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: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


You left out the other half. I don't call myself a Christian. I don't identify as one. I said I consider a Christian as someone that both uses the religous material and identifies themselves as a Christian. If someone identifies themselves as Christian they obviously are separating themselves from others that read the material and don't. They believe it to hold some greater truth about the cosmos. I don't. To take it beyond that and discern among those self identifying Christians as who truly believes, or who truly believes it the correct away, again, takes faith. How do you know Islam isn't the most truthful account of god's word? Faith.

Which is the crux of the issue here. Some of us are attempting to use logic and reason and others believe it should be faith. Science doesn't have all the definitive answers to every big question therefore [insert particular religious god]. Well we don't need to know everything to acknowledge we know something. We do know certain things about the Universe. Our understanding of that is constantly developing. Scientific discovery is a continuous unfolding of the truth. Faith would have us believe that search was over.

What I struggle with is how little appreciation and acknowledgement *oftentimes* the religious give science yet they thoroughly enjoy the fruits of its labor. Cars, computers, modern medicine, air conditioning, cameras… It's quite obvious science is more than capable of producing results. Our entire civilizations is built upon it. You'll live in that world, utilize science on a daily basis, but discount the merits of science if it pertains to very specific fields. You think us capable of sending machines to Mars right? ….but not in determining how old trees are. It's odd. And telling.




posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


what I struggle with is how atheists etc deny the valid input Christians have supplied to science.

We disagree on the fundamentals of evolution and creation, please dont overstretch.

I accept science that is repeatable observable and testable, not fairytails, at least till they are proven



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 



I accept science that is repeatable observable and testable, not fairytails, at least till they are proven

I see. So your religion and its god meets that criteria? It's not a fairy tail because it's observable, testable, proven. Is this right? Alright tell us how to observe god. What tests can we repeat? Lets observe the miracles of the Bible. What tests can we repeat?

The problem with this discussion is that you seem to want to use logic and reason when it's convenient. Your beliefs should be under the same level of scrutiny. Yet apparently they are not.

I might have missed this. How old you personally think the Earth is?
edit on 2-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by borntowatch
 



I accept science that is repeatable observable and testable, not fairytails, at least till they are proven

I see. So your religion and its god meets that criteria? It's not a fairy tail because it's observable, testable, proven. Is this right? Alright tell us how to observe god. What tests can we repeat? Lets observe the miracles of the Bible. What tests can we repeat?

The problem with this discussion is that you seem to want to use logic and reason when it's convenient. Your beliefs should be under the same level of scrutiny. Yet apparently they are not.

I might have missed this. How old you personally think the Earth is?
edit on 2-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


touche!
Why does not anyone ever look at the fact that there is no reference anywhere as to the age of the Universe, Earth nor anything in any book of the Bible? Also, most Christians do not believe in that figure (6000yrs) anyway - probably because it was literally pulled from someone's ass based on all the begetting going on in the Old Testament. Real scholars (not greedy dimwits cashing in on Creation Museums & the like) in the Vatican have always known that it is essentially a timeline of Jewish ancestry, nothing more.
No one mentions, either, that it was the RCC that declared the Bible to be "the word of God" in the 4th century (not God herself).

Go easy on me during my stoning for heresy.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


does this young earth theory imply that the entire universe is 6000 years old? or only the earth is 6000 years old?



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to [url= by borntowatch[/url]
 



I accept science that is repeatable observable and testable, not fairytails, at least till they are proven

I see. So your religion and its god meets that criteria? It's not a fairy tail because it's observable, testable, proven. Is this right? Alright tell us how to observe god. What tests can we repeat? Lets observe the miracles of the Bible. What tests can we repeat?



Special pleading (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment)



edit on 2-2-2014 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by beefydog
 


On topic with this post, just want to point out that the speed of light is not a theory, but a fact consistent with a multitude of independent experiments done over the last 150 years or so. (and this makes the laser possible!)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Did I not explain clearly in previous posts I accept Jesus by faith
I dont accept science by faith as science is not a religion to me like others



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   

beefydog
reply to post by beefydog
 


On topic with this post, just want to point out that the speed of light is not a theory, but a fact consistent with a multitude of independent experiments done over the last 150 years or so. (and this makes the laser possible!)


Can you prove light speed is constant and has always been so
That isnt a big ask is it?



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Ahhh... the Christians... or any religious peoples...

Every generation they rework their "religion" to fit with indisputable facts discovered by "science" of the times, reworking their "book of truths" to try to make it remain relevant... unfortunately they never interrogate the original premise, which leaves religion standing on "foundations of sand rather than rock" (using their own analogy).

