Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-02-2016, 03:35 AM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(10-02-2016 11:59 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Crickets

Sorry very busy these days.
Also you aren't even arguing that "we know it is 13.8 billion years" anymore. I'm not sure what we are debating at the moment.
Can you state your claim before I proceed?
Find all posts by this user
11-02-2016, 03:56 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
No worries. I just got back from vacation myself.

My position is that the best models and data currently available show that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Models and data are subject to revision so that may well change but not by more than an order of magnitude. I'd be shocked if it changed by as much as 50%.

And it's your claim that we are debating.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
11-02-2016, 03:59 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
PS: Did you catch the news about the first detection of gravity waves? Very cool! Given sufficiently advanced detectors we could potentially use those to see through both the photon and neutrino decoupling horizons and observe the universe as it was at the end of the inflationary epoch when it was small enough to fit in your bathtub.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
11-02-2016, 06:51 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(11-02-2016 03:59 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  PS: Did you catch the news about the first detection of gravity waves? Very cool! Given sufficiently advanced detectors we could potentially use those to see through both the photon and neutrino decoupling horizons and observe the universe as it was at the end of the inflationary epoch when it was small enough to fit in your bathtub.
It's very interesting indeed. Long awaited.
P.S. a debate needs two sides.
What is your side?
I am saying that we do not "know" it is 13.8 billion years and it could just as easily be 6 days old with regards to creation.
Are you stating that we do know that it is 13.8 billion years?
If not then please state your claim.
Find all posts by this user
12-02-2016, 12:19 AM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
I am saying that we do not *know* that the universe is 13.8 billion years and that the error on that could be several billion (up to +/-50%).

It could not just as easily be 6 days. <--- This is our point of difference.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
12-02-2016, 07:53 AM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(12-02-2016 12:19 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  I am saying that we do not *know* that the universe is 13.8 billion years and that the error on that could be several billion (up to +/-50%).

It could not just as easily be 6 days. <--- This is our point of difference.

Well there are 2 parts to this debate if you check the op.
You aren't debating the 13.8 +- 0.021 billion year old universe claim.
I'm not here to discuss a 50% discrepancy on that figure. That would be another debate I suppose.
I guess the only thing left for me to prove is that it can be 6 days old with regards to creation.
Is this correct?
Find all posts by this user
12-02-2016, 07:10 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
That and that it was Created rather than just happened through natural processes for no good reason.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
13-02-2016, 09:10 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2016 09:17 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(12-02-2016 07:10 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  That and that it was Created rather than just happened through natural processes for no good reason.
What do you think created means?
Create: BRING (something) into existence.
Bring: take or go with (someone or something) to a place.
Bring: cause (someone or something) to be in a particular state or condition.
Existence: the fact or STATE of living or having objective reality.

The act of bringing the universe from a state of singularity to it's present state is what I call creation. I'm only using the dictionary meaning. Did you find some other meaning of the word create that is in keeping with science? Please share, however when I speak of create it is based n the dictionary meaning as stated above.
What caused it is a totally different topic & I am not here to discuss that. I also have a perfectly good theory that does not include the existence of a God.
Find all posts by this user
13-02-2016, 11:27 AM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(13-02-2016 09:10 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(12-02-2016 07:10 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  That and that it was Created rather than just happened through natural processes for no good reason.
The act of bringing the universe from a state of singularity to it's present state is what I call creation.

The term "create" and all of its various derivatives have unavoidable genetic connotations. As you have stated, it is an act, requiring both intent and capability. Genetic terms like "creation" are best avoided unless it is your intent to demonstrate the implied creator. This is especially true of discussions that delve into a six day creation and carry their own inescapable overtones of a Creator.

Quote:What caused it is a totally different topic & I am not here to discuss that. I also have a perfectly good theory that does not include the existence of a God.

I am content to limit the discussion to the time-frame and leave the matter of the origin, author or creator to a separate discussion. Cosmology is infinitely more interestiing than theosophy.

To paraphrase, I guess the only thing left for you to prove is that the universe can be 6 days old with regards to its origin.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
13-02-2016, 04:04 PM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2016 04:28 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(13-02-2016 11:27 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(13-02-2016 09:10 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The act of bringing the universe from a state of singularity to it's present state is what I call creation.

The term "create" and all of its various derivatives have unavoidable genetic connotations. As you have stated, it is an act, requiring both intent and capability. Genetic terms like "creation" are best avoided unless it is your intent to demonstrate the implied creator. This is especially true of discussions that delve into a six day creation and carry their own inescapable overtones of a Creator.

Quote:What caused it is a totally different topic & I am not here to discuss that. I also have a perfectly good theory that does not include the existence of a God.

I am content to limit the discussion to the time-frame and leave the matter of the origin, author or creator to a separate discussion. Cosmology is infinitely more interestiing than theosophy.

To paraphrase, I guess the only thing left for you to prove is that the universe can be 6 days old with regards to its origin.
We already agreed to that remember?
Event start to event end. This is the creation period up for debate. Where does the definition of create imply intent?
The time taken between the two states of the same event is all I'm interested in.
As a geologist you would know how well formations are created by natural events which has no bearing on intent.
I think you must have assumed you are debating a theist somewhere along the way.

If the word "act" somehow implies intent then change it to "process". We both are not arguing intent in this debate and it would be wrong of us to do so now.
Thus far you have thrown out the 13.8 +- 0.021 billion year old universe claim in place of a less definitive age.
I was hoping my opponent would have argued on behalf of that claim, but I will probably have to make another debate to discuss that one.
So all I am left with in this debate is to prove the prossibility the universe can be 6 days.

So here is my question to you.
How do you "know" the speed of expansion went from faster than light speed from the moment of event start to present day observable speeds?
Where is the evidence?
I am not debating that it "is" & only that it "can be" since we lack the evidence to prove otherwise.
It's not a debate about evidence, it's about a lack of evidence.
If someone makes a claim that something "is" and I respond "prove it" then you should at least provide me the evidence right?
If you tell me that just because I cannot come up with a better solution then it proves you are right, then I'm afraid you will lose this debate.
A lack of evidence means the possibilities are endless in this particular debate.
Why? Because we do not have evidence of the slowing down from event start to present. It has always been an assumption based on our earliest observable reference frames. If you would throw out the claim that inflation did happen at faster than light speeds then it would probably help your side of the debate however I don't think science will allow it.
Provide me the evidence based on the frame of reference from event start velocity to the point where it slowed down and I cannot argue any further. The evidence would be sufficient to end the debate. Without it we cannot determine the age of creation, only the age of the creation itself. There is a difference.

I would gladly concede the debate that it cannot be 6 days old with regards to creation on the grounds that it is not an objectively proven fact, but you will also have to throw out the 13.8 billion year old universe claim on the same grounds or any other claims you may want to make. Science just hasn't gotten the right to make a claim about event start observations as yet and it would be dishonest of us to do so as well.
Let's just say our best guess is 13.8 billion years old as far as we can see but it could be much younger than that.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: