Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 11, 2019

shmogie said:
I have extreme doubts about macro evolution.

Which is established science. So my assumption was correct.

Time is a variable commodity, so I don´t worry about it.

No idea what that is supposed to mean.

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

Again, no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Irreducible complexity is a logical idea

No, quite the opposite. It is quite literally a fallacy known as argument from ignorance / incredulity.
It is employs the exact same "logic" as what they used to say about amino acids or the ATP molecule. "It's too complex!".

Another way of phrasing it is this: "I don't know / understand how this complex thing can arise naturally, therefor it didn't arise naturally".

It's textbook fallacious logic.

The thing is, we actually know for a fact how you can end up with a seemingly "irreducibly complex" structure, without any need for any intervention - supernatural or otherwise.

It isn't even that hard. There are many gradual / incremental pathways towards such structures

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.

As far as you know / understand, that is......

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 11, 2019

shmogie said:
God can do whatever He chooses.

There you go. The ultimate cop-out.
"god can do anything".

It's the catch-all "explanation" (rather: excuse) for anything and everything that you don't know or understand.

The flood as described in the bible is physically impossible.
"God can do anything".

All evidence shows that life evolved.
"God can do anything".

Noah's ark as described is not sea worthy.
"God can do anything".

Humans can't live for centuries.
"God can do anything".

For the sun to stand still in the sky, the earth needs to stop orbitting on its axis, which is physically impossible. And even if we would hypothesis that it happened, it would be so cataclysmic that it would destroy the planet.
"God can do anything".

The dead don't come alive.
"God can do anything".

People can't survive in a fish for 3 days.
"God can do anything".

Yeah.... that's convincing....

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 11, 2019

shmogie said:
You do not know it happened.

Except that we do. Life came about in some way. Life didn't always exist, but it exists today.
Therefor it began at some point, in some way, without being brought forward by previous life - which didn't exist.

Aka, abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is a baseless evidence free story.

There has been no scientific discovery that points to it in any meaningful way, that does not have extreme flaws that degrade it significantly.

I see it still didn't sink in that abiogenesis is a field of research and that within that field of research, several abiogenesis hypothesis are being explored and pursued.

It's strange that you still make this mistake, because I epxlained this to you yesterday.

On the other hand, many in OOL research have made discoveries that make abiogenesis more difficult as a process.

You sound like a very well known OOL bio chemist, who said ¨ I have come to the scientific conclusion that abiogenesis did not occur, yet I believe it did, because the alternative is horrible¨

The interlocutory decree for abiogenesis. Science knows how it happened, just not yet. Pure nonsense.

The only nonsense here, is your ill-understanding of this field of research.

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 11, 2019

shmogie said:
I accept that at sometime in the past the universe was in a hot dense state as the expansion began, and it has cooled and has expanded since then. Yes, during the expansion the components of the universe came into being.

Which is what big bang theory states.

gnostic · Sep 11, 2019

dad said:
Origin fables and models of the past are not knowledge.

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).

shmogie · Sep 11, 2019

TagliatelliMonster said:
Except that we do. Life came about in some way. Life didn't always exist, but it exists today.
Therefor it began at some point, in some way, without being brought forward by previous life - which didn't exist.

Aka, abiogenesis.

I see it still didn't sink in that abiogenesis is a field of research and that within that field of research, several abiogenesis hypothesis are being explored and pursued.

It's strange that you still make this mistake, because I epxlained this to you yesterday.

The only nonsense here, is your ill-understanding of this field of research.

Abigenesis is a thing, a hypothesis. There is research attempting to establish the thing, itś processes. I understand the research, I suspect, much better than you. I actually follow it.

LOL, you explained it. Your explanation was bogus, erroneous, mistaken.

shmogie · Sep 11, 2019

TagliatelliMonster said:
Which is what big bang theory states.

No s**t Sherlock.

shmogie · Sep 11, 2019

ratiocinator said:
Except that (according to all the evidence) around 4.4 billion years ago on Earth something happened, simple life appeared, and subsequently evolved. That is the "story" and it isn't baseless or evidence free.

I'm no expert and there are other mysteries that interest me far more - but assuming what you say is correct, so what? It's a mystery and I'd expect scientific research to continue because that's what science does with mysteries (and it has a good track record in solving them).

One complication is that it could have been something that is very, very improbable, so we may never be able to work it out. The universe is a big place, it's been around for a long time, and the start of life only had to happen once.

It is possible that whatever happened 4.4 billion years ago is outside of any known science - but again, so what?

Where is the faith you accuse people of? Anybody can make up a supernatural or fantastical story about a mystery, and so long as it isn't testable (falsifiable), then it is possible - but it's up to the proponents to put forward some reason to take it seriously - just like proponents of any scientific hypothesis need to provide reasons to take their ideas seriously.

