Bible says science cannot possibly know how many years since creation

[dad]

Are bats really birds?

Why not? If bats were created on the same day as birds, or if they evolved/adapted after that time to the way there are now...why not!?

 

[tas8831]

And yet you haven't named one.....

"Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour."
Matthew 27:45

 

[usexpat97]

I take "all" truth to mean, "all" truth that you need to know, when you need to know it. It God's daily bread again. The disciples didn't know about germs causing disease (they were demons instead), or about protons and electrons. Hell is not 2 miles under the earth; that is the earth"s mantle made of molten granite. Et. Al.

 

[Kylie]

It doesn't matter what people with no arguments argue for no apparent rhyme. Perhaps you could admit that the bible says that about man's ability to know?

That's not proof.

 

[SelfSim]

... And as Relativity told you, one can not tell which object is in actual motion, so you would never know.....

There is no 'actual' motion.
Yet again, you expose your belief that there are 'actual' things, and then use that belief as the basis of evaluation for everything you perceive.

 

[usexpat97]

This sounds like having a set of points on a cartesian coordinate system, not picking an origin because it doesn't really exist...and then not being able to define where anything is, because you won't define your origin. Which of course would be complete nonsense.

Not all motion is completely arbitrary. You have to define the sun as the center of the solar system in order for the keplerian orbits to come out right mathematically.

 

[dad]

That's not proof.

You want proof the bible says man can't know the beginning from the end?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But this hypothetical something is completely undetectable. So how can we tell that the universe is moving relative to this hypothetical reference?

According to them they can tell just that or they wouldn’t be able to say the universe is expanding......

Not to mention their pseudoscientific claims of blue and redshift from the CMB so that they can calculate our absolute motion against the background......

Actually, the river analogy was YOUR idea, not mine. I used the balloon analogy, and from the ant's perspective, confined to the surface of the balloon, the balloon is expanding in all measurable directions.

As I agreed, all directions are “downstream”, or with the direction of expansion. There is no going against the current or expansion.....

Except unlike a balloon surface we have ants above and below, so ants from all sides must also be expanding “towards” ants on the other side of the balloon expanding away from those above them too.....

Yet this is not what is observed.....

You are the one who claimed there must be some external frame of reference which the universe is expanding relative to.

Afraid not.

I just said the ants are accelerating with respect to one another and therefore time dilation must be accounted for....

They claim the CMB is an external reference and we can calculate our absolute motion relative to it due to blue and redshift. I say it’s pseudoscience as there is no absolute reference or frame....

When did I insist on an absolute frame of reference?

When haven’t you?

I am trying to explain that moving through spacetime is not the same thing as spacetime itself expanding.

By only considering the ants absolute motion through space while claiming there is no such thing as absolute motion? Therefore motion is motion weather it is caused by you firing rockets or space itself accelerating you. Both impart energy. Hence Einstein’s realization that acceleration (whatever the cause) was the same as gravity and imparted energy and changed clocks and decay rates.....

I don't see how.

Usually those who fail to see that claiming the ants absolute motion is all that matters while claiming absolute motion doesn’t exist do indeed fail to see. Motion is motion if there is no absolute motion and the ant is in motion regardless of the cause.....

 

[Kylie]

You want proof the bible says man can't know the beginning from the end?

No, I want proof that the Bible's claim is accurate.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is no 'actual' motion.
Yet again, you expose your belief that there are 'actual' things, and then use that belief as the basis of evaluation for everything you perceive.

I actually exist, I don’t know about you....

I know I’m spinning around the surface of the earth, which is orbiting the sun, which is orbiting the galaxy, which itself is moving through space, and am in actual motion. Not sure if you know this....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, I want proof that the Bible's claim is accurate.

Do we know the beginning or the end????

Tell us.....

 

[Kylie]

According to them they can tell just that or they wouldn’t be able to say the universe is expanding......

It seems that you don't understand HOW they reach that conclusion, since if you did, you would understand how your claim here is mistaken.

