Gravity itself are two separate things. The theory merely attempts to explain the phenomenon that clearly exists. Just as the Theory of Evolution is an attempt to explain the phenomenon that also clearly exists.

Biological Evolution, which is what the Theory of Evolution explains, only describes the changes in Allele frequencies (or "gene frequencies") within a species (or "gene pool") through reproduction. That is it. Nothing else at all. It does not explain how life began, only what happens to life once it already exists. It certainly does not relate at all to anything pertaining to cosmology. It is simply an entirely different subject.



borntowatch

There is only 1 thing I can prove, no matter how good the explanation or the argument, evolutionists will not agree on creation


Obviously, considering that creation has nothing to say on how or why life changes once it exists, it only describes how life started. Which evolution does not describe at all, as I stated earlier. If you want to compare Creation to any other form of Abiogenesis (which is a scientific topic on the hypothesis describing the beginning of life), then go right ahead!

In fact, I don't see why creation wouldn't be considered a form of Abiogenesis.


borntowatch
Tree ring dating and 200000 year old seagrass as proof. Oh dear me, they believe that stuff is infallible


No, it absolutely is not. However, it is simplistic enough for your mind to grasp. I could go on for hours attempting to explain the very detailed functions behind the changes in Allele Frequencies and how they relate to the general concept of Evolution, the similarities and differences between Micro and Macro Evolution and so on. However, you cannot even comprehend these unbelievably simple concepts, so why would I bother giving you a reasonably, scientific explanation when you not only would not understand it, but completely ignore it anyway because of your biased view of science in general?

If, by some virtually impossible event, that creation were to produce some form of actual scientific proof that their hypothesis is valid in any way, I assure you that every scientist would accept that hypothesis in an instance. Why? Because they aren't holding some weird bias towards your ideologies as you and all other young earth creationists hold towards science in general. They accepts what is the most valid, evident, and factual description of a specific phenomenon.

Why they do not accept Creation as scientific at all, let alone valid, is because it doesn't follow the scientific method.

The Scientific Method
- Make observations.
- Propose a hypothesis.
- Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis.
- Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis.
- If necessary, propose and test a new hypothesis.

To have a Scientific Hypothesis in the first place, the hypothesis must be testable and also falsifiable. Which Creationism is neither. It is simply an Ideology.

A Scientific Hypothesis turns into a Scientific Theory when it is repeatedly confirmed through experimentation and observation.

The Theory of Evolution is so widely accepted by the scientific community because it is one of the most observed and experimented theories science has ever produced.

If you'd like to know more about the basics of Science, or even the details, I suggest you make that topic that has already been suggested to you.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Ghost147

BlackManINC
...Its the reason why even some evolutionary scientists have decided to distance themselves and the theory of evolution itself from the big bang theory altogether.


I'm not quite sure how you believe you have the credentials to comment on scientific matters such as Evolution, when you are presenting a very elementary grade misunderstanding about it.

The Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the cosmos. The way a planet/galaxy/nebula/universe forms deals with astronomy, not biology. There for, it doesn't make any sense to say that "evolutionary scientists are distancing themselves and the Theory of Evolution from the Big Bang" considering they have nothing to do with each other, at all.

You are confusing the definitions of the word "Evolution". Just as I could say "the gravity of this situations is quite extreme", does not mean that I am referring to the Theory of Relativity. The word evolution and the phenomenon of Evolution are also entirely separate things.

While we're on the subject of definitions, the Theory of Evolution and the phenomenon of Evolution are also separate things. Just as the Theory of Relativity (or the 'Theory of Gravity') and Gravity itself are two separate things. The theory merely attempts to explain the phenomenon that clearly exists. Just as the Theory of Evolution is an attempt to explain the phenomenon that also clearly exists.

Biological Evolution, which is what the Theory of Evolution explains, only describes the changes in Allele frequencies (or "gene frequencies") within a species (or "gene pool") through reproduction. That is it. Nothing else at all. It does not explain how life began, only what happens to life once it already exists. It certainly does not relate at all to anything pertaining to cosmology. It is simply an entirely different subject.



borntowatch

There is only 1 thing I can prove, no matter how good the explanation or the argument, evolutionists will not agree on creation


Obviously, considering that creation has nothing to say on how or why life changes once it exists, it only describes how life started. Which evolution does not describe at all, as I stated earlier. If you want to compare Creation to any other form of Abiogenesis (which is a scientific topic on the hypothesis describing the beginning of life), then go right ahead!

In fact, I don't see why creation wouldn't be considered a form of Abiogenesis.


borntowatch
Tree ring dating and 200000 year old seagrass as proof. Oh dear me, they believe that stuff is infallible


No, it absolutely is not. However, it is simplistic enough for your mind to grasp. I could go on for hours attempting to explain the very detailed functions behind the changes in Allele Frequencies and how they relate to the general concept of Evolution, the similarities and differences between Micro and Macro Evolution and so on. However, you cannot even comprehend these unbelievably simple concepts, so why would I bother giving you a reasonably, scientific explanation when you not only would not understand it, but completely ignore it anyway because of your biased view of science in general?

If, by some virtually impossible event, that creation were to produce some form of actual scientific proof that their hypothesis is valid in any way, I assure you that every scientist would accept that hypothesis in an instance. Why? Because they aren't holding some weird bias towards your ideologies as you and all other young earth creationists hold towards science in general. They accepts what is the most valid, evident, and factual description of a specific phenomenon.

Why they do not accept Creation as scientific at all, let alone valid, is because it doesn't follow the scientific method.

The Scientific Method
- Make observations.
- Propose a hypothesis.
- Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis.
- Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis.
- If necessary, propose and test a new hypothesis.

To have a Scientific Hypothesis in the first place, the hypothesis must be testable and also falsifiable. Which Creationism is neither. It is simply an Ideology.

A Scientific Hypothesis turns into a Scientific Theory when it is repeatedly confirmed through experimentation and observation.

The Theory of Evolution is so widely accepted by the scientific community because it is one of the most observed and experimented theories science has ever produced.

If you'd like to know more about the basics of Science, or even the details, I suggest you make that topic that has already been suggested to you.


Ok, so just to make you happy, I'll call be more specific and call it evolutionary astronomy instead of biology. Its still evolution no matter how you try and spin it. If what you mean by the "phenomenon of evolution" is micro- evolution or natural selection, which means the selection of preexisting genetic info while removing the defective ones that leads to variations within species, then yes, I'll except that as true scientific observation. If by evolution you mean "from goo to you", or macro-evolution, which is the emergence of completely new more "advanced" species through new genetically-defined traits, then no, I have no reason to believe in magical fairy tales. I don't confuse genetic variation, which is micro evolution, with the princess and the frog, or with some of the oldest religions on the planet that taught the exact same rubbish. Creationist Edward Blyth, who had a background in chemistry and zoology, pioneered the idea of natural selection long before it was taken and misrepresented by the likes of Darwin to support his materialist religion. And, you claim that these evolutionists hold no bias towards creationism? Even some evolutionists don't agree with that.


‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.' - Professor Richard Lewontin


As I pointed out before with the big bang theory, evolution as its taught in secular based academic institutions is also nothing more than a very old materialist religion that has the veneer of science. Like the idea of a big bang, they removed the old religious terms with Latin sounding ones to make it sound more authoritative. Some don't want to make this issue religious, but this has everything to do with religion as it has to do with what is called "science".

Evolution Mysticism - Religion Masquerading as Science:



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackManINC
 


That video gave me a good laugh. Especially then end bit about the confirmation bias of scientists ….because that's not at all what's occurring with religious groupthink, right?
Once you believe you hold a truth that's infallible (i.e Bible) you're going to actively look for and favor things that seem to validate it…. aka confirmation bias. But that's not what you're doing, right?



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Well no thats not accurate
I once was taught Catholicism and now believe it to be a doctrine of devils (My opinion no offence to Catholics, you are not all bad just some teachings)
I once accepted the teachings of Calvin and now see it as a doctrine of devils also

Now studying Wesleys teachings, looking for a balance My Christianity is fluid and growing


If a reasonable intact fossil record does appear then I would accept evolution with an intelligent design beginning, how could I not

You want to label and box all Christians to justify yourself.

Evidence and science that cant be disputed wins.
I believe in gravity, how could I not

Sounds like your premise needs work

have fun



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 02:42 AM
link   

My Christianity is fluid and growing

Right your Christianity is. Not your Buddhism. Not your Hinduism. Not your Islam. Your Christianity. Let's break it down. You went from viewing Catholicism as the correct interpretation of Christianity, to viewing the teachings of Calvin as the correct interpretation, to now studying yet a new interpretation of Christianity. You say it's growing; in other words you're still seeking. This is still inline with the whole confirmation bias thing. What is the commonality amongst them? They are all Christianity.

Confirmation Bias: a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.

The preconception here is that Christianity is true (the correct faith). You switching to different interpretations of Christianity is merely you acting out that tendency to search for information that seems to confirm it.
edit on 1-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackManINC
 



I have no reason to believe in magical fairy tales.




So why would you believe in things like Adam and eve, the garden of eden, a talking snake within said garden, the flood, all mankind came from two people...etc etc etc etc?




posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Lucid Lunacy

My Christianity is fluid and growing

Right your Christianity is. Not your Buddhism. Not your Hinduism. Not your Islam. Your Christianity. Let's break it down. You went from viewing Catholicism as the correct interpretation of Christianity, to viewing the teachings of Calvin as the correct interpretation, to now studying yet a new interpretation of Christianity. You say it's growing; in other words you're still seeking. This is still inline with the whole confirmation bias thing. What is the commonality amongst them? They are all Christianity.

Confirmation Bias: a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.

The preconception here is that Christianity is true (the correct faith). You switching to different interpretations of Christianity is merely you acting out that tendency to search for information that seems to confirm it.
edit on 1-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

\
Are you suggesting I havnt studied other beliefs, surely not, surely you dont assume so much.
To me thats arrogance beyond assumption

And no I didnt believe in Catholicism, read my post.

You make so many erroneous assumptions its not worth explaining, due to your confirmation bias.

Christianity is not the law, its grace. I am not searching, just walking the path carefully, constantly re-examining the truth of Jesus, I am not sedentary in my faith. Are you suggesting I should be, like your science faith?

How do you discern the concept of growth with the concept of searching, surely you cant be serious
I could insert a scripture here but you wouldnt understand

Tell me what you think a Christian is and what they must believe. No google searching, honestly and sincerely what a Christian should be to you.

I am not defined by what you think, its by the path I choose.
I have made many mistakes, I am only human after all

If my pre conception proved my foundation why would I need to move forward, out of the box of what I accepted as true.

I can not comprehend your argument



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


You can't comprehend my argument and you believe I can't understand anything you say. I think we can leave it for now



Tell me what you think a Christian is and what they must believe. No google searching, honestly and sincerely what a Christian should be to you.

Oh that's easy.

Someone who reads Christian canon and calls themselves a Christian.

That's it. You were expecting more?

As for what they should believe...

I don't have faith in this stuff. In order for me to discern 'true Christianity' I would have to have faith to begin with. I leave it you and other Christians to determine who is the 'true Christian' and what denominations, as you said, are the works of devils. People on the outside just see thousands upon thousands of differing denominations and no reason to believe one is more true than the other. I mean I could have a discussion on Christian theology from a historical perspective…if by true we mean most historically accurate…I suppose I could throw my hat in the ring.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by borntowatch
 


You can't comprehend my argument and you believe I can't understand anything you say. I think we can leave it for now



Tell me what you think a Christian is and what they must believe. No google searching, honestly and sincerely what a Christian should be to you.

Oh that's easy.

Someone who reads Christian canon and calls themselves a Christian.

That's it. You were expecting more?

As for what they should believe...

I don't have faith in this stuff. In order for me to discern 'true Christianity' I would have to have faith to begin with. I leave it you and other Christians to determine who is the 'true Christian' and what denominations, as you said, are the works of devils. People on the outside just see thousands upon thousands of differing denominations and no reason to believe one is more true than the other. I mean I could have a discussion on Christian theology from a historical perspective…if by true we mean most historically accurate…I suppose I could throw my hat in the ring.



No I got exactly what I expected, thanks for being so open. That explains everything quite appropriately
Why this discussion is pointless.

You expect me to know everything about evolution and possibly every other religion on earth and you have no concept of Christianity at all, theology maybe
One doesn't need faith to discern Christianity, thats lazy of you

I dont believe evolution is anything more than a fairytail myth, you hold the same towards creation. I at least can understand your reasons and wont belittle you for holding them



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 



Why this discussion is pointless.

Okay.


You expect me to know everything about evolution and possibly every other religion on earth and you have no concept of Christianity at all

I think we are all obligated to try and understand something before we dismiss it.

I've had a vested interest in religious study for a while. Plenty of ATS history of me taking part in related discussion. My degree path in college is philosophy with an emphasis in religion. I am currently about 6 hours into lectures in Christianity from The Teaching Company (fantastic stuff). I fairly regularly read or watch material on Christianity and other religions. I can even name my favorite Christian theologians if you want. No friend. I am far from having 'no concept'.

As was pointed out this isn't a discussion about evolution. You two keep making it one. We should be discussing cosmology. Does our knowledge of that field negate the biblical basis for a Young Earth? You guys decided to simply attack science in general in every way you could as the defense. Then posit truth claims as absolutes (bible, god) and get upset when we attack that in turn.


One doesn't need faith to discern Christianity, thats lazy of you

You absolutely need faith. What you mean by discernment is having spiritual discernment in selecting the correct interpretation of scripture. That takes faith. You think a non-religious person would determine one particular interpretation was the work of devils as you did?? No. That takes faith. As I said, from a non-religious point of view that discernment would only amount to an analysis of Christianity historically. Perhaps you would like to further explain what 'discernment' meant here if I am so off base.


I dont believe evolution is anything more than a fairytail myth, you hold the same towards creation.

I hold the same towards religions and religious gods. I don't know if there is an intelligent designer. Maybe there is! Those things are unknowable if they exist outside of nature. I don't know either way. Neither do you. Or any religion.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


You said
"Someone who reads Christian canon and calls themselves a Christian."
Is a Christian

Now if you are studying philosophy and Christianity is part of that......

It doesnt matter, you have made your position very clear



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join