"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

Nic Samojluk · Jun 13, 2015

Loudmouth said:
The CMB is also a feature of the universe, and it measures the maximum age of the universe, or at least the time since electrons and atomic nuclei joined together to make atoms. Why are you ignoring this feature of the universe?

TLK Valentine · Jun 13, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
Let’s not confuse facts with the interpretation of those facts.

Myth | Definition of myth by Merriam-Webster
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth

Merriam‑Webster
an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true.

Why did you only choose to print one definition of the word "myth" out of the four mentioned?

Full Definition of MYTH
1
a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

b : parable, allegory
2
a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the Americanmyth of individualism — Orde Coombs>

b : an unfounded or false notion
3
: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4
: the whole body of myths
See myth defined for English-language learners
See myth defined for kids

This definition does not describe the great biblical truths. For example, Daniel, the prophet, could not have predicted the succession of the world empires on his own human wisdom.

The other definitions do -- if you include the full and complete definition, as any sensible and honest person should.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 14, 2015

Loudmouth said:
The CMB is also a feature of the universe, and it measures the maximum age of the universe, or at least the time since electrons and atomic nuclei joined together to make atoms. Why are you ignoring this feature of the universe?

You seem to be focused on the observable universe, while I have the entire universe in mind. Our universe is not limited to what we can observe with the telescopes we have today. The universe cannot be younger than the oldest objects in existence, and said oldest object could be outside the observable universe.

“How did scientists determine how many candles to put on the universe's birthday cake? They can determine the age of the universe using two different methods: by studying the oldest objects within the universe and measuring how fast it is expanding. …”

The problem is that we can't study the oldest objects within the universe because they might be located outside the limits of the observable universe and there is no way for us to measure how fast they are expanding.

Ref.: http://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

Nic Samojluk · Jun 14, 2015

Loudmouth said:
There are crackpots in science. That is nothing new.

I love those crackpots. There was a time when Galileo was treated as a crackpot.

“Today, Barbour is on that same mission to unite gravity with quantum mechanics. In order to succeed, he believes that we not only need to re-examine our understanding of time, but also question the conventional wisdom that the universe is expanding. …

Barbour’s certainly not the first physicist to question our understanding of time; Einstein was a skeptic, too. If Barbour had told Einstein to give him a call back in seven minutes, Einstein might have asked: Your minutes or mine? If Barbour had been calling, say, from a spaceship moving at close to the speed of light, or one perched at the lip of a black hole, Einstein would find that each of Barbour’s minutes would last far longer than his. There is no universal reference clock that both Barbour and Einstein could agree on. …”

Ref.: http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/117

BTW, I share Barbour and Einstein’s doubt about the existence of a separate physical entity called time. For me, time is simply a convenient and practical device we use to establish the sequence of events. The moment an event followed another, the artificial concept of time came into existence

Mr Strawberry · Jun 14, 2015

Nic Samojluk · Jun 14, 2015

Loudmouth said:
And? Not knowing how the singularity comes about does not prevent us from understanding what happened after the singularity started expanding.

Once we deny the existence of the singularity, the BB and the expansion of the universe become a piece and parcel of the science fiction we have created.

TLK Valentine · Jun 14, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
I love those crackpots. There was a time when Galileo was treated as a crackpot.

...and a heretic.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 14, 2015

Loudmouth said:
It is determined by the CMB.

The CMB is an integral portion of the singularity, BB, and expansion of the universe myth. Why do we need to resurrect it? I am with Barbour on this!

Nic Samojluk · Jun 14, 2015

Loudmouth said:
I think most scientists agree that our current physical models are incomplete

I say a big AMEN to this!

Nic Samojluk · Jun 14, 2015

TLK Valentine said:
Why did you only choose to print one definition of the word "myth" out of the four mentioned?

I chose the popular understanding of the term “myth” that is shared by almost everybody in the world.

TLK Valentine · Jun 14, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
I chose the popular understanding of the term “myth” that is shared by almost everybody in the world.

And the fact that the "popular" definition isn't entirely accurate didn't bother you at all? Color me shocked.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 14, 2015

Mr Strawberry said:
.

You said:

“Your mind contains not only the entire observable universe but also the unobservable universe as well does it? Must be a squeeze to fit your ego in there as well.”

My response is: Great minds either welcome new ideas, or else provide evidence that said new ideas are wrong. Small minds ridicule the new idea.