The next generation of religious will incorporate the age of the universe and evolution and any other verifiable scientific fact, or risk becoming irrelevant and dying out.

Their problem now and into the future is that the facts we are now discovering challenge the very premise of their whole religious construct.

How very sad for religion.

It must be hard to justify reality to themselves with so many facts that they need to actively deny to maintain their "faith"... technically they shouldn't even be usng their computers or phones because the science behind them invalidates their deep-rooted beliefs.

That's alright... it's quaint... they can remain faithful and keep their blinders on... they have for thousands of years.

;-)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   

borntowatch

beefydog
reply to post by beefydog
 


On topic with this post, just want to point out that the speed of light is not a theory, but a fact consistent with a multitude of independent experiments done over the last 150 years or so. (and this makes the laser possible!)


Can you prove light speed is constant and has always been so
That isnt a big ask is it?


Actually, it is. Considering that within Physics there are Postulates which are verified to be valid or not, it has nothing to do with proof. It is simply a matter of formulating and postulating mathematical calculations. These calculations need to be verified to be valid or not. The constant speed of light is a postulate of Special Relativity. This is verified through our measurements. It is not a matter of proof or not. So no, we can't "prove it", but we can verify the mathematics.

Enough of the details, on to the verification. We can actually slow the speed of light. We can do this because light moves at different speeds through different mediums. Thus, the speed of light is not immutable. However, it is constant through these mediums. The vacuum of space is the medium we would use to measure the general speed of light throughout the universe, or "c", which is in fact constant.

Here's a reference to the scientific paper for the constancy.

Ellis, J.R., Farakos, K., Mavromatos, N.E., Mitsou, V.A., and Nanopoulos, D.V., “Astrophysical probes of the constancy of the velocity of light”, Astrophys. J., 535, 139–151, (2000). arXiv:astro-ph/9907340.
link



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 


I appreciate your help in this thread... and the other topic you made about "science for creationists"

thank you much brother... I will S&F your thread as well




posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


Sorry what counter evidence was I ignoring exactly?

He said "valid input Christians have supplied to science."

That's not counter evidence that's suggesting there is some.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by tomoe723
 



does this young earth theory imply that the entire universe is 6000 years old? or only the earth is 6000 years old?

The Earth was created before the stars in Genesis. So I assume the whole Universe.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


Did I not explain clearly in previous posts I accept Jesus by faith
I dont accept science by faith as science is not a religion to me like others

Okay
I understand that's the position of many religions people.

I just think it's absolutely ridiculous someone would bark at the lack of evidence and then when it's turned around on them for their beliefs throw up their hands and say "well….for me it's faith….doesn't apply".

Somehow society has convinced itself questioning religion is taboo. Logic and reason applies to absolutely everything else except religious faith. All I see is a blatant and unforgiving double standard.

If faith is permissible to substantiate the position; I have faith the Universe is billions of years old…. stalemate.
edit on 2-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Akragon
reply to post by Ghost147
 


I appreciate your help in this thread... and the other topic you made about "science for creationists"

thank you much brother... I will S&F your thread as well



Ah, thanks for the thanks! I love information within topics like these. If you have any personal questions about them, you can always PM me



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by tomoe723
 



does this young earth theory imply that the entire universe is 6000 years old? or only the earth is 6000 years old?

The Earth was created before the stars in Genesis. So I assume the whole Universe.


Exactly. Something doesn't jive.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   

borntowatch
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Did I not explain clearly in previous posts I accept Jesus by faith
I dont accept science by faith as science is not a religion to me like others



I beg to disagree on this one..

Science is actually just another form of religion.. we may not subscribe to an explicit organization like scientology, but this "science" as a whole is based upon some basic faiths that we just take for granted and subconsciously accept everything on top of it as "facts".


Ghost147

borntowatch

beefydog
reply to post by beefydog
 


On topic with this post, just want to point out that the speed of light is not a theory, but a fact consistent with a multitude of independent experiments done over the last 150 years or so. (and this makes the laser possible!)


Can you prove light speed is constant and has always been so
That isnt a big ask is it?


Actually, it is. Considering that within Physics there are Postulates which are verified to be valid or not, it has nothing to do with proof. It is simply a matter of formulating and postulating mathematical calculations. These calculations need to be verified to be valid or not. The constant speed of light is a postulate of Special Relativity. This is verified through our measurements. It is not a matter of proof or not. So no, we can't "prove it", but we can verify the mathematics.

Enough of the details, on to the verification. We can actually slow the speed of light. We can do this because light moves at different speeds through different mediums. Thus, the speed of light is not immutable. However, it is constant through these mediums. The vacuum of space is the medium we would use to measure the general speed of light throughout the universe, or "c", which is in fact constant.

Here's a reference to the scientific paper for the constancy.

Ellis, J.R., Farakos, K., Mavromatos, N.E., Mitsou, V.A., and Nanopoulos, D.V., “Astrophysical probes of the constancy of the velocity of light”, Astrophys. J., 535, 139–151, (2000). arXiv:astro-ph/9907340.
link


You accept the speed of light as "fact" but in reality you are just putting your belief on the persons who claim that the speed of light is this (or represented by the constant c). The paper itself doesn't even actually measure the speed of light (light particle) but infers the speed of light (or its constancy) from other sources. The nature that it's a postulate means you have to accept its "truth" without question, which is basically putting your faith on it. For any body/system of knowledge or set of beliefs, it is necessary to assign postulates as a basis for further reasoning or arguments. Otherwise, there would be no progress or coherency to that body of knowledge. It's important to remember that it's still a set of beliefs, to safeguard oneself from clinging to it consequently blinding oneself to other perspectives of how the universe could be.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by tomoe723
 



does this young earth theory imply that the entire universe is 6000 years old? or only the earth is 6000 years old?

The Earth was created before the stars in Genesis. So I assume the whole Universe.


I thought 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So I believe the universe already existed along with the earth. If there was any time difference between creating the heavens and the earth, maybe God created the heavens in the morning of that day and the earth in the afternoon of that day?
But it's also confusing because "day" and "night" weren't created until the 2nd day.
LOL So if argued technically, the first day is the 2nd "day"?? and the heavens and the earth were created on day zero??? I hope this makes sense..



1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   

tomoe723

borntowatch
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Did I not explain clearly in previous posts I accept Jesus by faith
I dont accept science by faith as science is not a religion to me like others



I beg to disagree on this one..

Science is actually just another form of religion.. we may not subscribe to an explicit organization like scientology, but this "science" as a whole is based upon some basic faiths that we just take for granted and subconsciously accept everything on top of it as "facts".


Could you elaborate? I don't find science even remotely religious in any sense.



tomoe723
You accept the speed of light as "fact"


No, actually, I don't. I consider it our current most accurate observation of the exact speed. Nothing in science is "fact". There is no such thing as absolute, in other words. That is one of the reasons why science is so fascinating, because our descriptions of naturally occurring phenomena are constantly becoming more and more accurate. There is always more discovery and new-found knowledge.

Even though we could never know for sure. We can only make the best possible description through our current observations.



tomoe723
but in reality you are just putting your belief on the persons who claim that the speed of light is this (or represented by the constant c).


Yes and no. I trust that the individuals conducting the research are doing so properly. I have assurance that they are in fact doing so with several other different researches confirm those same results, despite using different methods as well as different facilities and researchers.

However, I also have the ability to do those same experiments myself and confirm the same results, or even different ones.

This is not the same type of faith that a religion has. It is the same type of faith I have in my door nob. When I turn it, I have faith that it will open the door, but I do not devote my entire existence to it's abilities. There are often separate meanings for the same word (at least in English).


tomoe723 The paper itself doesn't even actually measure the speed of light (light particle) but infers the speed of light (or its constancy) from other sources.


That's because it doesn't need to. There are other controlled tests (over 150 in the case of Light Particles) that have represented and confirmed the speed of light itself. There is no need to do it again, and then carry out the current experiment.

As I stated previously, this is not due to religious-based-faith, or an uneducated guess. There simply is no need to do something, and spending unnecessary funding to an experiment that has already been verified, and then apply more funding to the one that's actually in question.

It's the same reason why most factories don't dig up their own raw materials to build their products. It's much cheaper to buy those materials from someone else so as to make their products. As a somewhat off-set example.


tomoe723
It's important to remember that it's still a set of beliefs, to safeguard oneself from clinging to it consequently blinding oneself to other perspectives of how the universe could be.


This is not how science works at all. If something were to be observed that disproves a previously thought verified phenomena, then a new hypothesis is formed in order to more accurately describe our new observation. The old hypothesis is completely discarded. It certainly is not held on to for some sort of sentimental reason, or to protect ourselves from new information that doesn't conform to our set beliefs. Science isn't ever a set belief. Even one of Newton's Laws was recently proven faulty.

Good riddance to poor description, welcome to updated and new version!

That is how all Science works.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join