Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

[Subduction Zone]

There is nothing wrong with making mistakes and being able to correct them.

Every theories are subjected to scrutiny and being questioned, particularly when new evidence and data become available.

The Miller-Urey experiment was only the first experiment carried out.

Since then, others (later experiments) have used different gases, to take into account that primitive atmosphere may contain sulfur molecules (hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide) or carbon dioxide, due to frequent volcanic activities.

Again, some were able to make amino acids from other gases.

I think it is important for scientists to learn from their experiences, regardless if they were correct or wrong. And if they can find alternative methods to answer some unanswered questions, great. But if they cannot answer them, then that’s okay too.

What I don’t like, is what dad have been doing here, used a religious texts as science book, make awful numbers of unsubstantiated claims after others, and trying to equate science with religion.

I always find it ironic when followers of a religion try to put down scientific findings by calling them a religion. It indicates a lack of respect for their own beliefs.

And I think we have all pointed out that the first Miller-Urey experiment was not the only one.

 

[dad]

You were the one that brought up your mythical beliefs. You made claims that you cannot support. You were the one that made false claims about others. You were the one that denied evidence. Time for you to support your claims.

You are like a looped recording. Either you plead that you have zero need to even begin to support the scientific premises actually used in all origin models, or you pretend you could, but somehow just won't. Oh, and then there is the ol 'I already said something important and offered evidence either in another forum, thread or etc etc, that you somehow cannot link to'.

I mean....seriously??!

 

[dad]

I notice that you did not deny that you believe in geocentricity. I will accept that as evidence that you do believe, as the Bible states, that the earth is the center of the universe and everything moves around it...

1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

Psalms 96:10
Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."​

Again, not a thread to display an abysmal lack of comprehension or depth about the bible. Maybe find a thread on old wives tales?

 

[dad]

Nah. This is as good a place for you to defend your beliefs as any. After all, if you can't defend your beliefs, then any and all comments you make regarding the speed of light are nothing more than meaningless assertions.

Try reading the OP.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are like a looped recording. Either you plead that you have zero need to even begin to support the scientific premises actually used in all origin models, or you pretend you could, but somehow just won't. Oh, and then there is the ol 'I already said something important and offered evidence either in another forum, thread or etc etc, that you somehow cannot link to'.

I mean....seriously??!

And whose fault is that dad? You can't change your tune, why do you expect different answers?

and no, I supported my claims. You can't support yours.

Have you even read the Bible? It is quite obvious that you did not understand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, not a thread to display an abysmal lack of comprehension or depth about the bible. Maybe find a thread on old wives tales?

Yes, we already have you for that.

 

[dad]

You made the claim - back it up.

Isa 2:19 And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he
ariseth to shake terribly the earth.

Isa 13:13 - Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

Isa 24:18 - And it shall come to pass, that he who fleeth from the noise of the fear shall fall into the pit; and he that cometh up out of the midst of the pit shall be taken in the snare: for the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake.

Joe 3:16 - The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake:

Hag 2:6 - For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land;

Re 6:20 -
And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.
Re 6:14
And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isa 2:19 And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he
ariseth to shake terribly the earth.

Isa 13:13 - Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

Isa 24:18 - And it shall come to pass, that he who fleeth from the noise of the fear shall fall into the pit; and he that cometh up out of the midst of the pit shall be taken in the snare: for the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake.

Joe 3:16 - The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake:

Hag 2:6 - For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land;

Re 6:20 -
And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.
Re 6:14
And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

Sorry, if you want to claim the Bible as a source you need to show that it is reliable.

 

[dad]

Since then, others (later experiments) have used different gases, to take into account that primitive atmosphere may contain sulfur molecules (hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide) or carbon dioxide, due to frequent volcanic activities.

Again, some were able to make amino acids from other gases..

Just because, under certain circumstances we maybe could make some of the components of living creatures, does not mean living creatures came from such an event. Obviously. Grasping at straws is a hallmark of your belief system.

 

[dad]

Sorry, if you want to claim the Bible as a source you need to show that it is reliable.

A poster asked for bible verses. Even though I suggested he look them up and reminded him this was not a bible thread. Get a grip.

 

[dad]

I supported my claims.

Hahahahahahahahaha

 

[Polymath257]

You are like a looped recording. Either you plead that you have zero need to even begin to support the scientific premises actually used in all origin models, or you pretend you could, but somehow just won't. Oh, and then there is the ol 'I already said something important and offered evidence either in another forum, thread or etc etc, that you somehow cannot link to'.

I mean....seriously??!

Your basic question is why we can assume that there is some sort of uniformity in natural laws.

First, while it is a default assumption, it can be tested.

Suppose we have three events in the past and we want to know how long in the past they happened. Call those events E,F,and G. Suppose we have three different methods that *currently* give good results. Call those methods A, B, and C. They are based on different physical principles and work with different substances.

Your claim is that the laws of physics could have been different in the past and that would affect the results of all three methods. OK, that is a testable proposition.

Let's do all three methods A, B, and C to all three events E, F, and G. Since A, B, and C are based on very different physical properties, we would expect that changes to the physical laws would affect them differently. So, while it might well be coincidence that A, B, and C all give the same result for event E. It would be rather strange, under your assumption of different physical laws, for A, B, and C to *also* agree on events F and G. In fact, even the ordering of the events could be expected to be different if the physical laws governing the underlying processes were different.

But, we can go further. It is NOT just three events, but thousands. And it is not just three methods of getting (possible) ages, it is dozens. That there is any consistency at all is a strong case for regularity of the physical laws.

The only way out is for the physical laws to 'affect' each and every method by the exact same amount throughout all the events we have analyzed. But this gets into the very definition of what it means to measure time. If ALL physical processes are affected the same way, then *by definition* they all give the correct answers. We *define* time duration by those physical processes, after all.

So, we have considered your alternative (different physical laws in the past) and made predictions based on it (different effects on the different processes) and tested those predictions by observations *now* (inconsistent results across the different methods) and found your theory to be contradicted by the observations.

So, now, we have to look at *why* your proposal was considered valuable to you. Well, you point to human writings about people living to very old ages.

Which is MORE reliable? Writings from humans in the past, or physical evidence?

And the answer, clearly, is the physical evidence. Human writers *always* have a bias and, especially before modern times, the historical writings were meant as morality plays as opposed to accurate descriptions of events. The point of having people live to old ages was to say there was a golden age in the past and that we have declined from that point. It makes a good story.

But the physical evidence doesn't support the veracity of that story. And of the two, the physical evidence wins.

 

[dad]

Your basic question is why we can assume that there is some sort of uniformity in natural laws.

First, while it is a default assumption, it can be tested.

Suppose we have three events in the past and we want to know how long in the past they happened. Call those events E,F,and G. Suppose we have three different methods that *currently* give good results. Call those methods A, B, and C. They are based on different physical principles and work with different substances.

Now let's say all agree (even if one needed to be changed by millions of years to fit or etc). Let's say the date science thinks they all agree on is 100 million years ago. Besides the agreement based on beliefs (same belief used in all cases..that of a same nature in the past) how can we check!!? Ha. No one was here. No records exist. What value are belief based interpretations of ratios or other things? All agreement is internal, and circular.

Your claim is that the laws of physics could have been different in the past and that would affect the results of all three methods. OK, that is a testable proposition.

Let's do all three methods A, B, and C to all three events E, F, and G. Since A, B, and C are based on very different physical properties, we would expect that changes to the physical laws would affect them differently. So, while it might well be coincidence that A, B, and C all give the same result for event E. It would be rather strange, under your assumption of different physical laws, for A, B, and C to *also* agree on events F and G. In fact, even the ordering of the events could be expected to be different if the physical laws governing the underlying processes were different.

There is agreement also if we assume a different state. The agreement also fits history and Scripture. Simply assigning old ages to ratios of isotopes that agree with other ratios and etc has no reality and no way to verify. If a different nature existed along with creation, then we had starting points for those ratios that had nothing to do with decay. You simply interpret all ratios as being due to decay and assign imaginary ages accordingly, and seem to think getting old ages on several compounds is some sort of startling proof your religion is correct!

