The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

HandsomeDan

JC, serious question, do you also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny?

J C

Delirium wrote: »

In forensics 'spontaneous' denotes that something happened in an unexpected manner, e.g. 'spontaneous combustion '.

I'm presuming you aren't saying that don't know how snowflakes come to be.

Hi Delirium.
Spontaneous combustion is a deterministic process actually.
... and snowflakes are spontaneously i.e. automatically formed when water droplets freeze.

It isn't a surprise that is indicated by the term 'spontaneous' ... it is the fact that it occurs automatically using deterministic physical processes, all on it's own.
An example of non-spontaneous combustion would be arson ... where an input of intelligence (all be it criminal) is required.

J C

HandsomeDan wrote: »

JC, serious question, do you also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny?

No ... but the real question is do you believe in them?
... given that you think that this is a serious question!!!:eek::D

Safehands

J C wrote: »

... all use debatable premesis and are often circular in reasoning e.g. rocks are dated by the supposed age of the fossils found in them and fossils are dated by the supposed age of the rocks they are found in.

Only debatable by people who try to justify the creationist story. The methods used gives us a 100% assurance that the Earth is much, much older than 10,000 years. But I know you can't get your head around that as it proves that the bible is not accurate

Its not debatable that stars are millions of light years away, thereby proving that the universe is millions of years old. Of course I expect you to debate it.

J C

Safehands wrote: »

Only debatable by people who try to justify the creationist story.

Circular reasoning is debatable, whatever you point of view. I could also just as easily say, that the 'millions of years' are believed in by many people because deep time is required to justify any plausible spontaneous, i.e non-divine, process of life development.

Safehands wrote: »

The methods used gives us a 100% assurance that the Earth is much, much older than 10,000 years. But I know you can't get your head around that as it proves that the bible is not accurate.

There is no such thing as 100% assurance in science ... but the evidence used to support great ages for the Earth is very 'shaky' indeed.

Safehands wrote: »

Its not debatable that stars are millions of light years away, thereby proving that the universe is millions of years old. Of course I expect you to debate it.

You're confusing distance with time here.
Just because they are millions of light years away, doesn't mean that they are millions of years old. If God created them as an example to Mankind of His magnificence, less than 10,000 years ago, then they wouldn't be much of an example, if He also didn't simultaneously create the light beams from them to here, so that we could see them !!!:cool:

mickoneill31

J C wrote: »

You're confusing distance with time here.
Just because they are millions of light years away, doesn't mean that they are millions of years old.

It does if you're using logic, or at least they existed millions of years ago for their light to start travelling to us. They may not exist anymore obviously but their light started out millions of years ago.

J C wrote: »

if He also didn't simultaneously create the light beams from them to here, so that we could see them !!!:cool:

This is why I don't argue with religious people. You can't win by using logic and sense. Anything you say can be countered with arguments like the one above.

J C wrote: »

There is no such thing as 100% assurance in science ... but the evidence used to support great ages for the Earth is very 'shaky' indeed.

That sentence started so well but then spiralled into an abyss.

indioblack

J C wrote: »

Just because they are millions of light years away, doesn't mean that they are millions of years old. If God created them as an example to Mankind of His magnificence, less than 10,000 years ago, then they wouldn't be much of an example, if He also didn't simultaneously create the light beams from them to here, so that we could see them !!!:cool:

Couldn't he just place the stars a bit closer - would still be magnificent - and avoid confusion.

uck51js9zml2yt

mickoneill31 wrote: »

It does if you're using logic, or at least they existed millions of years ago for their light to start travelling to us. They may not exist anymore obviously but their light started out millions of years ago.




This is why I don't argue with religious people. You can't win by using logic and sense. Anything you say can be countered with arguments like the one above.



That sentence started so well but then spiralled into an abyss.

The speed of light isn't a constant so using it to measure the age of a distance body won't work

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30944584

mickoneill31

Astrid Quick Case wrote: »

The speed of light isn't a constant so using it to measure the age of a distance body won't work

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30944584

Good point, but not relevant.

We're arguing about the age of the universe. Hubble can see billions of light years away. We're arguing about the age being over 1000s.

That article by the way discusses how they slowed the speed of light. For religious arguments to work you'd have to speed it up by several thousand times for light from a star millions of light years away from us to get here in the 6000 years that some people believe. Maybe that's possible. I dunno.

J C

mickoneill31 wrote: »

It does if you're using logic, or at least they existed millions of years ago for their light to start travelling to us. They may not exist anymore obviously but their light started out millions of years ago.

Hi Mick
If God exists, (and there are other proofs that He does) and the Universe is young, then, using logic, it is a perfectly good explantion.
If God doesn't exist then the Universe has to be old, and millions of light years probably does indicate millions of years.

mickoneill31 wrote: »

This is why I don't argue with religious people. You can't win by using logic and sense. Anything you say can be countered with arguments like the one above.

I was also using logic and sense ... just using different axioms to you.

Originally Posted by J C wrote:

There is no such thing as 100% assurance in science ... but the evidence used to support great ages for the Earth is very 'shaky' indeed.

mickoneill
That sentence started so well but then spiralled into an abyss.

It started and finished perfectly well IMO. It only 'spiralled into the abyss' for somebody with a belief in millions of years (and as a result, no requirement for the existence of God).

J C

mickoneill31 wrote: »

Good point, but not relevant.

We're arguing about the age of the universe. Hubble can see billions of light years away. We're arguing about the age being over 1000s.

That article by the way discusses how they slowed the speed of light. For religious arguments to work you'd have to speed it up by several thousand times for light from a star millions of light years away from us to get here in the 6000 years that some people believe. Maybe that's possible. I dunno.

The Big Bang requires an initial inflation that didn't correspond to the current laws of physics, including the speed of light not being an upper limit.
What is 'leaking into' the mathematical equations that attempt to measure/explain the Big Bang and Inflation Theory is the actual Creation of the Universe by God in an instant of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

indioblack

J C wrote: »

Hi Mick
If God exists, (and there are other proofs that He does) and the Universe is young, then, using logic, it is a perfectly good explantion.
If God doesn't exist then the Universe is old, and millions of light years does indicate millions of years.


I was using logic and sense ... just using different axioms to you.

It started and finished perfectly well IMO. It only 'spiralled into the abyss' for somebody with a belief in millions of years (and as a result, no requirement for the existence of God).

Why would such longevity prevent the existence of God?

J C

indioblack wrote: »

Couldn't he just place the stars a bit closer - would still be magnificent - and avoid confusion.

He could, I suppose ... but then we wouldn't get the full picture of His infinite omnipotence.:cool:

J C

indioblack wrote: »

Why would such longevity prevent the existence of God?

It wouldn't prevent His existence ... but a young universe does the opposite ... it rules out a purely materialistic origin for life ... which is a requirement, if you are to plausibly believe that God doesn't exist.

Abiogenesis / Evolution (and the great ages required for it to have any plausibility) allows people to be intellectually fulfilled (and credible) atheists ... very important, if you are an Atheist.

J C

Astrid Quick Case wrote: »

The speed of light isn't a constant so using it to measure the age of a distance body won't work

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30944584

... this is very interesting research ... but it only shows the slowing down of light (which happens when light goes through glass, water, etc already). What was interesting about this research was that the light didn't return to c after emerging from the material, which is what normally occurs.
However, the speed of light being a upper limit is still respected by this finding.

Both Creation and Conventional Scientists agree that the conditions at the Big Bang / Creation of the Universe were outside the current laws of physics including the speed of light being an upper limit.

Interestingly the CERN institute reported that the speed of light was broken in 2011 at their facility by neutrinos ... and it was then denied that it happened.
The fact that they are trying to replicate some of the conditions at the Creation of Universe ... and that the speed of light may have been exceeded is no co-incidence IMO.
http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/the-data-that-threatened-to-break-physics

The speed of light being an upper limit is also broken by quantum entanglement:-

Quote:-
"If I have two electrons close together, they can vibrate in unison, according to the quantum theory," Kaku explains on Big Think. Now, separate those two electrons so that they're hundreds or even thousands of light years apart, and they will keep this instant communication bridge open.

"If I jiggle one electron, the other electron 'senses' this vibration instantly, faster than the speed of light. Einstein thought that this therefore disproved the quantum theory, since nothing can go faster than light," Kaku wrote.

In fact, in 1935, Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, attempted to disprove quantum theory with a thought experiment on what Einstein referred to as "spooky actions at a distance."

Ironically, their paper laid the foundation for what today is called the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) paradox, a paradox that describes this instantaneous communication of quantum entanglement — an integral part of some of the world's most cutting-edge technologies, like quantum cryptography."
http://uk.businessinsider.com/what-can-travel-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-2015-2?r=US&IR=T

Important claims about Quantum Entanglement were made by Irish physicist John Stewart Bell in a paper published over 50 years ago ... and here is the story :-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/opinion/sunday/is-quantum-entanglement-real.html?_r=0

Harika

J C wrote: »

Both Creation and Conventional Scientists agree that the conditions at the Big Bang / Creation of the Universe were outside the current laws of physics including the speed of light being an upper limit.

I guess you mean that the universe expanded quicker than the speed of light? Yes it did, but no it didn't violate the rules, as space itself expanded faster than c, and that doesn't violate any laws.
Also the Planck epoch that lasted until <10^-43 seconds, so shorter than anything you can imagine. During this time it is assumed that quantum effects were dominating, but this is still open for discussions.

J C wrote: »

Interestingly the CERN institiute reported that the speed of light was broken in 2011 at their facility by neutrinos ... and it was then denied that it happened.
The fact that they are trying to replicate some of the conditions at the Creation of Universe ... and that the speed of light may have been exceeded is no co-incidence IMO.
http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/the-data-that-threatened-to-break-physics

You can easily exceed the speed of light, with a laser or strong enough torchlight. Just point at the moon and swiftly move from one to the other end. You easily exceed C.
Also for the Neutrino Incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly It was a simple technical error, never denied it didn't happen but couldn't be reproduced so the equipment was checked and the error was found. Nothing spooky about this.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Hi Delirium.
Spontaneous combustion is a deterministic process actually.
... and snowflakes are spontaneously i.e. automatically formed when water droplets freeze.

It isn't a surprise that is indicated by the term 'spontaneous' ... it is the fact that it occurs automatically using deterministic physical processes, all on it's own.
An example of non-spontaneous combustion would be arson ... where an input of intelligence (all be it criminal) is required.

Can define what you mean by spontaneous as I'm scratching my head as to your meaning given how you're using the word.

J C

Harika wrote: »

I guess you mean that the universe expanded quicker than the speed of light? Yes it did, but no it didn't violate the rules, as space itself expanded faster than c, and that doesn't violate any laws.
Also the Planck epoch that lasted until <10^-43 seconds, so shorter than anything you can imagine. During this time it is assumed that quantum effects were dominating, but this is still open for discussions.

If anything, including space, expanded faster than c, then it would have violated the law that nothing can travel faster than c.

Harika wrote: »

You can easily exceed the speed of light, with a laser or strong enough torchlight. Just point at the moon and swiftly move from one to the other end. You easily exceed C.

You can't actually ... the speed of light coming from my cars headlights, whether the car is stationary or moving at 100 km/hr is c in both cases ... not c + 100 km/hr when my car is moving.
Violating the speed of light requires very very special conditions, if it happens at all.

Harika wrote: »

Also for the Neutrino Incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly It was a simple technical error, never denied it didn't happen but couldn't be reproduced so the equipment was checked and the error was found. Nothing spooky about this.

I don't think so ... the data was acquired over 3 years using 15,000 neutrino beams and was repeatedly checked precisly because of its revolutionary potential within physics.

Whatever else it may have been ... a simple technical error it was not.;)

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Can define what you mean by spontaneous as I'm scratching my head as to your meaning given how you're using the word.

Happens automatically using deterministic physical processes. i.e. spontaneous processes (like snowflake formation) don't require any intelligent input.

Avatar MIA

Harika wrote: »

You can easily exceed the speed of light, with a laser or strong enough torchlight. Just point at the moon and swiftly move from one to the other end. You easily exceed C.

Ah here, that's some wrist you've got.

Harika

J C wrote: »

If anything, including space, expanded faster than c, then it would have violated the law that nothing can travel faster than c.

Show me the part in the relativity theory or any other scientific theory, that says space cannot grow faster than the speed of light. It is not traveling.

J C wrote: »

You can't actually ... the speed of light coming from my cars headlights, whether the car is stationary or moving at 100 km/hr is c in both cases ... not c + 100 km/hr when my car is moving.
Violating the speed of light requires very very special conditions, if it happens at all.

Yes you can try it, as described before. The car light is now a completly different scenario. The point on the moon will travel faster than the speed of light, information cannot break this barrier.

J C wrote: »

I don't think so ... the data was acquired over 3 years using 15,000 neutrino beams and was repeatedly checked precisly because of its revolutionary potential within physics.

Whatever else it may have been ... a simple technical error it was not.;)

More infos to this, never heard of it. The 15000 you quote also lead to the neutrino incident of the linked incident.

Harika

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Ah here, that's some wrist you've got.

According to christian theory I should be blind.

steamengine

J C wrote: »

If anything, including space, expanded faster than c, then it would have violated the law that nothing can travel faster than c.

Space is nothing - if it was something then speed of light limit would apply.

You can't actually ... the speed of light coming from my cars headlights, whether the car is stationary or moving at 100 km/hr is c in both cases ... not c + 100 km/hr when my car is moving.
Violating the speed of light requires very very special conditions, if it happens at all.

I think Harika is referring to sweeping the torch or laser right and left across a distant surface such the moon, and that the projected spot will travel faster than 'c'.

Avatar MIA

Harika wrote: »

According to christian theory I should be blind.

Friction would have been such that blindness would have been the least of your problems. :pac:

Avatar MIA

steamengine wrote: »

I think the poster is referring to sweeping the torch or laser right and left across a distant surface such the moon, and that the projected spot will travel faster than 'c'.

The laser will not have swept over the entire surface of the moon. Light travels in pulses/packets ( I think).

steamengine

Avatar MIA wrote: »

The laser will not have swept over the entire surface of the moon. Light travels in pulses/packets ( I think).

I'm not a physicist but was under the impression light is made up of photons and continuous waves.

Harika

Avatar MIA wrote: »

The laser will not have swept over the entire surface of the moon. Light travels in pulses/packets ( I think).

The projected picture will travel faster than the speed of light. And there is no rule that is broken by that.

Avatar MIA

steamengine wrote: »

I'm not a physicist but was under the impression light is made up of photons and continuous waves.

Far from a physicist either, but the laser beam does not travel the length of the moon just because the laser pointer flicks their wrist.

Similar if you stand on a mountain and move the laser pointer in a 180 degree arc, the laser hasn't traversed half the entire universe in 1 second.

Avatar MIA

steamengine wrote: »

I'm not a physicist but was under the impression light is made up of photons and continuous waves.

If you can trust Stanford.

"Light is composed of particles called photons. Each photon is a discrete packet of electromagnetic energy which travels at, what else, the speed of light."

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Happens automatically using deterministic physical processes. i.e. spontaneous processes (like snowflake formation) don't require any intelligent input.

I've honestly never heard of such a definition of 'spontaneous'.