Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

[shmogie]

That's what shmogie don't get.

Abiogenesis is a falsifiable hypothesis, not scientific theory. There are some evidences to support Abiogenesis, but there are still some unsolved puzzle with Abiogenesis, but there are researches are attempting to solve them.

The problem is that shmogie absurdly think that science must have all the answers, but science don't work that way. Often the answers they get are some answers to some pieces of the puzzle, which itself come from much larger puzzle.

When some unknown Neolithic person or people invented wheel, it doesn't mean they have invented a modern state-of-art automobile.

When the ancient Babylonian astronomers, and then ancient Greek astronomers began cataloguing some stars and constellations, do they need to invent space telescope, like the Hubble too?

Likewise, Isaac Newton discovered through observations - gravity - but he didn't know everything there was to know about gravity. Albert Einstein took the next step with gravity - General Relativity. And even Einstein don't have all the answers, he couldn't make it work with Quantum Mechanics.

It is called progress.

Abiogenesis may not have all the answer neatly stacked and in place, like shmogie want it, but progress, like all other science and technology, will take times.

But I really don't give a crap what shmogie want.

LOL ! I don´t want anything, except that the proponents of abiogenesis be honest about their belief.

All this other stuff you posted means nothing as far as abiogenesis.

You are parroting the false argument that abiogenesis research is making vast strides, it is not. That is pure propaganda and fodder for the faithful.

You propose science progresses, and in time will understand the creation of life.

However, in a century it is further away than it was thought to be at the beginning of the century. As the complexity of life and itś operation is discovered to be more and more complex, abiogenesis becomes more and more difficult to grasp.

Right now there are about 9 hypotheses for abiogenesis. None have any really worthwhile evidence.

Just be honest about what you believe in.

 

[shmogie]

Please.

When you argue for "intelligent design", we all know who you mean with the "designer".




I don't think anyone on this side of the fence has ever stated that the puzzle of the origins of life, aka abiogenesis, is solved.

Then just be honest. State you believe in a process for the origin of life for which there is very, very little evidence.

I didn´t argue for intelligent design, I only gave an example for irreducable complexity and mentioned intelligent design. Far from an argument.

Abiogenesis is the issue and the argument, nothing else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL ! I don´t want anything, except that the proponents of abiogenesis be honest about their belief.

All this other stuff you posted means nothing as far as abiogenesis.

You are parroting the false argument that abiogenesis research is making vast strides, it is not. That is pure propaganda and fodder for the faithful.

You propose science progresses, and in time will understand the creation of life.

However, in a century it is further away than it was thought to be at the beginning of the century. As the complexity of life and itś operation is discovered to be more and more complex, abiogenesis becomes more and more difficult to grasp.

Right now there are about 9 hypotheses for abiogenesis. None have any really worthwhile evidence.

Just be honest about what you believe in.

You are almost totally wrong. Most that believe abiogenesis are honest about their beliefs. It is the only concept supported by any empirical evidence. The evidence for it is quite strong, it is far from weak. That is a huge error at best on your part. And since you continually demonstrate that your knowledge is about fifty years behind the times you are in no position to judge the evidence. There are various hypotheses for abiogensis, but they are not all in conflict with each other. Most of them only deal with a limited aspect of abiogenesis. In fact I am willing to bet that there are more than nine since it is a complex process that had different steps to it.

One common error that those trying to refute abiogenesis make is to think that abiogenesis had to happen all at once, when if you had studied the various hypotheses you would see that there are thought to be stages to abiogenisis. Any "refutation" that does not take this into consideration is not really a refutation at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then just be honest. State you believe in a process for the origin of life for which there is very, very little evidence.

I didn´t argue for intelligent design, I only gave an example for irreducable complexity and mentioned intelligent design. Far from an argument.

Abiogenesis is the issue and the argument, nothing else.

