|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Doesn't the distance of stars disprove the young earth theory? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi xXGEARXx, welcome to the fray, if not already done.
There in lies the million dollar question. What is and what is not worth taking from the Bible? We can start with eliminating any interpretation that is contradicted by the evidence of reality. Consider these common impediments to a rational open-minded yet skeptical understanding of reality:
Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance and ide fixes, are not the tools of an open-mind or an honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion. Critical thinking requires that one eliminate or reduce these impediments from one's world view as much as possible, or one ends up living in a world of fantasy. As an example of an "interpretation that is contradicted by the evidence of reality" we have the geocentric earth hypothesis posited by some ancient christian believers. This concept has become so untenable that only a very small subset of christians hold such a belief.
Let someone try to convince you of scientology. You would think they were crazy. Which is why the older religions are easier to swallow for most people. The mass delusion has continued for so long that a lot of people take it as truth. It appears to me to be one heck of a slippery slope. Another example of an "interpretation that is contradicted by the evidence of reality" is the young earth hypothesis posited by a small subset of christian believers. The fact that this interpretation is not held by all christian believers shows that adherence to a belief in a young earth is not necessary to having a christian faith. It is going the way of the geocentric earth concept. This thread points out one set of information contradicting a young earth hypothesis. There are several other threads that do the same, such as Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?. The fact is, there are literally mountains of evidence against a young earth, and that this evidence is so compelling and cross related that one needs to deny virtually all of science to maintain it. That is delusion. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xXGEARXx Member (Idle past 5150 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
The fact is, there are literally mountains of evidence against a young earth, and that this evidence is so compelling and cross related that one needs to deny virtually all of science to maintain it. That is delusion. Nice response. Very good read. The above statement is so very true. I still say it goes back to most people being brainwashed the bible at a very, very young age. It tends to burn itself into you. If any group of people were to teach anything else with ancient writings (IE-the Bible, Qur'an, etc.), you would probably get the same result. I don't know if something is beyond death. It's a cool thought. Maybe it just ends with that-a thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
As an example of an "interpretation that is contradicted by the evidence of reality" we have the geocentric earth hypothesis posited by some ancient christian believers. This concept has become so untenable that only a very small subset of christians hold such a belief. So do a few (that I know of) tribes in South America. I think it boils down to, not only for science to serve an actual, visible purpose. But for science to be recognized for what it can do. But that all depends. Frankly, what reason does a tribesman have to try and learn about a heliocentric solar system, the expansion of the universe, evolution, and the age of the earth? Even if you show this person the evidence, they'll probably reject it. Not because they feel there is a better theory, but because they don't care to know and are comfortable contining to believe what they believe. But would you label this an "interpretation that is contradicted by the evidence of reality"...? Would you say that any of these people fall under: delusional, cognitive dissonance or conformation bias? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PEIN Junior Member (Idle past 5071 days) Posts: 1 Joined: |
time is relative and different for everything
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello PEIN and welcome to EvC!
PEIN writes:
Not really, no. Does time pass differently for you and me, for example?
time is relative and different for everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Welcome PEIN.
Hope you enjoy this site and will contribute, teach and learn with the rest of us.
time is relative and different for everything And this well known fact, along with its well known mis-interpretations, answers the OP (opening post) in what way? Are you thinking that the light we see from galaxies billions of light-years away has been somehow time-shifted to show great transit age but in reality is but a few thousand years in transit? This is the "Science" side of this forum so please be specific with attributed evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Not really, no. Does time pass differently for you and me, for example? On a practical level you are correct. But, to be nit picky, if you and PEIN are ever in relative motion to the other at any time then, yes, time passes differently between you. The dilation is so minuscule, however (on the order of a few millionths of a second), as to have no practical effect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Well yes, of course. I Should have been more clear. Thanks for bringing that up
But, to be nit picky, if you and PEIN are ever in relative motion to the other at any time then, yes, time passes differently between you. The dilation is so minuscule, however (on the order of a few millionths of a second), as to have no practical effect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuimshaan Member (Idle past 4983 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
Location in this system does not constitue time topagraphy. Just because we are here, have some technology, and are seeing things far away...does not mean the age of those things. Distances between objects in space does not conclude their age.
IF you say that I am measuring light from a distant star that took twelve million years to travel here...your not saying how old the earth is or the star....in fact...your calculations of how long it took the light to reach you are incorrect and incorrect in intention for dtermining time. Because all stars alive right now are visible from some location in space, whether it's closer or farther away from them....does not age them in any respect. As far as time travel is concerned...moving from one location to another will take time even if measured in milliseconds...and a different distant location from the start does not promote a new physical force to invoke time blurring. The speed at which an object moves from one location to another does not effect the time continuom, in fact, speed will only determine the how fast the object moved from one location to another. If time dilation is defined as moving faster equals less time of travel then it is true. But in no sense of physica wil moving faster toward a destination inhibit the progression of time, and cause physics to occur slower in order for the trip to take longer than what actually occurred from the movement of said object from one location to another with a given speed. Speed is not a factor to control time. Time can witness absolute rest for absolutely the longest time imaginable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuimshaan Member (Idle past 4983 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
Why would you believe an alien species could pick you up and put you in their ship......fire up the engines and tear off at a rate of speed that would allow you to see into the past.....you are moving from one location to another.
It's important to note that all movements like this...regardless of speed, they ar no longer located where they once were. If you're saying I moved so fast in that direction...that I saw the prehistoric Earth...you are wrong...Time did not dilate for you...but the distance for which you have traveled has increased greatly...because you were moving at such a super luminal speed, you are now very far away from where you took off. And you got there in a very short period of time because you were moving so fast. IT's interesting to note that the average Einstein mind has trouble with speeds in excess of their sight of it. Superluminal speeds are in no way different than slow highway speeds...they both have these same things in common" 1. A vehicle2. A passenger 3. A speed of travel 4. And a direction (up, down, right, left, straight, circular, etc.) Since all objects in movement fall under this irrefutable law, so does time for them. The faster you move, the quicker you will get there....and moving infinately faster each time will only register a smaller fraction of time on the Timex 5000 stopwatch, able to register laps down to the 8.5x10-190 fractions of time for movement of super luminal yet syper real objects really moving that fast and being located in space while they move. Edited by Admin, : Shorten long line.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuimshaan Member (Idle past 4983 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
When I speak of a proposed object moving from one edge of the universe to the other in a few seconds, I am speaking of a real object safely moving from one loctaion to another and arriving in tact.
I am speaking of real science. Not a theory. Any object moving at any speed will take time to move from location to another, even if sensitibve instrumentation is required to calculate it's speed of travel. If you do not have the object, and it is not moving, and has no direction, you do not have a theory or any science. If you are talking about any object that moves, regardless of speed you are an idiot to say it took any longer than it took for that object to cross that space. There are no transitions between real and unreal travel, there are only different locations. Arriving at different location because you have super luminally moved to that location, does not equal time travel. It equals location travel and location you cannot avoid. You Einstein minded people cannot avoid admitting you speak of a real object, and a real destination, and a real speed at which the object moved from said location to location....and you will concede it took time, because you have already admitted it was an object, it moved, from here to there, and did it this fast. You will be seen as the village idiot when you argue these facts in a scientific setting....so so lets get our cards out on the table, and see who has the best hand...I bet Nuimshaan wins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Please edit the damn zeros out so it fits on the screen
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Making sure I understand you correctly, are you saying that Einsteinian relativity is incorrect and that clocks moving relative to one another and/or experiencing different accelerations measure identical amounts of time? And that this means that the light from stars further away than it takes light to travel in 6000 years still arrives here in less than 6000 years?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Because all stars alive right now are visible from some location in space, whether it's closer or farther away from them....does not age them in any respect. So....you think you see stars as they are right now? The speed of light, in your opinion, is instantaneous?
But in no sense of physica wil moving faster toward a destination inhibit the progression of time, and cause physics to occur slower in order for the trip to take longer than what actually occurred from the movement of said object from one location to another with a given speed. Boy, you might want to have a word with Stephen Hawking. Hell, sounds like you could tell quite a few astrophysicists a thing or two. I'd like to see your white paper on the subject since you know so much. I am fully ready to have my cosmological ass handed to me in the event you actually DO know what the fuck you are talking about because I am but a rookie ass cosmologist. "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Those GPS engineers would disagree with you on Einsteinian Relativity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024