Wy could not the big bang also be consistent with a 6 day creation?

[Polymath257]

If I quantum entangle two particles with each other and then separate them by a very long distance, they will both react instantly and remain linked whenever I interacted with them.

Something is happening there that is occurring faster than the speed of Light. If I spin them in Morse Code, I could transmit information faster than Light.

No, you cannot. There is actually no possible communication from entangled particles that is faster than light. Both ends look completely random. It is only when the recordings from the two ends are brought together that the correlations are seen.

The problem is that you cannot actually do Morse code because your *measurement* can't be used to *force* an outcome.

 

[Bthoth]

If I quantum entangle two particles with each other and then separate them by a very long distance, they will both react instantly and remain linked whenever I interacted with them.

Where you will scare people is the faster than light words.

Something is happening there that is occurring faster than the speed of Light. If I spin them in Morse Code, I could transmit information faster than Light.

ooops.... now I see that you actually dont understand what you are writing.

Enjoy yourself

 

[Koldo]

I see no logical reason why there would or should be "common ground" between. Scientific theory and a religious myth. Neither of them were created or are being presented to us as history, but rather as ways of helping us understand the present (the cosmos, and ourselves). They are different stories about different sets of fundamental questions.

You are a lucky one if Genesis hasn't ever been presented to you as historical.

 

[Yokefellow]

@Polymath257 and @Bthoth .

Thanks for the correction.

 

[PureX]

You are a lucky one if Genesis hasn't ever been presented to you as historical.

I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools until the 9th grade. And Genesis was not presented as history.

Given that Catholicism makes up a huge portion of US Christians, and even more-so back in the 1960s, I think you're way over-stating that dogma. But that's how a bias works, isn't it.

Also, it wouldn't have mattered what they taught about it in school, I still would have come to my own conclusions, as will a great many other people regardless of the dogma. But that doesn't lend itself to your biased belief that people are robots that accept whatever they're told when it comes to religion. Right?

 

[viole]

But can YEC Christians (and even TEists) find common ground in the above idea?

While time is relative, the spacetime distance between events is not. For instance, there is no way a TEist would agree that events concerning dinosaurs and events concerning humans were located in the same spacetime neighborhood, like YEC (and fans of the Flinstones) might appreciate.

Therefore, no common ground is possible. Not even close.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Koldo]

I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools until the 9th grade. And Genesis was not presented as history.

Given that Catholicism makes up a huge portion of US Christians, and even more-so back in the 1960s, I think you're way over-stating that dogma. But that's how a bias works, isn't it.

You make an argument from anecdote, but somehow I am the one that is biased?

Also, it wouldn't have mattered what they taught about it in school, I still would have come to my own conclusions, as will a great many other people regardless of the dogma. But that doesn't lend itself to your biased belief that people are robots that accept whatever they're told when it comes to religion. Right?

It must have felt good to beat a strawman of your own making.

 

[PureX]

So let's see your evidence that of the many billions of religious humans on this planet most of them believe that their religious myths are literal history. That most of them accept whatever their religious leaders and holy books tell them to believe. That most of them despise and condemn their fellow humans as a result. That most of them are willing to make war to force everyone else to agree with their religious beliefs. That most of them only go to their churches, temples, and synagogues to hear how righteous they are, and that they are better than everyone else.

And then once you do that, let's see you prove that it was religion that made them think like this, as opposed to their thinking this way of their own accord, and that their religion is just a reflection of that. C'mon, let's see you back up your bias and blind accusations against religion and those who engage in it. Prove it's not just a stupid bias that you can't let go of.

 

[Bthoth]

@Polymath257 and @Bthoth .

Thanks for the correction.

I've made mistakes when trying to convey material science by combining items, that were new and unclear about.
I saw you do it too.
Be fair the FTL format crashes with standard physics. The properties expose themselves to be T<0 (predetermined)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My original question contained the following

"My understanding is that according to modern claims, dark matter is capable of travelling faster than the speed of light"

Which is an incorrect claim. That's why you were asked for a citation of that claim.

No, dark matter (or anything else for that matter) does NOT travel faster then the speed of light.

The paper I quoted says "the fabric of space" (which appears in the article to be talking about dark matter , not dark energy) is not bound by the speed of light.

Maybe you should first get an education on the basics befor trying to "interpret" the advanced subjects.

It is one of two sources I have read that talk about this.

This is a question better suited to those who understand and appreciate the irreconcilable theological dilemma TEism faces.

It's a question for those who have an in depth knowledge of the theological dilemmas and who are also capable of inputting useful answers. Simply blurting out stuff like "religious myth" is of no interest or value to the topic.

If the religious is of no interest and you must contribute, then at least focus only on "the dark matter" part of the question with referenced responses.

Your response should consider whether or not we have scientific evidence that suggests there is something (I have interpreted my reference as this being dark matter), that can travel faster than the speed of light.

Sounds like you are trying to shift the burden of proof.
You claimed that dark matter travels faster then the speed of life.
Why then should it be my job to respond with evidence for or against that claim?

Do your own homework.

If the background microwave radiation was everywhere all at once...and even it is linked with time and distance in a number of articles I have read about it . These two (BMR and Dark matter) suggest to me that God created and he did so very rapidly thus providing an avenue for instantaneous, or at least within 6 x 24 hour days, evolution. This idea might be a place of reconciling the dilemma TEism faces due to an old age scientific view. The dilemma is that Christ died physically on the cross for sin so Genesis creation narrative cannot be an allegory if their theology is to remain biblical!

Your attempt at shoehorning your god into advanced scientific theories falls flat on its face.
In part because you have no actual reason or evidence to even suggest this god stuff, aside from your mere faith based a priori beliefs.
And in part because your understanding of these scientific concepts is so abysmal that you don't even realize that the little you say on the subject doesn't even make any sense.

You are in the category of "not even wrong" here.


It's, at best, sciency-sounding word salad with some supernatural vinegar.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

You claimed that dark matter travels faster then the speed of life.
Why then should it be my job to respond with evidence for or against that claim?

Do your own homework

I provided the reference...just that you did not read the post where it was cited.

In thinking about this point, at what speed was the big bang determined by science to have occurred?

Was it not one of the few things that travel faster than the speed of light?

So if "nothing" can travel faster than the speed of light. how then did "nothing" do exactly that in the big bang?

Also there's this in wikipedia on the subject of Dark Matter...

In astronomy, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that appears to not interact with light or the electromagnetic field. Dark matter is implied by gravitational effects which cannot be explained by general relativity​

​

Also, i have a question for you... A light shining inside the cabin of a flying aircraft is measured from within the cabin what would its speed be?

What would that light speed be if measured from a static source that is not moving (outside the cabin of the plane)

If we then add the rotation of the earth into the mix...would the actual speed of light inside that aircraft cabin be speed of light +/- speed of aircraft +/- speed of rotation of the earth (which is approx)17,000km/hr when measured from the moon...or the sun...or outside the milky way?

Would not the speed of light be relative to the system inside which it is emitted, but when calculated from outside of that system, it could actually be significantly different? Isnt this how we explain light from the very edge of the universe never reaching us because the fabric of the universe perimeter if you like, is stretching out faster than the speed of light?

So getting back to the point of creation, if measuring the speed of things is relative to the system from which that measurement is taken, could not God also create much faster than millions or billions of years because we are measuring from within that system?

​

 

[Polymath257]

I provided the reference...just that you did not read the post where it was cited.

The problem wasn't the article you linked to (it was mostly correct), but your understanding of that article is way, way off.

In thinking about this point, at what speed was the big bang determined by science to have occurred?

The question makes no sense. We can talk about the speed (relativity velocities) of two things, but the 'speed of the Big Bang' is a phrase that makes no sense.

Was it not one of the few things that travel faster than the speed of light?

No. Space can expand 'faster than light, but nothing moves *through space* faster than light.

So if "nothing" can travel faster than the speed of light. how then did "nothing" do exactly that in the big bang?

It didn't. Nothing ever moves through space at faster than the speed of light.

Also there's this in wikipedia on the subject of Dark Matter...

In astronomy, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that appears to not interact with light or the electromagnetic field. Dark matter is implied by gravitational effects which cannot be explained by general relativity​

Yes, and? That in no way supports anything else you have said.

​

Also, i have a question for you... A light shining inside the cabin of a flying aircraft is measured from within the cabin what would its speed be?

The speed of light.

What would that light speed be if measured from a static source that is not moving (outside the cabin of the plane)

The speed of light.

If we then add the rotation of the earth into the mix...would the actual speed of light inside that aircraft cabin be speed of light +/- speed of aircraft +/- speed of rotation of the earth (which is approx)17,000km/hr when measured from the moon...or the sun...or outside the milky way?

Nope. You are using classical mechanics. In special relativity, velocities don't add that way.

In more detail, if B is moving past A at a velocity v in A's frame and C is moving past B at a velocity w in B's frame, then C is moving past A at a velocity of
(v+w)/(1+vw/c^2)
in A's frame. if either v or w is c, then the result is c.

Would not the speed of light be relative to the system inside which it is emitted, but when calculated from outside of that system, it could actually be significantly different?

No, it would not. Again, velocities don't add like that in special relativity (and in the real world). For low velocities the usual method gives a good approximation, but for velocities close to that of light, it does not.

Isnt this how we explain light from the very edge of the universe never reaching us because the fabric of the universe perimeter if you like, is stretching out faster than the speed of light?

No, it is not. Space expands. The speed of light is the fastest anything can move *through space*.

So getting back to the point of creation, if measuring the speed of things is relative to the system from which that measurement is taken, could not God also create much faster than millions or billions of years because we are measuring from within that system?

​

Not even close to the same. No.

 

[blü 2]

Because you offered nothing relevant.


Looking at the linked article, it says in part:

• its nature remains a complete mystery
• Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy
• The only real answer to the question "what is dark energy?" currently is "we don't know"

I'm not seeing the part about "dark matter[being] capable of travelling faster than the speed of light," and I certainly don't see anything about dark energy laying a foundation for YEC theology.

Could the problem possibly be one not of dark matter or dark energy, but dingy thinking?

I think the thesis is that cosmic inflation can occur at speeds faster than light. As you doubtless know, an event of this kind is hypothesized for the very very first instants of the Big Bang.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think the thesis is that cosmic inflation can occur at speeds faster than light. As you doubtless know, an event of this kind is hypothesized for the very very first instants of the Big Bang.

During which time, God created the creepy-crawly things. Got it ...

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Space can expand 'faster than light, but nothing moves *through space* faster than light.

yes i understand that that is the claim, however...

is it not true that there are light emitting stars in the outermost reaches of the universe who's light will never reach us no matter what period of time passes because those objects are moving away from us faster than the relative speed of light? Or is that they are moving away from us at the speed of light? If the second, in the expansion of the universe theory, how far away would those objects need to be for this to be true?

 

[Polymath257]

yes i understand that that is the claim, however...

is it not true that there are light emitting stars in the outermost reaches of the universe who's light will never reach us no matter what period of time passes because those objects are moving away from us faster than the relative speed of light? Or is that they are moving away from us at the speed of light? If the second, in the expansion of the universe theory, how far away would those objects need to be for this to be true?

Once again, these objects are not moving through space. But yes, we assume there are objects beyond the observable part of the universe from which we will never see light because of how the universe is expanding. We cannot *know* this since we will never be able to detect those galaxies.

That said, we can see galaxies that have a red shift more than 1. Of this was attributed to motion, that would imply motion faster than light. But the red shift is NOT attributed to motion. It is more accurate to say it is due to curvature related to universal expansion.

As for how far away these galaxies would have to be that we can never see, that is a subtle question. Do you mean there distance when the light from them was emitted? Their distance now? Do you want comoving distance, angular distance, red shift distance or some other? They are all different for the same object.

Again, please go a learn the science from someone who knows it. There is a LOT of bad information in popular accounts out there. Getting the subtleties of general relativity correct isn’t easy, even for a professional. Journalists have almost no hope of conveying the complexities to a lay person.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

My understanding is that according to modern claims, dark matter is capable of travelling faster than the speed of light. It can also accelerate time. that suggests surely that the reverse is also true.
given the above, why couldnt we use the above as a mechanism for explaining an evolutionary creation that fits inside the literal 6 day creation period of Genesis Chapter 1?........................

First of all, I find no evidence in Genesis as to just how long each creative day was or whether each was of the same or of differing lengths of time.
After all, ALL of the creative days are summed up by the single word ' day ' at Genesis 2:4

Second, to say God made a young earth look old is saying God is deceitful.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

My guess is probably not generally as there is no reliable evidence to suggest a literal 6 day creation event occurred, so it looks like motivated reasoning and post-hoc rationalisation of an earlier narrative to try and force the facts to poorly fit the story to me.

Just as in English we speak of grandfather's day and know that is not a 24 hr. day but a period of time.
ALL of the creative days are summed up by the word ' day ' at Genesis 2:4
Thus, each creative day could be of the same or of differing lenghts of time.
Plus, God's 7th day ( resting from further creation ) was still on-going in the first century and still is - Hebrews 4:10

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Once again, these objects are not moving through space. But yes, we assume there are objects beyond the observable part of the universe from which we will never see light because of how the universe is expanding..............................................

An expanding universe is in harmony with Scripture - Jeremiah 10:12 B; Jeremiah 51:15; Isaiah 40:22

 

[AdamjEdgar]

First of all, I find no evidence in Genesis as to just how long each creative day was or whether each was of the same or of differing lengths of time.
After all, ALL of the creative days are summed up by the single word ' day ' at Genesis 2:4

Second, to say God made a young earth look old is saying God is deceitful.

See that is where your rationale is really problematic.

Read the 4th Commandment

8Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work—neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant or livestock, nor the foreigner within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.​

and then answer me this...given that the Jews celebrated the 4th commandment as written for thousands of years...and if Noahs flood is to be taken as written, at least another 15oo years prior to the flood as well...would you not agree that the Jewish interpretation of "evening and the morning ":

- given the Genesis 6 day creation and rest on the Seventh day (ie 1 day, 2, day, 3 day etc...) and,
- given the entire Mosaic Sanctuary service expanded on this principle in order to develop the various religious festivals and feasts representative of the method by which the entire human race would be "saved from their sin"

was in fact a real day of 24 hours?

Are you truly going to continue with that really really deficient statement? Have you ever heard a JW deny the trinity doctrine? Do you know what one of their most common arguments (albeit a really stupid one) is? "show us the word Trinity in the bible"! You argument above reminds me of the JW approach to interpreting scripture on the Trinity.

"to say God made a young earth look old is saying God is deceitful"

I have heard this claim so many times...and not once has anyone ever provided and sound biblical referencing to actually back up the claim. The reason why is simple...the claim doesnt come from within Religion, or a Christian world view...it comes from the premise that science and scientific interpretation cannot be corrupted or what we see around us as being influenced by sin. It is only those who are forced to maintain allegiance to uniformitarianism that have an issue with this. Christians who read the bible correctly recognize that the Bible tells us this world has not been uniform since the fall of Man and in particular at the time of the flood.