Once again that would be a lie if he made that error. He knows that there is quite a bit of evidence for abiogenesis. What there is not evidence for is your beliefs. And that raises the question, why do you believe in something that has no reliable evidence at all?

 

[shmogie]

Owkay. So you accept Big Bang Theory then.
Good to know.

I expected that you'ld have objections to it. I stand corrected then.

Good for you.

No objections to it at all. Christians have believed in it for 2,000 years, while scientists right up to the 1940s said the universe was static, always was and always would be, the steady state universe.

We on the other hand said that the universe was created in an instant.

Yes, I certainly do believe in the BB theory.

 

[ecco]

The issue in this thread is the speed of light as relates to the age of the universe we see.

Abiogenesis is the issue and the argument, nothing else.

Confused again?

 

[ecco]

No objections to it at all. Christians have believed in it for 2,000 years, while scientists right up to the 1940s said the universe was static, always was and always would be, the steady state universe.

We on the other hand said that the universe was created in an instant.

Yes, I certainly do believe in the BB theory.

Twist and twist and twist.

You and yours have indeed believed the universe was created in a relative instant. HOWEVER, you and yours believed it was created fully formed and NOT from an expanding speck. The concept of a fixed size universe came from the OT 6000 years ago.

But, maybe I'm wrong. Show something in the NT that says the universe started from a speck and is expanding. Betcha' can't.

 

[ratiocinator]

Owkay. So you accept Big Bang Theory then.
Good to know.

I expected that you'ld have objections to it. I stand corrected then.

Good for you.

No objections to it at all. Christians have believed in it for 2,000 years...

Totally untrue - Christians have not believed in the big bang theory for 2,000 years.

 

[dad]

dad.

The word “fable” only related to myth with animals that play some important roles.

Especially narratives where animals have human characteristics, or those they save people’s lives (eg Elijah and the ravens, Jonah and the whale) or can talk in human languages (eg Genesis’ serpent or Numbers’ donkey).

Fables can also exist where humans or spiritual beings have animals traits, such as Ezekiel’s 4 living creatures or angels, with bodies that of man, but with wings of eagles, and head with 4 faces (that of lion, ox, eagle and man), or Revelation description of the Two Beasts.

All these in the Bible are myths with fables.

There are no such fable creatures in the modern physical cosmology (eg Big Bang universe, or in Earth science or that of life (abiogenesis and Evolution).

The fable of evolution is about animals. Animals changing into man for example.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is BELIEVED that chemicals under unknown conditions, unknown chemicals, in unknown combinations, somehow in an unknown way, in an unknown environment. came together to create a living organism.

The evidence does not bear out this belief, just as the physical evidence is judged by science to not bear out what I believe.

Somehow the science label of the research, and the research itself, makes some people think it is a superior position and proven.

It is neither superior or proven, it has no more value in determining how life came about than divine creation.

It's fascinating to watch certain people exhibit behaviors that are very typical of their group. Here, we clearly see black/white thinking from a creationist on display, in that when it comes to origins research the scenarios are either completely proven or no better than blind faith. There can be no ground between those two ends of the spectrum.

Yet, Creationists are considered silly and stupid

That tends to happen when a group of people behave in silly and stupid ways. Just like the saying....Don't like being called stupid? Then stop saying stupid things.

 

[shmogie]

Totally untrue - Christians have not believed in the big bang theory for 2,000 years.

Ah, Christians have believed that the universe was created in an instant. Terminology is irrelevant.

The heart of the BB is the alleged singularity, the point of infinite denseness, that burst forth with massive energy/mass and everything there is. First cause, energy/mass, expansion.

Christians have always believed 2 of the 3, while the vaunted minds of science denied it.

The fundamentals of creation are the same.

 

[dad]

What a hilarious comment coming from someone who believes in the Origin Fable written 6000 years ago by a group of people trying to establish a new religion. If you don't consider that knowledge why do you accept it?

Trying to divert attention to what you consider other fables does not elevate your own to the ranks of actual fact or knowledge.

Oh, that's why you accept it and reject science.

Origin sciences/accounts by science are not science, but only falsely grouped together.

You, like Shmogie, believe and accept science up to the point where it conflicts with your deeply ingrained indoctrinated religious beliefs.

Your deeply ingrained indoctrinated religious beliefs that you mistakenly thought were part of actual science oppose the truth.

 

[dad]

Nonsense. You are just trying to divert. Your dismissal of the Theory of Evolution is proof that you have no interest in accepting science regardless of how much evidence there is.

The theory of evolution of life does not even rank old wives tales. Your desperate attempts to pretend it is known, and part of actual science just show a fanaticism typical of those in your religion.

You are completely unqualified to discuss matters like space and time when you reject chimps and humans having a common ancestor.

Lurkers...I'll let that statement stand alone!!!! Hilarious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then just be honest. State you believe in a process for the origin of life for which there is very, very little evidence.

Abiogenesis factually happened.
Once there was no life, and then there was. Aka abiogenesis: the coming into being of life where there was no life before that, as opposed to biogenesis, where life comes from previous life.

Do you disagree that at some point in the past, life came into existance, one way or the other?

You seem to be confusing the fact that life came into being SOMEHOW in the past, with hypothesis on how exactly that happened.

That it happened is a fact.
How it happened is being researched and unknown at this point.

I have been honest about this the entire time.
At no point did I ever state something else then this.

If you disagree, I invite you to quote me where I supposedly said something else.

I didn´t argue for intelligent design, I only gave an example for irreducable complexity and mentioned intelligent design. Far from an argument.

ID is biblical creationism disguised in a labcoat (cfr cdesign proponentsists)
"irreducible complexity" is one of the many fallacious arguments that exist within that creationist framework. And as I already told you, it's nothing but an argument from ignorance / incredulity.

Both terms come straight out of the unscientific biblical creationist playbook of the Discovery Institute.

Abiogenesis is the issue and the argument, nothing else.

Abiogenesis is a field of research within which several competing hypothesis exist that are being investigated and pursued, none of which are conclusive at this point.


All this has already been explained to you on several occasions.

 

[dad]

[QUOTE="ecco, post: 6311800, member: 60911"


Who really cares???
Who really knows???
Seriously?[/QUOTE] Right, why would we care about your guesses as to how it all worked exactly in the unknown past? Don't overvalue ignorant based guesses. (another trait of evos)

You reject science where it conflicts with your religious beliefs

NO science conflicts with my beliefs! YOUR religious beliefs falsely lumped in with science conflict!

and, when asked about your religious beliefs, you say: "But who really cares or knows?"

My beliefs do not include making stuff up about what sons of god mean and how they had kids etc etc. The bible says it happened, so I believe it, not needing to know all exact details, since they are not given.

You ask silly questions and make nonsensical comments about space and time

I have pointed out that science does not know what time is like in deep space. Your job, if you disagree is to show us how they do!

 

[dad]

Confused again?

No, I simply read the thread title...not so difficult.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Christians have believed in it for 2,000 years

Please.........................
Who are you trying to fool?

We on the other hand said that the universe was created in an instant.

Yes, I certainly do believe in the BB theory.

Are you aware that the big bang theory is not a theory of origins of the universe, but rather of development of the (mostly early) universe?

The origins of the universe are unknown at this point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fable of evolution is about animals. Animals changing into man for example.

1. evolution concerns all life, not just animals

2. humans are animals.

 

[dad]

1. evolution concerns all life, not just animals

2. humans are animals.

So then, according to you, the fable of evolution is very much about animals!

 

[Jose Fly]

ID is biblical creationism disguised in a labcoat (cfr cdesign proponentsists)

It's also completely dead. As you note, it was a political/social strategy and the Dover ruling put an end to that. It only persists in the same way as young-earth creationism and flat-earth geocentrism....something people argue about in internet forums.

But otherwise, it's effectively dead.