The Universe can be 6 days old
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-01-2016, 05:39 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
One of the characteristics of our universe is that it is over 13 billion years old. You can't create a 13 billion year old universe in anything less than 13 billion years (duh right?).

Sure, at one time our universe was only 7 days old, we all know that. Do I win?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Matt Finney's post
22-01-2016, 05:41 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
Drinking Beverage

At work.

So, from AgShane's official starting posting.......

Within the words typed there is no science. There's not even enough to be thought of as an hypotheseis.

There's no formal logic. The best that might be said is that at least the words are coherant (In that their use, sentence structure etc convey meaning. Though, given the traits of the English language so does the stuff by Lewis Carroll. )

As far as words on a page? It's not even within a shadow of say some of the native Australian's giant dream time snake creating the world etc.

So..... no sciencd, no logic. The OP has failed in presenting what they posted they were going to do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
22-01-2016, 05:44 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 05:27 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 05:18 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  That's not my problem. YOU have to do what you said you would do.
So far, you have not even begun. There is nothing about your "story" that qualifies as "evidence".
I am not discussing the existence of something here. If I were then I agree I need evidence.
I am discussing if it is theoretically possible to create the world in 6 days using what science has thought us.
If anything in the story has been proven by science to be impossible then I have lost the debate.

Lawrence Krauss has been quoted saying something to the effect that he cannot prove that the universe wasn't created 15 minutes ago, and everyone has false memories of the past.

He's right. This cannot be proven.

But he can create a model based on scientific findings to create a very compelling explanation for the creation of the universe. The data that he and many other hard working scientists have compiled paints a clear and consistent picture of a universe that is +13 billion years old.

Shane, I understand that you're just trying to convey that your idea is possible and that you're not trying to prove that it is what happened beyond a shadow of a doubt. Why don't you try explaining your model, and providing rationale for your argument that we can relate to. Really go into detail about how this a six-day creation model can make sense and use material from reliable scientific sources to back your claims up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 05:47 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 05:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
Quote:I intend to prove all evidence suggest* that it is scientifically possible to create the universe in 6 days using only scientific principles.

It's "all evidence suggest*S", child.
"Scientific principles" require that you be able to TEST this claim.
You cannot do any such thing. You have proven nothing.
There are no "scientific principles" you can name or reference that support your fiction. There is no evidence you have presented that supports your fiction.
A story using "sciencey sounding" words in a work of fiction, is SCIENCE FICTION.
I am not discussing the existence of something. If I were then I need to provide the evidence for the existence of that something in my presentation.
I have given an example of how it is possible to create the world in 6 days.

The story isn't the claim. It's just a story. In fact I wrote "The story goes:"
Why would I be debating the story?

The claim is that it is theoretically possible to create the world in 6 days.
The story is not up for debate here. It is just a fabrication.

The question is up for the debate:
Is it possible the world can be created in 6 days.
I said yes.
I showed a creation event that I believe does not defy the laws of science.
I cited examples of how the laws of science were applied as evidence to support my claim.
It is now left to my opponents to disprove the evidence evidence I have provided.

Eg. I said a bubble with finite mass stretches at the speed of light.
If science claims that this I not possible based on the laws of science then I have lost the debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 05:52 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 04:43 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  What the hell, I'm obviously bored.

I accept Shane's challenge.

My back of the envelope calculations suggest that any attempt to assemble a mass comparable to the Earth's in a mere six day period will liberate enough energy from accretion alone to convert the entire works into some novel form of plasma. Adam will have to content himself with naming new high-energy forms of matter.

Yep, my admittedly layman's understanding of how stellar, planetary and galactic structures coalesce would create insurmountable cooling problems in such a compressed time frame. He'll do something squirrely like redefine time or the way we perceive it to get out of it.

Dishonest word play!

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 05:58 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2016 06:09 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 05:39 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  One of the characteristics of our universe is that it is over 13 billion years old. You can't create a 13 billion year old universe in anything less than 13 billion years (duh right?).

Sure, at one time our universe was only 7 days old, we all know that. Do I win?
No. The universe can be more than 100 billion years old while at the same time it can be less than 1 second old.
It depends on who/what is telling the story.

Time varies based on speed. The faster you go the slower you grow.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 05:59 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
At work.

(22-01-2016 05:47 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Eg. I said a bubble with finite mass stretches at the speed of light.

The above? Not science. Not based on science. Not found within science.

Other than, "Cool story Bro, needs more vampires and dragons." ?

Yeah, you have yet to do/demonstrate/post what you said you would in your opening post.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
22-01-2016, 06:02 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 05:59 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

(22-01-2016 05:47 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Eg. I said a bubble with finite mass stretches at the speed of light.

The above? Not science. Not based on science. Not found within science.

Other than, "Cool story Bro, needs more vampires and dragons." ?

Yeah, you have yet to do/demonstrate/post what you said you would in your opening post.

Drinking Beverage
Are you stating that a bubble with finite mass cannot stretch at the speed of light?
Or are you stating that we don't know?
If you don't know then just refute the parts that you know and I lose.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 06:06 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
At work.

Laugh out load

No mate, not how it works this time around on the rodeo.

YOU made the claim of showing science.

Off you go, get showing. You haven't done so yet. People are waiting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 06:07 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2016 06:32 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 05:47 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I am not discussing the existence of something. If I were then I need to provide the evidence for the existence of that something in my presentation.
I have given an example of how it is possible to create the world in 6 days.

I know full well what you think you trying to do. You failed.
You picked some concepts you heard about, assembled them into a story in an entirely fictional manner, a manner that is UNTESTABLE, (even while claiming they were "scientific").

(22-01-2016 08:25 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I intend to prove all evidence suggest that it is scientifically possible to create the universe in 6 days using only scientific principles.

I'm well aware of that. You used no "scientific principles". You think you did, but all you did was use sciencey words. To prove your story is possible, you must reference us to the "principles" and to the fact they can be manipulated into 6 epochs, by a "creator". You probably meant "the universe could be formed" in 6 periods, but that's not what you said.

(22-01-2016 08:25 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I showed a creation event that I believe does not defy the laws of science.
I cited examples of how the laws of science were applied as evidence to support my claim.

You provided no "laws" to even attempt to refute.
What "laws" are you claiming you gave ?
You made up a lame story, and think it sounds "all sciencey".
You have no clue what you are babbling about.
The inflationary epoch proceeded FASTER that the speed of light.

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topi...ation.html

"Technically, the expansion during this period of inflation (and even the somewhat slower expansion which succeeded it) proceeded faster than the speed of light. To explain how this is possible (the speed of light being supposedly the maximum speed it is possible to travel), an analogy may help. If two airplanes are flying directly away from each other at their maximum speed of, say, 500 kilometres per hour, they are actually flying apart at 1,000 kilometres per hour even though neither individual plane is exceeding 500km per hour. Thus, "expansion", in terms of the expanding universe, is not the same thing as "travel".

It is still not clear to scientists, however, exactly what caused the inflationary phase, the best guess being some kind of a negative "vacuum energy density" (or positive "vacuum pressure") triggered by the separation of the strong nuclear force from the other elementary forces at this time. It is hypothesized that this separation caused a kind of symmetry breaking or phase transition (analagous to the phase transition when water turns to ice), which left the universe in a highly unstable state with much more energy than it would otherwise have had, causing a sharp outward antigravitational effect, smoothing out most of the irregularities in the existing matter and creating vast quantities of particles in a very short time.

There is no "law" in science that even talks about what you're on about.
Here are the "laws of science".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
Tell us, which ones PROVE your stupid story.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: