Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
32 online now:
Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,949 Year: 18,985/19,786 Month: 1,405/1,705 Week: 211/446 Day: 9/98 Hour: 3/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2152 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 168 of 687 (521348)
08-27-2009 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by ICANT
08-26-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
ICANT writes:

You believe the universe has lasted for all of time.
Time is a property of the universe.
Time has lasted just as long as the universe.
Sounds kinda circular to me.

Well, to be fair, if space-time is a quality of the universe, then before the universe existed (if before can be used in this sense) then there was no before for it to exist in, and nowhere in this non-before non-time non-space for it to exist at.

It's getting more complicated by the second, so you'll have to get your mind around contemplating the fact that without the universe to supply space-time, there could be neither space, nor time.

as to whether the universe had a beginning, will have an end or what, that's a really, really difficult question and far greater minds than mine (and, dare I say, yours) are trying to work such questions out.

If you want to point and say "godidit", that doesn't answer the question. One of these days, the scientists may give you the right, complete and full answer. We've already got facts to go on (background radiation, distances between stars and galaxies, many pieces) and they all come together in the theories that are bandied about.

The best working theory (and this is a scientific theory, not the laymans theory, do NOT get them mixed up on purpose) tells us the universe is 13 billion years old (or so) and started as an infinitesimally small speck which exploded into everything (and yes, I am very willing to admit my laymans explanation is inadequate and possibly wrong in important places).

The thing is, the facts point to this.

Where are your facts? Don't point to a book, I've got several that say the universe was an egg, that it's all in the mind of the buddha, that it was the ejaculate of some great god and his, er, hand (yes, very graphic). it's as airy-fairy as your bible and don't have any facts either. If it's metaphorical, fine, but then you don't think it's metaphorical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 5:42 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by ICANT, posted 08-27-2009 2:05 PM greyseal has responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2152 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 188 of 687 (521511)
08-27-2009 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by ICANT
08-27-2009 2:05 PM


Re: Re:really really
Hello ICANT, thanks for the welcome.

I'll skip the preamble and get down to the nitty gritty.

The fact is the BBT theory is man's attempt to explain how God created the heaven and the earth as declared in Genesis 1:1.

No, the story of Genesis 1:1 is man's attempt to explain how the universe was created.

The BBT explains the facts like the cosmic background, red-shifted and blue-shifted stars and galaxies and much more besides.

It is not trying to explain how the universe began to exist.

Weeellll...I'm not a cosmologist, so I'll have to pass on that one. I think it explains what happened right after it began to exist (once the whole time/space shenanigans got started) - as has been said, the "before" when speaking of time? I can't answer that. A competent cosmologist can do better.

Fact 1 the universe exists.

speculation on the nature of reality aside, that's a given

Fact 2 expansion of the universe proves the universe is not infinite in all directions. If it was infinite into the past everything would have expended all energy and the universe would be dark, cold, and dead. It does declare it to be infinite going forward.

woah there Nellie. expansion of the universe proves the universe is expanding. Nothing more. The age of the universe can be estimated based on a number of factors, but it's not quite that easy.

Fact 3 If the universe is not infinite in all directions it had to begin to exist.

now here I'm not competent enough to say, and despite your protestations, neither are you. It's a question which is far more complicated than you think it is (your inability to properly comprehend what is meant by the expansion of at least a three-dimensional space-time matrix along a fourth "axis" of time shows us that - and no, it's rather complicated and I don't get it all either, but I can see where your understanding is not so far along - the assumption that the universe is describable perfectly by a three-dimensional object within said universe is wrong - it's a three-dimensional (at least) object within a four-dimensinal (at least) topology oft called hyperspace...I think...)

that and besides, if the universe were or were not infinite right now, I don't think that proves it does or does not have a beginning.

Fact 4 The book you don't like says God created the heaven and the earth.

I never said I didn't like it, and yes it does. I don't agree with the notion...

Fact 4a Science has no evidence and says nothing of how the universe began to exist. Why do you think everyone wants to say it "just is"? This would come under metaphysics. Which is the only thing Science can put forth as to how the universe began to exist, which carries no more weight than me saying God created the heaven and the earth.

Well now, we're back to "god of the gaps". This "fact" is lame at best - we have lots of evidence which has all been summed up (at least a large portion of it) in the BBT. It's not just an idea, it's got evidence behind it (get what a "theory" is right, kthxplz).

Fact 5 That same book predicted that the universe was expanding over 2700 years ago.

Forgive me, but I don't think it does, or has never been shown to.

Fact 6 The CMBR confirms that prediction.

er, you could be right about the CBR and expansion of the universe. I'm not a cosmologist, but again - it's not confirming anything in the bible.

Fact 7 Since it was stretched out the observations that the universe is lumpy confirms that stretching.

...er...and? Quite apart from me not understanding at all how you got to that fact, it doesn't prove anything, and you haven't proved it.

anyway, if you want to know why science proves the account of Genesis wrong, you'll have to accept that it posits an earth at the centre of the universe which is only 6000 years old. Otherwise you're stuck in an awkward position between literalists, YEC's, OEC's and science which I'm having trouble understanding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by ICANT, posted 08-27-2009 2:05 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by ICANT, posted 08-27-2009 7:56 PM greyseal has responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2152 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 200 of 687 (521601)
08-28-2009 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by ICANT
08-27-2009 7:56 PM


Re: Re:really really
ICANT writes:

greyseal writes:

No, the story of Genesis 1:1 is man's attempt to explain how the universe was created.

So why was it around so long without anybody using it to explain how the universe was created. It was around for well over 3000 years before anyone attempted to use it to prove how the universe was created.


wait, what? ...the creation myth was written to explain how the world came to be (not actually the universe as such). Nobody used it to "prove" how the world was created because, well, either they believed the myth or they believed another myth...until about 100 years ago when this idea of biblical literalism surfaced and suddenly there were a bunch of people determined that the bible be affirmed as a literal account.

As for alternative theories explaining this 3k radiation - when I searched for the term, I found a creationist website as the first link and a pseudo-scientist who didn't like the big bang. That doesn't bode well for it's scientific value as a theory.

Are you saying the universe can expand forever and not run out of energy and die a cold death?

for the expanding universe, proof it expands is just that...proof it expands. Some people say that it therefore had a beginning that was billions of years ago (and present evidence for that - it's certainly got more going for it than an arbitrary value of 6000).

Whether space/time folds back in a "big crunch" or expands forever and ends in heat-death, I think the jury is still out. Expanding forever and not running out of energy appears to be a big "no", but that still doesn't have anything to do with the bible.

How the universe began is an awesome question, and I don't think I can accurately explain how it came to be from a non-time non-space non-place.

From what I can tell, vaccuum fluctuations exist (things that were not, suddenly are, and then suddenly are not again - this leads to phenomena such as negative energy). One such vaccuum fluctuation happened about 13 billion years ago (from our viewpoint) and exploded, resulting in...us. I guess it could happen again.

There's a lot more to it than saying "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", and that's the difference between your story, and a working theory.

If you want to say that the bible genesis story is an analogy from some lost wise golden age, go ahead, I'd find that more believable, otherwise you're positing a 6000 year old flat earth covered with a domed heaven holding gates which keep floodwaters up there somewhere (we've been in space and not seen the doors or the floodwaters, or do you doubt that too?).

Saying that "god stretched out the heavens" is an analogy at best, unless you tell me the earth is flat and has four corners and pillars and god literally stretched out the heavens like a domed tent...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by ICANT, posted 08-27-2009 7:56 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2152 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 211 of 687 (521704)
08-28-2009 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by ICANT
08-28-2009 12:57 PM


Re: Information please
ICANT, I seriously suggest you leave the attempts at deepness to one side because not a single thing you said there attempting to sound smart sounded anything of the sort.

A dimension is not a physical thing, it is a property of a physical thing. time itself measures nothing, it is something we can measure things WITH. I think you know this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 12:57 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 4:50 PM greyseal has responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2152 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 218 of 687 (521716)
08-28-2009 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by ICANT
08-28-2009 4:50 PM


Re: Information please
ICANT writes:

Hi greyseal,


hello again, hi.

greyseal writes:

A dimension is not a physical thing, it is a property of a physical thing. time itself measures nothing, it is something we can measure things WITH. I think you know this.


Read this again. until you understand it.

So are you agreeing that time is a concept of the mind of humans?

You stated it is not physical. If it is not the concept of the mind of man what is time?


No, I am not agreeing it's a concept of the mind, I am saying it is a property of reality, specifically this reality that we both apparently live in. Time passes, space is. Whether I believe in it or not, it is. Whether I live or not, they are. If there were no minds to observe, reason and contemplate, they would still be.

Got that? Good.

I don't mean to be rude, just blunt. You appear to be trying to pull some sort of philosophical stunt and it's not working, sorry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 4:50 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 6:10 PM greyseal has responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2152 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 235 of 687 (521776)
08-29-2009 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by ICANT
08-28-2009 6:10 PM


Re: Information please
ICANT writes:

I prefer time exists.
The universe exists.
Space exists.
The earth exists. Whether there is life on it or not.

All of that equals eternal existence.

so because time exists, it is eternal.

That isn't logical, and you're not being consistent - first you were adamant it was a property of the mind, now you've changed tack and are asserting things that don't make sense.

Sorry, my point still stands, and unless you've got something constructive or useful to say it's pointless me to continue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by ICANT, posted 08-28-2009 6:10 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2152 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 261 of 687 (522007)
08-31-2009 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by ICANT
08-31-2009 10:36 AM


Re: The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question?
icant writes:

You will find the predictions of the group using BBT did not do a good job of predicting the temperature that would be found.

From what I can gather, the BBT predicted 3.5K +- 1K

Indeed, they saw approximately that. I fail to see the issue here?

Saying that the big bang theory falls or flies based purely on the temperature estimate (which they got correct in any account) is not how it's done - you take into account many other facts which the established theory needs to take account of.

Failing ALL facts being accounted for, the one which accounts for most of them in a consistent way is generally considered "the winner" until something better comes along.

Crowing that the big bang theory didn't get an arbitrary measurement "as correct" as some other measurement when the observed measurement was within said theory's margin of error isn't that impressive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 10:36 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 12:07 PM greyseal has responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2152 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 273 of 687 (522049)
08-31-2009 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by ICANT
08-31-2009 12:07 PM


Re: The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question?
ICANT writes:

Straggler was putting forth that I out of my ignorance was putting forth that the Cmbr was wrong.


You are apparently somehow of the opinion that because you've found a paper that apparently has a better answer for that one single fact, that it negates the whole of the big bang theory.

That's pretty ignorant.

There are three theories of what produced the CMBR discussed in that paper with one being superior to the other two. The superior one was not the one based on the BBT.

(and that's where I'm basing my opinion from - rope, given enough, hanging self.)

All I am pointing out is that scientist have questioned the source of the CMBR.

Which is pretty pointless - we know. It's called "peer review".

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 12:07 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by ICANT, posted 09-01-2009 12:05 AM greyseal has responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2152 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 283 of 687 (522078)
09-01-2009 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by ICANT
09-01-2009 12:05 AM


Re: The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question?
ICANT writes:

So no there are a lot of other reasons I choose not to accept the BBT as fact.

You can find a few of them Here Nobody will talk about them except to say they have all been solved.


You are apparently of the opinion that because you've found a website that points out not flaws, but observations and facts that aren't (or at least weren't) answered by the big bang theory, that it negates the whole of the big bang theory.

That's pretty ignorant.

Besides the BBT requires the universe to begin to exist.

I'm sorry, but I don't get why that's a problem, and I'm pretty certain some people who know a lot more than me have explained to you multiple times the objections you had making that statement.

Hawking claimed to have proved that God was not necessary when the Hartly Hawking no boundary universe hypothesis was presented.

I really have no idea what you're talking about here, so I'll have to go look it up.

I do know the pope sent Hawking a letter saying basically "don't try to use your math and science to peer further than the big bang, because that's god's territory".

I also know that Hawking is an atheist, but that's besides the point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by ICANT, posted 09-01-2009 12:05 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2152 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 321 of 687 (522590)
09-04-2009 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by ICANT
09-03-2009 5:48 PM


Re: Information please
ICANT writes:

Catholic Scientist writes:

Sorry ICANT, but I don't want to play your game.

Just as I thought none exists.

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

If time were not a property of the universe, we couldn't measure it.
If time were not a property of the universe, there would be no "yesterday", no "now" and no "tomorrow", everything would happen at once, or not at all. The very fact you can get up in the morning and remember what you did last night is a proof that time is a property of the universe.

get off your high-horse and see sense, you're being very childish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by ICANT, posted 09-03-2009 5:48 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 8:32 AM greyseal has responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2152 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 357 of 687 (522801)
09-05-2009 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by ICANT
09-04-2009 8:32 AM


Re: Time
icant writes:

The Physics definition says time is a quantity of measuring duration.

Duration is what happens.

Time is the tool used to determine the length of that duration.

Now as I said to CS.

If you got some scientific evidence present it.

ok, sure, whatever dude. you're off in your own delusional world and I won't wrap my brain around the stupid.

If you can't see that time is a physical property of the universe (as evidenced by the fact that atomic clocks run at different speeds according to the gravitational gradient, along with the fact we can actually measure it) then just rant on.

duration is time. It's that simple. You can't even accurately describe the static, timeless universe you're talking about without using words to do with chronology.

so, whatever - crow how smart you are about "proving" time is a figment of the imagination. maybe tomorrow you'll realize you're wrong about what you said yesterday.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 8:32 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2152 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 381 of 687 (523137)
09-08-2009 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by mike the wiz
09-08-2009 3:32 PM


mike the wiz writes:

I don't argue life didn't come from none-life. I believe in Genesis afterall, NOT abiogenesis.


I would say that "god creates man" IS abiogenesis - of course, that's a philosophical viewpoint that says "one moment man was a lump of clay, the next he was alive" and not what is meant by the scientific term.

there is also a "naturalistic license" that "presumes" nature has the power to make processes responsible for things which aren't processes.

No, it doesn't presume anything of the sort - "natural philosophy" is simply the application of the maxim "do not unnecessarily increase the complexity of any argument".

Design isn't a process, it's an observed fact. therefore it is an error to find a problem where there isn't one.

I don't think anyone has yet found the warranty card for mankind, and nobody's DNA says "made by God Inc, PLC, (c)4004 BC".

We've certainly never seen the glowing hand of god himself come down from the skies, touch a lump of clay and have it pop up into a fully-formed animal - unless you were there 4004 BC.

"it was designed" is an argument from incredulity, nothing more.

This is why evolution has to be so elaborate, to make up for the fact that it requires you deny the facts and accept "nothing" instead of facts.

what a load of crock. Evolution is the way it is BECAUSE of the facts - the facts that Darwin spent a good many years collecting, collating and examining.

It was these facts that caused a shift over 200 years ago to OEC from the original YEC idea (NOT, I hasten to add, biblical literalism, that's a very new invention). It was a theist, a devout christian, who started our current method of classification of organisms.

At it's heart, it is a VERY simple theory - changes occur from one generation to the next, and these changes get passed down, and over time species emerge.

"Time" isn't nothing (ICANT's refusal or inability to understand the first thing about relativity and time dilation not withstanding) - we can measure not only time, but changes in it's rate of flow. we HAVE to for many modern-day miracles to work. GPS is simply the most obvious.

The rest is "god of the gaps".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 3:32 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2152 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 481 of 687 (523556)
09-11-2009 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 479 by ICANT
09-10-2009 11:03 PM


Re: Time changes
ICANT writes:

The clocks that are flying have been set to the ground clock.

All those clocks are in sync.

I said my clock had not been adjusted to run with the ground clock.

In fact it is the same as the ground clock.

Therefore the ground clock will see it running faster as will all the other satellite clocks.

My clock will see all those clocks runninc slower.

My clock has not been altered from ground conditions therefore the pulse rate has been changed by velocity and gravity.

Since the pulse rate of the atom has been altered it is not measuring duration properly as it is pulsing at less than a second.

So my clock and the ground clock can not both be correct.

One of them is wrong.

ICANT, for the love of all that's green and fluffy, try to get your head around this thought experiment:

four atomic clocks - the most accurate you can get - are flown in airplanes and later on compared to a clock which hasn't moved.

If relativity is right, and the amount of travel is enough to see time-dilation (remember, it's a tiny, tiny effect at non-relativistic speeds), those clocks will no longer be in sync.

Are you happy with this thought experiment? It's a testable hypothesis.

If you don't accept this posit of relativity, give up now, it IS exactly what einstein said would happen.

Now here's the kicker: this experiment has been performed.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/airtim.html

Can you guess what the outcome was? Can you?

Now, toddle off to a library or a computer or somewhere quiet enough for some study with the tools necessary to become enlightened.

Flying clocks around the world in planes is *exactly* the same as putting them in orbit.

Yes the clocks were synchronized when in the same reference frame.

The clocks in orbit WILL show a different time from a clock on the ground.

YES they are all correct.

NO they don't both agree.

Do you understand yet?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 11:03 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 10:06 AM greyseal has responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2152 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 508 of 687 (524147)
09-14-2009 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 493 by ICANT
09-14-2009 10:06 AM


Re: Time changes
JonF schooled you well enough on this, I think, but this paragraph was especially egregious:

All the GPS satellite clocks agree with the clock on the ground.

My clock is the only one that does not agree with all the others. It does not agree because it was not adjusted for a different tick rate which is necessary for them to agree, because my clock in the satellite is 11,000 miles from the earth. The gravity effect on the clock is a lot less therefore it ticks faster.

Your clock "not agreeing" would be because, if you could put your amazingly accurate clock into space, you wouldn't adjust it for the time dilation effect.

The GPS satellite clocks agree with the ones on the ground precisely BECAUSE they are adjusted to compensate for the time dilation which has been experimentally proved to occur, and is a continuous thing they have to deal with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 10:06 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 3:57 PM greyseal has responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2152 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 510 of 687 (524152)
09-14-2009 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 509 by ICANT
09-14-2009 3:57 PM


Re: Time changes
Are you saying gravity does not have anything to do with the clock in the satellite running faster?

er, nooooo...I'm saying that the ones in space have to be adjusted for time dilation, for really realz.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 3:57 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by ICANT, posted 09-16-2009 10:24 AM greyseal has responded
 Message 640 by Guiri, posted 09-29-2009 5:37 AM greyseal has not yet responded
 Message 642 by Guiri, posted 09-29-2009 5:42 AM greyseal has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019