Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Jose Fly · Sep 20, 2019

shmogie said:
Further, like each of the surface cuts, the experiments stand alone, with little linkage to other experiments, and certainly no linkage to abogenisis, since no one has a clue as to what it is.

So you're back to the same black/white thinking and talking points, eh?

Certainly something happened at a point in time, but you have no idea as to whether it was driven by natural forces, you believe it was, thatś all.

As I noted earlier, "natural forces" are all we ever see no matter where we look in the universe. When we look at life, cells, and the activities going on inside cells all we ever see are natural processes.

So why in the world would we suddenly declare the OOL to be a result of supernatural forces? And if we did, precisely what supernatural forces do you think we should attribute it to?

shmogie · Sep 20, 2019

Jose Fly said:
So you're back to the same black/white thinking and talking points, eh?

As I noted earlier, "natural forces" are all we ever see no matter where we look in the universe. When we look at life, cells, and the activities going on inside cells all we ever see are natural processes.

So why in the world would we suddenly declare the OOL to be a result of supernatural forces? And if we did, precisely what supernatural forces do you think we should attribute it to?

I didn´t declare anything, I made a point, in response to another bringing up supernatural forces.

Black/white talking points ? Not hardly. Since you are inferring that there is a vast amount of gray, what is it?

We aren´t talking about observable natural forces, are we ? We are talking about an unobserved, unknown, idea, that you believe occurred.

There are a plethora of supernatural based ideas about creation, select any one you choose.

ratiocinator · Sep 20, 2019

shmogie said:
If there is ¨plenty of evidence", you ought to cite it. I think you are wrong. The evidence equates to a few cuts on the outermost surface of an onion, when the goal is through all of the layers to the center of the onion.

Further, like each of the surface cuts, the experiments stand alone, with little linkage to other experiments, and certainly no linkage to abogenisis, since no one has a clue as to what it is.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I said there is plenty of evidence that surrounds the start of life - what happened before and how it evolved afterwards. That evidence isn't a secret, it's easy to find.

shmogie said:
Certainly something happened at a point in time, but you have no idea as to whether it was driven by natural forces, you believe it was, thatś all.

As I said before - what is your alternative hypothesis? Are we to seriously consider that a god made a universe that could make a planet suitable for life and evolve life after it started, but then had to miraculously intervene to get life going? Perhaps not a very competent god who forgot that bit when designing the laws?

If not that, then what?

shmogie said:
What if life on earth is the result of paraspermia (sp?), planted by space aliens ?

That's not impossible - but it would have to have been simple life that was planted on earth to fit with the evidence. That doesn't address the problem though, it just moves it.

shmogie said:
How has science disproved a supernatural explanation of life ?

It hasn't - but where is the slightest hint of any evidence for anything "supernatural"? For that matter, how do you even define it?

Jose Fly · Sep 20, 2019

shmogie said:
I didn´t declare anything

Um....yeah you did. "the experiments stand alone, with little linkage to other experiments, and certainly no linkage to abogenisis, since no one has a clue as to what it is", "you have no idea as to whether it was driven by natural forces, you believe it was".

Those read like pretty definitive statements to me.

Black/white talking points ? Not hardly. Since you are inferring that there is a vast amount of gray, what is it?

Seriously? We've been over this and I answered that exact question for you days ago. Have you forgotten?

We aren´t talking about observable natural forces, are we ?

Yes we are. I'm not aware of any OOL research that invokes previously unknown natural forces.

There are a plethora of supernatural based ideas about creation, select any one you choose.

Nice dodge. So when have any of the non-natural forces you believe were responsible for the OOL been observed and measured?

tas8831 · Sep 20, 2019

shmogie said:
You are obsessed by Creationists. Why ? I have never brought Creationism up, never described it. My posts have been directly related to abiogenesis.

Watchmaker Theory

"My point is this, Divine creation is just as valid for the existence of the universe as any other of the theories proposed, but yet it is always the least considered, or nor considered at all, why is this..."

Watchmaker Theory

" So, if we proceed on the issue of Divine creation, under the "watchmaker theory' thread which I am happy to do, I will object and point out where the judge ( you) are unfair as to the evidence. I will begin to present my case; Statement one : The universe began from an unknown cause, outside of the universe, for which no applicable method can determine this cause, no rules of physics apply, and no knowledge can be obtained of conditions, if any, before the big bang. This first cause could just as easily be the result of Divine creation as any other material first cause. "

Catholicism vs. Christianity

" I believe God created humanity in a perfect state, with sex both for pleasure within the confines of marriage and reproduction. Homosexuality was not intended by God. Within the framework of a perfect creation, humanity in it's infancy rebelled and was inherently marred by what God called evil. "

Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught As Science | NCSE

"I know quite a number of creationists who are intellectuals, just not your kind of intellectuals....

Atheists, where did the universe come from?

"What was the first cause for the creation of the universe ? God is as good an answer as anything else. "

For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man

"----IF---- there is absolutely no evidence for Gods creation of man, yet WE have faith in it, and there is no evidence for abiogenesis, but YOU have faith in it, why do you believe YOUR faith is somehow superior to OURS ?"...
"GOD created humans."

"God created people from soil, there you go. "

Good thing you totally never mention creation.

Also had a good laugh at your obsession with Miller's work:

For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man

"Miller Urey and all subsequent experiments of its kind are examples of INTELLIGENT DESIGN, not random natural forces."

Still waiting for you to explain how scientific experiments should be done to your liking. Remind us all how much experience and background you have in science and scientific research, won't you?

Why do you have to keep bringing creationism up ? Strange.

Golly, who can say.... :facepalm:

Almost as strange as the tendency of creationists to conflate evolution and abiogenesis, such as you did here:

"Macro evolutionists ALWAYS avoid the creation of life, even though their theory is rigidly linked to it."

Why they employ such false and naive claims is clear to those of us that understand the facts.

There is no scientifically verifiable evidence for creationism or abiogenesis. That is the whole point.

Yet that is a false claim, for there IS research being done in abiogenesis - evidence that you struggle mightily to dismiss, primarily via mis-characterizing or ignoring or dismissing it. There is FAR more research being done in OOL than there is among creation 'scientists' in creation - indeed, there is virtually ZERO research done on creation by creation 'scientists - do you find that odd? 99% of creation 'research' consists of nit-picking evolution research or ad hominem assaults on Darwin or evolution researchers. Pretty pathetic.

Accepting one, or the other, is a matter of belief and faith.

False equivalence.

CREATIONIST: Abiogenis has no evidence, creation has no evidence (except for bible lore, which is TRUE!), so accepting either is just faith.

REALIST: Um.. bible creation myths have no evidence at all, this is true, but here are 100 research papers over the last several decades documenting evidence supporting aspects of abiogenesis that creationists have been denying for decades, even though refutations of many of their claims are known to them. Has 'life been created from non-life in a lab' yet? Not at all, and nobody has claimed otherwise*. Have aspects of chemical evolution and bio-organic/prebiotic chemistry claimed to be impossible for decades (e.g., natural/prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules favoring asymmetrical production of L-isomers) been observed/demonstrated? Yes. Have any comparable research been done for fiat Divine creation? Nope.

CREATIONIST: See? No evidence for either. We are on equal footing. And by the way, Darwin was a racist!

shmogie said:
So what ? This isn´t new to me, and doesn´t change the fact that Miller Urey used an environment and components, like purified water, that did not exist on the primitive earth. Further, many OOL researchers believe that lightning was not present in the early atmosphere.

For crying out loud, even Wikipedia demolishes your naive complaints:

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

"After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments....
...
Other experiments
This experiment inspired many others. In 1961, Joan Oró found that the nucleotide base adenine could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. ...

...K. A. Wilde submitted a paper to Science on December 15, 1952, before Miller submitted his paper to the same journal on February 10, 1953. Wilde's paper was published on July 10, 1953.[19] Wilde used voltages up to only 600 V on a binary mixture of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water in a flow system. He observed only small amounts of carbon dioxide reduction to carbon monoxide, and no other significant reduction products or newly formed carbon compounds. Other researchers were studying UV-photolysis of water vapor with carbon monoxide. They have found that various alcohols, aldehydes and organic acids were synthesized in reaction mixture...

When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen....

...
Some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have contained fewer of the reducing molecules than was thought at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment. T... Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules. The experiment created a mixture that was racemic (containing both L and D enantiomers) and experiments since have shown that "in the lab the two versions are equally likely to appear";[23] however, in nature, L amino acids dominate. Later experiments have confirmed disproportionate amounts of L or D oriented enantiomers are possible.[24]

Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly ammonia and methane. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The hydrogen atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been made in variants of the Miller experiment.[8][25]
...One of the authors, Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early earth complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller–Urey experiment.[27]
...
In 2008, a group of scientists examined 11 vials left over from Miller's experiments of the early 1950s. In addition to the classic experiment, reminiscent of Charles Darwin's envisioned "warm little pond", Miller had also performed more experiments, including one with conditions similar to those of volcanic eruptions. This experiment had a nozzle spraying a jet of steam at the spark discharge. By using high-performance liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, the group found more organic molecules than Miller had. They found that the volcano-like experiment had produced the most organic molecules, 22 amino acids, 5 amines and many hydroxylated molecules, which could have been formed by hydroxyl radicals produced by the electrified steam. The group suggested that volcanic island systems became rich in organic molecules in this way, and that the presence of carbonyl sulfide there could have helped these molecules form peptides....

At least update your archived retorts.

*YEC veterinarian Randy Wysong wrote a book in the 1970s in which he indicated that this actually had been done, but declared it invalid because the researchers used 'know how' in the experiments - much like your harping on 'intelligent designed' experiments and the like. How disingenuous YECs are.

tas8831 · Sep 20, 2019

shmogie said:
So what ? This isn´t new to me,

Odd then that you ONLY ever refer to Miller's original experiments. Almost like you are trying, desperately, to avoid the decades of other experiments...

and doesn´t change the fact that Miller Urey used an environment and components, like purified water, that did not exist on the primitive earth.

Still waiting for you, with your obvious amazing history of relevant scientific research, to explain to us all just how such research should be done - perhaps by relating equivalent research on creation.
Can't wait!

Your quotation is rife with coulds, which means could not is applicable in each case.

LOL! OK.. Good thing we have someone with such vast scientific knowledge that he does not even have to try to provide a scientific rebuttal to published science - he can just rely on pedantery...

Jose Fly · Sep 20, 2019

tas8831 said:
Watchmaker Theory

"My point is this, Divine creation is just as valid for the existence of the universe as any other of the theories proposed, but yet it is always the least considered, or nor considered at all, why is this..."

Watchmaker Theory

" So, if we proceed on the issue of Divine creation, under the "watchmaker theory' thread which I am happy to do, I will object and point out where the judge ( you) are unfair as to the evidence. I will begin to present my case; Statement one : The universe began from an unknown cause, outside of the universe, for which no applicable method can determine this cause, no rules of physics apply, and no knowledge can be obtained of conditions, if any, before the big bang. This first cause could just as easily be the result of Divine creation as any other material first cause. "

Catholicism vs. Christianity

" I believe God created humanity in a perfect state, with sex both for pleasure within the confines of marriage and reproduction. Homosexuality was not intended by God. Within the framework of a perfect creation, humanity in it's infancy rebelled and was inherently marred by what God called evil. "

Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught As Science | NCSE

"I know quite a number of creationists who are intellectuals, just not your kind of intellectuals....

Atheists, where did the universe come from?

"What was the first cause for the creation of the universe ? God is as good an answer as anything else. "

For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man

"----IF---- there is absolutely no evidence for Gods creation of man, yet WE have faith in it, and there is no evidence for abiogenesis, but YOU have faith in it, why do you believe YOUR faith is somehow superior to OURS ?"...
"GOD created humans."

"God created people from soil, there you go. "

Good thing you totally never mention creation.

Well done.

Earlier in this thread I cautioned @shmogie against saying things that are trivially easy to check in a written-word forum. I don't think he heeded that advice.

shmogie · Sep 20, 2019

Jose Fly said:
Well done.

Earlier in this thread I cautioned @shmogie against saying things that are trivially easy to check in a written-word forum. I don't think he heeded that advice.

Context ? Original post that I was responding to ?

Lets see them instead of snippets cut to support your idea´s.

I once, a long time ago I arrested the leader of the Viet Nam veterans against the war.

I spent a long time testifying.

The newspaper report of my testimony did exactly what I suspect you are pulling.

They left a piece out here, and there, so the result was not what I said, but what the anti war reporter wanted me to say.

If I were in a religious discussion on creation, I might say exactly what I believe. I have not posted re creationism in any science related discussions, in a long time,as far as I can recall.