But, we can go further. It is NOT just three events, but thousands. And it is not just three methods of getting (possible) ages, it is dozens. That there is any consistency at all is a strong case for regularity of the physical laws.

Using the 100 million year age example what other methods are used besides radioactive decay? Let's look at that. Example of a 100 million year old item?

The only way out is for the physical laws to 'affect' each and every method by the exact same amount throughout all the events we have analyzed. But this gets into the very definition of what it means to measure time. If ALL physical processes are affected the same way, then *by definition* they all give the correct answers. We *define* time duration by those physical processes, after all.

False. Something affected the isotopes and produced ratios. All of them! The way to determine what that was is not to first decide it was decay, and then proceed to interpret it all that way!

So, we have considered your alternative (different physical laws in the past) and made predictions based on it (different effects on the different processes) and tested those predictions by observations *now* (inconsistent results across the different methods) and found your theory to be contradicted by the observations.

False. Nature affects all things, not just some element alone. All ratios would be affected!

Which is MORE reliable? Writings from humans in the past, or physical evidence?

Your so called evidence is a vague mind game. Making the same mistake many times on different things is not a mark of intellect but insanity!!!!!!!!!!!

And the answer, clearly, is the physical evidence. Human writers *always* have a bias and, especially before modern times, the historical writings were meant as morality plays as opposed to accurate descriptions of events. The point of having people live to old ages was to say there was a golden age in the past and that we have declined from that point. It makes a good story.

Unless you have a way to determine that records are false or true who cares on your opinion of them?

But the physical evidence doesn't support the veracity of that story. And of the two, the physical evidence wins.

Science is too small to do so, that does not mean there is no evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

Now let's say all agree (even if one needed to be changed by millions of years to fit or etc). Let's say the date science thinks they all agree on is 100 million years ago. Besides the agreement based on beliefs (same belief used in all cases..that of a same nature in the past) how can we check!!? Ha. No one was here. No records exist. What value are belief based interpretations of ratios or other things? All agreement is internal, and circular.

But what you see as a single assumption (that the past was the same physically as the present) is actually testable because there are thousands of different methods and the physical laws apply to them differently. So, if the laws were different, we would expect them to give wildly different results. But they don't.

There is agreement also if we assume a different state. The agreement also fits history and Scripture. Simply assigning old ages to ratios of isotopes that agree with other ratios and etc has no reality and no way to verify. If a different nature existed along with creation, then we had starting points for those ratios that had nothing to do with decay. You simply interpret all ratios as being due to decay and assign imaginary ages accordingly, and seem to think getting old ages on several compounds is some sort of startling proof your religion is correct!

Getting old ages via very different methods for the same events and doing so for many different events *is* evidence that the dating methods are reliable.

Using the 100 million year age example what other methods are used besides radioactive decay? Let's look at that. Example of a 100 million year old item?

False. Something affected the isotopes and produced ratios. All of them! The way to determine what that was is not to first decide it was decay, and then proceed to interpret it all that way!

Why would the ratios for different isotopes be consistent? They are based on different processes, after all.

False. Nature affects all things, not just some element alone. All ratios would be affected!
Your so called evidence is a vague mind game. Making the same mistake many times on different things is not a mark of intellect but insanity!!!!!!!!!!!

So you are claiming that *all* processes are affected by *exactly* the same amounts across the board?

In that case, we have some basic problems with the definition of what it means for time to pass.

Unless you have a way to determine that records are false or true who cares on your opinion of them?
Science is too small to do so, that does not mean there is no evidence.

Sorry, but written records are too unreliable, across the board, to negate the results of the science.

 

[dad]

But what you see as a single assumption (that the past was the same physically as the present) is actually testable because there are thousands of different methods and the physical laws apply to them differently. So, if the laws were different, we would expect them to give wildly different results. But they don't.

What you claim is testable is not testable and is just a belief imposed on multiple evidences. The laws applied to all the elements in the former nature and they also do so now. However if it was different laws and forces, then you cannot assume it was the same! They still produced ratios in whatever processes existed. Then there was creation also that started it all of. At creation there must have also been ratios. Just like when we make a car they have wheels. The wheels don't start turning and moving and working until after the car is made and on the road. Likewise, the ratios at creation started changing with the former nature working. Later, the ratios were affected by this nature, so again were affected. You simply believe it is ALL due to this nature. Looking at it this way, you interpret ratios as old across the board.

Getting old ages via very different methods for the same events and doing so for many different events *is* evidence that the dating methods are reliable.

There is one method....assume a same nature in the past. You use that on all things! That is the science method.

Why would the ratios for different isotopes be consistent? They are based on different processes, after all.

They are based on creation, and later the processes of the former nature. They also have been affected by this nature. You are working with one half blind eye here, rather than with perspective and good vision of the big pic.

So you are claiming that *all* processes are affected by *exactly* the same amounts across the board?

Creation started it all. Then the former nature affected it. Then our nature.

In that case, we have some basic problems with the definition of what it means for time to pass.

No, the problem lies in thinking time is what created it all, and did so by the processes of this nature!

Sorry, but written records are too unreliable, across the board, to negate the results of the science.

Science rose to try and negate the bible and history. Cart...meet horse.

 

[Wandering Monk]

It is indeed the topic. It really is debatable. You have already shown you dismiss all science that does not agree with your beliefs in 6000-year-old myths. So, now it is time to defend your 6000-year-old myths.

I will understand if, instead of defending your 6000-year-old myths you choose to duck and dodge. That's what you usually do. That's what many people do when asked to defend the indefensible.

Maybe @shmogie would like to help you.

Why do you keep quoting yourself?

 

[tas8831]

I dunno....maybe I'm just weird, but if I were to claim "textbooks say X" it'd seem pretty obvious that the very next thing I'd have to do is quote directly from textbooks where they say X. Anything short of that and I'd feel embarrassed.

I'm sure our experiences mesh on this - creationists read what some other creationist has written or referred to, taken it as truth (because golly, creationists NEVER lie about things...), and paraphrased and re-reported it on a forum without having done any of their own legwork to check for accuracy, relevance, etc. Then, when called on it, will take action to avoid ever having to address it.

I estimate that about 90% of creationists rely on such tactics without realizing 1. that in many if not most cases, their source lied to them (either via their own ignorance/malice of that of THEIR sources); 2. it makes them look at the very least lazy and foolish, at worst, purposefully deceptive and ignorant.

But hey - Pearly Gates entry tickets aren't cheap, and the cost of one's integrity and reputation are pretty low....

 

[tas8831]

????? If there's no URL, how is it on the internet?

Must be on the Dark Web?

Can you provide specific examples, or is this yet another assertion that you have no intention of backing up?

All for the Glory!

 

[gnostic]

Just because, under certain circumstances we maybe could make some of the components of living creatures, does not mean living creatures came from such an event. Obviously. Grasping at straws is a hallmark of your belief system.

Are you kidding me?

If you were to believe Genesis creation to be true, then you would believe that God create a living adult male - without birth, without childhood - from of all things lifeless dust.

If anything is a hallmark of grasping at straws, is believing such a ridiculous thing is even remotely possible.

Why is that? *rhetorical question*

Because dusts cannot possibly turn into living thing, period. It is a complete misunderstanding on the author’s part (re author(s) of Genesis) because he or they don’t know a thing about human biology.

It is impossible for dust to become a living entity - human; it is just scientifically impossible, and yet you believe in such a story.

That you continued to believe in such myth, also demonstrated that you don’t understand human biology any better than the Genesis authors.

I have no problem with the authors having no idea what proteins or DNA, because such knowledge weren’t available to them. They have excuses of being ignorant. You don’t, which make it worse, because you shouldn’t be so woefully uneducated about modern biology and that dust can never magically turn into human being.

And the only way you can accept the Bible is through religious belief and personal faith.

 

[tas8831]

Kinda like bigfoot hunters. There's always the chance that one day, they'll find one.

Well, at least the existence of bigfoot has a degree of plausibility - lots of cryptids have been discovered to be real! Well, a few have...