Evolution Proven!

[Nostromo]

Why not just admit it is what the evidence suggests it is?

You want to be careful or people might hold you to that.

We've been through this once before. It is amazing the denial some people have. If you want to follow this, be prepared for a lot of ignored questions.

Thanks for the link. It is quite a frustrating topic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Adam and Eve could have been 30 year olds with a history that didn't involve the very specific process of scarring perhaps?

Omphalos means "navel", and a navel is a scar, and there were no scars prior to the Fall.

No scarring means no navel means no Omphalos.

Besides --- don't you think I'm a YEC?

I wonder where those who accuse me of being a YEC suddenly went to?

Perhaps they could help Mr Nostromo understand.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Omphalos means "navel", and a navel is a scar, and there were no scars prior to the Fall.

No scarring means no navel means no Omphalos.

Besides --- don't you think I'm a YEC?

I wonder where those who accuse me of being a YEC suddenly went to?

Perhaps they could help Mr Nostromo understand.

You're a YEEAC.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're a YEEAC.

I like it!

But given the fact that I think the earth is 4.57 billion years old, I'm going to have to [very reluctantly] decline the label.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I like it!

But given the fact that I think the earth is 4.57 billion years old, I'm going to have to [very reluctantly] decline the label.

Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Something can't be 4.57 billion years old, and created six thousand years ago, no matter how bad you wish it so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Something can't be 4.57 billion years old, and created six thousand years ago, no matter how bad you wish it so.

I disagree: 1

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:

Why not just admit it is what the evidence suggests it is?
​

You want to be careful or people might hold you to that.

Or you. Truth can't contradict truth. If you'd be willing to go wherever truth leads, this wouldn't bother you in the least.

 

[Bushido216]

I disagree: 1

To your credit, the post you quoted is probably the most lucid description of what you're trying to get at you've posted thus far (that I've seen).

That being said, it doesn't actually help anything.

How does this apply to our current Universe? Are you suggesting that our universe is made out of recycled parts of other universes? Why go through such great lengths?

Further, if you're to suggest that this universe would be "new" (I don't agree, but I'm running with it for now) what could I do to separate your claim from the claim that the universe was created last Tuesday, instantly and out of nothing, with all of our memories and the appearance of age built in.

In other words, you haven't given me a reliable way that I can go out into the world and make some judgment or measurement that would tell me "yes, AV is right and the last Tuesday guys are wrong".

 

[Nostromo]

To your credit, the post you quoted is probably the most lucid description of what you're trying to get at you've posted thus far (that I've seen).

That being said, it doesn't actually help anything.

This.

Now you remove the handlebars from one, the seat from another, the chain from another, etc., and build a brand new bicycle from the parts of all these other bicycles.

Question: How old is this brand new bicycle?

Yes, the configuration is new, and every component is 35 years old.

I'm not sure this lends itself well to your case. The universe was in a different configuration yesterday to what it is today, but that doesn't mean that the universe is less than 24 hours old.

Your "right yet wrong" questions about the age give you such answers because the questions themselves are not specific. The configuration of the parts is new, the configuration of the molecules in the parts is 35 years old, the configuration of the atoms within those molecules is somewhere between 35 years and 4.5 billion years old, the configuration of the protons/neutrons/electrons within the atoms is somewhere between 5 and 13 billion years old and the p/n/e themselves are probably 13+ billion years old. So how old is the bike? That depends on what your definition of 'bike' entails.

You still haven't let us in on the secret of how you can be certain your interpretation, out of a number of indistinguishable alternatives, is the right one.

Or you. Truth can't contradict truth. If you'd be willing to go wherever truth leads, this wouldn't bother you in the least.

That's exactly where I am.

 

[AV1611VET]

To your credit, the post you quoted is probably the most lucid description of what you're trying to get at you've posted thus far (that I've seen).

Thank you, sir!

That being said, it doesn't actually help anything.

How does this apply to our current Universe? Are you suggesting that our universe is made out of recycled parts of other universes? Why go through such great lengths?

I'm not suggesting that at all. My goal there was simply to show that an object can have two different ages: one existential and one physical.

The earth is 6014 years old existentially, but 4.57 billion years old physically.

Further, if you're to suggest that this universe would be "new" (I don't agree, but I'm running with it for now) what could I do to separate your claim from the claim that the universe was created last Tuesday, instantly and out of nothing, with all of our memories and the appearance of age built in.

Take Genesis 1 literally.

In other words, you haven't given me a reliable way that I can go out into the world and make some judgment or measurement that would tell me "yes, AV is right and the last Tuesday guys are wrong".

You can't do that with science, either.

Last Tuesday is immune to both science and Scripture; and thus not only violates my Prime Directive, but violates my Boolean Standards as well.

 

[Nostromo]

OK, do me a favour and tell me what was happening 6016 years ago, just so I'm clear.

 

[BananaSlug]

So... How would Adam have a "30 year old" intellect when it signifies the passage of time? What is a "30 year old" intellect?

AV's definition of "age"= the state of being old.
AV's definition of "old"= the state of having age.

One of those definitions is useless since it is circular reasoning. In any case, "the state of having age" indicates the passage of time, therefore, a history.

 

[Doveaman]

Well, your simplified version sounds a bit too complex, so I'll stick with the King James version.

If that was too complex I think you better had.

King James version - John 2:7-10:

Jesus saith unto them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, “Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast.” And they bare it.

When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was...the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, “Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.”

Good Wine:

Embedded age? – Yes.

History? – No.

Deception? – No.

God did it? – Yes.

I would say the King James version makes more sense than your simplified version of light traveling faster than the speed of light.

 

[Nostromo]

When in a hole it's usually best if you stop digging.

 

[Doveaman]

When in a hole it's usually best if you stop digging.

I agree. You should stop digging.

 

[Nostromo]

Do yourself a favour and put down the book by the Palestinian fishermen and pick something else up, preferably with 'Physics' in the title.

This is not Star Trek, nobody is talking about faster than light travel. Go educate yourself and catch up with some 1920s cosmology instead of being stubborn and criticising things of which you have no understanding.

I don't mean to sound like I'm being an a-hole but we can't have a constructive conversation if you're going to dismiss something out of hand because you don't like it or don't know enough about it to make a reasonable criticism.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK, do me a favour and tell me what was happening 6016 years ago, just so I'm clear.

Just so we're on the same page here, 6016 or 6014?

6016 years ago is a 404 term --- there is no such a thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do yourself a favour and put down the book by the Palestinian fishermen and pick something else up, preferably with 'Physics' in the title.

I happen to have a PhD in Physics --- from the acclaimed Boxtop University.

I sent in two boxtops from Cap'n Crunch and one proof (yes, "proof") of purchase seal, along with $25.00 and a stamped, self-addressed envelope and got my very own degree in the subject of my choice.

Now I'm the envy of the neighborhood --- thank you very much ---

 

[Doveaman]

This is not Star Trek, nobody is talking about faster than light travel.

How does a universe expand to 156 billion light years wide within 13.7 billion years unless it was expanding faster than light speed?

 

[kharisym]

Expansion states that the 'space' between given points is expanding.

<http //physicsforums com/showthread php?t=261161>

Think of it like this, if space is represented as the surface of a balloon, and the galaxies are represented as stickers stuck to said balloon, then as the balloon expands, different stickers are moving away from each other at different rates depending on their existing distance from each other, all measured along the balloon surface.

In this way, nothing ever travels faster than the speed of light, but the distance between two objects can go from 0 to 156billion light years in 13.7 billion years due to space itself expanding. Nothing's moving faster than c, space itself is expanding.