OldEnglishSheepdog Posted March 17, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted March 17, 2011 the initial expansion of the universe happened faster than the speed of light, which according to standard physics is impossible. This is not correct. Physics does not exclude the possibility of entities traveling faster than light. For instance, the phase velocity of waves can be faster than light. The trick is that the principle of cause effects excludes the possibility to send messages at a faster than light speed; because this will result in the possibility to send information in the past creating logical paradoxes. But if a certain phenomenon cannot be used to send information (for instance quantum entanglement), then nothing prevents it from traveling faster than light. Actually it goes further than that. According to some new theories on black holes, it is possible for the same astronaut falling inside a black hole to have two completely different stories, both real. In a story he will die before reaching the limits of the hole, in the other he just goes through without immediate harm. This depends on who is the observer, and as long as the same observer is in the physical impossibility to see both stories, then the laws of physics allow both fates for the said astronaut to happen. This is basically the principle of complementarity for macroscopic objects (quite common for microscopic ones). Looks like Nature allows all crazy things to happen as long as no logical contradiction is observable. But if we think about that, this is not strange, it is how Nature works. It is just that our brains did not evolve to have an intuition of such things (it is not needed to fight predators and survive on earth). Right, I think that supports my case quite nicely...if you think about it. That's a pretty tall order there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fanucci Posted March 18, 2011 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 185 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/12/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) Hi Don Fanucci, The argument against a young earth view from a deceitful God is a fairly common one among theistic evolutionists (including progressive creationists etc.) I have given this argument considerable thought and I don't believe it's very convincing. While rational, your reasoning is flawed. We could, by all of our measures, be wrong in our observations regarding the age of the earth. However, there are inumerable independent fields of science, physics, math, that all support an old earth. Importantly, the methods that are used to measure geological age can be independently verified. For example, radioactive decay, which creationists point out can be error prone, can be tested independently. If decay calculations were wrong, X-Rays would produce either nothing, or chacoal briquets. Furthermore, in what little experimentation creations have done to argue against an old earth, these studies have been absolutely and clearly refuted and are terribly flawed (ie the RATE study). The main problem with creationist "research" is that they want to claim its science, but don't want to abide by the rules of science. Edited March 18, 2011 by Don Fanucci Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuftWaffle Posted March 18, 2011 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 821 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 261 Days Won: 7 Joined: 01/09/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) While rational, your reasoning is flawed. We could, by all of our measures, be wrong in our observations regarding the age of the earth. However, there are inumerable independent fields of science, physics, math, that all support an old earth. Importantly, the methods that are used to measure geological age can be independently verified. For example, radioactive decay, which creationists point out can be error prone, can be tested independently. If decay calculations were wrong, X-Rays would produce either nothing, or chacoal briquets. Furthermore, in what little experimentation creations have done to argue against an old earth, these studies have been absolutely and clearly refuted and are terribly flawed (ie the RATE study). The main problem with creationist "research" is that they want to claim its science, but don't want to abide by the rules of science. Hang on, before we get into a lengthy discussion on dating, lets get back to the topic at hand first. You stated that the creationist must consider that God would be deceitful if the earth was young, but appeared old. I believe I have shown that I have considered this. Every premise in the argument from a deceitful God must be true in order for the conclusion to be valid and I have shown that with the exception of premise 4 (given that we trust scripture) none are necessarily true. Also note that you've already admitted that premise 2 isn't necessarily true by saying, "We could, by all of our measures, be wrong in our observations regarding the age of the earth" I'd also like to point out again that you can't observe the age of the earth, you calculate the age of the earth based on observations, plus certain a priori assumptions. I know you're eager to get to dating methods and the science stuff but you made a theological-philosophical statement which we have to deal with first. We must take responsibility for our arguments. Edited March 18, 2011 by LuftWaffle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted March 18, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 101 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,959 Content Per Day: 8.05 Reputation: 21,897 Days Won: 77 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted March 18, 2011 to the Lord, it is said, 'unto Him, a day is as a thousand years to His creation' so, thousands of years of creation just does not work--think higher, much higher, as all scientific evidence suggests and proves... In order to agree with observation, a day of God should correspond to about 2 billions years for us. A day is whatever to Him who is not in constraint of time... Love Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuftWaffle Posted March 18, 2011 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 821 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 261 Days Won: 7 Joined: 01/09/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2011 Right, I think that supports my case quite nicely...if you think about it. I do not see how ;-) You're arguing that in certain instances appearances can be deceiving, yet the argument against a young earth is based on appearances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted March 18, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.06 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2011 Right, I think that supports my case quite nicely...if you think about it. I do not see how ;-) You're arguing that in certain instances appearances can be deceiving, yet the argument against a young earth is based on appearances. I never said that. Appearances are never deceiving to the same observer. Appearances can be deceiving to anyone ..... and in any circumstance. Just ask a magician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted March 18, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2011 Appearances can be deceiving to anyone ..... and in any circumstance. Just ask a magician. How about a mathamagician, who can make the necessity of cause and effect... disappear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted March 18, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) There is one already. It is called quantum mechanics O right, I forgot that you pretend that you've established how that answers the issue of the impossibility of an infinite regression of past events in the material universe. Also, I understand that if Lorentzian relativity is true then you'd have even less ability to hide behind the theory of relativity. What is still missing is a cause that can be its own effect ;-) Your persistence with that strawman is amazing - I'm going to have to start calling you Dorothy if you instist on dancing with that strawman instead of with someone who has a brain. Such a shame you don't have had that kind of devotion to the truth. Edited March 18, 2011 by OldEnglishSheepdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuftWaffle Posted March 18, 2011 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 821 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 261 Days Won: 7 Joined: 01/09/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2011 Appearances can be deceiving to anyone ..... and in any circumstance. Just ask a magician. How about a mathamagician, who can make the necessity of cause and effect... disappear! There is one already. It is called quantum mechanics What is still missing is a cause that can be its own effect ;-) Your persistence with that strawman is amazing - I'm going to have to start calling you Dorathy if you instist on dancing with that strawman instead of with someone who has a brain. Such a shame you don't have had that kind of devotion to the truth. What's the Swede on about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted March 18, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) What's the Swede on about? She thinks that I've suggested that causes can be their own effects to account for the origin of the universe, which is incredible given how frequently I've stated the origin of the material must have been a seperate, immaterial cause - which I then followed up with pages of explainations and illustrations... so many that even I stopped reading them (and the evidence is that she never started). She actually misunderstood when I pointed out that she is making this error in insisting that the universe had no origin but that entropy's non-linear. Don't you just love when someone thinks they've got an out because they make an abstract referece? "O well, that's easy... the universe didn't need a cause, because of... entropy... uh, non-linear... relativity! There, you see? Otherwise, you'd have to say that... um, causes would have to be their own effects, because *mumble* and then *mumble*, which would be absurd!" Presto. Edited March 18, 2011 by OldEnglishSheepdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts