Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-30-2017 5:01 AM
351 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 350 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,786 Year: 10,392/21,208 Month: 3,479/2,674 Week: 22/873 Day: 22/76 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3940
41
4243
...
46Next
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 601 of 687 (525339)
09-23-2009 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 592 by ICANT
09-22-2009 6:00 PM


Re: Light
Well if relativity as it has been explained to me in this thread is correct the light is traveling 300,000 m/s from the ship. When you add that the ship is traveling towards the earth at 150,000 m/s you have light traveling at 450,000 m/s

Since the maximum speed of light is 300,000 m/s something is wrong with the theory.

Would you care to explain what that problem is to me?

OK, so according to relativity it is leaving at 300,000 km/s, and you are right - this results in something that appears paradoxical. There is a solution to this paradox which I will come to.

Are you talking about something that is observed with the natural eye?

We've performed the experiment. While travelling at 30km/s towards and away from a source of light, the speed of light was still measured to be 300,000km/s.

This being the case, do you agree that this would result in some unusual scenarios as described in Message 483? If so, do you have an answers as to whose observations are the correct ones? Does your cosmological model have a solution to the issues at hand?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 6:00 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 604 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2009 9:47 AM Modulous has responded

    
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 2602 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 602 of 687 (525349)
09-23-2009 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 591 by ICANT
09-22-2009 5:38 PM


Re: space and time
The duration of the event is what we call Time.

Stop arguing semantics. You argue that Time is a concept of man invented by man. Computers are a concept of man invented by man. Before man invented computers, they did not exist on Earth. That's your argument - A concept of man cannot exist prior to the invention of said concept. Therefore, according to your logic, since Time is an invention of man's, that means Time did not exist before man. Since light is a concept of man, light did not exist before man conceptualize light. Since gravity is a concept of man, gravity did not exist before man conceptualize gravity.

The point is just because something has been conceptualized by man doesn't mean it didn't exist prior to the conceptualization. If you argue that a concept doesn't exist prior to being conceptualized, then tell me if gravity existed prior to Newton conceptualizing it.

ICANT writes:

With the first created life form, the first man that walked and talked with Him.


I didn't know you were that old. Of course, you were there to witness this event. And don't tell me it was in a book that you read. Because another book I've read tells me there's a school of magic located in England that you can only get to by running into a column at the train station. Of course, And don't tell me the book is old and that's why we should give it credence, because the Epic of Gilgamesh is pretty old too and they talk of ancient gods as well. Age does not equal truth.

The way you argue reminds me of this non sequitur strip. You are the caveman standing in the rain saying it isn't raining, and when someone else asks why are you wet, you ask them to define wet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 591 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 5:38 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 605 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2009 10:08 AM Izanagi has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 603 of 687 (525392)
09-23-2009 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 599 by Rrhain
09-23-2009 12:09 AM


Re
Hi Rrhain,

Rrhain writes:

You mean bicycle riders actuall fall down when they lean into a turn since there is no acceleration in uniform circular motion?

You can't park that bicycle so how can you accelerate it?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by Rrhain, posted 09-23-2009 12:09 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 619 by Rrhain, posted 09-24-2009 11:27 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 604 of 687 (525406)
09-23-2009 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 601 by Modulous
09-23-2009 1:39 AM


Re: Light
Hi Mod,

Modulous writes:

We've performed the experiment. While travelling at 30km/s towards and away from a source of light, the speed of light was still measured to be 300,000km/s.

Do we have a craft that man can get in and travel towards a beam of light or with a beam of light at 67,108 mph?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 601 by Modulous, posted 09-23-2009 1:39 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 606 by Modulous, posted 09-23-2009 10:38 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 605 of 687 (525411)
09-23-2009 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 602 by Izanagi
09-23-2009 4:09 AM


Re: space and time
Hi Izanagi,

Izanagi writes:

Since light is a concept of man, light did not exist before man conceptualize light.

Light is made of particles and waves. Source Therefore light can not be a concept of man.

What is time made of?

Izanagi writes:

Since gravity is a concept of man, gravity did not exist before man conceptualize gravity.

Gravity is another kettle of fish. Some say it is made of particles called gravitons, some say it is a force, but no one really knows.

But every since man has been around if he had something in his hand and dropped it, if the object was heavier than air it would hit whatever was solid beneath it. Be it the ground or your foot.

So no gravity is not a concept of man but a force that man does not yet understand.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 602 by Izanagi, posted 09-23-2009 4:09 AM Izanagi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 607 by onifre, posted 09-23-2009 1:05 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 621 by Izanagi, posted 09-25-2009 12:00 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 623 by greyseal, posted 09-25-2009 7:24 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 606 of 687 (525416)
09-23-2009 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 604 by ICANT
09-23-2009 9:47 AM


Re: Light
Do we have a craft that man can get in and travel towards a beam of light or with a beam of light at 67,108 mph?

No, but we do have a hunk of rock that does travel at that kind of speed. We call it earth and it is large enough for billions of men to get on and travel towards any number of beams of light.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 604 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2009 9:47 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 609 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2009 10:25 PM Modulous has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 607 of 687 (525460)
09-23-2009 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 605 by ICANT
09-23-2009 10:08 AM


Re: space and time
Hi ICANT,

Light is made of particles and waves.

Here again you've misunderstood what is being explained in the article, and simply quoted the heading of the article; a heading that was given to the article by the writer, not the physicist.

If you read the full article you would have read the actual quote from the physicist:

quote:
"The important new contribution is that light carries both wave and particle aspects at all times, and future experiments will further clarify the nature of each component." Afshar said.

What is time made of?

Time is experienced by all biological organisms, particles, molecules, etc.; eventually, in a finite amount of time, each individual organism/particle/sub-atomic particle decays. When you increase the speed of the time experienced you can reduce that decaying process.

That is why a photon travelling at (c) doesn't experience time and doesn't decay. If it where possible (which it is not) for humans to travel at (c), then we too would not experience time or decay.

Time is not "made of anything," it is an aspect of reality, it is a dimension in our universe, that is experienced not "seen."

Some say it is made of particles called gravitons, some say it is a force, but no one really knows.

You don't really know, don't say "no one."

Gravity was considered a force 100 years ago when Newtonian physics was the only theory that explained gravity. But Einstein changed our understanding of gravity and explained it not as a force, but as an effect of mass on spacetime.

Mass curves space; gravity is that curvature. The Earth is not being "pulled" toward the Sun by some unknown gravitational force; the Earth is following the curvature of space caused by the Sun's mass, and travels in an orbit because it too (the Earth) curves the space around itself.

Gravity is not a force, it is curved spacetime.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 605 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2009 10:08 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 613 by ICANT, posted 09-24-2009 6:41 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 608 of 687 (525508)
09-23-2009 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 598 by ICANT
09-22-2009 9:03 PM


Re: Going back
Hi ICANT,

Just want to be specific in pointing out your inconsistencies, so that you don't say "Well I didn't say that..." or "That's not what it actually says..."

You said:

quote:
If you want to get specific it does not say what the creature in Genesis 2:7 looked like. It simply calls it mankind.

But YOU argued this in Re: Evidence God produced Life (Message 476) to Moose:

quote:
Man was formed from the dust of the ground but God breathed the breath of life into him.

Life was breathed by life into man.


You see, you yourself are arguing that God created man from dust and breathed life into man.

Why are you back peddling now and telling me that it's not specific?

Need more proof of YOUR position?

In Genesis Literal Facts (Message 444) you said to Rrhain:

quote:
In the same light period God created man first.
In the same light period God created plants second.
In the same light period God created all animals, creaping things and flying things. third.

Again YOU make the point that God created man first, then other creatures third.

Why are you back peddling now?

In Re: Time changes (Message 479) you wrote:

quote:
If I understand what I read relativity says time stops when you reach the speed of light. If you can exceed the speed of light time will then run backwards and you will be traveling in time.

This is what I was refering to when I said you were misunderstanding things.

"Time" isn't a thing that stops and goes, it is experienced and at the speed of light (c), whatever is travelling at that speed, doesn't experience the duration of time. Period.

In Re: Him (Message 434) your argument gets very weak, you say:

quote:
If biological man evolved from non life he has no spirit and when he dies he dies end of story.

But no one has ever stated that biological man evolved from non-life; science clearly states that man evolved from a common ancestor (who was ALIVE) of the apes.

You are spinning in circles trying to find any argument that fits your position, but you are failing badly.

I'll end there, but as you can see, I only went back a few pages of posts. The question remains, will you deal with your inconsistencies and debate honestly?

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 598 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 9:03 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 612 by ICANT, posted 09-24-2009 6:25 PM onifre has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 609 of 687 (525597)
09-23-2009 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 606 by Modulous
09-23-2009 10:38 AM


Re: Light
Hi Mod,

Modulous writes:

No, but we do have a hunk of rock that does travel at that kind of speed. We call it earth and it is large enough for billions of men to get on and travel towards any number of beams of light.

So we fire a beam of light from this rock we are on, do we have a speedometer hooked to it to tell us how fast it is going?

In other words how do we measure the speed of the light leaving us?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 606 by Modulous, posted 09-23-2009 10:38 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 610 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2009 8:20 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 620 by Rrhain, posted 09-24-2009 11:32 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 610 of 687 (525676)
09-24-2009 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 609 by ICANT
09-23-2009 10:25 PM


Re: Light
So we fire a beam of light from this rock we are on, do we have a speedometer hooked to it to tell us how fast it is going?

In other words how do we measure the speed of the light leaving us?

Or, we travel towards some kind of source of light and measure the speed of light as it comes towards us.

Is there any particular methods of measuring the speed of light you don't like? Any methods that haven't been tried that you do like?

I know what your conclusion would be if you didn't accept any measurements. What I would like to know is would it change your view of the cosmos at all if you accepted them?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 609 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2009 10:25 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 611 by ICANT, posted 09-24-2009 1:00 PM Modulous has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 611 of 687 (525744)
09-24-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 610 by Modulous
09-24-2009 8:20 AM


Re: Light
Hi Mod,

Modulous writes:

Or, we travel towards some kind of source of light and measure the speed of light as it comes towards us.

Well that is not what you was talking about. You said:

Modulous writes:

I'm a spaceship. Ground control sends me a message which says that by the time that we receive this message we will be 1 light year from earth. We send a reply which says "Hello World!". At this point we are travelling at 50% of the speed of light. So about 150,000 kms (relative to earth).

Message 483

In the same message you go on to say:

Modulous writes:

Now - we watch that signal moving away from us and we measure its speed: 300,000 kms (relative to us). Therefore, by addition the light must be travelling at 450,000 kms. This means that the signal will get to earth in less than a year.

I agreed that as GR has been presented this would be the case. I also stated something was wrong with the theory.

In Message 581 you point out:

Modulous writes:

It seems your opinion is that they would actually measure the light travelling away from them at 150,000km/s which is fine, but it disagrees with observation so you need to explain how this occurs.

Actually I been trying to find out from you how they determine what speed the light is traveling away from them.

In Message 601 You said:

Modulous writes:

OK, so according to relativity it is leaving at 300,000 km/s, and you are right - this results in something that appears paradoxical. There is a solution to this paradox which I will come to.

I am still waiting.

In the same message you said:

Modulous writes:

We've performed the experiment. While travelling at 30km/s towards and away from a source of light, the speed of light was still measured to be 300,000km/s.

Neither of these is with the speed of light.

Here Message 604 I asked: "Do we have a craft that man can get in and travel towards a beam of light or with a beam of light at 67,108 mph?"

Here Message 606 you responded with:

Modulous writes:

No, but we do have a hunk of rock that does travel at that kind of speed. We call it earth and it is large enough for billions of men to get on and travel towards any number of beams of light.

Still no answer so I ask here Message 609

"So we fire a beam of light from this rock we are on, do we have a speedometer hooked to it to tell us how fast it is going?

In other words how do we measure the speed of the light leaving us?"

Your answer in this message.

Modulous writes:

Or, we travel towards some kind of source of light and measure the speed of light as it comes towards us.

Is there any particular methods of measuring the speed of light you don't like? Any methods that haven't been tried that you do like?

I don't remember saying I disagreed with the methods of measuring the speed of light.

I do remember asking you how we would determine the speed of light that was leaving us. I also asked how we would determine the speed of the signal leaving us with the message.

So far you have done everything in your power to keep from answering the question.

You are the one saying the signal/light is leaving us at 300,000 km/s which reality proves to be false.

I am saying the signal/light is leaving us at 300,000 km/s relative to the universe. Which reality proves to be true.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 610 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2009 8:20 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 616 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2009 8:53 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 612 of 687 (525808)
09-24-2009 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 608 by onifre
09-23-2009 3:47 PM


Re: Going back
Hi oni,

onifre writes:

Why are you back peddling now?

I am not back peddling. I actually believe God created a full grown man and he looked similar to man today.

What I said was the Bible does not say what he looked like. The Hebrew word translated man and mankind does not tell me what that man looked like. I can assume he looked like man today, which I do.

onifre writes:

Time" isn't a thing that stops and goes, it is experienced and at the speed of light (c), whatever is travelling at that speed, doesn't experience the duration of time. Period.

What is the difference between time being stopped at the speed of light and not experiencing time at the speed of light?

onifre writes:

But no one has ever stated that biological man evolved from non-life; science clearly states that man evolved from a common ancestor (who was ALIVE) of the apes.

Apes who evolved from x who evolved from y who evolved from z who evolved from non life.

Therefore man evolved from non life makes no difference how you spin it.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 608 by onifre, posted 09-23-2009 3:47 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 614 by onifre, posted 09-24-2009 6:57 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 613 of 687 (525810)
09-24-2009 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 607 by onifre
09-23-2009 1:05 PM


Re: space and time
Hi oni,

onifre writes:

If you read the full article you would have read the actual quote from the physicist:

Are you saying protons are not particles?

I can't find where it is debated as to them being particles at times and waves at times.

The article I pointed out simply says they exist as both at the same time.

onifre writes:

Time is not "made of anything,"

That is correct.

It is a concept of man invented to measure duration/existence.

onifre writes:

" it is an aspect of reality, it is a dimension in our universe, that is experienced not "seen."

And your assertion makes it so.

onifre writes:

Gravity is not a force, it is curved spacetime.

According to Hawking Gravity curves spacetime and that is what caused the singularity at T-0.

How can gravity curve spacetime if it is spacetime?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 607 by onifre, posted 09-23-2009 1:05 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 615 by onifre, posted 09-24-2009 7:35 PM ICANT has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 614 of 687 (525811)
09-24-2009 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 612 by ICANT
09-24-2009 6:25 PM


Re: Going back
Hi ICANT,

What I said was the Bible does not say what he looked like. The Hebrew word translated man and mankind does not tell me what that man looked like. I can assume he looked like man today, which I do.

You sound like my kids "I mean, I finished my homework, but I didn't finish finish it."

Look, God created man and breathed life into him. This is not a fact and is countered with scientific evidence. Man was not the first organism, this too is supported with scientific evidence.

Gen. 2.7 is disproven scientifically. That is the ONLY THING your thread is about.

What is the difference between time being stopped at the speed of light and not experiencing time at the speed of light?

To deep of a discussion and is off-topic to your thread.

Apes who evolved from x who evolved from y who evolved from z who evolved from non life.

Therefore man evolved from non life makes no difference how you spin it.

It doesn't matter past apes. Gen 2.7 is the only thing in question here (and Gen. 1, which I guess you've conceded on). If you want to discuss the evidence to support evolution of man, pick a thread that deals with it and post there.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 612 by ICANT, posted 09-24-2009 6:25 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 615 of 687 (525814)
09-24-2009 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 613 by ICANT
09-24-2009 6:41 PM


Re: space and time
Hi ICANT,

That is correct.

It is a concept of man invented to measure duration/existence.

Yes, the way we tell/measure time (and please lets not get hung-up on semantics) was invented by man to measure the duration of existance ( the duration of experienced time). But also, to measure how long a proposed distance will take to travel (How long does it take to get from Miami to NYC?). We need to know how to measure duration to be able to give an accurate answer. Today it's no big deal, but a thousand years ago you could die on a trip if you calculated wrong and didn't bring enough food.

So time is an actual function in reality. We take time into consideration even before we had clocks or even language.

Now we are in an age that deals with the cosmos, though. The distance travelled in this realm is of an enormous proportion - other methods of measuring, with much more complicated mathematics, needed to be introduced. Relativity is just such a unit to measure with. It takes "time" or "duration of an event" and understands it at a great distance. However, when physicist began to do this, they noticed certain anomalies about the nature of (that which we refer to as time) when different components were factored in - like (extremely fast) speed or great density.

So when we speak of time and (c), and things like that, it's not something understood logically. It involves learning the math, the theories and equations to comprehend the complexity of what is being described.

However, the most important thing about the point I'm making is this: That you don't get to change these facts as understood and recognized by science. And that's the point in regards to your thread and the question you asked in your OP.

Here's what you asked: Message 1

quote:
I have been told science has proved this story wrong.

Now if I am mistaken about the Scientific evidence please present it.


You have been presented the scientific evidence. That is all you asked for. The statement stands, According to science and their evidence, Gen 1 and Gen 2.7 are proven wrong.

Now, feel free to personally reject the evidence, that doesn't matter or change anything. Reject it all you want, debate in any forum you wish, but understand that as far as this thread is concerned and your OP, you have been given what you asked for. You have been show the evidence for why Gen. 1 and Gen. 2.7 are disproven by science. Whether you agree with it or not, it doesn't matter.

And frankly, you don't qualify to give an educated accessment of the scientific evidence. A simple "thank you" is enough.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 613 by ICANT, posted 09-24-2009 6:41 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 617 by ICANT, posted 09-24-2009 9:40 PM onifre has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
3940
41
4243
...
46Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017