Absurdities of so called science

[mpok1519]

YEC = psychobabble with the goal of intentionally misinforming you.

YEC thought is an infectious disease on the values and principles of education, logic, reasoning, knowledge and truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

YEC thought is an infectious disease on the values and principles of education, logic, reasoning, knowledge and truth.

Wow --- keep that up, and I just might become one!

 

[AirPo]

Oh well, whatever --- I'll just refute it again --- in short form.

The video assumes big = old --- overlooking the fact that the universe was stretched to its current size w/i a moment of time.

A light year is a unit of distance, not time, and if distance increases w/o time, then his whole premise fails.

Did you make that up on your own or did someone tell you that?

 

[Jester4kicks]

Oh well, whatever --- I'll just refute it again --- in short form.

The video assumes big = old --- overlooking the fact that the universe was stretched to its current size w/i a moment of time.

A light year is a unit of distance, not time, and if distance increases w/o time, then his whole premise fails.

Sorry AV, but this latest attempt fails horribly. However, I will do you the respect of explaining why... not that I expect, even if I somewhat hope, that you'll return the favor.

Let's consider the furthest galaxy that we have observed so far. It's actually mentioned in that video. By all of our measurements, the galaxy in question is about 13 billion light years away.

Now, we've got two possible options with what you proposed:

Option 1) The universe expanded prior to that particular galaxy forming. Unfortunately, this option doesn't really help your case since the measurements still place that particular galaxy at 13 billion light years away. If your explanation were true, our ability to simply see that galaxy would indicate that the "expansion" you described occured more than 13 billion years ago.

Big=old still works.

Option 2) The galaxy in question (as well as all other galaxies) all existed within a small portion of space that then expanded out. Unfortunately, the explanation doesn't really work either. But here's the fun part! There's a scientific explanation for why this option doesn't work! Ready for it?

First, let's establish that the only way for us to see an object that is 13 billion light years away, without the light from that object actually travelling for 13 billion years, is if the light we are currently seeing from said object is actually much younger than we think it to be.

Now, unless you want to try and pinpoint down the age of the universe, I'm going to go with the relatively-standard YEC-literalist perspective of ~6000 years.

Based on that, the light that we are currently viewing from the galaxy in question could only be 6000 years old. In other words, we would have to be seeing said galaxy at the position it was at 6000 years ago. Now, comparing that information to what our other measurements tell us... we have a problem. In order for this to be true, the galaxy in question would have needed to travel a MASSIVE distance in a very short period of time.

Even if THAT was possible, the resulting velocity would have caused a MAJOR doppler-shift in the light we are observing from it.

But we don't see any of that. There's no strange blip in the data... all of the tests confirm the same answer.


So... if every single method of determining the distance to that galaxy, and thus the MINIMUM age of the universe (since we can see it) shows the same result... I believe we can only form two logical conclusions:

1) The tests are right.
2) God created the universe in such a way for all of our tests to show us something other than the truth. Hence, he is the ultimate deceiver.

(Oh, and I don't mean to present a false dichotomy. If someone believes a different option exists, please speak up)

 

[Nathan Poe]

Wow --- keep that up, and I just might become one!

It would be a step up for you.

 

[dad]

Nope, not going to play along anymore, dad. I'm perfectly capable of discussing the flick... but since we have determined that no scientific explanation will ever satisfy you (1)... I'm not wasting my time.

If you can't support your claims what are you doing here?

The video does make a big claim in the beginning... one that you may not accept. However, if you watch the rest of the video, and understand how the science behind it works (he does a great job of explaining it), you'll see how the rest of the video confirms the first statements therein.

I'm not optimistic.

Of course the universe is big. Glad we cleared that up. So? Former light moved at the speed of God's will. Our light is fixed, at present man's temporary prison speed. That would be our temporary present state universe speed, to be clear, for you. So?

 

[Chalnoth]

Of course the universe is big. Glad we cleared that up. So? Former light moved at the speed of God's will. Our light is fixed, at present man's temporary prison speed. That would be our temporary present state universe speed, to be clear, for you. So?

Wait, so you're admitting that God put all those photons in place for events that appear to have happened billions of years ago just to deceive us into thinking the universe is old?

