• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Of course they can have multiple meanings, which is my entire point !
Okay, so when I speak of "evolution" I'm referring to the most common connotation, i.e., biological evolution. I hope that's clear.

You forget, I don´t answer your questions anymore, since you refused to answer mine.
This is getting bizarre. You keep saying I refuse to answer your questions and every time I respond by saying I don't know what questions you're talking about, but if you ask them again I'll do my best to answer them.

And every time you ignore that only to restate your allegation.

So let me be perfectly clear here......I have no idea what questions you're referring to, but if you'll ask them again I'll do my best to answer.

Okay?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
So let me be perfectly clear here......I have no idea what questions you're referring to, but if you'll ask them again I'll do my best to answer.

Okay?
Maybe he asked you to help him find the "recent interview" with long-dead Stanley Miller - the one he referenced several times yet supplied no means of corroborating it.
 

dad

Undefeated
I don't have a religion. However, if I need any more reason to take science over religion, I can just review all the silly things religious people like you believe in.
Or we can look at the basis science actually uses in models of the past, and have you try to support the beliefs.
 

dad

Undefeated
Nonsense. You can't answer simple, basic questions about your religion. The only way you can defend it by throwing pebbles at the opposition, science.

I didn't ask you to "question trusted eyewitnesses of historical realities". I asked you to explain why you consider people eyewitnesses when they weren't there. I asked who wrote that God gave Moses tablets, you had no answer. I asked who recorded the events in the Garden of Eden, you had no answers.

You just blindly accept the writings of ignorant people from 4000 years ago.

Do you realize that if Marcion had prevailed, you wouldn't be trying to defend Eden, Tree, Moses, Flood? You'd be laughing at those who did.
? Still avoiding science and it's beliefs by desperately spamming about other beliefs?
 

dad

Undefeated
Sure I deny that that is my bible.

Bi·ble
/ˈbībəl/
Learn to pronounce
noun
  1. the Christian scriptures, consisting of the Old and New Testaments.
    "verses from the Bible"



    Gideon Bible
    • the Jewish scriptures, consisting of the Torah or Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa or Writings.
    • a copy of the Christian or Jewish scriptures.
      noun: bible; plural noun: bibles
I am neither a Christian nor a Jew. So I can't have a bible. That should be clear to a fourth-grader.




Old Wives Tales may be fun to read, but not as funny as someone arguing against:
Clearly whoever wrote about the conversations between God and Moses was not Moses.​

Not as funny as reading someone duck and dodge when asked who recorded Adam eating the Fruit or knowing how and why Cain killed Abel.

Not as funny as someone trying to convince others that whoever wrote about those events was an eyewitness.

That stuff is priceless.
Exactly..just like your gross darkness fables are not my bible.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Well, you are wrong. We do NOT use the Earth itself as the reference frame. We use the comoving frame that is now the Earth.



And that is incorrect. Once again, the singularity is NOT a thing. And, you compound that error in thinking it gives a reference frame. If you had actually studied general relativity, you would know that it doesn't/ In fact, *all* coming observers have that same singularity as their past: that is part of the problem leading to the singularity: that it has to match ALL of the frames afterwards.

Answer: it is irrelevant. And if you understood the concept of a comoving observer you would realize.



Not sure why that is relevant, but OK.



And that is precisely what general relativity deals with.



Nope, your analogy fails miserably.



Nope. First of all, you seem to think that motion is absolute. It isn't. Second, in the context of cosmology, each position *does* have a preferred reference frame: that where the expansion appears to be uniformly outward for them. Third, black holes don't work like that and they are NOT the same type of singularity as at the BB.



What does it even mean to have 'parallel time scales'?

Anyway, your understanding of what scientists do is clearly faulty. Your understanding of both special and general relativity are faulty. And your desperation to keep science and your beliefs consistent is evident.

The problem is that they are NOT consistent with each other.

Here is the mistake you (physics) are making. Relative reference applies to the light/energy signals, coming from the universe to a particular reference location. Relative reference does apply to the principle called Conservation of Energy. This principle implies an absolute amount of matter and energy. Conservation of energy for the universe requires an absolute reference since it cannot be different in each reference.

Relative reference ends up with more that one possible energy balance making energy conservation impossible. Einstein was correct in that he determined that we cannot determine the universal energy balance based on only visual energy type signals, since energy signals that we observe can red and blue shift, thereby giving a different energy summation, for each relative references.

As a classic example, we have a man on a bench at the train station and another man on a moving train. They have a relative velocity V. Based on only visual evidence; energy signals, either can appear to move or either can appear to be stationary. It is all relative.

If each man uses their relative assumption, from their visual evidence, and then does an energy balance, since it takes more energy to move man plus train than man plus bench, both reference will see different energy balances. Relative only applies to the visual illusion created to the visual/energy signals. Our energy receiving instruments do not receive matter data from distant quasars and galaxies, which would needed to do an energy balance.

Since this observational method of cosmology and astral physics has a limitation, as described by Einstein, I decided to move forward and use energy conservation instead. This is a much higher gold standard and assumes starting with a fixed amount of energy regardless of what you think you see.

If we start with a singularity, we can do a theoretical energy balance. This is all the energy the universe has and will ever have. There should be a reference within the universe; theoretically, that allows us to do a proper energy balance and get this exact same amount. This will not work with all relative references, since energy signals alone can fool the eyes and brain. This is why we now need dark energy and matter to close the energy balance from our relative reference even of we cannot not see it in the lab.

Don't get me wrong, we do not have the technology to do this right. We are stuck with energy signals; one sensory system verification. Theoretically, there is a sweet reference where the universe energy balance is maintained throughout cosmology; God Reference. This reference, theoretically, would be the only way to control all of creation, without creating illusions, due to relative references and misjudged energy balances.

Sometimes I get too far ahead, and forget not everyone has realized the limitations of energy signals. To many, Relativity was turned into a religion, instead of practical limitation council by a wise man.
 
Last edited:

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Okay, so when I speak of "evolution" I'm referring to the most common connotation, i.e., biological evolution. I hope that's clear.


This is getting bizarre. You keep saying I refuse to answer your questions and every time I respond by saying I don't know what questions you're talking about, but if you ask them again I'll do my best to answer them.

And every time you ignore that only to restate your allegation.

So let me be perfectly clear here......I have no idea what questions you're referring to, but if you'll ask them again I'll do my best to answer.

Okay?
Nice try, in two, maybe three posts I asked you specific questions. You ignored all of them.

As I recall, this may be the first post in which you made this offer. See what you can find.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Well, I started a thread on this a while ago, but I'l repeat anyways.....it is somewhat satisfying to see how creationists have largely retreated to focusing mostly on the origin of life and the universe. I see that as progress. :)
What did he submit ? I assume the remark was about the evolution of life.

I personally choose not to discuss it because I don´t have the full knowledge required to do so.

It doesn´t interest me. Call that progress if you choose, progress of what I don´t know.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Maybe he asked you to help him find the "recent interview" with long-dead Stanley Miller - the one he referenced several times yet supplied no means of corroborating it.
Since you think you have discovered something of import, I was quoting a friend of Millers, who wrote the article I did not add the quotation marks. I will give you a reference so you can read it yourself as an addendum to this post.

What then will you find to whine about to feed your obsession ? Something, no doubt.

Keep the faith
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Here is the mistake you (physics) are making. Relative reference applies to the light/energy signals, coming from the universe to a particular reference location. Relative reference does apply to the principle called Conservation of Energy. This principle implies an absolute amount of matter and energy. Conservation of energy for the universe requires an absolute reference since it cannot be different in each reference.

Actually, if you knew just a bit of special relativity, you would know that is precisely wrong. The energy *is* different in different reference frames. And, in general relativity there *is* a problem even defining the total amount of energy.

Relative reference ends up with more that one possible energy balance making energy conservation impossible. Einstein was correct in that he determined that we cannot determine the universal energy balance based on only visual energy type signals, since energy signals that we observe can red and blue shift, thereby giving a different energy summation, for each relative references.

Actually, in special relativity, the conservation of energy works no matter what frame you work in. And, if it works in one frame, it will work in ALL frames.

In general relativity, there are more difficulties, and you have to be careful, but there *is* a localized version of the conservation of energy and it works in all reference frames.

As a classic example, we have a man on a bench at the train station and another man on a moving train. They have a relative velocity V. Based on only visual evidence; energy signals, either can appear to move or either can appear to be stationary. It is all relative.

If each man uses their relative assumption, from their visual evidence, and then does an energy balance, since it takes more energy to move man plus train than man plus bench, both reference will see different energy balances. Relative only applies to the visual illusion created to the visual/energy signals. Our energy receiving instruments do not receive matter data from distant quasars and galaxies, which would needed to do an energy balance.

Since this observational method of cosmology and astral physics has a limitation, as described by Einstein, I decided to move forward and use energy conservation instead. This is a much higher gold standard and assumes starting with a fixed amount of energy regardless of what you think you see.

But energy *does* depend on reference frame. In fact, it is the fourth component of the energy-momentum four-vector.

If we start with a singularity, we can do a theoretical energy balance. This is all the energy the universe has and will ever have. There should be a reference within the universe; theoretically, that allows us to do a proper energy balance and get this exact same amount. This will not work with all relative references, since energy signals alone can fool the eyes and brain. This is why we now need dark energy and matter to close the energy balance from our relative reference even of we cannot not see it in the lab.

Don't get me wrong, we do not have the technology to do this right. We are stuck with energy signals; one sensory system verification. Theoretically, there is a sweet reference where the universe energy balance is maintained throughout cosmology; God Reference. This reference, theoretically, would be the only way to control all of creation, without creating illusions, due to relative references and misjudged energy balances.

Sometimes I get too far ahead, and forget not everyone has realized the limitations of energy signals. To many, Relativity was turned into a religion, instead of practical limitation council by a wise man.

And it is clear you don't understand what either special or general relativity actually say. Might I suggest a basic course that covers such?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The hypothesis is falsifiable, so what ? You seem to think that this somehow establishes abiogenesis in some fashion.
It established that any experiment can be performed, regardless of the conclusion derived from the test results.

Falsifiability isn’t about the conclusion of experiment, and isn’t about the POSITIVE evidence for the hypothesis or NEGATIVE evidence against the hypothesis.

Falsifiability is about that you can perform a test or experiment in the first place.

An unfalsifiable model is where there are zero experiments. A zero experiment would disqualify any model being a “hypothesis”.

Intelligent Design isn’t a hypothesis, because it is unfalsifiable, and that because it cannot be tested, meaning no experiments can be performed. And the core reason why ID is not even a hypothesis is because there the essence of ID is the DESIGNER itself isn’t “falsifiable”.

If you cannot observe/detect the DESIGNER, if you cannot quantify, measure or test the DESIGNER, then the whole Intelligent Design concept isn’t falsifiable.

ID is simply a pseudoscience concept, unfalsifiable and therefore untestable.

The only way for Intelligent Design to redeem itself, if this Designer can manifest itself as physical entity that you can actually observe, measure, test (verify or refute). As of now, this Designer is nonexistent, imaginary and mythological.

The title for Designer, is God or Creator. So Intelligent Design is just another word for Creationism - ID is a religious concept pretending to be science.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, because it is possible to setup experiments, and that’s what make Abiogenesis falsifiable and testable...

...and better yet, some experiments have already been carried out in the last 5 decades.

That is the differences between Abiogenesis and Intelligent Design. One is falsifiable, the other isn’t.

You keep talking about the Miller-Urey experiment has failed, because of the reducing atmosphere and the missing gases that might have existed in the early Earth’s atmosphere, but you have ignored that other experiments have taken place, taking other gases into account, and like Miller-Urey experiment, these other experiments still successfully produced amino acids, under different conditions.

One of these days, they will have enough evidence to finally reach a decision that will either refute or verify Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis hasn’t been debunked yet.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Of course they can have multiple meanings, which is my entire point !
It is a matter of contexts.

This thread was meant to focus on the age of universe and the speed of light (astronomy, astrophysics, physical cosmology), not about life on Earth (life science), but somehow, somewhere, someone have changed the subject, and now we are talking about more about biology vs creationism and about human history vs creationism.

If we had stayed on topic, then “evolution” could mean the evolution of the universe or stellar evolution.

But we are not. We have been more focused on life, hence, if we are going to talk about biology, then contextually, “evolution” means biological evolution, and not about stellar evolution or evolution of the universe.

And if we capitalized “evolution” as “Evolution”, then we are normally talking about biological evolution, and that is the usual convention to usage of the term evolution.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Evidence accumulates till it points to a reasonable and accurate conclusion.
To an extent.

The conclusion reached depends on if the accumulated evidence support the hypothesis or don’t support the hypothesis.

It can go either way.

Let’s say evidence back up and support the explanations and predictions made within the hypothesis. So it would be reasonable to conclude that this hypothesis IS PROBABLE.

But let’s say accumulated evidence don’t support the hypothesis, then you can reasonably conclude that the hypothesis ISN’T PROBABLE or IMPROBABLE.

Evidence of what is the question.

Evidence cannot be just evidence of being evidence.

Science required evidence to be observable, measurable and testable.

If you cannot “measure” or “test” what you are “observing”, then it isn’t evidence.

You cannot observe, measure or test the following: deity/god, angel, demon, jinn, spirit/soul, ghoul, goblin, fairy, giant, gorgon, dragon, phoenix, etc. Hence, there no evidence for any of these.

People may choose to believe in these imaginary entities or beings, but that’s faith, not evidence.
 

Astrophile

Active Member
Your posted research, is research for sure. Does it shed any light on abiogenesis, no.

All that has been produced stands alone. There is NO pathway to life identified. Can you not grasp that ?

A few of the required ingredients for life, are just that, nothing more.

Abiogenesis isn´t what may have been produced naturally, it is a PROCESS that creates life.

You could cite a natural process that creates lungs, or livers, or brains, yet if you cannot identify the process that makes them into a living animal, you have nothing.

All of the bio chemical research has the same problem, no linkage with a process that creates life.

The net variety of what is alleged to have been produced in a possible process on the primordial earth is hopelessly short of what a living organism requires.

Again you bring up religion, why ? I haven´t.

Why do you feel religion is part of a discussion of abiogenesis ?

You believe in abiogenesis, yet for all your thrashing about, huffing and puffing, you know the bottom line is that no one knows how it could occur.

If, in your knowledge of the research, an actual pathway to life had been discovered, observed, and replicated, produce it and prove me wrong.

Otherwise, abiogenesis remains something accepted by faith. Something totally unproven. something you believe to have happened, without evidence that it did.

The stinging will go away, consider it part of a lesson you learned.

Keep the faith.

Again

Two questions and one statement of opinion.

Do you accept that when the Earth was formed it was lifeless and that therefore the first life on Earth originated after the Earth was formed?

Do you accept that present living things are very different from the first terrestrial life-forms?

In my opinion, if it were proved that life cannot have originated by a natural process, that would not prove either that Christianity is true or that the first chapters of Genesis are historically reliable. (In fact, I do not think that any of the book of Genesis is historically reliable, but that is a different subject.) The origin of life, the truth of Christianity, and the historical accuracy of the Bible are completely different subjects.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Two questions and one statement of opinion.

Do you accept that when the Earth was formed it was lifeless and that therefore the first life on Earth originated after the Earth was formed?

Do you accept that present living things are very different from the first terrestrial life-forms?

In my opinion, if it were proved that life cannot have originated by a natural process, that would not prove either that Christianity is true or that the first chapters of Genesis are historically reliable. (In fact, I do not think that any of the book of Genesis is historically reliable, but that is a different subject.) The origin of life, the truth of Christianity, and the historical accuracy of the Bible are completely different subjects.
So...................................?

Yep, the earth was formed before life.

Present living things are very different from the first terrestrial life forms, no, I don´t accept that.

I made no effort to prove anything, I didn´t mention Christianity or the book of Genesis.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So...................................?

Yep, the earth was formed before life.

Present living things are very different from the first terrestrial life forms, no, I don´t accept that.

I made no effort to prove anything, I didn´t mention Christianity or the book of Genesis.
You don't really have to. You just admitted to being a creationist. At least you show some shame in that irrational belief.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
To an extent.

The conclusion reached depends on if the accumulated evidence support the hypothesis or don’t support the hypothesis.

It can go either way.

Let’s say evidence back up and support the explanations and predictions made within the hypothesis. So it would be reasonable to conclude that this hypothesis IS PROBABLE.

But let’s say accumulated evidence don’t support the hypothesis, then you can reasonably conclude that the hypothesis ISN’T PROBABLE or IMPROBABLE.



Science required evidence to be observable, measurable and testable.

If you cannot “measure” or “test” what you are “observing”, then it isn’t evidence.

You cannot observe, measure or test the following: deity/god, angel, demon, jinn, spirit/soul, ghoul, goblin, fairy, giant, gorgon, dragon, phoenix, etc. Hence, there no evidence for any of these.

People may choose to believe in these imaginary entities or beings, but that’s faith, not evidence.
However, there is no testable, measurable, or observable evidence of abiogenesis...........................

Miller Urey, as an example, was the observed, tested, and measured creation of amino acids, they are created in nature, most likely by a different process. Living organisms utilize left handed amino acids, virtually exclusively, Miller Urey produced 50% of each.

This is evidence of what ?
 

Astrophile

Active Member
Yep, the earth was formed before life.

Good; at least we agree on one point.

Present living things are very different from the first terrestrial life forms, no, I don´t accept that.

All the scientific evidence is against you.

I made no effort to prove anything, I didn´t mention Christianity or the book of Genesis.

So why are you making such a fuss about abiogenesis? If the truth of Christianity and the historicity of Genesis are separate questions from the reality of abiogenesis, why do you insist that abiogenesis is impossible?
 
Top