They've found the "missing link"! Yeah, right!

[rcorlew]

Disingenuous? I beg your pardon? How so? I'm shooting perfectly straighht here!

Yes, I'm still with you... but I don't think stars are travelling away from us at anywhere near the speed of light. But please, do go on...

I am sorry if I understood your position wrongly, I apologize.

Like I have said all along, my belief is that science would eventually prove the Genesis account correct, though there may have been some mathematical calculation errors misrepresenting the age give or take maybe 5,000 years, but that is another discussion.

Current scientific models state the origination of the universe began as infinite mass with zero velocity contained in a size roughly equivalent to a dime. If there were a point in which there was infinite mass, and today there is a definition to the amount of mass, where did all the mass go, did it disappear?

Now here comes one major hurdle I will admit, yet it is also one that modern cosmology must also overcome. The age of the universe is said to be 13.7 billion years old, a claim which I do not subscribe to, yet the observable universe is expanding is now believed to be a zero degree arc roughly 93 billion light years across. Wait, how can the universe that is 13.7 billion years old starting from about 2-3 cubic inches of mass now be 93 billion light years in observable size if nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, I mean the matter would have to expand at a rate slightly greater than 3 times the speed of light in order to expand to that size, yet the theory of relativity states that matter cannot accelerate beyond the speed of light, but here we have proof that it has.

So now time for some more math, and this may get interesting.

The universe is said to have expanded in size 1292 times its original size since its origination, hmm here is a problem, the universe started out as 2 or so cubic inches and is now a sphere with a diameter of 93 billion light years across so that extrapolation could not be correct.

Here is another problem, if information cannot be created or destroyed yet the origination of the universe began from an infinite mass yet now has measurable mass, what happened?

Still with me?

 

[LightHorseman]

Theres plenty of reasons why evolution to the extent asserted by darwinists is false.However it seems you havent done any research to the extent that you should of, before typing.

For example?

This is the same guy who says he loves God.I guess you can say you love someone and not believe they exist.

My love of God has nothing to do with whether or not He created the universe through special YECreationism or 15 billion years of natural processes. Nor does that alter the fact that even if Evolution were disproved tommorrow, YECreationism is NOT the only other option

Lack of knowledge on the topic again,The "myth" of Genesis aligns with science,however doesnt seem to align with your understanding.Whos at fault here?

Care to, I don't know, mention some specific instances where I'm mistaken?

Hmm take a good long look at the hand you use to type with,try to figure out how many nerve impulses it takes to make a response to what im saying.Thats a tip of the iceberg.Will you understand what im getting at?Probably not.
Theres zero proof for intelligence that made us, according to your mind that is making over a trillion processes as you read...

So... your evidence for a lkiteral Genesis is that you find it difficult to believe we evolved by chance? Yeah, thats great. I've never heard that one before. Explain to me why that necesarily makes Judeo Christian Creationism correct as an explanation, as opposed to, say, the Hindu Creation myth? Hmmm?

Of course, the intricacies of the human neural system are adequately explained by evolution and time, if one cares to study the theory, but I do understand it is much easier to throw your hands up and say "I don't believe it happened by chance", rather than actually studying.

 

[LightHorseman]

I am sorry if I understood your position wrongly, I apologize.

Like I have said all along, my belief is that science would eventually prove the Genesis account correct, though there may have been some mathematical calculation errors misrepresenting the age give or take maybe 5,000 years, but that is another discussion.

Current scientific models state the origination of the universe began as infinite mass with zero velocity contained in a size roughly equivalent to a dime. If there were a point in which there was infinite mass, and today there is a definition to the amount of mass, where did all the mass go, did it disappear?

Now here comes one major hurdle I will admit, yet it is also one that modern cosmology must also overcome. The age of the universe is said to be 13.7 billion years old, a claim which I do not subscribe to, yet the observable universe is expanding is now believed to be a zero degree arc roughly 93 billion light years across. Wait, how can the universe that is 13.7 billion years old starting from about 2-3 cubic inches of mass now be 93 billion light years in observable size if nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, I mean the matter would have to expand at a rate slightly greater than 3 times the speed of light in order to expand to that size, yet the theory of relativity states that matter cannot accelerate beyond the speed of light, but here we have proof that it has.

So now time for some more math, and this may get interesting.

The universe is said to have expanded in size 1292 times its original size since its origination, hmm here is a problem, the universe started out as 2 or so cubic inches and is now a sphere with a diameter of 93 billion light years across so that extrapolation could not be correct.

Here is another problem, if information cannot be created or destroyed yet the origination of the universe began from an infinite mass yet now has measurable mass, what happened?

Still with me?

2 issues with what you are saying... you keep talking about the very very begining, or initial state of the universe... modern cosmology doesn't claim to go back this far. Yes, modern cosmology goes back a very long way, to within pico seconds of the origin of the universe, but no one claims to know what the exact origins are, so claims about infinitely dense matter are incorrect. Super duper incredibly dense, sure, but not infinitely.

Second... where did you get that 1298 times figure from?

But yes, still with you.

 

[pgp_protector]

No I am not claiming that the speed of light changes over time, it changes over force. The speed of light remains roughly 182,000 miles/second unless acted on by a force greater than the force contained in the light.

Huh you ask, where in the world is this guy coming from and what point is he trying to make?

Glad you asked, the speed of light in a black hole is 0 feet/second, it cannot escape because the gravity force is greater than force of motion in the light waves and particles also called photons.

Likewise, the theory of special relativity which was proved during the total eclipse of 1918, actually proved that the speed of light is not constant. Typically when light is bent it splits into different parts of its spectrum, most commonly observed using a prism and seeing the rainbow so to speak. Yet when the stars behind the sun were observed and verified, there was no red shift which would indicate that the speed of light in each wave varied. This is proved with simple mechanics, when turning left in a car, the left side tires will have to decelerate and the right side tires will have to accelerate, the left side of the car will be moving slower than the right side.

Are you with me so far?

Mmm no, right of the bat you're wrong.
Even in a black hole the speed of light is constant.
The Gravity of the black hole warps space upon itself
Black Holes
Black Holes

 

[ebia]

2 issues with what you are saying... you keep talking about the very very begining, or initial state of the universe... modern cosmology doesn't claim to go back this far. Yes, modern cosmology goes back a very long way, to within pico seconds of the origin of the universe, but no one claims to know what the exact origins are, so claims about infinitely dense matter are incorrect. Super duper incredibly dense, sure, but not infinitely.

At best I presume one would, in any case, need to talk mathematically in terms of limits. Talk of anything at zero or infinite values has a tendency to be mathematically wrong - you can't reduce some things to layman's terms without making it incorrect.

 

[praisejahupeople]

For example?

My love of God has nothing to do with whether or not He created the universe through special YECreationism or 15 billion years of natural processes. Nor does that alter the fact that even if Evolution were disproved tommorrow, YECreationism is NOT the only other option

Wouldnt your love extend to believing what he says?one point at a time.

 

[pgp_protector]

Wouldnt your love extend to believing what he says?

What he says, or what someone wrote ?

 

[LightHorseman]

Wouldnt your love extend to believing what he says?

Of course.

But then, I believe he speaks to us far more directly through his Creation, rather than through an arguably inspired version of events, originally passed down orally by a non scientific people for who knows how many generations, before being subject to the vagueries of translation and transcription errors before eventually coming to us.

If I were to try to explain the Creation of the universe to people who didn't unbderstand basic physics principles like gravity and electron... then I may very well simplify things to similar terms to those found in Genesis. This isn't a matter of "not believing what God says", its a matter of being advanced enough to understand Him even better now that we have a greater degree of maturity and scientific knowledge.

When you try to explain something to a 5 year old, do you use the same language and terms as you would explaining the same thing to a 15 year old? How about a 30 year old? Of course not. This does not, however, mean you have ever been "lying" to the child... merely that you are adjusting the information to be understoof by the child at their current level. In terms of scientific knowledge, in this analogy, the ancient Hebrews are the 5 year olds, and modern scientific post industrial society are the 15 year olds. I am quite sure that when science advances twice as far again, they will look back on our knowledge and ideas as quaint and simplistic, much as a 30 year old regards a 15 year old.

 

[rcorlew]

2 issues with what you are saying... you keep talking about the very very begining, or initial state of the universe... modern cosmology doesn't claim to go back this far. Yes, modern cosmology goes back a very long way, to within pico seconds of the origin of the universe, but no one claims to know what the exact origins are, so claims about infinitely dense matter are incorrect. Super duper incredibly dense, sure, but not infinitely.

Second... where did you get that 1298 times figure from?

But yes, still with you.

Abbott, Brian (May 30, 2007). "Microwave (WMAP) All-Sky Survey". Hayden Planetarium. Microwave (WMAP) All-Sky Survey | Guide | Digital Universe | Hayden Planetarium. Retrieved on 2008-01-13.

You are getting very close to the point of the matter, closer than you think.

Ok so we are back to one big problem:

Universe = 13.7 billion years old
Universe = sphere with 93 billion light years diameter
Matter cannot accelerate beyond the speed of light

Now this is getting really interesting

According to microwave spectrography, the minimum radius of the physical universe at the time of "creation" or "big-bang" is 36 million light years, making the diameter 72 million light years across.

Now some key accepted facts:

The speed of light is constant unless acted on by a force of greater magnitude(mainly gravity)
An object's mass increases in direct proportion to its rate of acceleration

Now here is the connection:

While the observable universe is nearly a perfect sphere surrounding the earth, which would make sense because we can only see so far. But if all matter in the universe started from roughly the same location, all matter would be dispersing in roughly opposite directions until acted on by an outside force. That is fairly common sense so far.

While star A is accelerating away from us in one direction, star B is accelerating away in the opposite direction, each star is accelerating thus gaining mass in direct proportion to it increase in velocity. Even with the largest proposed size of the original universe, the rate of acceleration would have to be @ 2.3 times the speed of light (warp 2.3 if you are into that lol) but let's say, only because we have to in any model of cosmology, that it is possible to accelerate that fast, the increase in mass would result in an equivalent increase in the gravity of each element that has accelerated to that speed.

What this entails is that the light emitted by star A is accelerated by the increasingly strong gravitation being exhibited by star B, and vice versa. This the light from star A which began at a point near the center of the supposed center of the universe of 72 million light years across.

Now I will admit, I have yet to do the math of the effects of the increased rate of acceleration to cause an expansion of such magnitude yet as it will take some hours to produce.

Are you still with me?

 

[LightHorseman]

Matter cannot accelerate beyond the speed of light

STOP!

Matter cannot acclerate beyond the speed of light RELETIVE TO THE OBSERVER... however, matter CAN move apart from other matter in excess of the speed of light, just not so far as an observer is concerned.

*sigh* this is a tough concept... Kaku favours the chair analogy, I myself prefer the expanding baloon, but they are both with their limitations. But I'll give it a go.

Take a small baloon. Draw stars on it. Blow it up. You will notice that if the rate of increase in surface area is constant, the speed with which the "stars" move apart will increase. Eventually, even though the expansion rate is well bellow the speed of light, as stars move apart and their relative rates increase, eventually you will find stars that are an extreme distance from each other are, actually, moving apart faster than the speed of light. This does NOT violate "C" or special relativity, because it becomes impossible for any information to pass between the stars.

I can probably find you a website that explains it better and in more detail if you like... but for our purposes here, it really would sort of be easier if you'd just take my word on this.

 

[LightHorseman]

But otherwise... still with you

 

[rcorlew]

Even with your point, which is valid I add, the rate of expansion from point zero would be beyond the speed of light 2.3/2 = 1.15, but that is incorrect in the distance star A travels from point zero must be computable with the age/size equation, the actual rate of acceleration star A has from star B is @ 6 times the speed of light.

The diameter of the universe is believed to be 93 billion light years across 93/2 = 46.5 billion light years

46.5/13.7 = 3.39

So while star A is moving away from star B at roughly 6 times the speed of light.

Something has to be wrong here, how can star A or star B go that fast?

 

[Drekkan85]

So - since no one has bothered to disagree we all agree on two points:

1) Not literal does not mean false. Glad we got that sorted. I'll just assume certain posters will apologize for their libel.

2) We all interpret the Bible and none of us take it literally.

 

[rcorlew]

So - since no one has bothered to disagree we all agree on two points:

1) Not literal does not mean false. Glad we got that sorted. I'll just assume certain posters will apologize for their libel.

2) We all interpret the Bible and none of us take it literally.

I would have to disagree on point 2

 

[Drekkan85]

It's also worth noting that while I'm hardly a physicist (heck, don't think I ever took a dedicated physics class - just doculectures online out of curiousity) a quick wiki check reveals that the General Theory of Relativity makes it possible for space itself to expand without restriction on its rate.

 

[rcorlew]

It's also worth noting that while I'm hardly a physicist (heck, don't think I ever took a dedicated physics class - just doculectures online out of curiousity) a quick wiki check reveals that the General Theory of Relativity makes it possible for space itself to expand without restriction on its rate.

You are right, space is by definition without mass thus removing the limitations of relativity. However we are talking of the observable universe not space which is different in that you cannot observe nothing you must observe something. So observed space is made of matter which must be confined by the known laws of physics.

 

[Drekkan85]

I would have to disagree on point 2

Then how do you reconcile 1 and 2 without interpretation. (I'm using a KJV)

Genesis 1:20~27 clearly states that God created all the creatures of the sea, then all the creatures of the land, then Man and Woman together.

Genesis 2:7~22 has God creating Adam, then creating all the animals, then creating Eve out of Adam.

Those two are mutually exclusive in a 100% literal reading. With some interpretation they can be reconciled, but let's not ignore, we're looking for 100% literal - no imagery, no metaphor, no weasel words.

 

[ebia]

I would have to disagree on point 2

Which bit?
2a: we all interpret the bible
or
2b: none of us take it literally

 

[herev]

Would you agree that one of the most provable methods of proofing old earth theory is the speed of light and the distance of stars?

I would agree that it is one of many

 

[herev]

I thought you were implying that it was made up since it was borrowed from other myths. I would only say that academics are the enemy of faith when they CONTRADICT what God tells us. It is beneficial to study and learn as much as possible but if our faith is real then nothing will convince us otherwise.

heaven's no
Academics enlighten us to all things. GOD created intellect, too, ya know. I am glad for your faith--make no mistake, but my faith is JUST AS REAL and it lies in Christ as yours does. There is still a false dichotomy. My faith is not contradicted by my intellect--they go quite nicely hand in hand.