Here is the new idea I submitted:

Scientists admit that the universe is bigger than the one we are able to observe with the largest telescopes we have built so far.
Nola Taylor affirmed: “How did scientists determine how many candles to put on the universe's birthday cake? They can determine the age of the universe using two different methods: by studying the oldest objects within the universe and measuring how fast it is expanding. …” Ref.: http://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html
My problem is that we can't study the oldest objects in the universe because they might be located outside the limits of the observable universe and there is no way for us to measure how fast they are expanding.

I conclude that we will not be able to estimate the correct age of the universe until we can find the limits of our universe, locate the largest object in it, and calculate the rate it is expanding.

My reasoning might be wrong, but someone needs to show me where is the error in my argument.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 14, 2015

TLK Valentine said:
And the fact that the "popular" definition isn't entirely accurate didn't bother you at all?

The popular understanding of the term “myth” is associated with the following descriptions included in the complete definition. They tend to denigrate the historical and spiritual value of the biblical record.

“an unfounded or false notion”
”a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence”

Archeological finds tends to confirm the facts recorded in the Bible. Most of the people described in the Bible were real instead of imaginary or mythological. Many scientists tend to denigrate the content of this invaluable historical and cultural source of information.

TLK Valentine · Jun 14, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
The popular understanding of the term “myth” is associated with the following descriptions included in the complete definition. They tend to denigrate the historical and spiritual value of the biblical record.

“an unfounded or false notion”
”a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence”

And yet, there are plenty of people who use the word "myth," myself included, who use one of the other definitions... which you omitted.

Archeological finds tends to confirm the facts recorded in the Bible. Most of the people described in the Bible were real instead of imaginary or mythological.

And yet, mythology can grow around historical people and events -- the common term for such phenomena is "legend."

Many scientists tend to denigrate the content of this invaluable historical and cultural source of information.

And many more scientists are familiar enough with the various other uses of the term "myth" to not only not use it as a pejorative term, but actually use it as the starting point for an investigation.

This fact would go unnoticed as, by limiting yourself to only one definition of "myth" out of four, you chose to discuss only part of the truth.

Paul of Eugene OR · Jun 15, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
Once we deny the existence of the singularity, the BB and the expansion of the universe become a piece and parcel of the science fiction we have created.

Does not follow at all. You have not yet established that the correct replacement of the singularity is inconsistent with the BB and the expansion of the universe.

Loudmouth · Jun 15, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
I love those crackpots. There was a time when Galileo was treated as a crackpot.

Halton Arp was a crackpot. He remained a crackpot.

Loudmouth · Jun 15, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
Let’s not confuse facts with the interpretation of those facts.

We aren't. You are ignoring the facts because they contradict your religious beliefs.

It is this type of attitude that made people invent such things as embedded age where God creates a fake history to fool us. Moreoever, if you are going to claim that an interpretation is wrong, then show it is wrong.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 15, 2015

TLK Valentine said:
And many more scientists are familiar enough with the various other uses of the term "myth" to not only not use it as a pejorative term, but actually use it as the starting point for an investigation.

I have nothing against the use of the many connotations of the “myth” term. I am only opposed to the incorrect use of the term in connection with the Bible.

There might be some mythical elements found in Scripture, but the bulk of this sacred book deals with credible historical events quite often attested by the testimony of credible witnesses corroborated by archaeological finds.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 15, 2015

TLK Valentine said:
And the fact that the "popular" definition isn't entirely accurate didn't bother you at all? Color me shocked.

I have nothing against the use of the many connotations of the “myth” term. I am only opposed to the incorrect use of the term in connection with the Bible.

There might be some mythical elements found in Scripture, but the bulk of this sacred book deals with credible historical events quite often attested by the testimony of credible witnesses corroborated by archaeological finds.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 15, 2015

TLK Valentine said:
Actually, no -- the role of science is to discover the truth about the workings of the physical world, regardless of what or where that truth may be.

Science is good whenever its findings can be verified, tested, replicated, and falsified. But when dealing with events located in the distant past, science is no better than science fiction.

"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

Newbie

I've already read the books you want burned.

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

I've already read the books you want burned.

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

I've already read the books you want burned.

Newbie

Newbie

I've already read the books you want burned.

Finally Old Enough

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency