Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[Subduction Zone]

No good reason to believe they are years and not just rainy days.

Wrong again. You don't have a clue, do you?


Here is a question that you should ask yourself and a response would be nice:

Can you be honest when it comes to this topic? If you can be then I will go into more detail on how we know that you are wrong. I will also point out when you are failing to be honest.

 

[Sheldon]

If something does not make sense to you, it does not necessary mean it is wrong, it is possible that you just don’t understand and know enough.

Fine then please explain how the light from stars that are billions of light years away is visible to us, if the universe is only a few thousand years old then light couldn't have travelled more than a few thousand light years, that is axiomatic.

1. Are you saying that science has got the speed of light wrong?

2. Or are you saying that the universe is magnitudes smaller than out galaxy?

3. Or are you claiming your deity created the light en route to us?

 

[Sheldon]

Wrong again. You don't have a clue, do you?

Ding ding ding ding, we have a winner.

 

[ratiocinator]

If something does not make sense to you, it does not necessary mean it is wrong, it is possible that you just don’t understand and know enough.

I'm not giving you my opinion, it's what those people who actually professionally study these things say.

To believe in a young universe, you needed to be a total science denier. You need to deny astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, physics, biology, archaeology, and geology just off the top of my head.

 

[Sheldon]

No good reason to believe they are years and not just rainy days.

Oh my word, I had to read that a few times to be sure it said what is did.

 

[Sheldon]

I'm not giving you my opinion, it's what those people who actually professionally study these things say.

To believe in a young universe, you needed to be a total science denier. You need to deny astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, physics, biology, archaeology, and geology just off the top of my head.

From my experience of creationists, it helps if they haven't even a rudimentary grasp of the methodology of science, yet paradoxically believe they do.

It's largely down to indoctrination of course, but often the Dunning Kruger effect is involved.

In the USA, while around 16% of the general population report no religious affiliation approximately 95% believe in God or some higher power (Gallup & Lindsay 1999); (Lugo et al2008). US scientists, however, are substantially less likely to hold belief in the supernatural (Larson and Witham 1997; Leuba 1916). Interestingly, this difference is far more evident among distinguished scientists: Larson and Witham (1998) found that 92% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject a belief in God or higher power.

Can anyone really think that is a coincidence?

 

[1213]

...
To believe in a young universe, you needed to be a total science denier. You need to deny astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, physics, biology, archaeology, and geology just off the top of my head.

Sorry, I disagree with that. For example astronomy, everyone can see stars and believe strongly they are real. Not believing the distance doesn't make real observable data wrong.

 

[1213]

...
1. Are you saying that science has got the speed of light wrong?

2. Or are you saying that the universe is magnitudes smaller than out galaxy?
...

I think it is possible that they have the speed right in certain conditions. But, they don't know the conditions everywhere in the space. I think it is possible that universe is smaller. It is difficult to say, because all measures from here are relative, it is not possible to measure them from here accurately and absolutely.

 

[1213]

Only if you completely ignore all the available evidence, which of course, would not be an intelligent thing to do.

What Was the First Life on Earth?...

And you call yourself a critical thinker, that is quite interesting… …But, I can say, that first link is not too bad, it says:

“The earliest evidence for life… …that might have been… …that may hold… …scientists have claimed to see… …that might be… …it's hard to prove… … It's also hard to prove… …may measure the age of the magma that formed the rocks rather than the rocks themselves, an issue that has also dogged claims of the Earth's oldest rocks…”

Good thing about that is, it is quite honest sounding. It really sounds that the person who wrote it, may be speaking real science, not the cult like "science" that too often seems to prevail.

I have no problem with true findings. For example if they have found something in the rock, it is interesting. But, to believe it somehow proves what was the first life on earth is so far fetched that even the sun seems close.

 

[ratiocinator]

Sorry, I disagree with that. For example astronomy, everyone can see stars and believe strongly they are real. Not believing the distance doesn't make real observable data wrong.

Of course it does. There are multiple ways in which we know the distances. See: Cosmic distance ladder - Wikipedia

It utter nonsense to think that we could be talking about a very young or small visible universe, the evidence comes from multiple sources and from multiple disciplines. Only people who know nothing about it or are afraid to look and think about it, who could possibly question it. Stars are suns, we can see huge galaxies consisting of hundreds of billions of stars (suns). The idea that they could be close by is beyond silly.

 

[Sheldon]

Sorry, I disagree with that. For example astronomy, everyone can see stars and believe strongly they are real. Not believing the distance doesn't make real observable data wrong.

Oh your god!

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon

1. Are you saying that science has got the speed of light wrong?

2. Or are you saying that the universe is magnitudes smaller than out galaxy?

3. Or are you claiming your deity created the light en route to us?

I think it is possible that they have the speed right in certain conditions.

