The Universe can be 6 days old
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-01-2016, 10:02 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 09:47 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There exists no other frame of reference outside or inside the bubble before the universe was created.
At no point in the story does the bubble create something outside the skin while it is expanding. It never expands into anything. Therefore there is no frame of reference that can be slower than the bubble.
The bubble has the slowest frame of reference and is also the starting frame of reference for creation.
At no point in the entire expansion would there have ever been a creation that could have existed before the skin of the bubble. Therefore at no point could there have been a frame of reference whose time could move slower than the bubble skin.
The bubble skin will always be the outside observer no matter what frame of reference you claim.
There is no better frame of reference to take time from than the bubble skin.

This is meaningless.

There is no such thing as a privileged frame of reference. Lightspeed remains invariant regardless. "Bubble" is at best ill-defined in whatever the hell you're trying to say. You are latching onto buzzwords without understanding the underlying physics.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
22-01-2016, 10:05 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
At work.

(22-01-2016 09:53 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  As I said before though.
Just provide me 1 piece of evidence to prove the world couldn't be created in 6 days and you won.

Oh. To the above post? Pretty much anything to do with geology.

So, still waiting for AgShane to live up to their opening claims. Still looking for them to address/acknowledge various points.

Still seeing the same modus operandi as previous threads.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 10:10 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 10:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 09:53 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Chances are nothing I wrote there is proven by science. This post you are responding to isn't even put forward as a defense of the topic. It was just food for thought.
As I said before though.
Just provide me 1 piece of evidence to prove the world couldn't be created in 6 days and you won.
If your not going to do it then I call it a draw between us.
Don't lock the thread as I am still debating others.

It's "you're" not "your".

You : "I am here today to prove that this is theoretically possible to do using only science"
You : "Chances are nothing I wrote there is proven by science."

You admitted you failed.
I don't have to do anything.
You said you were going to do something, and didn't.
That's now a draw.
You get over excited Bucky. Don't blow your load so early. Weeping
"Chances are nothing I wrote there is proven by science. This post you are responding to isn't even put forward as a defense of the topic"

Next time you want to call a win try to quote it properly.

I wasn't talking about the topic. Only the long post of theories you were replying to.

Nice try though. It's really not that hard to prove me wrong.
You could pull any scientific evidence you want and end this argument instantly.

Ofcourse we could just call it a draw too, but where is the fun in that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 10:14 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 10:05 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

(22-01-2016 09:53 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  As I said before though.
Just provide me 1 piece of evidence to prove the world couldn't be created in 6 days and you won.

Oh. To the above post? Pretty much anything to do with geology.

So, still waiting for AgShane to live up to their opening claims. Still looking for them to address/acknowledge various points.

Still seeing the same modus operandi as previous threads.

Drinking Beverage
Ok I accept your challenge on the basis of Geography on the condition that I get to use Physics to prove you wrong.
Have at it.
Which aspect of Geography proves that earth could not have been created in 6 days.

If you can't provide evidence I will be happy to call it a draw.
Please don't lock the thread as I am still debating others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 10:19 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 09:53 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Just provide me 1 piece of evidence to prove the world couldn't be created in 6 days and you won.

Fuck you. Dodgy

All of geological studies. Literally everything. Geologic time, plate tectonics, sedimentary layers, radiometric dating, fucking everything. Who the hell are you to invalidate centuries worth of study and human endeavor by people far more intelligent, dedicated, and hard working than you?

If you want to maintain a 6 day creation, then you need to provide evidence not only of the creation itself, but why and how something managed to hide it all so that all of the evidence appears to support a billion years old universe and a millions year old planet; then explain how all of that is somehow a better explanation for all of the evidence we already currently have.

Good luck you fucking dumbass.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
22-01-2016, 10:23 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 10:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 09:47 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There exists no other frame of reference outside or inside the bubble before the universe was created.
At no point in the story does the bubble create something outside the skin while it is expanding. It never expands into anything. Therefore there is no frame of reference that can be slower than the bubble.
The bubble has the slowest frame of reference and is also the starting frame of reference for creation.
At no point in the entire expansion would there have ever been a creation that could have existed before the skin of the bubble. Therefore at no point could there have been a frame of reference whose time could move slower than the bubble skin.
The bubble skin will always be the outside observer no matter what frame of reference you claim.
There is no better frame of reference to take time from than the bubble skin.

This is meaningless.

There is no such thing as a privileged frame of reference. Lightspeed remains invariant regardless. "Bubble" is at best ill-defined in whatever the hell you're trying to say. You are latching onto buzzwords without understanding the underlying physics.
If there is no such thing as a privileged frame of reference then which frame of reference gets the privilege to make the claim "the universe was created in a minimum of 13 billion years"?

If we aren't allowed to choose a frame of reference then we aren't allowed to claim the age of anything.
Age is dependent on speed & reference frame.
I thought you already knew that?

Does this mean we call it a draw?
Please don't close the thread as i am still debating others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 10:26 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 10:10 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You get over excited Bucky. Don't blow your load so early. Weeping
"Chances are nothing I wrote there is proven by science. This post you are responding to isn't even put forward as a defense of the topic"

Next time you want to call a win try to quote it properly.

I wasn't talking about the topic. Only the long post of theories you were replying to.

Nice try though. It's really not that hard to prove me wrong.
You could pull any scientific evidence you want and end this argument instantly.

Ofcourse we could just call it a draw too, but where is the fun in that?

The argument never got started. You have nothing. Nothing you say is worth getting excited about. It's become very clear you have next to no knowledge of either science, or how a debate goes. You failed here miserably. You didn't do what you said you were going to do, and are too dishonest to admit it. As I said earlier, you make up shit which you think sounds "all sciencey" and in fact you really know next to nothing about science, as had been amply demonstrated here. .

Still waiting to hear what "stretching matter" means.
As usual, you ignore everything inconvenience, even after having your crap totally destroyed, in multiple ways.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-01-2016, 10:37 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2016 10:41 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 10:19 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 09:53 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Just provide me 1 piece of evidence to prove the world couldn't be created in 6 days and you won.

Fuck you. Dodgy

All of geological studies. Literally everything. Geologic time, plate tectonics, sedimentary layers, radiometric dating, fucking everything. Who the hell are you to invalidate centuries worth of study and human endeavor by people far more intelligent, dedicated, and hard working than you?

If you want to maintain a 6 day creation, then you need to provide evidence not only of the creation itself, but why and how something managed to hide it all so that all of the evidence appears to support a billion years old universe and a millions year old planet; then explain how all of that is somehow a better explanation for all of the evidence we already currently have.

Good luck you fucking dumbass.
Thanks for the Geology class. Now for Physics.
The study of time also falls under Physics
Everything you just said there is dependent on a frame of reference to verify the age. Time isn't that simple.
The age of anything in physics depends on the speed they are going and the frame of reference they are compared to.
A man travelling at light speed will not have aged a single second even if he left for 100 years & then returned home. He will be zero seconds old while you will be 100 years old.

So much did he age? He will say zero, & you will say 100 and you will both be right.

In the story I gave, the expanding bubble was the frame of reference & there existed no other thing that can exist before the expanding bubble at any point in the expansion.
Therefore the world from the beginning of the expansion to the very end only took place in 6 days.
It cannot have taken place any faster than the bubble could have expanded.
Since the bubble was expanding at light speed and only stopped for 6 days it means the world was created in 6 days.
Sorry my friend Physics doesn't support your theory of time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 10:38 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 10:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 10:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This is meaningless.

There is no such thing as a privileged frame of reference. Lightspeed remains invariant regardless. "Bubble" is at best ill-defined in whatever the hell you're trying to say. You are latching onto buzzwords without understanding the underlying physics.
If there is no such thing as a privileged frame of reference then which frame of reference gets the privilege to make the claim "the universe was created in a minimum of 13 billion years"?

Ours.

It is theoretically possible to construct frames of reference to obtain any desired result. Much as it is possible to construct geocentric reference frames - that's a purely mathematical process. Reconciling models with observable interaction is another matter.
(thus I perhaps misspoke to say there is no privileged reference frame; what I meant to clarify is that you can invent one such that the universe is any age you choose, but insofar as any are "correct" they need to be correlated with actual observation)

(22-01-2016 10:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If we aren't allowed to choose a frame of reference then we aren't allowed to claim the age of anything.
Age is dependent on speed & reference frame.
I thought you already knew that?

Neither time nor distance has intuitive meaning at such cosmological scales.

Because everything in the universe shares a common origin according to our best available model, we can (loosely) describe "time elapsed since then" such that it applies to each constituent component, all of them having, on a cosmological scale, the same time evolution.

I have yet to see any evidence that your understanding passes beyond appropriating buzzwords.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 10:43 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2016 10:48 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 10:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 10:10 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You get over excited Bucky. Don't blow your load so early. Weeping
"Chances are nothing I wrote there is proven by science. This post you are responding to isn't even put forward as a defense of the topic"

Next time you want to call a win try to quote it properly.

I wasn't talking about the topic. Only the long post of theories you were replying to.

Nice try though. It's really not that hard to prove me wrong.
You could pull any scientific evidence you want and end this argument instantly.

Ofcourse we could just call it a draw too, but where is the fun in that?

The argument never got started. You have nothing. Nothing you say is worth getting excited about. It's become very clear you have next to no knowledge of either science, or how a debate goes. You failed here miserably. You didn't do what you said you were going to do, and are too dishonest to admit it. As I said earlier, you make up shit which you think sounds "all sciencey" and in fact you really know next to nothing about science, as had been amply demonstrated here. .

Still waiting to hear what "stretching matter" means.
As usual, you ignore everything inconvenience, even after having your crap totally destroyed, in multiple ways.
When something stretches it does not gain mass. It only expands by distancing itself from itself.

When are you going to provide me some evidence Bucky?
Why is something that seems so easily disproved one of the hardest things to disprove?
Looks like the draw is all I am ever going to get here.
No one is ever going to provide evidence and since I'm an academic skeptic I cannot even claim i proved anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: