Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

dad · Sep 10, 2019

ecco said:
For lurkers - and more importantly for you, claiming that you know more about basic science is really laughable. Based on your extensive posts, it is abundantly clear that your "knowledge" of science comes from stories that were written 6000 years ago by members of a comparatively small religious sect.

What I have said is that I am familiar with the general basis of origin science claims. You seem to be in denial. The issue here is not actual science or real knowledge, but faith modeling.

In and of itself, that comment is proof of your utter lack of knowledge of basic science.

Pretentious baloney I do not see you addressing issues. Mostly I see hand waving, denial, and pompous pretension.

The reason that you want time and the speed of light to be different "out there" from here is to convince yourself that your 6000 year old stories could possibly be true.

Forget what I want. Think about what science knows! Stop denying that they really don't know what time is like out there.

I don't recall for certain, but aren't you one of those who wants to fiddle with the duration of a "day" ("a day to god is like eons to us") to try to wiggle Genesis into a somewhat plausible framework?

No. A day was a day. A year was basically a year although I think it was likely 360 days long.

Instead of making assertions about time and space that just show your abject ignorance of science,

Your problem is that science really does not know some basics about time in space or even what nature used to exist on earth.

ratiocinator · Sep 10, 2019

dad said:
What I have said is that I am familiar with the general basis of origin science claims.

Except that it's perfectly obvious that you're not.

Polymath257 · Sep 10, 2019

dad said:
Forget what I want. Think about what science knows! Stop denying that they really don't know what time is like out there.

What does that even mean? Remember that time duration is *defined* by certain physical processes (like oscillations in an atom). So, if we see light from that type of atom, we can tell how long a second was *there* by counting the oscillations in that atom (and we can tell that by the light we get here).

For other types of atoms, we can correlate how they oscillate to the oscillations of the defining atom. And, if the counted oscillations are consistent in the light we see from something far away, we know we can use those atoms to count time also.

And this is precisely what we do. We can use the light from, say, hydrogen, as a clock to measure time at the source. We can use that to determine any time dilation effects, for example.

No. A day was a day. A year was basically a year although I think it was likely 360 days long.

Your problem is that science really does not know some basics about time in space or even what nature used to exist on earth.

What basic facts do you think we are missing? Give details.

ecco · Sep 10, 2019

shmogie said:
¨The Logic of Chance and the Natural Origin of Bio Evolution ¨ by Eric Koonan, PhD.

Dr. Koonan is not a creationist, he is a biologist and evolutionist with many peer reviewed articles.

In chapter 12 of this book, he discusses what he believes must have had to be present for abiogenesis to occur. This is called the Koonan threshold.

So, the minimum coming together, by chance, at the same time are;

13 complicated RNA strands composed of 1,800 nucleotides.

To produce a self replicating system.

His mathematical equations state that the universe has not existed long enough for this to occur.

His faith is in the mystical multiverse, where everything can and will happen. Check it out.

That's an interesting paper. How did you happen to find it?

ecco · Sep 10, 2019

shmogie said:
You certainly can´t grasp intelligent design. So simple a concept. an intelligence creates an environment where expected or desired results occur. They do not occur without the creation of that environment.

Except, of course, as always, with the big caveat - What intelligent designer created your intelligent designer?

Once you can answer that, you may have some credibility. Until then...

shmogie · Sep 10, 2019

Astrophile said:
Would you like to discuss the discovery of amino acids in meteorites, as mentioned by gnostic? A search for 'meteorites amino acids' obtained 94,000 hits, so there is plenty of material on the subject. You could start with Murchison meteorite - Wikipedia .

What is to discuss ? They can exist in meteorites. They are not produced by the process extant in Miller Urey. Amino acids are called one of the building blocks of life. Bricks are the building blocks of a house.

Take 500,000 bricks and spread them across a lot. Then wait for them to assemble into a house.

Pretending that amino acids in nature are a huge leap forward in abiogenesis presents the very same problem, only exponentially more difficult.

Raw amino acids cannot self assemble into a living organism. There is no process known to do anything of the sort.

Amino acids to a living organism are like bolts to a car.

Ouroboros · Sep 10, 2019

Interesting find. Apparently, the RNA world isn't necessary for the first self-copies:

Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth

shmogie · Sep 10, 2019

TagliatelliMonster said:
Before the experiment proved them wrong, yes.
Then they moved on to calling other things "too complex" only to have that refuted as well.

What intelligent design?

ps: ever heared about cdesign proponentsists? You should look it up. It will show you the "honesty" of the ignorant minds that dreamed this up.

Like a freezer.
Yep. Ice doesn't occur without the "created environment" of "it's cold".

You are drowning here. First, you have absolutely no knowledge of what anyone said previous to Miller Urey, especially that creating amino acids was too complex, unless you can document it.

The environment I create to build a house is money, materials, and a lot.

If I create a a process, based in natural chemical reactions, to make nano tubes did I not create the tubes ?

Chemical reactions are blind and automatic. Harnessing and guiding them in a designed process is intelligent design. Without it those specific reactions would not take place.

I note the personal remark, again. Proves you are sinking deeper in the natural drowning process.

shmogie · Sep 10, 2019

TagliatelliMonster said:
Before the experiment proved them wrong, yes.
Then they moved on to calling other things "too complex" only to have that refuted as well.

What intelligent design?

ps: ever heared about cdesign proponentsists? You should look it up. It will show you the "honesty" of the ignorant minds that dreamed this up.

Like a freezer.
Yep. Ice doesn't occur without the "created environment" of "it's cold".

You are drowning here. First, you have absolutely no knowledge of what anyone said previous to Miller Urey, especially that creating amino acids was too complex, unless you can document it.

The environment I create to build a house is money, materials, and a lot.

If I create a a process, based in natural chemical reactions, to make nano tubes did I not create the tubes ?

Chemical reactions are blind and automatic. Harnessing and guiding them in a designed process is intelligent design. Without it those specific reactions would not take place.

I note the personal remark, again. Proves you are sinking deeper in the natural drowning process.

ecco · Sep 10, 2019

dad said:
What I have said is that I am familiar with the general basis of origin science claims. You seem to be in denial. The issue here is not actual science or real knowledge, but faith modeling.

I believe in science. I believe in the knowledge that mankind has accumulated for more than 1000 years. You believe in some science. You believe in some of the knowledge that mankind has accumulated for more than 1000 years. The parts you don't accept are only those parts that conflict with your 6000 year old Jewish stories.

If you want to use the term "faith" - OK. I have faith in all science. You have faith in some science and you have complete faith in the 6000 year old stories that were written by relatively ignorant people trying to understand where they came from.

dad said:
Pretentious baloney I do not see you addressing issues. Mostly I see hand waving, denial, and pompous pretension.

The issue is your childish reliance on one 6000 year old Creation Story. One of the thousands of Creation Stories.

dad said:
Forget what I want. Think about what science knows! Stop denying that they really don't know what time is like out there.

Others have explained to you why you are wrong. You are the one who must deny, deny, deny.

dad said:
No. A day was a day. A year was basically a year although I think it was likely 360 days long.

And when did those magical six days of Creation occur? Please explain the science behind your response.

dad said:
Your problem is that science really does not know some basics about time in space or even what nature used to exist on earth.

It is also true that science knows a lot about the basics about time in space and what nature used to exist on earth.

On the other hand, based on your 6000 year old knowledge giants existed and God's sons procreated with human females and had kids.

Genesis 6:4
The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when God's sons came in to men's daughters. They bore children to them.

Who were God's sons?
Who were the mothers of God's sons?
Did God also have daughters?
Did God's daughters procreate with human males?

Maybe, instead of attacking science, you should spend more time investigating your own beliefs.

ecco · Sep 10, 2019

shmogie said:
Take 500,000 bricks and spread them across a lot. Then wait for them to assemble into a house.

Amino acids to a living organism are like bolts to a car.

That's like saying nuts never spontaneously attach themselves to bolts. It's also meaningless in terms of atoms and molecules and molecular chains.

Are you denying that hydrogen and oxygen atoms spontaneously attach themselves to each other?
Are you asserting that your God individually makes every molecule of water, one at a time, by hand?

shmogie · Sep 10, 2019

Ouroboros said:
Interesting find. Apparently, the RNA world isn't necessary for the first self-copies:

Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth

Yes, I am aware of this.

Some points. Could never means did. As pointed out in the article, this was the result of the process whereby chemical helpers were added.

At some point in time, and integration of self replicating amino acids, proteins, RNA/DNA is required.

As discussed in another post, the Koonan threshold is the limiting factor, and exceeding the threshold within current understanding is virtually impossible.

Quite an interesting discovery though.

Astrophile · Sep 10, 2019

shmogie said:
What is to discuss ? They can exist in meteorites. They are not produced by the process extant in Miller Urey. Amino acids are called one of the building blocks of life. Bricks are the building blocks of a house.

Take 500,000 bricks and spread them across a lot. Then wait for them to assemble into a house.

Pretending that amino acids in nature are a huge leap forward in abiogenesis presents the very same problem, only exponentially more difficult.

Raw amino acids cannot self assemble into a living organism. There is no process known to do anything of the sort.

Amino acids to a living organism are like bolts to a car.

Sorry, I should have mentioned that carbonaceous meteorites contain other organic compounds besides amino acids. See, for example, M.P. Callahan et al. (2011), Carbonaceous meteorites contain a wide range of extraterrestrial nucleobases . In particular, according to Murchison meteorite - Wikipedia, Murchison contains purine and pyrimidine compounds, including the nucleobases uracil and xanthine.

However the organic compounds in meteorites were produced, their existence shows that they can be, and in fact have been, produced abiogenically. As for the possibility of assembling amino acids and other organic compounds into a living organism, you will have to ask a chemist or a biochemist.

One thing about creationism that puzzles me is that science has revealed that God has created a universe vast and complex beyond our comprehension, in which matter and energy do the most amazing things according to the laws of nature, and yet, according to creationists, God could not do something as simple as make life develop naturally out of non-living matter but has had to intervene miraculously to perform this feat.

shmogie · Sep 10, 2019

TagliatelliMonster said:
It seems you are not aware that abiogenesis is not a hypothesis or theory, but rather a field of research.
Within that field, several competing hypothesis, which ARE testable, are being pursued.

It seems you are not near as knowledgeable on this subject as you like to pretend.....

Well, it was over 60 years ago....
The Miller experiment proved them wrong and this line of argument was abandoned afterwards
Then they moved on to calling other things "too complex", only to have that refuted as well.
Like the ATP molecule and then precursor genes were discovered, proving that nonsense wrong as well.

I asked you in the previous post if "it's too complex!!!" sounded familiar. Creationists play a constant game of catch-up.

As Neil deGrass Tyson once put it so elegantly "If this is how you attribute things to your god, then your god is an ever receeding pocket of scientific ignorance".

I didn't claim otherwise so this is yet again another irrelevant statement.

Before they showed that amino acids could happily form naturally from inorganic compounds, that was what they said, yes.

Now they say it about other things. It's the go-to fallacy of creationists.
Ever heared of "irreducible complexity"? That's literally this "argument" on steroids.

Instead of learning from their foolish mistakes, they are doubling down on it.

So you have no problems with a 4.5 billion year old earth, with simple life appearing at least 3.8 billion years ago, staying in that bacterial state for another 3.2 billion years, evolving into multi-cellular animal life some 600 million years ago, land animals appearing some 450 million years ago, etc etc etc until we ended up with Homo Sapiens evolving from primate ancestors some 150.000 - 200.000 years ago, after it split from a common ancestor with chimps some 7 million years ago?

You're fine with all that?

Somehow, I seriously doubt it. But I could be wrong. And honestly, I hope I am.

I have extreme doubts about macro evolution. Time is a variable commodity, so I don´t worry about it.

A billion years or a thousand, I don´t worry about it.

Irreducible complexity is a logical idea. A living organism can be reduced to a living cell and still be a living organism. A cell is irreducably complex, it cannot be reduced any further and remain a living cell.

shmogie · Sep 10, 2019

Astrophile said:
Sorry, I should have mentioned that carbonaceous meteorites contain other organic compounds besides amino acids. See, for example, M.P. Callahan et al. (2011), Carbonaceous meteorites contain a wide range of extraterrestrial nucleobases . In particular, according to Murchison meteorite - Wikipedia, Murchison contains purine and pyrimidine compounds, including the nucleobases uracil and xanthine.

However the organic compounds in meteorites were produced, their existence shows that they can be, and in fact have been, produced abiogenically. As for the possibility of assembling amino acids and other organic compounds into a living organism, you will have to ask a chemist or a biochemist.

One thing about creationism that puzzles me is that science has revealed that God has created a universe vast and complex beyond our comprehension, in which matter and energy do the most amazing things according to the laws of nature, and yet, according to creationists, God could not do something as simple as make life develop naturally out of non-living matter but has had to intervene miraculously to perform this feat.

God can do whatever He chooses.

Ouroboros · Sep 10, 2019

shmogie said:
I have extreme doubts about macro evolution. Time is a variable commodity, so I don´t worry about it.

A billion years or a thousand, I don´t worry about it.

Irreducible complexity is a logical idea. A living organism can be reduced to a living cell and still be a living organism. A cell is irreducably complex, it cannot be reduced any further and remain a living cell.

Intelligent design would be to create a process in which life is self-replicating and evolves. A dumb and inefficient, but creative, God would be the one who hands on create every single individual and species, while a smart and intelligent, and still very creative, God would create a world that can produce life and evolve all different species and surprise him.

Astrophile · Sep 10, 2019

shmogie said:
God can do whatever He chooses.

So how do you know that God didn't choose to create a universe in which life could originate by natural processes from non-living matter?

Ouroboros · Sep 10, 2019

shmogie said:
God can do whatever He chooses.

He can, and that means he can create evolution as the process to produce life, and even create a world that would create life. Intelligent Design isn't an argument against Evolution, but rather a good argument to support it. How smart and intelligent isn't the complex world we live in. And how brilliant isn't a process which produce diversity as Evolution does?

Ouroboros · Sep 10, 2019

Astrophile said:
One thing about creationism that puzzles me is that science has revealed that God has created a universe vast and complex beyond our comprehension, in which matter and energy do the most amazing things according to the laws of nature, and yet, according to creationists, God could not do something as simple as make life develop naturally out of non-living matter but has had to intervene miraculously to perform this feat.

My view as well. I'm not sure why an artist creating a 3D model to a game is supposedly intelligent, while a programmer creating a software that procedural generate art is somehow considered not intelligent. If there is a God, Evolution is a brilliant design.

ecco · Sep 10, 2019

shmogie said:
Irreducible complexity is a logical idea. A living organism can be reduced to a living cell and still be a living organism. A cell is irreducably complex, it cannot be reduced any further and remain a living cell.

So now you are redefining what Behe meant when he coined the phrase. You are indeed a genius.

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Undefeated

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

Think & Care

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Coincidentia oppositorum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Coincidentia oppositorum

Active Member

Coincidentia oppositorum

Coincidentia oppositorum

Veteran Member