It's a constant, unless Einstein and science are wrong? OMFG we need to tell someone...

But, they don't know the conditions everywhere in the space.

Straw man fallacy, we were talking about light being visible from stars billions of light years away, how is that possible if the universe is just a few thousand years old? You apparently don't know that the speed of light is a constant. It is a basic postulate of the theory of relativity that the speed of light is constant.

I think it is possible that universe is smaller.

Than what? Jesus wept, the mental cartwheels creationists perform to avoid some very very basic education is excruciating to watch.

It is difficult to say, because all measures from here are relative, it is not possible to measure them from here accurately and absolutely.

You don't know what a light year is, do you? Google it ffs.

 

[Sheldon]

Sorry, I disagree with that. For example astronomy, everyone can see stars and believe strongly they are real.

Sweet whistling Geronimo, what are you talking about?

Not believing the distance doesn't make real observable data wrong.

Holy Mary mother of some alleged carpenter, you do know what a light year is don't you? Before we go any further, please explain what you think a light year is.

 

[Sheldon]

It really sounds that the person who wrote it, may be speaking real science, not the cult like "science" that too often seems to prevail.

I have no problem with true findings.

Is Einstein's theory of relativity "real science"?

Only that is predicated on the speed of light being a constant, so if as your superstitious beliefs claim, the universe is a few thousand years old, either the entire field of physics and Einstein are wrong, or the universe is magnitudes smaller than science claims it can observe?

So which is it?

All this just to deny the scientific fact of evolution, and all just to maintain a belief in an archaic creation myth, unsupported by a shred of objective evidence, the mind truly does boggle.

 

[Sheldon]

everyone can see stars and believe strongly they are real. Not believing the distance doesn't make real observable data wrong.

How can you "observe" the ones that are billions of light years away?

 

[SkepticThinker]

And you call yourself a critical thinker, that is quite interesting… …But, I can say, that first link is not too bad, it says:

“The earliest evidence for life… …that might have been… …that may hold… …scientists have claimed to see… …that might be… …it's hard to prove… … It's also hard to prove… …may measure the age of the magma that formed the rocks rather than the rocks themselves, an issue that has also dogged claims of the Earth's oldest rocks…”

Good thing about that is, it is quite honest sounding. It really sounds that the person who wrote it, may be speaking real science, not the cult like "science" that too often seems to prevail.

I have no problem with true findings. For example if they have found something in the rock, it is interesting. But, to believe it somehow proves what was the first life on earth is so far fetched that even the sun seems close.

Ah you're one of those people who doesn't understand the language of science. Your outdated talking points make sense now, in that light.

This is how scientists talk because yes, they are honest. Look up pretty much any paper on anything. You won't find any paper that says "this is 100% how it happened" or "We're absolutely sure it's this way" because science doesn't deal in absolutes - in deals in probabilities and confidence intervals. It is always open to new evidence, because that's the whole point. Evidence.

But of course, all of this ignores and obfuscates the actual facts of the matter, which I hope was not your intention with this post.

 

[Sheldon]

Ah you're one of those people who doesn't understand the language of science. Your outdated talking points make sense now, in that light.

This is how scientists talk because yes, they are honest. Look up pretty much any paper on anything. You won't find any paper that says "this is 100% how it happened" or "We're absolutely sure it's this way" because science doesn't deal in absolutes - in deals in probabilities and confidence intervals. It is always open to new evidence, because that's the whole point. Evidence.

But of course, all of this ignores and obfuscates the actual facts of the matter, which I hope was not your intention with this post.

I'm always surprised when I find people who have been taught that science is arrogant and makes absolute claims, when the opposite is so obviously true.

However he is already implying the entire universe is magnitudes smaller than just our galaxy, which is approximately 100,000 light years across. This is what happens when people are indoctrinated to believe the universe is just a few thousand years old. No child's state education ought to be blighted with such nonsense, it's absolutely criminal. Professor Dawkins did a television series on publicly funded faith schools that Tony Blair brought in under Labour. It broke my heart, it really did.

 

[1213]

...You won't find any paper that says "this is 100% how it happened"... ...the actual facts of the matter,...

Facts are 100 % true, not wishful thinking and guesses. The first link didn't have any meaningful fact, I assume the others were as pointless. If you disagree, you could maybe tell what is there 100 % factual and meaningful for this debate (one example is enough).

 

[1213]

Is Einstein's theory of relativity "real science"?
...

Nikola Tesla said about it:

“[Einstein’s theory of relativity is] a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king… its exponents are brilliant men, but they are meta-physicists rather than scientists.”

I agree with him.

 

[1213]

Of course it does. There are multiple ways in which we know the distances. See: Cosmic distance ladder - Wikipedia...

The extragalactic distance scale looks like circular reasoning. All of the measurements are based on assumptions. It is possible that all the assumptions are wrong.