At the moment my answer to how life started is a simple "I don't know" - but the existence of a mystery is not an argument for the supernatural or a god. As I said the idea that a god created a universe that could make a planet suitable for life, and included the means for it to develop and evolve over billions of years but then had to perform a miracle to get life started, is one of the less believable stories of creation.

I am not making an argument for God. I am making the argument that abiogenesis has much, much, much less evidence for it having occurred than many believe.

ratiocinator · Sep 11, 2019

shmogie said:
I am not making an argument for God. I am making the argument that abiogenesis has much, much, much less evidence for it having occurred than many believe.

You made a direct comparison with "divine creation" in #382.

The evidence that life started somehow, on Earth about 4.4 billion years ago is very substantial. We can continue with the working assumption that what happened was natural and do science, or we can give up and decide it was magic. Seems clear to me which is the way to go.

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 11, 2019

shmogie said:
Abigenesis is a thing, a hypothesis. There is research attempting to establish the thing, itś processes. I understand the research, I suspect, much better than you. I actually follow it.

LOL, you explained it. Your explanation was bogus, erroneous, mistaken.

So you think there is just one abiogenesis hypothesis?
I can only inform you that you are wrong about that.

A simple google will confirm that.

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 11, 2019

shmogie said:
I am not making an argument for God. I am making the argument that abiogenesis has much, much, much less evidence for it having occurred than many believe.

Do you agree that life came into existance at some point, in some way?

If yes, then you agree that an abiogenesis event occured.

ie: life came into existance without being produced by previous life (which is "biogenesis")

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 11, 2019

shmogie said:
No s**t Sherlock.

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.

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 11, 2019

shmogie said:
I am not making an argument for God

Please.

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

I am making the argument that abiogenesis has much, much, much less evidence for it having occurred than many believe.

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.

gnostic · Sep 11, 2019

shmogie said:
I am not making an argument for God. I am making the argument that abiogenesis has much, much, much less evidence for it having occurred than many believe.

TagliatelliMonster said:
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.

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.

Wandering Monk · Sep 11, 2019

gnostic said:
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.

Here's another example: the existence of the atom was first proposed by the Greek philosopher Leucippus about 400 BCE. It took nearly 2500 years for the hypothesis to be tested and shown to be fundamentally true.

gnostic · Sep 11, 2019

ratiocinator said:
You made a direct comparison with "divine creation" in #382.

The evidence that life started somehow, on Earth about 4.4 billion years ago is very substantial. We can continue with the working assumption that what happened was natural and do science, or we can give up and decide it was magic. Seems clear to me which is the way to go.

Before 2003, I was completely unaware of debate going on between science and religion, such as evolution and creationism. Not until joining my first forum in 2003 that I encountered

I did read and believe Genesis creation and flood when I was a teenager, but I didn't try to make these stories to fit into history and fit into science.

In fact, my formal education in biology stopped in Year 9 high school, because I was more interested in engineering, hence most of my focus were on physics and maths, so I didn't learn anything about evolution.

When I did learn more about both, I came to realise much of the creationists' arguments about creationism to be flawed and irrational.

I also didn't know about Intelligent Design, until George Bush junior, brought it up, attempting to support ID (I don't remember what years that was). The more I learned about ID, the more I came to realise that it was just creationism disguised as science-wannabe, but it is just pseudoscience garbage, relying on propaganda and intimidation.

ecco · Sep 11, 2019

shmogie said:
What I am interested in is showing that abiogenesis itself is a faith position.

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.

Why should that be a problem?

In the past, it was believed that the earth orbited the sun and its path was determined by an unknown starting position and unknown forces operating on it. So, science did what science does and determined the causative factors.

People accepted that the continents move before the cause and method were established. Science did what science did and determined the causative factors.

The Theory of Evolution has been shown to be fact by research in multiple fields of science. You don't accept Evolution.

Why should anyone want to discuss abiogenesis with you? Your rejection of ToE is enough to disqualify you and any and all objections you may have regarding science.

ecco · Sep 11, 2019

dad said:
Origin fables and models of the past are not knowledge.

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?

dad said:
They are also parts that are faith based, have no support or proof or evidence, and are directly opposed to the truth God gave man.

Oh, that's why you accept it and reject science. The Truth of (your) God.

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

ecco · Sep 11, 2019

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

dad said:
Not at all. The issue in this thread is the speed of light as relates to the age of the universe we see. I have pointed out that time is what matters in determining ages!

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.

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

You really just stick to: God said it, I believe it.

ecco · Sep 11, 2019

ecco previously:

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.

dad said:
Many feel it was angels. But who really cares or knows?

Who really cares???
Who really knows???
Seriously?

You reject science where it conflicts with your religious beliefs and, when asked about your religious beliefs, you say: "But who really cares or knows?" You ask silly questions and make nonsensical comments about space and time but when it comes to your own belief system, you accept "...who really cares or knows?"

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

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

The Lost One

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

The Lost One

Well-Known Member

The Lost One

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member