If you rummage around some more, you will find that I posted that I would not discuss creation, with non creaionists any more, as and it turns into character attacks, every time. I further stated that I had had these discussions many times, and they were a waste of time.

I challenge you to put the above quotations in context, and I challenge you to find my post defined above.

You won´t. It does not support your goal.

Right out of the atheist playbook, if you cannot assail the position successfully, complete character assassination in any way you can.

Your tactics are slimy, but I don´t care, bring it. The only way to deal with those who pervert the truth for less than honorable reasons, is to tell the truth in response.

Children must have their revenge, so you kids can waste your time on this, if prevarications make you feel better.,

Keep the faith.

Jose Fly · Sep 20, 2019

shmogie said:
Context ? Original post that I was responding to ?

Lets see them instead of snippets cut to support your idea´s.

I once, a long time ago I arrested the leader of the Viet Nam veterans against the war.

I spent a long time testifying.

The newspaper report of my testimony did exactly what I suspect you are pulling.

They left a piece out here, and there, so the result was not what I said, but what the anti war reporter wanted me to say.

If I were in a religious discussion on creation, I might say exactly what I believe. I have not posted re creationism in any science related discussions, in a long time,as far as I can recall.

If you rummage around some more, you will find that I posted that I would not discuss creation, with non creaionists any more, as and it turns into character attacks, every time. I further stated that I had had these discussions many times, and they were a waste of time.

I challenge you to put the above quotations in context, and I challenge you to find my post defined above.

This is rather odd. The question at hand is whether or not you're a creationist and have expressed creationist views at RF. @tas8831 did a search and found that you are and have. What's the big deal? Are you ashamed of being a creationist?

You won´t. It does not support your goal.

What goal is that?

Right out of the atheist playbook, if you cannot assail the position successfully, complete character assassination in any way you can.

First, what makes you think I'm an atheist? Second, you believe referring to you as a "creationist" is character assassination, even when it's accurate? That further adds to the impression that you're ashamed of being a creationist.

Your tactics are slimy

So quoting your own posts constitute "slimy tactics"? Apparently you're also ashamed of your own words.

ecco · Sep 20, 2019

shmogie said:
I once, a long time ago I arrested the leader of the Viet Nam veterans against the war.

Were these the people you arrested:

Led by Gold Star Mothers (mothers of soldiers killed in war), more than 1,100 veterans marched across the Lincoln Memorial Bridge to the Arlington Cemetery gate,

Maybe it was these:

On April 22, a large group of veterans demonstrated on the steps of the Supreme Court, saying that the Supreme Court should have ruled on the constitutionality of the war. The veterans sang "God Bless America" and 110 were arrested for disturbing the peace,

You should feel so proud.

ecco · Sep 20, 2019

shmogie said:
Right out of the atheist playbook, if you cannot assail the position successfully, complete character assassination in any way you can.

shmogie said:
If you rummage around some more, you will find that I posted that I would not discuss creation, with non creaionists any more,

Maybe you should ask the owners of RF to establish Creationists Only DIR.

Wandering Monk · Sep 20, 2019

ecco said:
I see you are still on your journey down the rabbit hole. That is one of your most incomprehensible comments yet.

As usual, you ask for evidence, evidence is provided, you reject the evidence. So noted.

Why waste your time with him then?

dad · Sep 20, 2019

gnostic said:
The Chaldeans who ruled Babylon, the 3rd dynasty (late 7th century and early 6th century BCE), are the same people (eg Sumerians and Akkadians) who ruled Mesopotamia in the 3rd millennium BCE.

Show the basis for the dates. Otherwise, lose em.

You cannot fit the Sumerian city-states and the Akkadian civilization in your post-Babel scenario, when the evidences point to different races controlling the region. Especially when no Genesis global flood and no Tower of Babel.

Show said evidence and watch it fit.

You are being so f###-up dishonest and ignorant, because you are making up so many different claims about times were measured differently, that you completely ignored all archaeological evidence.

No I don not. They found some towers that maybe looked a bit like the tower of Babel, and misdated them. So what?

By making up positive claims that contradicted all known archaeological evidence, then it is up to show evidence that they were different.

Your wrong belief based dates aside what evidence do you claim anyone ignores here!!!??

You have produced zero evidence, but your tactics is to evade and dodge some more, by making even more stupid and dishonest claims.

False, I can evidence the basis of your dates soon as you dare to post it.

You even ignore what the video are saying that posted up the link.

Forget that video, I thought it was supposed to be defending the actual tower of Babel. You have pointed out that it was not the actual tower.

Not that stupid guy in the beginning the video or the even stupider host’s voice, but the Assyriology expert, Andrew George. He never claimed that the tablet was Genesis’ Tower of Babel, but that Nebuchadnezzar’s ziggurat was the source of Genesis story, not the other way around.

I must admit I never even watched it, just googled stuff supporting the historicity of Babel. But your research of it seems to show it is off target.

It was Nebuchnezzar II who had ziggurat built in Babylon, not built by Genesis’ Nimrod.

You kidding? Obviously the later one was not the original.

dad · Sep 20, 2019

TagliatelliMonster said:
It wasn't. The biblical flood never happened. It's a myth.

Also a myth.

Overruled. Stick to defending your myths and religion.

Ow dear..............................................

Pangea began to break apart 175 million years ago dude, back when dino's still roamed the planet. Not 3000 years ago. For crying out loud........

If all your mind can handle is imaginary so called science belief based pretend time, fine. Call it a zillion if you like.

Not to mention that if they would have moved that much in such a small period of time, it would have literally obliterated everything, to the point of leaving earth as a barren wasteland.

Baloney. Too much heat would have been generated in this nature I have heard, and might tend to agree. However, fortunately it started and moved mostly in the former nature, most likely.

Funny though, how multiple independent dating methods, employing vastly different methodologies for dating, still all converge on the same dates eventhough they are all "useless" for some magical reason.

You have but one belief that binds them, and since they are imaginary no one can ever find them!

And if the Eiffel Tower would fit in my back pocket, I could take it home with me when I visit Paris.
But the fact is that the Eiffelt Tower doesn't fit my pockets and tree rings don't grow in weeks.

Good...finally, conclusive proof.

If you wish to claim they can grow in weeks, or could grow in weeks, you're going to have to come up with some serious evidence to support that.

It is a matter of record! Now if you claim this nature existed you are going to have to prove it.

Another thing that isn't realistic, is that such geological activity could take place in such a short period without obliterating literally everything.

Try thinking before typing.

dad · Sep 20, 2019

Wandering Monk said:
Why waste your time with him then?

One reason may be that he never really provided the evidence at all, that was a fib.

dad · Sep 20, 2019

ecco said:
So, you are saying that God physically wrote down all the events in Genesis.

To whom did he give His writings.

How/when did those people compile the stories into a book called Genesis.

Remember, your silly ideas and guesses are not sufficient. You need to show supporting evidence.

Please don't duck and dodge again.

The ten commandments were with His Own hand. Much of the OT is Him speaking directly in the first Person. The rest, as Jesus confirmed, is inspired.

dad · Sep 20, 2019

ecco said:
I see you are still on your journey down the rabbit hole. That is one of your most incomprehensible comments yet.

As usual, you ask for evidence, evidence is provided, you reject the evidence. So noted.

Trying to break the concept down for you then, what we have is light that enters this solar system. From where doesn't matter. This light that has come here that we see here exists here now. Naturally it will move according to the nature and time and space here. That doesn't tell us anything about what time was involved before it got here to our time.

Subduction Zone · Sep 20, 2019

dad said:
Trying to break the concept down for you then, what we have is light that enters this solar system. From where doesn't matter. This light that has come here that we see here exists here now. Naturally it will move according to the nature and time and space here. That doesn't tell us anything about what time was involved before it got here to our time.

The light tells us a lot more than you realize. But you have to keep yourself in a fishbowl. You have only yourself to blame since you refuse to even to try to learn.

dad · Sep 20, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
The light tells us a lot more than you realize. But you have to keep yourself in a fishbowl. You have only yourself to blame since you refuse to even to try to learn.

It does what it does here, realize that.

Subduction Zone · Sep 20, 2019

dad said:
It does what it does here, realize that.

And the physics tells us that it does it everywhere. All you have is denial while you rely on the science that you say is not real.

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Fisker of men

Well-Known Member

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

Fisker of men

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fisker of men

Well-Known Member

Fisker of men

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Undefeated

Undefeated

Undefeated

Undefeated

Undefeated

Veteran Member

Undefeated

Veteran Member