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.
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?
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
Science is not a religion yet so many around here have a faith in science
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.
Do you know how science is done, what constitutes science
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 scienceedit on 28-1-2014 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)
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
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.
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.
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 scienceedit 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)
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 scienceedit 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)
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)
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