 

[dad]

Wait, so you're admitting that God put all those photons in place for events that appear to have happened billions of years ago just to deceive us into thinking the universe is old?

No. Now I know you are capable of addressing the issues here. Can you tell me what a photon is, precisely? Maybe we could start there.

 

[Jester4kicks]

If you can't support your claims what are you doing here?

I'm happy to support them... just not to you.

Of course the universe is big. Glad we cleared that up. So? Former light moved at the speed of God's will. Our light is fixed, at present man's temporary prison speed. That would be our temporary present state universe speed, to be clear, for you. So?

Evidence? I didn't think so.

Go back to the shallow end of the pool.

 

[dad]

I'm happy to support them... just not to you.



Evidence? I didn't think so.

Go back to the shallow end of the pool.

So you are happy to put things on the table for all to see. Good. You just, golly, gee can't, because, you don't want to do it for me. How convincing! Lurkers, another one bites the dust.

 

[Jester4kicks]

So you are happy to put things on the table for all to see. Good. You just, golly, gee can't, because, you don't want to do it for me. How convincing! Lurkers, another one bites the dust.

You've already explained how you will dismiss any evidence or explanation you don't care for.

Why on earth would I care about educating someone like you?

 

[Jester4kicks]

Evidence? I didn't think so.

Go back to the shallow end of the pool.

So you are happy to put things on the table for all to see. Good. You just, golly, gee can't, because, you don't want to do it for me. How convincing! Lurkers, another one bites the dust.

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice that you provided absolutely nothing to support your own argument.

I really can't stand hypocrites.

 

[Gracchus]

Have you seen my refutation to that video?

It builds its whole premise on: big = old.

(And yes, I watched it in its entirety.)

But as usual for you, AV1611VET, you didn't understand it.

"prem·ise (prms)
n. also prem·iss (prms)
1. A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.
2. Logic
a. One of the propositions in a deductive argument.
b. Either the major or the minor proposition of a syllogism, from which the conclusion is drawn.
3. premises Law The preliminary or explanatory statements or facts of a document, as in a deed.
4. premises
a. Land and the buildings on it.
b. A building or part of a building.
v. prem·ised, prem·is·ing, prem·is·es
v.tr.
1. To state in advance as an introduction or explanation.
2. To state or assume as a proposition in an argument.
v.intr.
To make a premise.
[Middle English premisse, from Old French, from Medieval Latin praemissa (propositi), (the proposition) put before, premise, from Latin, feminine past participle of praemittere, to set in front : prae-, pre- + mittere, to send.]
Word History: Why do we call a single building the premises? To answer this question, we must go back to the Middle Ages. But first, let it be noted that premises comes from the past participle praemissa, which is both a feminine singular and a neuter plural form of the Latin verb praemittere, "to send in advance, utter by way of preface, place in front, prefix." In Medieval Latin the feminine form praemissa was used as a term in logic, for which we still use the term premise descended from the Medieval Latin word (first recorded in a work composed before 1380). Medieval Latin praemissa in the plural meant "things mentioned before" and was used in legal documents, almost always in the plural, a use that was followed in Old French and Middle English, both of which borrowed the word from Latin. A more specific legal sense in Middle English, "that property, collectively, which is specified in the beginning of a legal document and which is conveyed, as by grant," was also always in the plural in Middle English and later Modern English. And so it remained when this sense was extended to mean "a house or building with its grounds or appurtenances," a usage first recorded before 1730."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

You see, big = old, is not a premise. It is not an assumption. The argument is not based on it. The assumptions are the observations, the verifiable facts, and the observed laws of nature. Big = old is a deduction, a conclusion following from the premises.

To give an example. From the five postulates of Euclid, which are assumptions, we can draw the logical conclusion that the sum of the squares on the legs of a right triangle is equal to the square on the hypotenuse. This is known as the Pythagorean theorem. It is not an assumption, it is a deduction, a conclusion.

The assumptions would be the postulates. But when we test the deduction, x^2 + y^2 = z^2, we find that it agrees with reality, because it holds for all plane right triangles. So, although we started with some assumptions, all the deductions that we draw from those assumptions are testable. Moreover, they are consistent, that is, we find no contradictions inherent in Euclidian geometry. This gives us very great confidence that our assumptions are justified.

Now, I realize that you don't understand this. Perhaps you can't understand it. It was said that Thomas Aquinas, regarded by many theologians as an intellectual of the highes caliber, could not be led across the pons asinorum, so it would not be surprising that you just can't get it.

Nevertheless, will you or nil you, that "big = old" is not an assumption, but a deduction drawn from assumptions that have been extensively supported and never been refuted.

 

[mpok1519]

Wow --- keep that up, and I just might become one!

You want to become an agent for the destruction of truth, logic and reasoning?

~sigh~

 

[Chalnoth]

No. Now I know you are capable of addressing the issues here. Can you tell me what a photon is, precisely? Maybe we could start there.

That question is irrelevant to what you stated, though. You said that light moved at the speed of your god's will. That's the same as stating that your god put those photons (particles of light) on their way to the Earth in such a way that it would appear as if events happened that never happened.

How is that anything but deceit?

 

[dad]

That question is irrelevant to what you stated, though. You said that light moved at the speed of your god's will. That's the same as stating that your god put those photons (particles of light) on their way to the Earth in such a way that it would appear as if events happened that never happened.

How is that anything but deceit?

Not at all. If you can't define a photon as it now exists, just be honest. Then we have to look at what it was part of in the former state. Of course everything in a true forever nature state, either the original creation, or the new heavens is in sync and tune with God's will. He speaks, universes form, or change, or end!

If you could define a photon properly, it might be a starting point, to compare what was, and see how you think you know.

You want me to have to expose the knowledge of science here or lack therof, on what a photon is? You had a chance.


You seem unwilling to admit the gaping holes in the scope of present nature based science.

Guess it can almost be like a new religion for some. I like to keep it in it's place.

One can't limit God to the brick universe we live in now!

 

[dad]

You've already explained how you will dismiss any evidence or explanation you don't care for.

Why on earth would I care about educating someone like you?

I dismiss a same state past until t5here is proof, of course. Why guess? Science is better than that. It must remain a fable until then, no matter how much some cherish their baseless assumptions. That means you fail, unless you establish by evidence the state of the past universe fabric. No wiggling out of it.

 

[Chalnoth]

Not at all. If you can't define a photon as it now exists, just be honest.

I didn't define it because it's irrelevant to the question.

A photon, by the way, is a quantum of the electromagnetic field. Mathematically, it is very explicitly and exactly defined. It's not feasible to teach a course in quantum mechanics to an unwilling student over a forum, so I'm not going to go into more detail here.

If you could define a photon properly, it might be a starting point, to compare what was, and see how you think you know.

Look, this "different past" stuff is your theory. You do the work in determining what it implies. That means you should learn for yourself what a photon is defined as, and make use of that information in the context of your theory.

Don't expect others to do your own work for you. Or to take you seriously if you have yet to do said work.

 

[AirPo]

I dismiss a same state past until t5here is proof, of course. Why guess? Science is better than that. It must remain a fable until then, no matter how much some cherish their baseless assumptions. That means you fail, unless you establish by evidence the state of the past universe fabric. No wiggling out of it.

Never underestimate the power of the .

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't define it because it's irrelevant to the question.

A photon, by the way, is a quantum of the electromagnetic field. Mathematically, it is very explicitly and exactly defined. It's not feasible to teach a course in quantum mechanics to an unwilling student over a forum, so I'm not going to go into more detail here.


Look, this "different past" stuff is your theory. You do the work in determining what it implies. That means you should learn for yourself what a photon is defined as, and make use of that information in the context of your theory.

Don't expect others to do your own work for you. Or to take you seriously if you have yet to do said work.

As I understand, a photon is a quantum packet of electromagnetic energy with no mass, and moves through space at a speed of 186,282 miles per second.

Let me reiterate --- with emphasis --- it moves through space at 186,282 miles per second.

But the earth and stars were created in the palm of God's hand --- in Heaven.

And it's possible that light moves faster in Heaven than it does in space.

Just a thought.