YEC explanation for traveling light.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2012, 07:01 AM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2012 07:40 AM by SixForty.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
To houseofcantor:

"And how is all this about traveling light? "

That's what I actually originally posted here to discuss! It has been taken pretty far off track since then, though, hasn't it?

"640, all yer sources seem to be, you know…"

That's because I'm being asked to defend creationism repeatedly here. So of course most of my sources would be creationist!

"Science ain't absolute, but to say "most likely" or "it is hypothesized" alla time gets old with the quickness."

I know, which is another reason I get tired of the Big Bang and evolution so often. So many people know the general ideas, but when you push them on specifics, you hear so many "likely" and "hypothesized". It is painful sometimes, isn't it? Smile

"Generally, BBT is a "most likely" scenario, evolution is a "near certain" consideration, and YEC is "pretty much quackery.""

BBT is "most likely" ONLY if you accept the philosophical assumptions that it's built upon. Evolution is nowhere "near certain", even if you DO accept the philosophical assumptions that it's built on! As for YEC being "pretty much quackery", that's pretty much prejudicial conjecture. It's arbitrarily reversible - evolution is pretty much quackery.

To Bucky Ball:

Seriously buddy. Take a time out. You're spilling all over the place here.

"So it IS Wikipedia where you get your education. I knew it."

Nope. But I did want to provide resources for you that seemed on your level. It was just a quick, 3 minute exercise to prove how easy it was to find proof that you were wrong. You could have done it yourself if you wanted to know the truth. You can feel free to look further. Almost exclusively, every resource you will find will say that dark matter and dark energy are either hypothetical, or they exist but nobody knows what they really are. Either explanation I consider to be far from the "proven" that you claim.

"You said Dark Energy and Dark Matter had not been proven, and now were up to 94%, so I guess we're getting there."

94% isn't the level to which they are proven. It's the amount that is hypothesized. And it's still not the 99% that you claimed so forcefully to be a fact. So you are wrong on the 99% part, and wrong on the fact part. Double points for you!

"The god crap is child's play. Omniscience...that is "KNOWING everything".. "knowing" is a mental PROCESS. That requires TIME AND MATTER. If you "know" something, a BRAIN is WORKING. "Work being done" requires TIME. Omnipotence means "powerful". Unless your god is impotent she has to ACT. That requires TIME. (If she is "omnipotent" why does she not reveal herself?). "Being holy", the PROCESS of loving, just and providing mercy ALL require time. "Merciful", means "giving mercy". THAT requires TIME. Try try again."

Wow. Such complete and utter lack of understanding. You really should take some introductory philosophy courses. You might not embarrass yourself so bluntly. You clearly have difficultly separating the concept of "being" and "doing". Someone can "be" something without actually "doing" something. Someone can "be" angry without ever "doing" an angry act. On top of that, you haven't even given any reasons for why you think that these are identical. You've simply assumed that they are, and therefore declared that they are - that smacks of circular reasoning. Honestly, your fundamental failure to comprehend these facts actually hurts my very being! (or is it my very doing? Smile )

But let's look at just one of the individual points you've brought up to make this clearer. You claim that "knowing" is a mental process, and thus requires time. You seem to be confusing this with "thinking". "Thinking" is a mental process - "Knowing" is a mental state. You could easily argue that "Thinking" requires time. A process requires a series of events and a sequence of execution. I'd submit that this would require time in some sense. But a state requires no time at all. There is no next step. There is no process. A state of being can be entirely timeless. A process of doing requires time.

"They are all projected human traits."

Yes. Of course. Silly me. Omniscience is a human trait. So is omnipotence. I think I met a guy who had that once. (do I need to put an *end sarcasm* sign here?) These are human traits in the same way as saying that God is infinitely tall. Maybe it's just the concept of infinite that you have trouble understanding - could that be it?

"I give you a week here. Either they will kick you off, or you will flame out like all the others. Humphries indeed. You got nothing."

I actually give myself less than a week here. And it has nothing to do with flaming out (I don't know about the being kicked off part though) It's just I don't usually spend much time online like this. I just had a couple of days to relax, and surfing led me here (I still can't recall what I started out looking for - lousy YouTube! You sucked me in again!)

"EVERYTHING about the "salvation" paradigm requires and assumes god WENT, (get it..TRANSITIONS)..from a state of non-appeasement TO a state of having been appeased by the ACTION, (blood sacrifice) of her child. EVERY bit of that nonsense assumes that your god exists within a temporal dimension. Transitioning takes TIME."

Once again, you get it wrong. Heck, the bible even talks about this, how salvation was God's plan before time began. It was always his state of existence!

But seriously - you need to stop looking at the universe from the inside only. You keep trying to impose internal ideas and constructs of the universe onto external observations about what may exists outside of the universe. It's like you're living in a goldfish bowl. Of course you don't realize that you're wet - it's all you've ever known. But you can't then assume that the rest of the world outside your bowl exists in the same medium that you do, under the same conditions, subject to the same phenomena. The rest of the world just isn't wet. Imposing internal conditions on external observations is fundamentally flawed.

Honestly Bucky Ball, I'll say it again for your sake. You should really sit this one out. You're making yourself look like more and more of an utter fool with almost every statement that you make.

To robotworld:

I must admit, I'm impressed you did the math. Most people would simply rant against the conclusion, without bothering to actually think about it. So you definitely have my respect.

Although I would debate some of the actual numbers you'd put forth there for historical populations, it's not even really necessary. We can take your own previously admitted assumption of extended periods of flat growth throughout history, and add in the fact that historical records from early biblical history show vastly larger family sizes and thus vastly larger growth rates than we see today. This can easily give a much quicker early acceleration followed by periods of flattening in the global population, which could average out to the growth rate you calculated and still end up with the current population.

Now, that's just a hypothetical to think about the concept of how various changes to certain variables will affect the numbers. Please don't jump all over me for this, because I'm stating outright it's a hypothetical without numbers - I'm not actually trying to disprove what you've written here. I present it only to make the following point:

No matter how you reasonably tweak those numbers, you are always going to get a number much closer to 4300 years ago than 200,000 years ago. (which is the current going rate for the introduction of homo sapiens on the planet, according to the latest fossil finds and genetic theories in the evolutionary paradigm) So yeah, say the calculation comes out to 12,000 years instead - I'm sure creationist scientists can explain the discrepancy from 12,000 to 4300 way better than evolution scientists can explain the discrepancy from 12,000 to 200,000.

So I'll still stand by the fact that population growth statistics point to a young earth way more than an old earth.

To Starcrash:

"I did the math, and you didn't present evidence that would be contrary. The findings on Earth of time distortion due to relativity that you presented was in microseconds of difference, or a margin of error at .0000000001% or less. If you believe that light traveled here from distant galaxies and that we perceive it as having traveled at 1.55 million times its known speed, then we're looking at a margin of error at 99.999999999% or more. This isn't using what we've learned from Einstein and applying it to cosmology, but rather coming to a preconceived conclusion (such as a young universe) and just hoping the math fits."

Again, unfortunately I'm going to have to point you to the fact that I'm considering the early expansion of the universe. Maybe I should explain. As a young earth creationist, I don't believe that God created the universe in it's current size at the beginning of creation. I believe the universe was very small on the first day of creation. The on the fourth day of creation, when God created the Sun, Moon and stars, that would be the time that the universe went through a vast expansion process. The expansion of the universe is observable science and I don't deny that. At the same time, there are multiple portions of the bible that actually support this "stretching out of the heavens". So I have no problem with the universe starting out small and expanding out to where it is today.

Now, how that comes into play in this discussion. The time distortion theory presented by Dr Humphreys considers how gravity would have affected the universe at it's beginning, when small, and gravity had a much larger effect on the universe as a whole, and then again during the expansion stage, where both gravity and motion would have had an effect on time in immense ways. The calculation that you are considering regarding a 5 microsecond/year difference only is based solely on the universe as we see it today. But consider the very early stages of that expansion of the universe. All the mass of the universe would be densely packed near the centre (again, this model makes the assumption that the universe does have a centre). There would be massive gravitational effects due to the amount of mass so densely packed. It would likely be a state with higher gravitational effects than the largest black holes we would know of - possibly by factors into the billions in the early stages of expansion. Now that 5 microsecond/year difference is going to amplified possibly billions or trillions of times, possibly more. So during this process, an hour at the middle of the universe could equal a billion hours at the edge. So light from a star at the edge of the universe (which isn't all that far away, since we are still close to the beginning of expansion) starts moving towards the centre - it's going to keep it's constant speed, but given the time distortions of the space that it's going through, it will appear to an observer on earth that it is travelling billions of times faster. As it gets closer and closer to earth, it still travels at the speed of light, but the time distortions are less and less, and an observer on earth sees it as if it's slowing down more and more. Once we get to the point where the universe is today, and the time distortion effects would be minimal, then effectively all light travelling towards earth from any direction is going to appear to be the same speed.

This is just a basic explanation of how such time distortion would affect a universe that has a centre with a centre of gravity, has an edge boundary, and went through a period on expansion in the distant past. Please don't jump all over me for just throwing out hypotheticals with no proof. That paragraph was not meant to prove anything - it was just meant to explain how it would work in the early stages of expansion. I realize that my explanation may not be that great - it's not typically my forte! But honestly, if you want hard science and details as to how it would all work, pick up a copy of Dr Humphreys book Starlight and Time. It can explain it way better than I could, including all the necessary details of how Einsteins theory of relativity plays into this type of cosmology.

"This reminds me a lot of the debate over radiometric dating. We assume that radioactive materials decay at a fixed rate, and young earth creationists believe that they must have decayed at a much faster rate in the past... but not just a little bit... 750,000 times faster. And like radiometric dating, it's not currently speeding up (assumed to have been happening in the past), so those margins or error are theorized to be even greater because such quick change happened over a much shorter time period. I agree there's no evidence to support these assumptions made --- that things always move at the speed they move now --- as you say, they are pretty much accepted as truisms. But it's just utilizing Occam's Razor. Unless we observe a change in decay rate or our perception of the speed of light, there's no reason to expect that they were different at one time. We're using the data we have and extrapolating the simplest explanation."

And those are valid starting points. And like I've said before - if the assumptions the big bang is built on are true, it's pretty good science. But I personally don't accept those assumptions, and also like I've said before, I've seen data that seems to show those assumptions may not be true. Just like radiometric dating - the assumptions of constant rate aren't initially bad assumptions - it's just that there's a fair bit of evidence that shows that hasn't always been the case, so I can't accept them as infallibly valid. Especially when they contradict a whole lot of other evidence.

"Science has an agenda... everyone does. That agenda is to discover knowledge. When you suggest they're "hiding assumptions and philosophies", I think you're suggesting "hidden agenda" here, and that's something you'd have to present evidence for. Attacking someone's philosophies is often an ad hominem attack, so it's possibly irrelevant. It's true that philosophy may result in bias which may skew results, and that's why we have double-blind studies and peer review, as well as attempts to gain data first and then build a model on it rather than the other way around. Assumptions are part of "fitting an argument in the scope of current knowledge", but I don't see what about them is "hidden"."

Although some would suggest "hidden agenda" in the way you would define that, I don't think it's sinister in the way of "we want to steal your children" or anything like that. But I do think it is hidden in the way that it is not openly admitted, and even sidestepped when confronted. Consider again that statement from George Ellis that I quoted earlier in this thread. The problem is that when philosophies of how to interpret data aren't openly known, admitted, and remembered, we often start talking about things as facts, when in reality it is only a certain interpretation of the facts.

As for gaining data first and then building a model on it rather than the other way around, that sort of speaks directly to the point. So much of secular science, especially the historical/evolutionary sciences, have already built a model of naturalism and materialism, and then fit the data into that. Again, it's not necessarily a bad thing, but let's just be honest about it. Certain "scientific facts" aren't actually facts - they are interpretations of the facts through that naturalistic and materialistic model.

"But in a model of a universe created by God, red shift's proliferation (especially compared to blue shift) doesn't have an explanation. One would just assume that God wants everything to move away from Earth or some other point, with no stated purpose."

Not at all! I don't simply assume God wants everything to move away from the earth. I look at the expansion of the universe and accept it for what it is. But I also read in the bible about where God stretched out the heavens so that he could place the Sun, Moon and stars there on day 4 of the creation week. So what I read actually matches up with what I observe. I don't assume God wants everything to move away from the Earth for no stated purpose - I think everything moves away from the earth due to the method he used to create the universe!

"All of the data suggesting a young universe comes from scientists who have a literal-bible agenda, and I dismiss that as easily as I do the Muslims that tell us that modern science keeps confirming the Q'uran."

Unfortunately, this commits the genetic fallacy. Data should be observed for what it is, not for where it comes from. If you are going to dismiss it just because you don't like the source, I'd say this comes back to the very philosophical bias we were discussing earlier. And unfortunately, it actually shows that you do know there is evidence that suggests the earth is young - you just have reasons you don't want to accept it.

"Life from nonlife is abiogenesis, not evolution. I actually felt that you might understand evolution... up to this point. Now I'm not so sure."

Trust me, I understand evolution well enough. And abiogenesis as well. I'm also well acquainted with the common objection from evolutionists that abiogenesis isn't evolution, so don't use the impossibility of abiogenesis to claim evolution is impossible. I've heard it dozens, and possibly hundreds, of times.

First of all, let's clear up whether or not I understand evolution, by the standard definition. I'll put it in my own words, and you tell me if I'm close or not. Neo-Darwinian evolution involves 2 processes: Natural Selection and Genetic Mutation. Natural selection is the process by which members of a population of self-altering replicators, whose survival and reproducibility is influenced by external effects, will gain or lose certain traits, and then those external influences will force the new traits to either disappear from the population, flourish until they infiltrate the entire population, or increase enough until the members affected can break off and form a new population. Genetic mutations are alterations in the DNA code causing non-normal affects. Evolution is variably defined as: a single instance in which a single genetic mutation spreads in a population and is then selected by natural selection to cause a very small change; or the process of billions and billions of such just mentioned very small changes adding up to the common descent of all life from a single ancestor. So - how'd I'd do?

Now, back to Abiogenesis. The problem with evolutionists claiming that evolution and abiogenesis are two different things is this: it's done to distance the theory of evolution from the impossibility of abiogenesis. Evolutionists typically know that abiogenesis is impossible, so they don't want that to distract from the theory of evolution. Okay, I get that. The fatal flaw in that thinking is this - evolution hangs it's hat on abiogenesis. It is the starting point - the very foundation. You can't have the evolution of all life from a single first life form, until you actually have that first life form.

It's like this. Evolution is the study of my son growing up. We measure his height through the years. We measure strength increases. We observe language development, test his knowledge, study social interaction. All sorts of amazing scientific study on my son. Here's the catch - I don't have a son. All that study we did on my son is entirely irrelevant. If he was never born, it's an entire non issue. Abiogenesis is my son being born. So if abiogenesis is impossible, then the entire theory of evolution (at least the common descent definition of it) is pointless. It's a whole bunch of science done on something that doesn't actually exist.

"Darwin was studying to be a parson before he stumbled upon evolution. He didn't presuppose that there was no God, and he wasn't out to prove it."

Well, that's actually up for debate. There is much evidence that Darwin renounced his Christianity after the horrible illness and death of his daughter Annie. He didn't want to believe there was a God who could allow that. Many people would say that Darwin was out to prove that there was no God. However, regardless of that, his motives are mostly irrelevant. To consider his motives would simply be the genetic fallacy, which I try to avoid. I'd rather pay attention to his science, and focus on that.

"He did discover the role of genetics and hereditary traits, which is the foundation for changes from organism to organism, before it was later (or perhaps simultaneously) affirmed by Mendel."

This is also up for debate. Originally Darwin leaned heavily on others who went before him, to the point where he was almost accused of plagiarism. He borrowed heavily from the works of people like Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck, Robert Chambers, and Patrick Matthew. He also borrowed the idea of natural selection from Edward Blythe, amazingly enough a creationist! Regardless, it is true that he was the one who brought it all together into a published work that stuck.

As for your article on Richard Lenski's claimed evolution in bacteria, it's nothing new. Even from the original release of very limited published information, creationists have explained the mutations seen. Once Lenski releases full details of all the information, then we'll see what really occurred and what really is the best explanation. It always takes time for the full story to come out. I'm sure I don't need to remind you of things like Rodhocetus or Archaeoraptor. I'll reserve judgement until I can see all the facts.

"But it does make more sense that life arose from molecules rather than "from nothing", because we've observed things created out of molecules but we have never observed something coming "from nothing", obviously because we've never had a true nothing to observe."

I'd actually take it one step further. I'd say it makes even more sense that the guy who made those very molecules to begin with could also make life with them! Wink


Have a great day!


Oh poor, poor Bucky Ball. You have actually reduced me to pitying you now.

"Dark Energy, and Dark Matter are NOT "hypothetical". There is a lot of evidence for them. What they are exactly, is not known, but their effects have been observed many times. (See any Laurence Krauss book or lecture, among MANY others). The Wikipedia article is outdated. Read something recent. "

And if you want to believe that, you feel free to go right ahead. *pats Bucky Ball on the head*

"SixForty has betrayed a phenomenal ignorage"

I'm not exactly sure what an ignorage is, but I guess I should be thankful for the fact that I am phenomenal at it.

"in the fields of Astronomy, Cosmology, Theology, Philosophy, and Biblical Exegesis, and Form Criticism."

Whoa, whoa, whoa! That's a whole lot of elephant hurling going on there! Good thing I was ready to duck! Next time, give me a little bit more warning please!

"He is wrong about almost everything"

Oh - was I? Sorry, I didn't know. Thanks for pointing that out.

Hey everybody! Gather around for a minute! I just wanted to let everyone here know that apparently I was wrong about almost everything. I apologize. I didn't know until Bucky Ball here pointed it out to me. I guess that means I should take back everything that I've posted here. Now, just so I'm clear on what I need to brush up on, since you claim I was wrong on ALMOST everything, can you tell me what it was I got right? Because I wouldn't want to change my opinion on that!

Honestly, can anyone in here put Bucky Ball back on his leash out in the backyard? He's tearing up the place here, and I think he may have just peed on the rug.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 10:48 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(19-03-2012 07:01 AM)SixForty Wrote:  To Starcrash:

This is just a basic explanation of how such time distortion would affect a universe that has a centre with a centre of gravity, has an edge boundary, and went through a period on expansion in the distant past. Please don't jump all over me for just throwing out hypotheticals with no proof. That paragraph was not meant to prove anything - it was just meant to explain how it would work in the early stages of expansion. I realize that my explanation may not be that great - it's not typically my forte! But honestly, if you want hard science and details as to how it would all work, pick up a copy of Dr Humphreys book Starlight and Time. It can explain it way better than I could, including all the necessary details of how Einsteins theory of relativity plays into this type of cosmology.

It pains me to have to hunt down a book. I went to the library looking for this and they don't have it, but I don't live in a city and that's to be expected. There's a 23-minute documentary available for download online, but I'm still in the process of trying to play it (what is a .ram file???). And as it is only semi-technical and aimed at high school students, I'm not sure it will do as a proxy. But I would like to actually read it before commenting further on it. I will say, however, that I don't want to "jump all over" you for "throwing out hypotheticals" if the book actually presents evidence, but if these measurements are just assumed to fit the bible model based on the general idea that the universe expanded at one point, it's no more than a hypothesis and I won't regard it as "evidence" against the Big Bang.

Quote:As for gaining data first and then building a model on it rather than the other way around, that sort of speaks directly to the point. So much of secular science, especially the historical/evolutionary sciences, have already built a model of naturalism and materialism, and then fit the data into that. Again, it's not necessarily a bad thing, but let's just be honest about it. Certain "scientific facts" aren't actually facts - they are interpretations of the facts through that naturalistic and materialistic model.

There's a reason for models of naturalism and materialism... they're based on human experience. All of us observe the natural world and observe things being made up of atoms. The supernatural world has yet to be demonstrated, and when attempts are made there is always a natural explanation, too. Do you have an example of a supernatural theory that has no natural explanation?

Quote:"All of the data suggesting a young universe comes from scientists who have a literal-bible agenda, and I dismiss that as easily as I do the Muslims that tell us that modern science keeps confirming the Q'uran."

Unfortunately, this commits the genetic fallacy. Data should be observed for what it is, not for where it comes from. If you are going to dismiss it just because you don't like the source, I'd say this comes back to the very philosophical bias we were discussing earlier. And unfortunately, it actually shows that you do know there is evidence that suggests the earth is young - you just have reasons you don't want to accept it.

True. No piece of evidence is right or wrong just because of its source. I was accusing you of a double-standard in which you unfairly privilege the Christian point-of-view to the exclusion of similar claims from other religions. I don't know if you do that --- it was merely an assumption.

I understand your conclusion that I'm biased, and I think that's fair. But my bias isn't relevant unless I appeal to myself as an authority... and you just explained why.

Quote:Trust me, I understand evolution well enough. And abiogenesis as well. I'm also well acquainted with the common objection from evolutionists that abiogenesis isn't evolution, so don't use the impossibility of abiogenesis to claim evolution is impossible. I've heard it dozens, and possibly hundreds, of times.

I honestly don't understand why anyone would make an argument that "abiogenesis is impossible". Life had to, at some point, come from nonlife or you'd have an infinite regress (unless a terminator such as a creator is asserted). So... I guess that's one of your worries abated.

Quote:So - how'd I'd do?

That's a good explanation of evolution --- and since that's all observable, I don't see why you're arguing that evolution is false... unless you're arguing for "microevolution" at the exclusion of "macroevolution". As biologists have pointed out, these are the same concepts but on different timescales. You certainly can't observe an hour hand move just by watching it, but you can keep taking pictures of it and observing the change over time. We do this with fossils. But I don't really want to argue evolution on this thread because it's not actually on topic. I'll happily continue this on one of the other threads.

Quote:Now, back to Abiogenesis. The problem with evolutionists claiming that evolution and abiogenesis are two different things is this: it's done to distance the theory of evolution from the impossibility of abiogenesis. Evolutionists typically know that abiogenesis is impossible, so they don't want that to distract from the theory of evolution. Okay, I get that. The fatal flaw in that thinking is this - evolution hangs it's hat on abiogenesis. It is the starting point - the very foundation. You can't have the evolution of all life from a single first life form, until you actually have that first life form.

I mentioned above that I don't see abiogenesis as impossible, and you haven't cited anyone who does. There are, of course, alternate hypotheses to abiogenesis such as extraterrestrial "seeding". I don't personally believe in this, but I bring it up as an example that I think you're presenting a false dilemma.

The reason that science hasn't addressed this issue is that the hypotheses are all untestable, so any claim will be an Argument from Ignorance (I think I already mentioned this earlier). I know you'd like to have a scientific claim so you can rebut it, but there are still limits on what is knowable. The origin of life is still unknowable.

So while you're attacking a straw man, I understand why. Creationism has posited a theory, and so they're stuck with the burden of proof for now. I know how much that sucks --- people defending evolution are also under the pressure of having the burden of proof. But just deal with it. Science doesn't have to have an explanation for where life originated from in order to explain evolution, just as we didn't have to understand gravity in order to theorize the orbits of planets. We can still have an explanation for things we observe without having to explain how these things we observe got this way.

Quote:"But it does make more sense that life arose from molecules rather than "from nothing", because we've observed things created out of molecules but we have never observed something coming "from nothing", obviously because we've never had a true nothing to observe."

I'd actually take it one step further. I'd say it makes even more sense that the guy who made those very molecules to begin with could also make life with them! Wink

Do you have an explanation for this belief that God "always was"? Can't I just co-opt your explanations to posit that life and/or the universe "always was"?

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 11:39 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(19-03-2012 07:01 AM)SixForty Wrote:  That's what I actually originally posted here to discuss! It has been taken pretty far off track since then, though, hasn't it?

Yeah, that'll happen. Good thing about this place, peeps don't get too uptight about drift. Wink

(19-03-2012 07:01 AM)SixForty Wrote:  That's because I'm being asked to defend creationism repeatedly here. So of course most of my sources would be creationist!

The problem with creationist sources is that they are very limited and self-referencing.

(19-03-2012 07:01 AM)SixForty Wrote:  I know, which is another reason I get tired of the Big Bang and evolution so often. So many people know the general ideas, but when you push them on specifics, you hear so many "likely" and "hypothesized". It is painful sometimes, isn't it? Smile

Yeah, but science is more about "what works" than about "what is true." Much of this kinda thing - cosmology - relies on mathematics. These mathematics, as you point out, are full of hacks like inflation... I don't like that crap either. Tongue

But these hacks are based upon observations. The problem with god, is that god is not an observation but a conclusion - a theory with no experimental evidence to substantiate it.

(19-03-2012 07:01 AM)SixForty Wrote:  ...evolution is pretty much quackery.

Quacks like a crocoduck. Big Grin

Evolution is one of the most sound theories in science; even worse in my view is that scripture itself supports evolution over creationism.
(19-03-2012 07:01 AM)SixForty Wrote:  Honestly, can anyone in here put Bucky Ball back on his leash out in the backyard? He's tearing up the place here, and I think he may have just peed on the rug.

An evolved consideration rather than a created one. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
19-03-2012, 09:18 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate that you took your time to reply back to each and every one of us Smile

Based on my calculations, for the world population to reach its current numbers today since the events of the Flood, and if the population growth rate is constant, the growth rate would be 0.00473% per year.

The main assumption here would be that population growth rate is constant, which will not be the case. Population growth is affected by a lot of factors, mainly the amount of resources available and environmental conditions. I'm not sure how you are certain that population growth is constant throughout the years even after accounting for wars, famine, and plague.

You compared the constancy of radioactive decay against the constancy of population growth rate. Radioactive decay is spontaneous, which means that it will not be affected by any environmental conditions such as pressure and temperature (unless you can show that there is a factor which is able to significantly vary the rate of radioactive decay). Conversely, there are many factors that will indeed lead to a change in the rate of population growth, such as new technology which lead to decrease in infant mortality rates, environmental conditions and the amount of resources present. Population numbers will rise or fall until the carrying capacity is reached, in which the population growth rate levels off to zero.

(I'm curious and did more math, and using the start of the agricultural era as my base point (11000BC) with population of 1 million, and assuming there were only 2 humans at the start, I came up with a growth rate of 0.001008% with the starting point at 21813 years ago. I haven't accounted for any discrepancies yet however Big Grin )

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes robotworld's post
19-03-2012, 10:21 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
This has indeed become an interesting discussion. I'm not going to result to name calling or anything like that. It's obvious Six is ver dedicated to the discussion (after all, it takes a lot of time to reply to every single person who has responded to you). However, the population discussion has always interested me. I always thought the number would be incredibly difficult to go through since you have factors like war, natural disaster and other various things as it is indeed not a standard number that I would expect to be constant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2012, 06:42 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
Forty going on six,

Using creationism and the bible to prove creationism or any assertions in the babble is circular. (Logic 101). Evolution is verified EVERY day in EVERY medical lab and hospital in the world. (They figure out what bacteria have EVOLVED, "grown out" resistence to antibiotics.). If you go to a doctor, and take antibiotics, you believe in evolution, or at least passivly use it. Or do you just pray ? Take a biology course dude.

You have "proven NOTHING Bucky said is false. You SAY you did, but provide NOT one shred of an argument, or evidence. All you do is make unfounded claims, saying people are wrong, and make no counter-claims, or provide any references. You said you did a "3 minute exercise". Where and what was that, EXACTLY ? You do not mention EVEN ONE "resourse". Your 94 %, is no longer the theory. Again you provide NOT one reference. He did. So, yeah, I guess he does get double points.

All this nonsense about human population levels has been debated ad nauseam, all over the web, debunked, and put to bed. The fact that some here are talking like it is somehow "news" is really humorous. The flood story in Genesis, is known by EVERY Biblical scholar to have been "lifted" from the Gilgamesh Epic. It IS mythology, as Bucky said. All the rest is garbage. How is it No ONE here mentioned that ? His "ignorance" statement, seems somewhat founded. You claim the 99% number is wrong. Reference please. You need a neurology course, or neuropsychology course. "Knowing" is a human term, which exists ONLY in a brain, and is totally dependent on brain chemistry. If THAT is not TIME dependent I don't "know" what is. You are making a distiction, without a difference. Explain EXACTLY how "knowing" is different from "thinking". All those traits are simply exaggerated human traits. All gods are human projections. Don't talk about tha babble justifying your version of the "great payback scheme", (salvation).
It's CIRCULAR.
But, thanks. You just busted yourself.

salvation was God's plan before time began

Seriously dude, do you know how stupid that is ? There is no BEFORE "time began".
LMFAO. BTW, "planning" is a PROCESS also, just as he said.

Obviously, the Buckminster has seriously upset you. Don't take it so hard. Being bested by a kid that smart is something I also have experienced. He's actually not a bad guy. You really seriously need some courses on the babble. Not from your Babble College. Did you go to college ? How is it you are so unfamiliar with issues that are resolved, and settled, (the opposite from what you are claiming) ? You are seriously making a fool of yourself. Even the fundamentalists wouldn't agree with your shit, and certainly ALL the scholars in EVERY Ivy League institution would flunk you. The ancient Near East humans who edited and assembled the myths in the babble, had NO IDEA of ANYTHING you are talking about. Your attempts to "prove" it, are useless, pointless, and a total waste of time. It's like trying to "prove" Harry Potter. Go post your stuff on a creationist board. No one here cares. I will tell Bucky how upset you are by him, but I guarantee he hasn't thought about this even once, since last weekend. (His Olympic trials are going well). Not sure what he would say about the leash..probably too kinky for him.

BTW, god doesn't "want" anything. "Wanting" takes time. (ducking). Tongue

Speaking of a whole lot done on something that doen't exist .. that would be your god.

The angry gods require sacrifice. Now get outside and slay them a goat. Cadet in Terse But Deadly
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like San Onofre Surfer's post
20-03-2012, 08:42 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2012 01:13 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(20-03-2012 06:42 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  BTW, god doesn't "want" anything. "Wanting" takes time. (ducking). Tongue
Speaking of a whole lot done on something that doen't exist .. that would be your god.

Brett,
Don't waste your time.[Image: ani_banghead3.gif]
My new theme song : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtJz_Wm-gG0 I need that suit.
That "before" time IS pretty funny. The "plan" is also. So much for free will. (Some people's gods do poor planning). I know, I know, making a plan, is a state of being.

Did you know March 17th was the day St. Patrick drove the aardvarks out of Dana Point ?

The really burning question for this discussion is : How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ? That is the current topic in Theology, right ?
Bring the leash, but I better think about that one. What's the "plan" for that ?
Bless you, my son. Get busy with that goat. The fact that I made a plan, but wasn't appeased until after you do your sacrifice, but since I had a prior plan, that means ... oh never mind.
Hey, did you get the invite for that seminar thing "out on the James River" ? You better be "planning" on going. Yahweh, and the wife, (Ashura), have a plan for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijQYW8cQuBE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHXv-NuSn...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo (see 43/44 minutes..99+%)
No god needed.
See ya Saturday.
[Image: takeoff.gif]
...[Image: signofcross.gif]

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-03-2012, 07:24 AM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2012 08:08 AM by SixForty.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
San Onofre Surfer - are you and Bucky Ball the same person? Because I seem to be measuring a strikingly similar, very low signal-to-noise ratio from you both. Regardless, let's look at what you wrote.

(20-03-2012 06:42 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Using creationism and the bible to prove creationism or any assertions in the babble is circular. (Logic 101). Evolution is verified EVERY day in EVERY medical lab and hospital in the world. (They figure out what bacteria have EVOLVED, "grown out" resistence to antibiotics.). If you go to a doctor, and take antibiotics, you believe in evolution, or at least passivly use it. Or do you just pray ? Take a biology course dude.

You're claims about antibiotics are old and tired. Bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics is not evolution, it's devolution. If you actually studied the known examples of it happening, you'd see that what is happening genetically is actually a loss of certain genes that simply allow bacteria to flourish in a specifically harsh environment of antibiotics. (for example, losing the ability to transfer certain proteins through cell membranes for consumption) Though useful in some certain circumstances (i.e., not taking in much of the antibiotic) it is drastically detrimental in the long run (i.e., not being able to take in enough food) The bacteria see a short term gain, but always at the cost of a long term loss. The bacteria aren't actually gaining a resistance to the antibiotics, they are losing a sensitivity to it. It's a genetic loss of a certain trait that simply turns out to be beneficial in a given circumstance. But that's not evolution - losing traits can't add up to anything! Evolution is supposed to be about gaining traits in the long run. You can't gain millions and millions of genetic traits by losing them one by one!

Here's an analogy for you: take children born with congenital analgesia. They do not feel physical pain. Under your explanation, this would be evolution. The children have gained an imperviousness to pain. But in reality (especially genetically) what has happened is that the children have lost a sensitivity to pain. And again, evolution can't happen through the loss of genetic material. It would be like trying to make a million dollars by giving away a dollar a day. Give that a try and let me know when you reach your million bucks.

(20-03-2012 06:42 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  You have "proven NOTHING Bucky said is false. You SAY you did, but provide NOT one shred of an argument, or evidence. All you do is make unfounded claims, saying people are wrong, and make no counter-claims, or provide any references. You said you did a "3 minute exercise". Where and what was that, EXACTLY ? You do not mention EVEN ONE "resourse". Your 94 %, is no longer the theory. Again you provide NOT one reference. He did. So, yeah, I guess he does get double points.

As for proving Bucky Ball false, it took 3 minutes to find 6 definitions that showed dark matter and dark energy are hypothetical. I provided the references by direct quote. Also, I provided the numbers to show his 99% claim was wrong. He was simply exaggerating because he didn't know the actual number - more proof that he didn't know what he was talking about. As for the references, the Wikipedia articles mentioned claimed 72% for dark energy, and 23% for dark matter (other sources said 22%, but I'll even grant you this higher number.) So that gives 95%. But since that still didn't satisfy you, I'll provide another beatdown for you. And I'll use different sources this time.

NASA's website says about dark energy: "Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is" and "More is unknown than is known" ( http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/foc...rk-energy/ ) That's not talking about a proven fact. That's talking about hypotheses and conjectures. Also, they list the numbers as 70% and 25%, so the same 95%, which disproves Bucky, but is different from the 72% and 23% above. So there isn't even agreement on how much of this "whatever it is" exists.

The Discovery Channel says: "Dark Energy is a theoretical force that cosmologists believe is accelerating the expansion of the universe". ( http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/...ark-energy )'Theoretical'? 'Believe'? And you call this proven? The 2 paragraph description contains more similar words: theorize, speculate, venture. Not much proof there. And again, another verification of the 72% number.

Or how about one of the most popular evolution friendly publications there is: Science Magazine, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. You like science magazines, right? Lots of credentials? They have a wonderful article entitled "More Evidence Against Dark Matter"? ( http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/20...matte.html ) Dark matter is definitely not a proven fact, when such a prestigious magazine publishes articles about evidence that it doesn't exist. You really should read a little bit about the MOND theory presented. It is a much simpler theory in many ways, and does provide some better predictions in important circumstances. It's too bad that people cling to this dark matter, dark energy idea so tightly - focused development of MOND would probably provide a much better cosmological model without the need for this imaginary dark stuff.


(20-03-2012 06:42 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  All this nonsense about human population levels has been debated ad nauseam, all over the web, debunked, and put to bed. The fact that some here are talking like it is somehow "news" is really humorous. The flood story in Genesis, is known by EVERY Biblical scholar to have been "lifted" from the Gilgamesh Epic. It IS mythology, as Bucky said. All the rest is garbage. How is it No ONE here mentioned that ? His "ignorance" statement, seems somewhat founded. You claim the 99% number is wrong. Reference please. You need a neurology course, or neuropsychology course. "Knowing" is a human term, which exists ONLY in a brain, and is totally dependent on brain chemistry. If THAT is not TIME dependent I don't "know" what is. You are making a distiction, without a difference. Explain EXACTLY how "knowing" is different from "thinking". All those traits are simply exaggerated human traits. All gods are human projections. Don't talk about tha babble justifying your version of the "great payback scheme", (salvation).


You're comments about the population debate being debunked all over the web - seriously. It's just one piece of evidence that points one way. But if you want to debunk it, try publishing a refutation in a science journal, not on YouTube. I'd love to read what you come up with - unless it's just the same ranting you put here, in which case I doubt you'd be able to publish.

As for your comments on the bible, Gilgamesh, mythology - you obviously have done no research on the subject, so I won't bother embarrassing you on this point. As for your comments on psychology and philosophy, you simply make arbitrary claims with no points to back it up. It appears you have about as much education in philosophy as Bucky Ball. It's not something I'd be able to teach you on these boards, but I suggest an introductory course at any university on both philosophy and logic.

As for explaining how knowing and thinking are different, how about you just pull out a thesaurus. It's not hard. Here, I'll link you to the terms:

http://thesaurus.com/browse/know?s=t
http://thesaurus.com/browse/think?s=t

Look under the main entry for 'know' and tell me if you see the word 'think'. Then look under the main entry for 'think' and tell me if you see the word 'know'. There's your proof that they mean different things. As mentioned before, go and learn some basic philosophy, and you wouldn't have so much trouble understanding how these words are different.

(20-03-2012 06:42 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Obviously, the Buckminster has seriously upset you. Don't take it so hard. Being bested by a kid that smart is something I also have experienced. He's actually not a bad guy. You really seriously need some courses on the babble. Not from your Babble College. Did you go to college ? How is it you are so unfamiliar with issues that are resolved, and settled, (the opposite from what you are claiming) ? You are seriously making a fool of yourself. Even the fundamentalists wouldn't agree with your shit, and certainly ALL the scholars in EVERY Ivy League institution would flunk you. The ancient Near East humans who edited and assembled the myths in the babble, had NO IDEA of ANYTHING you are talking about. Your attempts to "prove" it, are useless, pointless, and a total waste of time. It's like trying to "prove" Harry Potter. Go post your stuff on a creationist board. No one here cares. I will tell Bucky how upset you are by him, but I guarantee he hasn't thought about this even once, since last weekend. (His Olympic trials are going well). Not sure what he would say about the leash..probably too kinky for him.

As for Bucky upsetting me - his rantings were merely a buzzing fly for me to swat away while having serious, intelligent discussions with other posters here who obviously actually have knowledge on some of these subjects. As a result, just like a buzzing fly, I barely broke a sweat in the swatting.

As for the rest of your post, I lost track of how many logical fallacies you committed (mere opinions, prejudicial conjectures, false appeal to authorities, false analogy, ad hominem attacks, and I probably missed a couple there) As a result, it's time to let you take a rest.



(20-03-2012 08:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  That "before" time IS pretty funny. The "plan" is also. So much for free will. (Some people's gods do poor planning). I know, I know, making a plan, is a state of being.

Did you know March 17th was the day St. Patrick drove the aardvarks out of Dana Point ?

The really burning question for this discussion is : How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ? That is the current topic in Theology, right ?

Bucky Ball - at this point, you appear to have been knocked down to a point of complete nonsensical mumblings. It's been fun. QED

(19-03-2012 09:18 PM)robotworld Wrote:  Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate that you took your time to reply back to each and every one of us Smile

Based on my calculations, for the world population to reach its current numbers today since the events of the Flood, and if the population growth rate is constant, the growth rate would be 0.00473% per year.

The main assumption here would be that population growth rate is constant, which will not be the case. Population growth is affected by a lot of factors, mainly the amount of resources available and environmental conditions. I'm not sure how you are certain that population growth is constant throughout the years even after accounting for wars, famine, and plague.

(19-03-2012 10:21 PM)Logisch Wrote:  This has indeed become an interesting discussion. I'm not going to result to name calling or anything like that. It's obvious Six is ver dedicated to the discussion (after all, it takes a lot of time to reply to every single person who has responded to you). However, the population discussion has always interested me. I always thought the number would be incredibly difficult to go through since you have factors like war, natural disaster and other various things as it is indeed not a standard number that I would expect to be constant.



robotworld and Logisch - Since you two have put in the time and thought on the population growth rate (PGR) issue, I figured I'd delve into it a little bit deeper to give you a bit more to think about.

Before that though - you both mention a good point about the PGR being constant. It definitely isn't, and I don't believe that it is. If I gave that impression, I apologize. I was trying to give the impression of using an averaged PGR and being able to justify it's use - the larger a period over which we take an average, the better and more useful average value we can obtain. And it can be useful for predictions - various governmental agencies do things like this all the time.

Back to the problem at hand. In specific, let's take a look at one potential issue and see how it will affect the world population at one point in history that robotworld brought up, the original Ancient Olympics.

First of all, I'm going to do a small bit of rounding on the years just to make things easier. Instead of starting with the flood at 2348BC, let's use 2350BC. And instead of 776BC (for the Olympics that robotworld mentioned) let's use 750BC. You'll see why this will make things a little easier, as I will discuss things in 100 year blocks, and it will in no way affect the actual calculations. So what we are going to do is make a few small adjustments, based on reasons I will explain, and see how it changes the population size from 2350BC to 750BC. I am also going to state that anywhere I make a rounding to a calculation, I will round in the direction of forcing the population numbers down, so I don't get accused of trying to over inflate the numbers.

robotworld used a standard PGR rate of 0.00473%, a good average based on the numbers we have, starting with 8 people and getting to the world's population today. Let's round down to a single significant digit, 0.004%, just to make things easier. Just to compare, current global PGR is about 0.011, almost three times that number. (http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ or http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datashee...letin.aspx ) Historically, the most recent peak has been about 0.021% back in the 1960s. So if we use the number 0.004%, I think we are definitely on the low side of reasonable statistics, and by quite a bit. So that's our set PGR we'll use in the calculations.

Now, we are going to take into account a single issue to factor into the calculation that robotworld did originally: front-loading. What I mean is, we are going to use a slightly higher PGR at the beginning of this calculation, for the first few hundred years after the flood. There is a precedent for this from multiple sources. First, we've already seen that the PGR can go above 0.021% in the recent past. Second, simply from basic studies of history, we all know that family sizes typically were larger in the past - people just had more children than we do today. (we still see this phenomenon today in the difference between developed and developing nations, and how it affects the PGR each each) So we have a precedent for front loading the calculation. What I propose is a slightly higher PGR at 2350BC, with a gradually declining PGR until 750BC, our end date of choice. So let's do that, and see what kind of world population we end up with at 750BC.

Now, what size PGR do we start with? Here I'm going to make a suggestion - instead of me just making up a number, since we are talking about a biblical flood model, why don't we go and get our initial PGR from the bible? If we're trying to consider what the story would look like if the bible were true, it makes sense, right? I know, I know, you think I'm crazy, but let's just see where this goes. I think it may surprise you. Smile

The story of Noah's flood effectively ends in Genesis 9. In Genesis 10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=NIV ), we have a record of many of Noah's sons, grandsons and even further. In Genesis 11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=NIV ), we have a specific genealogy with ages for a single line of descendants. Let's use these numbers to try to ballpark an initial PGR for the world after the flood.

Genesis 11, starting at verse 12 through verse 32, lists 8 generations of people (Arphaxad to Terah). It lists their lifespans, and the year they began to have children. It also lists another important detail - each one of them had a son that is listed, plus other sons and daughters. This is plural for each, so there must have been at least 2 other sons, and at least 2 daughters each. So we can assume each one had at least 5 children. This assumption can be vindicated by looking back at Genesis 10. We can look at each person listed there who had children (15 people total) and see that the range of sons they had was from 1 to 13 (that guy was busy!) This is an average of 4.67 sons each. To make it easier, let's round down to 4 sons each. Now, this does not include daughters, but I am confident we can grant an average number of daughters that is equal to sons: 4 daughters each. Given what we know about gender probability, I find this a reasonable assumption. So the numbers of Genesis 10, 4 sons and 4 daughters each on average, would vindicate the descriptions of Genesis 11, which gives a minimum of 5 children each.

Now, from those 8 people listed, we can calculate an average lifespan. It comes out to 300 years. Now, since 3 of the people had high lifespans, and 5 had low, let's round that down a bit to make sure we're not over inflating the ages. Let's use 250 years old as an average lifespan. Also, we can calculate the average age at which they began to have children. It comes out to 35 years old. The only thing we really don't have a number for is how frequently they had children - how closely were they grouped together. I'm going to propose that the 5 children that we are using as an average would be born anywhere between the father's 35th and 50th year. I think it's a safe assumption - about 3-4 years between kids seems reasonable. If anyone has objections, I'd happily listen to them and reconsider.

For now we can formulate an average path through life, which can lead to our initial PGR. We have the average person having 5 children, between their 35th and 50th year, and living to 250 years old. From this we can figure out a PGR. Surprisingly enough, this turns out to be 0.02% - even less than the peak rate of recent history that we listed above. (I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to calculate that this does actually give 0.02% as the answer - I've always wanted to say that!) In the end, we have a strong precedent for using that 0.02% PGR to begin with: 1) we've seen recent historical evidence to show that it is reasonable and realistic; 2) anecdotal evidence from recent history and the bible (families were larger in the past than they typically are now); 3) specific calculations from the original story of the flood. Three different supporting factors for our initial PGR of 0.02%

What I propose then is this: We do some simple calculations starting with this PGR in the year 2350BC, and then smoothly transition all the way down to the previously accepted 0.004% PGR by the year 750BC. Fortunately enough, this happens very nicely, in steps of 0.001% per 100 years. So we'll use a PGR of 0.020% from 2350BC to 2250BC, 0.019% from 2250BC to 2150BC, 0.018% from 2150BC to 2050BC, 0.017% from 2050BC to 1950BC, etc, etc, etc, all the way down to 0.006% from 950BC to 850BC, 0.005% from 850BC to 750BC, then from 750BC on it can sit at 0.004% (or lower, we're not concerned with what comes after at this point.) That's it. That's all the calculation we need to do.

The only other change I am going to make is this - instead of starting with 8 people in 2350BC, we're going to start with only 6. I say this because I doubt Noah and his wife had any more kids, and so would not contribute to population growth any further. First, we don't read of any other kids in the bible. Second, they were pretty old by this time!

So - let's run the numbers! At this point, I really think you should do it for yourself, just to see how the numbers work. It will wow you so much more than me just giving you the answer. But in case you don't want to, here it is.

If we run this scenario, starting with 6 people in 2350BC, then by the year 750BC, around the time of the first ancient Olympics, the world's population would be approximately: 2.5 billion people. That's right - billion. The full number from my spreadsheet is: 2,529,299,746. Pretty unreal, isn't it. It's amazing how a little bit of front loading can change everything.

And here's the great thing about this model - you can throw a war in the middle of there at random which wipes out half of the entire world's population. Then add in 2 famines that again wipe out half the population, and then 3 random plagues that also wipe out half the population each. 6 different halving events, and you'd still end up with a population of around 40,000,000. This model will easily cover robotworld's observations about the population of the world at the time of the Exodus, or at the time of the first Olympics, or during the Zhou Dynasty, or the Roman Empire. It has plenty of ability to withstand flat or negative growth during the dark ages. It can withstand a whole lot of objections. Remember, I rounded down on initial ages, and on initial family sizes. If I had used the average of 8 children (4 sons and daughters) for which there was a precedent, the numbers would be ridiculously higher. If you think the growth rate should slide down to a lower level sooner, so be it. It's got 2.5 billion people to work with - it can withstand a lot of attempts to slow it down!

The whole point of this exercise was this: all I did was make rational, reasonable assumptions about starting conditions. I didn't pull those assumptions out of nowhere to make up a story that would fit. I used historically accurate numbers and I used the original story from the bible, which makes sense since the flood story comes from there anyway. It should match up. And in the end, we get a reasonable, rational model, which fits the story, and which can withstand a whole host of objections.

Now, is this proof that the bible is true? Absolute, unquestionable, definitely, unequivocally, NO! A resounding no! In no way does this prove the bible is true! And I would never say that it does! If someone used this to claim that the bible is true, would they be committing a logical fallacy? YES! Smack them for me! It would simply be affirming the consequent, which is a terrible conclusion to consider as fact. Does this suffer from confirmation bias? YES! Of course it does, to a certain degree. But so does so much of science. We come up with a theory, make a prediction, test it, and if it's true, then it becomes evidence for the theory to be true. It's confirmation bias, but if it happens enough times, if we get enough pieces of evidence, then we can start to believe that the theory is true. I was simply asked for evidence that the universe is 6000 years old. I listed 5 pieces, of which this is one. And I stand by it - population growth statistics can support the idea of a 6000 year young earth significantly easier than a 4.5 billion year old earth. As such, it is evidence of a young earth.

I'd love to hear some feedback and what you guys think about that.

(19-03-2012 11:39 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  The problem with creationist sources is that they are very limited and self-referencing.

That's true to an extent. They are limited because there is no money in the industry. The scientists do it because they believe in it, but they can almost never do it for a living, and thus resources are more scarce. As for being self-referencing, that is sometimes true, however many papers and articles written will often reference secular journals or studies. That to me shows that they aren't making up data - they are using the same observations and findings that secular scientists often are, just looking at how they fit together differently.

(19-03-2012 11:39 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  But these hacks are based upon observations. The problem with god, is that god is not an observation but a conclusion - a theory with no experimental evidence to substantiate it.

Unfortunately, this is the case with some parts of science too. Take the Oort cloud. It's entirely hypothetical, yet accepted as fact without any observational evidence at all for it's existence. It's a story to explain an inexplicable problem, namely the short life cycle of comets. It's not an observation, it's a unsubstantiated conclusion. "The Oort cloud did it" is no better science than "God did it". I don't think anyone should use either.

(19-03-2012 11:39 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Evolution is one of the most sound theories in science;

If you accept the philosophical assumptions it's built upon, which many people don't.

(19-03-2012 11:39 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  even worse in my view is that scripture itself supports evolution over creationism

I'd genuinely love to hear your explanation of that. Although some people try to fit evolution into the bible, and explain how the bible can be okay with evolution, I really don't know of any actual positive support for evolution in the bible. It almost exclusively points to creation. Would you care to share what you mean by that comment?

(19-03-2012 11:39 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  An evolved consideration rather than a created one. Tongue

Well played, my friend. Smile However, a creationist may argue that he popped into this discussion fully formed, with no trace of prior existence of his rantings. Wink

(19-03-2012 10:48 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  It pains me to have to hunt down a book.

Sorry about that! If you dare to venture into enemy territory, you can simply search on the name Russ Humphreys on one of the major creation science websites like http://www.creation.com, http://www.answersingenesis.org, http://www.icr.org, or http://www.creationresearch.org. I'd bet you could find a handful of his published papers on the subject. Or maybe search those sites for "distant starlight" and see if anything comes up with his name as the author. I'd recommend trying to find PDF files, since they are more likely to be published technical papers in original format, as opposed to html popularist articles that are more geared for the general public. If you really want to get into the details, that is. But it seems you definitely have the knowledge and understanding to get into it on that level.

(19-03-2012 10:48 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  if the book actually presents evidence, but if these measurements are just assumed to fit the bible model based on the general idea that the universe expanded at one point, it's no more than a hypothesis and I won't regard it as "evidence" against the Big Bang.

It's not so much negative evidence against the big bang theory, but more positive evidence for an alternate theory. The interesting thing about it is that I don't think the original research even mentions the 6000 year time frame. He simply took different assumptions than the big bang (i.e., the universe isn't homogeneous everywhere, it does have a centre and an edge, expansion may not have started from a single point but possibly an already existing space (i.e., there was an earth already on day 4 of creation week prior to expansion)) and then used the same concept of universe expansion to uncover the way a centre of gravity in the universe would cause time distortions. The mathematical model then goes on to do calculations that show how much slower time in the middle of the universe would run than at the edge (on an order of millions), but I don't recall that the model actually made a strict determination of specific absolute ages for anything - only comparative ages from one location to another. The original research seemed to simply be a finding of "distant starlight doesn't have to be a problem for a young earth - there are valid cosmological models that could explain it very well."

(19-03-2012 10:48 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  There's a reason for models of naturalism and materialism... they're based on human experience. All of us observe the natural world and observe things being made up of atoms. The supernatural world has yet to be demonstrated, and when attempts are made there is always a natural explanation, too. Do you have an example of a supernatural theory that has no natural explanation?

At this time no, but I don't know if it would even be in the form of a theory. Supernatural events would be, almost by definition, exceptions to the rule. So it's not so much I would ever expect a supernatural theory to explain a certain phenomenon, but more likely a supernatural explanation for a specific event which is an exception to a naturalistic theory. For example, the flood. Noah's flood would be an example of the exception to the rule - God originated it. However, I'd believe that 99.99% of what happened during the flood has perfectly natural explanations. By that I mean, consider at the end of the flood when God causes the waters to recede. I'd think he did something to start the process, and then it would continue naturally on it's own. Possibly he opens up the deep trenches in the ocean so the water can run off the continents, I don't really know. But he's not going to carve out the Grand Canyon by his finger. Nor is he going to direct the water to go where he wants to specifically carve the Grand Canyon. I think the Grand Canyon is the natural result of a whole heck of a lot of water rushing of the continent at a single time, in a natural way. I realize that example may not explain it well, but it's sort of the best example that came to mind right now. I'll try to think of another one to clarify it.

(19-03-2012 10:48 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  True. No piece of evidence is right or wrong just because of its source. I was accusing you of a double-standard in which you unfairly privilege the Christian point-of-view to the exclusion of similar claims from other religions. I don't know if you do that --- it was merely an assumption.

That's fair. And I am occasionally guilty of that. I try not to be, but we are all human. Smile But I think I try to actively work against having that double-standard.

(19-03-2012 10:48 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  That's a good explanation of evolution --- and since that's all observable, I don't see why you're arguing that evolution is false... unless you're arguing for "microevolution" at the exclusion of "macroevolution". As biologists have pointed out, these are the same concepts but on different timescales. You certainly can't observe an hour hand move just by watching it, but you can keep taking pictures of it and observing the change over time. We do this with fossils. But I don't really want to argue evolution on this thread because it's not actually on topic. I'll happily continue this on one of the other threads.

True - I'll agree not to turn this thread into arguing evolution. But I will say I'm not a big fan of the terms microevolution and macroevolution, for the very reason of the way you describe them. They simply imply a difference in duration. It's not just the amount of change that happens, which can build up. It's the type of change that happens. I have yet to see a type of small change that can actually multiply itself into big changes.

(19-03-2012 10:48 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  I mentioned above that I don't see abiogenesis as impossible, and you haven't cited anyone who does. There are, of course, alternate hypotheses to abiogenesis such as extraterrestrial "seeding". I don't personally believe in this, but I bring it up as an example that I think you're presenting a false dilemma.

The extraterrestrial seeding idea doesn't really fly well - it simply moves the abiogenesis problem from our planet to somewhere else. First life had to start somewhere, whether here or another planet. As for abiogenesis being impossible, most would point to Pasteur's results, proving that life only comes from life. For me, my main reason, it's simply a matter of statistics. Many people have done the probabilities to show what it would actually take to get all the necessary materials together at the same place at the same time, to be able to form even the most simple, basic form of life that we know of. The number I've seen a couple of times is 10^5000. That's a 1 with 5000 zeros. In contrast, the number of atoms in the whole universe is estimated to be 10^80. Even if every atom in the universe could interact with every other atom in the universe once every microsecond for the entire history of the supposed 13.5 billion year old universe, you'd get somewhere around 10^190 atomic interactions - still nowhere near enough. I did some calculations once on some basic improbable things here on earth that would add up to 10^5000. It's quite amazing how absurdly improbably that number really is! I will try and track down those numbers for you - some of them are kind of interesting.

(19-03-2012 10:48 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  The reason that science hasn't addressed this issue is that the hypotheses are all untestable, so any claim will be an Argument from Ignorance (I think I already mentioned this earlier). I know you'd like to have a scientific claim so you can rebut it, but there are still limits on what is knowable. The origin of life is still unknowable.

I agree - it's trying to prove that something doesn't actually exist - really hard to do! I guess it just seems that all our best efforts seem to fall so far short in my opinion, and there's so many difficulties with it, that it just seems so significantly improbable. Honestly, even if I wasn't religious, I still might find a virgin birth more likely on scientific probability alone!

(19-03-2012 10:48 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  Do you have an explanation for this belief that God "always was"? Can't I just co-opt your explanations to posit that life and/or the universe "always was"?

The explanation would come from multiple sources. First, if there is a creator, by definition he would not be subject to the things he created. He would be transcendent of them, and since time is a feature of this universe, he would be transcendent of it. Second, from philosophy, various arguments about God (i.e. the cosmological argument) lead to certain observations about what attributes he would need to have, based on the argument given, and timelessness appears to be one of them. Third, from biblical sources, God is quoted as making a number of statements that imply this, things like being the Alpha and Omega, etc. All of those add up to the belief that God always was. It's often hard for me to grasp the implications of that, but it does make sense.

As for your claims that life always was or that the universe always was, I think that breaks down on two fronts. First, science itself, through it's own big bang theory, claims that the universe had a beginning. Second, the law of cause and effect that exists within this universe effectively rules out an infinite past. If there was an infinite past within this universe, then we never would have been able to get to the point we are at right now! In the philosophy of science, this would fall under the difference between a hypothetical series of infinite events and an actual series of infinite events. An actual series of infinite events is impossible to exist in the reality of our universe. If you want me to expand on that, I'd actually need to look up some sources to send you to, because this is a part of philosophy were I quickly get in over my head. (I can occasionally understand some of the arguments along these lines, but I admit that some of the more advanced thinkers on this kind of topic can quickly lose me!)

Thanks for the discussion, Starcrash - you really push me with good questions. I like and respect that - it makes me think!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SixForty's post
21-03-2012, 08:24 AM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2012 08:33 AM by Sol.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(21-03-2012 07:24 AM)SixForty Wrote:  You're claims about antibiotics are old and tired. Bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics is not evolution, it's devolution. .......

Would it be a terrible imposition for you to clarify something for me. If there is no such thing as evolution, how can there be devolution. ?

You see my confusion, call me pedantic but many years of scientific inquiry has made me quite the stickler for consistent information.

I dislike word jugglers and word weasels, sad I know...... but that's me

(21-03-2012 07:24 AM)SixForty Wrote:  It's a genetic loss of a certain trait that simply turns out to be beneficial in a given circumstance. But that's not evolution - losing traits can't add up to anything! Evolution is supposed to be about gaining traits in the long run. You can't gain millions and millions of genetic traits by losing them one by one!

Unfortunately that IS the process of evolution, I know it's disappointing.

Evolution is not supposed to be about gaining traits in the long run.
(I mean how could you get a human from a cuttlefish if that was how evolution worked.)

Astounding.

One more question, if that's ok, how can you not discuss evolution in connection with calculating the age of the earth ?

If it took millions of years for crocodiles to evolve, where were they living if the earth wasn't inventificated till later ?

In life you can't have everything................. Where would you put it ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2012, 09:32 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(21-03-2012 07:24 AM)SixForty Wrote:  I'd genuinely love to hear your explanation of that. Although some people try to fit evolution into the bible, and explain how the bible can be okay with evolution, I really don't know of any actual positive support for evolution in the bible. It almost exclusively points to creation. Would you care to share what you mean by that comment?

Genesis 1:24

English Standard Version (ESV)

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.

Let the earth - not god - bring forth... according to their kind sounds just like let each species evolve according to its environment. The serpent - god interferes and removes his legs, just like the fossil record indicates; god in this case being an "environmental hazard causing mutation." Wink

And I ain't hearing "no money to support creation research" - nobody got money like the church. Thing is, most of the religious accept evolution.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: