Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Evidence for/against YEC

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 10 of 14
 [ 272 posts ] 
Evidence for/against YEC
Author Message
JRChadwickLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:02 am

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

Your perception is flawed because we as a species have evolved to view time as a constant. We also have trouble perceiving the very large and very small. Asking about a time before the big bang is a flawed question because time itself was part of the initial singularity. As for a cause for the big bag; that is a new field that still does not have a lot of answers yet, but this past decade has seen some very interesting discoveries. It is called 11-string membrane theory.
Fri Jul 24, 2015 7:55 am
WWW
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

JRChadwick wrote:Your perception is flawed because we as a species have evolved to view time as a constant. We also have trouble perceiving the very large and very small. Asking about a time before the big bang is a flawed question because time itself was part of the initial singularity. As for a cause for the big bag; that is a new field that still does not have a lot of answers yet, but this past decade has seen some very interesting discoveries. It is called 11-string membrane theory.


My confusion is not with what was before the Big Bang. It is with the usage of eternal to describe nature. Which is what started this off topic discussion. :)
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Fri Jul 24, 2015 8:06 am
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 812Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

On the question of "eternal" I'd like to add one small thing; it is totally possible that a universe that had a beginning and is eternal. Eternal, as I understand it, means something akin to "for all of time" and if time itself began (not going into if "time" is actually a thing) in the beginning of our universe (if there was or was not something "before" that doesn't matter) our university has already existed for all of time, or in other words it is eternal. Or something.

P.S. Not sure if this makes sense and there are probably problems with it (basically with all 3 premises but I'm sure it works in a apologist sort of way), but taking Kalam and modifying it a bit...

Fri Jul 24, 2015 8:11 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

Isn't a causal cause a bit like a tautological tautology?
Fri Jul 24, 2015 8:31 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

hackenslash wrote:Isn't a causal cause a bit like a tautological tautology?


:lol:
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Fri Jul 24, 2015 10:27 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

Image
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Fri Jul 24, 2015 10:30 am
JRChadwickLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:02 am

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:Your perception is flawed because we as a species have evolved to view time as a constant. We also have trouble perceiving the very large and very small. Asking about a time before the big bang is a flawed question because time itself was part of the initial singularity. As for a cause for the big bag; that is a new field that still does not have a lot of answers yet, but this past decade has seen some very interesting discoveries. It is called 11-string membrane theory.


My confusion is not with what was before the Big Bang. It is with the usage of eternal to describe nature. Which is what started this off topic discussion. :)

But you seem to be using the "first cause" argument for the existence of a god. You stated that "what ever started the universe must be outside of the universe and eternal." That is a logical fallacy.
Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:03 am
WWW
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

I'm two pages late to responding, but time is a lackin' at the moment.

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Right more assumptions... I hope your not calling that science.


What assumptions?

There are more mountains... I wasn't even thinking Everest because the ark did not rest there.


I used Everest as an example. I then used mountain ranges closer to us as the premise for my (dubious) calculation. The tree lines for the mountains where the Ark supposedly came to rest were not given and it'd be a waste of time to find them. I used the most generous assumptions to support your argument.

I don't assume. It is simply fact that the mountains dried faster.


Actually you do nothing but assume, yet that's beside the point. It is true that the mountains dried faster, so what? It is still true that no life able to support animals the size of cows could live there.

I know all about tree lines I live in Canada. I worked in the oil patch. I have climbed mountains ( not super high ones) You go high enough and its permanently snow covered. But with an earth covered in water... That would not of occurred., until the waters completely receded. so this tree line is something we observe now... To say think it was always so, debunks your own theories. Never mind Pangea, and trees found in the arctic.


I'm not sure what Pangea or trees in the arctic have to do with the price of water, but never mind.

Where does your assumption "the tree lines would be completely different back in the days of the flood" come from? If we were only talking about temperature you might be right. But we're also talking about atmospheric pressure, the content of air, sunlight, yadda yadda. I'm actually quite generous in the calculations I made, I have reason to believe the tree lines would have been much lower.

But that is not the point. The point is mt Everest did not always stand so high, nor did the other mountains... You should research some creation theories about mountain formation during the great flood. I forget what theory is called.. The hydro something or other. It shows the relationships between the ocean trenches and mountains.


The hydroplate "theory"? Puh-lease! What a load of rubbish. If even a word of the hydroplate "theory" were true, rest assured my field would completely collapse and you, the oil digger, would be out of a job.

Second, if the mountain ranges formed in the last 6000 years at a rate of nearly 1.4m/a, we would be experiencing earthquakes so fucking massive, the Valdivia earthquake of 1960 with a magnitude of 9.6 would be commonplace and among the smaller ones. Simply said, the mountains might actually collapse due to the sheer force of the earthquakes. That's how fucking massive they'd be.

Creationists and I generally claim.. It happened fast.
Evolutionists will generally claim it happened slow.


Creationists are generally idiots.

But creation has the observed evidence it happens fast... Like other floods, other volcanoes. And the blind cave fish who got eyes in one generation. Fast is observed. This slow is not.


Quite the contrary. Every fast flood, every volcanic eruption (Mt. St. Helen is a creationist favourite) show that the history of the earth is inconistent with flood geology.
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
to show but a few.

Also please don't go to constant rates. It's pointless, people will always use rates that supplement their theory. There are rates that predict young earth, there are rates that predict old earth. Both are not observed far as I am concerned.


Do you actually believe your nonsense?

i don't agree with old earth rates because they rely on extrapolation... Outside of known limits. There are more assumptions to get old earth. Young earth is closer to known limits, thus less assuming... There still are assumptions though and hence the problem.


Young Earth Creationism is wrong, as shown by every single piece of science known to us. The simplest one has been shown to you: Dendrochronology. The earth is at the very least 11,000 years old. This point is not debatable.
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:13 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

JRChadwick wrote:But you seem to be using the "first cause" argument for the existence of a god. You stated that "what ever started the universe must be outside of the universe and eternal." That is a logical fallacy.


Indeed I did say that, however, I am going under the assumption that time began at the moment of the Big Bang. If time began, then whatever caused the Big Bang must be eternal. Logical fallacy, maybe, that said, it is reasonable. For the record, whatever caused the Big Bang does not need to be an intelligent entity.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:15 am
JRChadwickLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:02 am

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:But you seem to be using the "first cause" argument for the existence of a god. You stated that "what ever started the universe must be outside of the universe and eternal." That is a logical fallacy.


Indeed I did say that, however, I am going under the assumption that time began at the moment of the Big Bang. If time began, then whatever caused the Big Bang must be eternal. Logical fallacy, maybe, that said, it is reasonable. For the record, whatever caused the Big Bang does not need to be an intelligent entity.

If time began at the Big Bang, how would something have existed before it to be eternal? How does that make any sense? You are still thinking in a linear sense, but that is not how things work.
Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:24 am
WWW
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3179Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

Greetings,

tuxbox wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

As hackenslash noted, Nature is the universe.

In science, the term "universe" means "everything that exists".

So, "Nature is eternal" and "The universe is eternal" are equivalent.

If Nature only applied to life on Earth - or elsewhere, for that matter - then you're only counting organic chemistry: what about inorganic chemistry? That's part of Nature as well.

I agree that inorganic chemistry is part Nature, I just never thought about it until now. That said, I'm still not getting the "eternal" part, which I will address in part two of your explanation.

Dragan Glas wrote:Remember my "bump on the knee" analogy?

The knee - indeed, the body - already exists: the bump on the knee causes a swelling to grow and then it goes down - our space-time "bubble" began to exist and will end but Nature (the universe) will continue to exist in some shape of form. Perhaps with other space-time "bubbles" with their own laws of physics - and, perhaps, life or not.

You can think of it in terms of a human life.

The universe/Nature exists - then you're born, grow up and die - and the universe just carries on.

Kindest regards,

James

Yep, I remember (a good analogy btw) and correct me if I'm wrong, the knee represents the energy that existed prior to the Big Bang (meaning it is something other than a universe), and the universe represents the "bump on the knee"? Some of the cosmological models predict that the universe will end in a Big Crunch or a Big Freeze. If so the universe is finite, is it not? Especially if it ends in a Big Crunch.

Your still thinking of "universe" as just our bit - our space-time "bubble": that is not what I meant.

The body is the universe, everything that exists - or, in the analogy, everything that exists before our space-time "bubble".

Then our space-time "bubble" - the "bump on the knee" - came into existence and becomes part of the universe, everything that exists, until our space-time "bubble" dies, whether in "heat death" or "the great rip", etc.

The body (the universe before and after our space-time "bubble") is eternal. Our bump (space-time "bubble") is temporary - literally.

Perhaps my Nature/human life contrast would be easier to understand?

If gods existed, the term "universe" (everything that exists), by definition, would include them - if you're trying to insert a god into the mix before the universe, that's not possible.

The only way you might do that is to say that the creator-entity was the universe (everything that existed) prior to the Creation. However, the alleged properties of this entity renders it incoherent and, thus, impossible. Bear in mind that arguments for a creator-entity are for the concept of one - not the thing itself.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:29 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

JRChadwick wrote:If time began at the Big Bang, how would something have existed before it to be eternal? How does that make any sense?


It would be outside of time, if eternal is without time then my assumption makes sense. That said, whatever existed outside of time is an unknown.

JRChadwick wrote:You are still thinking in a linear sense, but that is not how things work.


We do not know how things work before the Big Bang.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:35 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,


Your still thinking of "universe" as just our bit - our space-time "bubble": that is not what I meant.


Our bubble is all we know. Anything outside of that bubble is an unknown.

Dragan Glas wrote:The body is the universe, everything that exists - or, in the analogy, everything that exists before our space-time "bubble".

Then our space-time "bubble" - the "bump on the knee" - came into existence and becomes part of the universe, everything that exists, until our space-time "bubble" dies, whether in "heat death" or "the great rip", etc.


You are going under the assumption that the universe existed before the Big Bang, and our piece of the pie is only part of the universe. Or I'm I not understanding you correctly? Our knowledge of the universe only goes back so far, and not far enough to make any concrete conclusion.

Dragan Glas wrote:The body (the universe before and after our space-time "bubble") is eternal. Our bump (space-time "bubble") is temporary - literally.

Perhaps my Nature/human life contrast would be easier to understand?


Again, you are working off of assumptions here.


Dragan Glas wrote:If gods existed, the term "universe" (everything that exists), by definition, would include them - if you're trying to insert a god into the mix before the universe, that's not possible.

The only way you might do that is to say that the creator-entity was the universe (everything that existed) prior to the Creation. However, the alleged properties of this entity renders it incoherent and, thus, impossible. Bear in mind that arguments for a creator-entity are for the concept of one - not the thing itself.

Kindest regards,

James


This argument really has nothing to do with a Creator entity anymore. It has to do with the universe being eternal or not. (I'm not sure if that is considered "Moving the Goalpost"?)
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:53 am
JRChadwickLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:02 am

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:If time began at the Big Bang, how would something have existed before it to be eternal? How does that make any sense?


It would be outside of time, if eternal is without time then my assumption makes sense. That said, whatever existed outside of time is an unknown.

It's not a good assumption. If something is "outside of time" how could it be eternal? Eternal implies it follows the time axis in both directions with an infinite domain.

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:You are still thinking in a linear sense, but that is not how things work.


We do not know how things work before the Big Bang.

Yet you have no problems making up what ever you want to fill in the blanks.
Last edited by JRChadwick on Fri Jul 24, 2015 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:57 am
WWW
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

JRChadwick wrote:It's not a good assumption. If something is "outside of time" how could it be eternal? Eternal implies it follows the time axis in both directions with an infinite domain.


I was under the impression that "infinite" is a problem for physics? Eternal implies, without beginning or end. Where did you come up with your definition?

JRChadwick wrote:
Yet you have no problems making up what ever you want to fill in the blanks.


As do you.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:07 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

tuxbox wrote:I was under the impression that "infinite" is a problem for physics? Eternal implies, without beginning or end. Where did you come up with your definition?

Not really. Time being eternal means you can count forwards and backwards indefinitely from the current point.

The notion that the past can't be eternal because infinite time would have had to have passed to get to now is Craig nonsense. It's like saying the integers are incoherent because you can't get to zero without starting at -infinity.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:40 pm
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

SpecialFrog wrote:
Not really. Time being eternal means you can count forwards and backwards indefinitely from the current point.