Let's go back to the ant on a balloon idea. Let's say you have several ants on the balloon, in various places, and they're just standing still. Now someone comes along and starts inflating the balloon. The first ant is going to see all the other ants getting further away. But each ant is going to see the same thing - that they are standing still and all the other ants are moving away. And that's exactly what we see when we look out at the distant stars and galaxies - all of them are moving away from us. So we are either in the very center of the universe - a mighty big coincidence if ever there was one! - or the universe is expanding, and when we look at the distant galaxies moving away, we are like one of the ants on the balloon watching all the other ants moving away from us.

Not to mention their pseudoscientific claims of blue and redshift from the CMB so that they can calculate our absolute motion against the background......

Yes, I'm sure that all of the cosmologists who have years of study and training and expertise have completely missed that it is pseudoscience, but you have figured it out perfectly...

As I agreed, all directions are “downstream”, or with the direction of expansion. There is no going against the current or expansion.....

Except unlike a balloon surface we have ants above and below, so ants from all sides must also be expanding “towards” ants on the other side of the balloon expanding away from those above them too.....

Yet this is not what is observed.....

Yeah, ants drifting downstream doesn't have the same mechanics as ants on the surface of an expanding balloon.

Afraid not.

I just said the ants are accelerating with respect to one another and therefore time dilation must be accounted for....

Actually, in post 60, I asked (with regards to your river analogy), "But the river is moving relative to the shore. If the universe is expanding, what is it moving relative to?"

And in post 62, you answered, "Something, or it wouldn’t be moving, would it....."

So even though you didn't specify what exactly the universe was moving in relation to, you clearly stated that it was moving in relation to "something."

They claim the CMB is an external reference and we can calculate our absolute motion relative to it due to blue and redshift. I say it’s pseudiscience as there is no absolute reference or frame....

When haven’t you?

Please, give me a single example when I said there must be something external to the universe which provides an absolute frame of reference.

By only considering the ants absolute motion through space while claiming there is no such thing as absolute motion? Therefore motion is motion weather it is caused by you firing rockets or space itself accelerating you. Both impart energy. Hence Einstein’s realization that acceleration (whatever the cause) was the same as gravity and imparted energy and changed clocks and decay rates.....

When did I say "absolute motion"? I have spoken of the motion of things relative to other things, but this is subjective motion, not relative motion.

Usually those who fail to see that claiming the ants absolute motion is all that matters while claiming absolute motion doesn’t exist do indeed fail to see. Motion is motion if there is no absolute motion and the ant is in motion regardless of the cause.....

As I've said, I am not claiming there is absolute motion, nor am I claiming that there is some external reference point by which to measure this absolute motion. If you disagree, then please show me where I said so.

 

[Kylie]

Do we know the beginning or the end????

Tell us.....

Is this your argument? The Bible says something that is painfully obvious, therefore it's divinely inspired? If the Bible said that a square had four equal sides each joined at a right angle to form an enclosed shape, would you claim that as evidence of divine inspiration as well?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It seems that you don't understand HOW they reach that conclusion, since if you did, you would understand how your claim here is mistaken.

Let's go back to the ant on a balloon idea. Let's say you have several ants on the balloon, in various places, and they're just standing still. Now someone comes along and starts inflating the balloon. The first ant is going to see all the other ants getting further away. But each ant is going to see the same thing - that they are standing still and all the other ants are moving away. And that's exactly what we see when we look out at the distant stars and galaxies - all of them are moving away from us. So we are either in the very center of the universe - a mighty big coincidence if ever there was one! - or the universe is expanding, and when we look at the distant galaxies moving away, we are like one of the ants on the balloon watching all the other ants moving away from us.

But you keep ignoring the ants above and below and on all sides of the balloon.... all the way in to the center..... while claiming their is no center while your balloon expands from just that....

Or their belief in what cosmological redshift is, is flawed?????

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Funny how you only offer two options without considering the option that both the other two are incorrect.... Not just one or the other....

Yes, I'm sure that all of the cosmologists who have years of study and training and expertise have completely missed that it is pseudoscience, but you have figured it out perfectly...

Yes, the same ones that despite all their years of study and training couldn’t get one single model correct of the sun’s heliosphere which is right next door cosmologically speaking.... let alone millions of light years distant.... those same ones?????

Yeah, ants drifting downstream doesn't have the same mechanics as ants on the surface of an expanding balloon.

It has exactly the same mechanics. Both are in motion due to the cause.

Actually, in post 60, I asked (with regards to your river analogy), "But the river is moving relative to the shore. If the universe is expanding, what is it moving relative to?"

And in post 62, you answered, "Something, or it wouldn’t be moving, would it....."

So even though you didn't specify what exactly the universe was moving in relation to, you clearly stated that it was moving in relation to "something."

It’s there claim we are expanding, from an initial dense, hot state. So clearly we expanded away from this initial place in time and space. I just don’t claim to be able to calculate its position.....

Please, give me a single example when I said there must be something external to the universe which provides an absolute frame of reference.

I never said you did. So are you disagreeing with the theory you keep trying to defend?

When did I say "absolute motion"? I have spoken of the motion of things relative to other things, but this is subjective motion, not relative motion.

Everything is moving “relative” to everything else. Including ants on your balloon. You without doubt stated it was only the ants motion through space that mattered. Absolute motion. Subjective motion would be the ant moving, through or with space...... Not one or the other.....

As I've said, I am not claiming there is absolute motion, nor am I claiming that there is some external reference point by which to measure this absolute motion. If you disagree, then please show me where I said so.

Yes you did, you claimed only the ants movement through space was important. It’s absolute motion relative to space.

Then you claim their is no absolute motion but it’s only subjective. Yet if the ants motion is subjective and not absolute then it’s motion regardless if it is with or through space is irrelevant. It is only it’s motion that matters

I just ask you make up your mind what you actually believe....

 

[usexpat97]

Is this your argument? The Bible says something that is painfully obvious, therefore it's divinely inspired?

Man, talk about can't win. This entire time the Bible gets sniped at as "false". This is a lie, that is false.... And then we point out something very basic...to the point that one is forced to admit, "okay maybe that is true"...and now tbe Bible is nothing special because it stated something obvious?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Man, talk about can't win. This entire time the Bible gets sniped at as "false". This is a lie, that is false.... And then we point out something very basic...to the point that one is forced to admit, "okay maybe that is true"...and now tbe Bible is nothing special because it stated something obvious?

It didn't state anything obvious. Biblical claim is that it is impossible for us to know the beginning or the end. The fact that we don't know it now does not make it impossible.

So, support the biblical claim. Show how it is impossible that we can ever know the beginning or the end. Or you could eat humble pie, but that's not likely, is it?

 

[usexpat97]

It didn't state anything obvious. Biblical claim is that it is impossible for us to know the beginning or the end. The fact that we don't know it now does not make it impossible.

Then you and Kylie sort out what the issue is, and get back to us when you've got the same story straight. One says it is painfully obvious; the other says even THAT is not true. But at least I'm getting the consistent message that the Bible is just wrong. Just wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It didn't state anything obvious. Biblical claim is that it is impossible for us to know the beginning or the end. The fact that we don't know it now does not make it impossible.

So, support the biblical claim. Show how it is impossible that we can ever know the beginning or the end. Or you could eat humble pie, but that's not likely, is it?

Or we could take the second option and you eat it since scientists clearly state they can think of no way we will ever know what happened at the beginning, let alone what will happen at the end....

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Or we could take the second option and you eat it since scientists clearly state they can think of no way we will ever know what happened at the beginning, let alone what will happen at the end....

Uh huh. Citation please.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Then you and Kylie sort out what the issue is, and get back to us when you've got the same story straight. One says it is painfully obvious; the other says even THAT is not true. But at least I'm getting the consistent message that the Bible is just wrong. Just wrong, wrong, wrong.

Except I agreed with you. That you just can’t win because they wont even accept the simplest of truths, until the weeping and gnashing of teeth begins and all excuses are no more.

She and I will never get the stories straight because as you have seen even the simplest and most obvious truth is ignored, let alone more complicated ones.

Don’t jump to conclusions. Not everyone that replies to you is arguing against you.