Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

[Jose Fly]

No, I don´t want to discuss creation, you are right. It is a theological position, not a scientific one.

On the other hand, abiogenesis, that magical mystery process is alleged to be scientific, yet there is no science to explain it.

That puts you and your science in the spotlight.

There is no science accepted evidence for creation, I have said that from the start. Why do you think that bothers me ?

Abiogenesis is the subject, and like all discussion on the idea, evolutionists and true believers MUST drag in creationism, they are unable to do otherwise.

Apparently they think that comparing an alleged natural process to a supernatural one supports their faith in abiogenesis.

They can never stay on topic, they do everything possible to change the subject.

I won´t allow it. I make every effort to keep the conversation on topic. You are just like the others, it won"t do ol"boy, it won't do. Nice try though.

Yeah, it's obvious now that you have your gap and you're going to keep harping on that gap as much as you can. You've already told us that should that gap be filled you'd have to change your worldview, which kinda gives the impression that the existence of this gap is pretty important to your religious faith.

That explains a lot of what you've been doing in this thread.

 

[dad]

Another baseless comment without a shred of evidence to support it.

Actually, in the bible and history, spirits could be good and bad. In science they don't so much as know they exist. So all the basis in the world is on my side, none at all on yours.

That doesn't answer the question: Do you believe the things that Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard wrote?

Probably not, but since I never read them guess I should allow for the remote possibility they accidentally said some things that could have some truth in them. As I said, I check things out with the dept of weights and measures. (bible)

 

[dad]

Ah - RED LETTERS

Do you suppose God/Jesus goes through copies of the NT changing what Jesus allegedly said to Red Letters? Isn't is more rational to believe that some old scribes or the folks at the printing company did that?

Also, you have yet to explain who recorded all these words spoken by Jesus.

Red letters simply denote what was directly said.

 

[dad]

Once again you ducked and dodged - big time.
Show where Jesus confirmed:

• Who recorded God saying “Let there be light,”?
• Who determined that God thought the light was good?
• Who saw God separate the light from the darkness.
• Who recorded God calling the light "day"?
• Who recorded God calling the darkness "night"?

Please be sure to cite chapter and verse.

Man was not created the first days of creation week. I do see a witness over in Prov 8 though.

 

[dad]

To whom, may I ask?

​

Moses.

 

[dad]

He is right! We have no way of really knowing how things are "way out there" beyond Dad's Universe.

 

[dad]

Look, dad, if you are going to make any positive claim that contradict archaeology, history or science, then you as a claimant must be the one who must present evidence, or cite scientific, archaeological or historical sources, to back up your claim.

Nothing to contradict but the religious 'dates'.

You SHOULD NOT BE shifting the burden of proof upon others when you make such claim.

Defend your own dates, be honest.


Saying the dates are wrong, without anything to back up your claim, are just unsubstantiated opinions, that’s all.

You have tried to submit video about the Tower of Babel, without even bothering to watch it. That’s lazy, and terribly dishonest.

I don't have to defend the story. I did supply data on cultural stories of the event around the world. The site was likely plowed under in the tectonic movements. The replicas, including Nebuchadnezzar's are evidence something probably inspired them. The bible records the event. Jewish tradition confirms it. Science has nothing to say either way. Such an even would be the best explanation for different languages and similarities in other areas.

The video I googled claimed compelling evidence for the tower, and being in a hurry, I linked it. As it turns out it shows that there was a tower in the area. They seem to think it was the tower of Babel, which is foolishness since the time periods are quite different. The only alternative is that this later tower was an attempt at a replica of some sort. That's fine.

You have admitted your error, is the first honest thing you have written, since you joined this topic. But you still have no valid evidence or other sources to back up or to support your claim about Tower of Babel being built in 2000 BCE as “real”.

The radioactive decay dates depend on our present nature existing. Trying to assign dates to ratios is nothing more than applying this belief on ratios.

 

[tas8831]

Then you shouldn't be surprised or upset when folks take that into account when discussing science with you.


I'll say it again....what questions? Post them and I'll do my very best to answer them.


If you're going to accuse @tas8831 of unethical behavior, I would hope you feel at least some moral obligation to back it up. Merely asserting such a thing is in itself, unethical.

It is so precious that creationists accuse others of out-of-context quoting when doing so is one of the creationists' primary means of 'argument.'

And of course he cannot show that what I did WAS out of context, he will just assert it and whine, all the while refusing to address his mischaracterization of OOL research, etc.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is so precious that creationists accuse others of out-of-context quoting when doing so is one of the creationists' primary means of 'argument.'

Quite true.

And of course he cannot show that what I did WAS out of context, he will just assert it and whine, all the while refusing to address his mischaracterization of OOL research, etc.

Either his accusation against you is accurate, a mistake on his part for which he'll be expected to apologize, or merely a defense mechanism.

Given how freely and often creationists throw around unsubstantiated accusations as a means to avoid inconvenient information, I know where I'm putting my money.

 

[ecco]

Did I say evolution is questionable ? No. It is logical to say that abiogenesis is part of the process of evolution in that without it evolution could not occur.

Do you deny chemical evolution ?

4,200,000,000 years ago The God (not the false Judeo/Christian god), created and poofed life into trillions of the first single-celled entities all across the Earth. Thereafter, HE let natural evolution do its thing.




ETA:
There is substantial evidence showing the falsehood of the Judeo/Christian god's alleged World-Wide Flood.
There is no evidence showing the falsehood of The God creating and poofing life into trillions of the first single-celled entities all across the Earth 4,200,000,000 years ago.

Until and unless these circumstances change, it is logical to conclude that "The God Poof and Evolution" theory is superior to the "Judeo/Christian God Created Adam & Eve theory".

 

[ecco]

Actually, in the bible and history, spirits could be good and bad. In science they don't so much as know they exist. So all the basis in the world is on my side, none at all on yours.

You just jump from one silly superstition to another so effortlessly that it's truly amazing. But that isn't surprising. People who believe in woo usually believe in all manner of WOO.

It doesn't matter if it's religious woo: A one-third portion of a god (AKA The Holy Ghost) impregnated and young human virgin in order to give birth to a human version of another one-third portion of itself.

It doesn't matter if it's non-religious woo: Evil spirits have existed throughout history:

Possessed by evil spirits: a history of seizures in infancy. - PubMed - NCBI
For 4 millennia, seizures in infancy were believed to be of supranatural origin and were dealt with by incantations, exorcising rituals, and protective amulets. Instead of pursuing scientific research into their causes, gods, devils, mothers, wet nurses, midwives, or obstetricians were blamed.​

It doesn't matter if it's "science woo": Since brain cells are made of atoms, the atoms in suns can talk to each other.

 

[ecco]

That doesn't answer the question: Do you believe the things that Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard wrote?

Probably not, but since I never read them...

You read and studied the Bible and became convinced of its truth. Did it never occur to you that, if you read and studied the works of Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard, you might become convinced of the truth of Seventh Day Adventism or Scientology? Why are you being so close-minded? Are you afraid of exposing yourself to competing views?

 

[ecco]

Ah - RED LETTERS

Do you suppose God/Jesus goes through copies of the NT changing what Jesus allegedly said to Red Letters? Isn't it more rational to believe that some old scribes or the folks at the printing company did that?

Also, you have yet to explain who recorded all these words spoken by Jesus.

Red letters simply denote what was directly said.

I know what they allegedly denote. That was not the question, was it?

Don't you realize that the reason that you are having so many problems answering questions is that there are no good rational answers? If there were, you would have no problems. Instead, all you do is duck and dodge, duck and dodge, duck and dodge.

Who recorded the words of Jesus as quoted in the Gospels?

You can't provide a rational answer. Period.

 

[ecco]

Once again you ducked and dodged - big time.
Show where Jesus confirmed:

• Who recorded God saying “Let there be light,”?
• Who determined that God thought the light was good?
• Who saw God separate the light from the darkness.
• Who recorded God calling the light "day"?
• Who recorded God calling the darkness "night"?

Please be sure to cite chapter and verse.

Man was not created the first days of creation week. I do see a witness over in Prov 8 though.

I accuse you of ducking and dodging because you can't answer simple questions about your beliefs.

What do you do? You respond by ducking and dodging!

Do you understand that writing "Prov 8" is not providing chapter and verse support addressing the questions:

• Who recorded God saying “Let there be light,”?
• Who determined that God thought the light was good?
• Who saw God separate the light from the darkness.
• Who recorded God calling the light "day"?
• Who recorded God calling the darkness "night"?

It's no wonder you can't accept the comparative complexities of science. You cannot even address simple questions about the Bible that you believe in and have allegedly studied.

 

[Polymath257]

Did I say evolution is questionable ? No. It is logical to say that abiogenesis is part of the process of evolution in that without it evolution could not occur.

And that is false. Evolution requires life to exist, but it does NOT require abiogenesis. Even if life was started by some intelligence acting outside of the laws of physics and chemistry, the evidence for evolution would be conclusive.

 

[ecco]

Moses.

You know this because ...

Exodus 31

18When the LORD had finished speaking with Moses on Mount Sinai, He gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.
​

Who allegedly wrote Exodus? Moses.

9The LORD also said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and they are indeed a stiff-necked people. 10Now leave Me alone, so that My anger may burn against them and consume them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”

11But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God,​

If Moses wrote it, wouldn't it read:
9The LORD also said to Me, “I have seen this people, and they are indeed a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave Me alone, so that My anger may burn against them and consume them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”

11But I sought the favor of the LORD my God

Clearly whoever wrote about the conversations between God and Moses was not Moses.

 

[ecco]

Yes, indeed. Your views certainly are.

 

[ecco]

Nevertheless, you did not deny that this is your version of the universe.

 

[shmogie]

Yeah, it's obvious now that you have your gap and you're going to keep harping on that gap as much as you can. You've already told us that should that gap be filled you'd have to change your worldview, which kinda gives the impression that the existence of this gap is pretty important to your religious faith.

That explains a lot of what you've been doing in this thread.

Blah, blah, blah. No gap for me. It only becomes a gap if you can prove abiogenesis within the framework of a comprehensive, integrated theory, you cannot.

That explains a lot of what you are doing in this thread. The mysterious furball of abiogenesis is pretty important to your faith.

 

[shmogie]

Whether the first self-replicators came to be on earth via chemistry, a rock from space, alien seeding, an inter-dimensional rift, or poofed by a god, evolutionary theory would still explain the subsequent history of life on earth.

So, by using the term evolution, you exclusively mean the evolution of life. No evolution of the universe, no geological evolution, no chemical evolution, all allegedly part of life.

Then why co opt the term ? Since evolution can apply to a number of things, some related to life, why not say ,the evolution of life ?

You will respond by saying something along the lines of ¨everybody knows what I mean¨. That is irrelevant and sloppy.

If the word evolution stands by itself, then it includes abiogenesis, precision of language precludes subsequent responses you don´t like.