Is this within mathematics or physics? I watched a show where Michio Kaku said infinite was a problem for physicist.

SpecialFrog wrote:
The notion that the past can't be eternal because infinite time would have had to have passed to get to now is Craig nonsense. It's like saying the integers are incoherent because you can't get to zero without starting at -infinity.


I'm not familiar with Craig. That said, I'm still looking for your definition of eternal, and have found it via Google. Forgive me for my ignorance on this subject.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:55 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

tuxbox wrote:
SpecialFrog wrote:Not really. Time being eternal means you can count forwards and backwards indefinitely from the current point.


Is this within mathematics or physics? I watched a show where Michio Kaku said infinite was a problem for physicist.

You you mean this video?

"Infinity" is a problem in that you can't do calculations that use it as a value. He seems to be using it here to demonstrate that relativity breaks down under certain conditions.

However, there is no problem with the concept of something not having a limit. For instance, the universe could possibly expand without limit. At no point would its size be equal to "infinity" but its potential size has no upper bound. Though logically the size of the universe may have a lower bound.

Time may have neither an upper bound nor a lower bound, though our ability to measure time currently begins at the start of the Planck Era.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Last edited by SpecialFrog on Fri Jul 24, 2015 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:21 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:But you seem to be using the "first cause" argument for the existence of a god. You stated that "what ever started the universe must be outside of the universe and eternal." That is a logical fallacy.


Indeed I did say that, however, I am going under the assumption that time began at the moment of the Big Bang. If time began, then whatever caused the Big Bang must be eternal. Logical fallacy, maybe, that said, it is reasonable. For the record, whatever caused the Big Bang does not need to be an intelligent entity.


Nothing containing a logical fallacy is reasonable, that's why it's a fallacy.

That said, it's silly to think of anything 'causing' the big bang, until there's some good evidence to suggest it. We have models with a cause and models without a cause, and all are empirically equal at this point.
Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:49 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3179Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

Greetings,

tuxbox wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Your still thinking of "universe" as just our bit - our space-time "bubble": that is not what I meant.


Our bubble is all we know. Anything outside of that bubble is an unknown.

Not really.

We know that *something* existed before the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is consistent with that *something* being naturalistic in nature, through observed naturalistic cause-and-effect, rather than super-naturalistic.

tuxbox wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:The body is the universe, everything that exists - or, in the analogy, everything that exists before our space-time "bubble".

Then our space-time "bubble" - the "bump on the knee" - came into existence and becomes part of the universe, everything that exists, until our space-time "bubble" dies, whether in "heat death" or "the great rip", etc.

You are going under the assumption that the universe existed before the Big Bang, and our piece of the pie is only part of the universe. Or I'm I not understanding you correctly? Our knowledge of the universe only goes back so far, and not far enough to make any concrete conclusion.

That's right - our bit is only part of "everything that exists".

There is 100% observed evidence for naturalistic cause-and-effect - none for super-naturalistic causes.

It is a perfectly reasonable and logical inference that the cause of the Big Bang is naturalistic - not super-naturalistic.

tuxbox wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:The body (the universe before and after our space-time "bubble") is eternal. Our bump (space-time "bubble") is temporary - literally.

Perhaps my Nature/human life contrast would be easier to understand?

Again, you are working off of assumptions here.

There is a theory of "infinite expansion", where "bubbles" - like our one - continue to come into existence. Ours is not the first, nor will it be the last.

On this basis alone, there's every reason to suppose that whatever is "blowing bubbles" is eternal. And, remember, whatever it is, it would have to be naturalistic - there's simply no reason for gods.

tuxbox wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:If gods existed, the term "universe" (everything that exists), by definition, would include them - if you're trying to insert a god into the mix before the universe, that's not possible.

The only way you might do that is to say that the creator-entity was the universe (everything that existed) prior to the Creation. However, the alleged properties of this entity renders it incoherent and, thus, impossible. Bear in mind that arguments for a creator-entity are for the concept of one - not the thing itself.

Kindest regards,

James

This argument really has nothing to do with a Creator entity anymore. It has to do with the universe being eternal or not. (I'm not sure if that is considered "Moving the Goalpost"?)

As I said earlier, there's no reason to suppose that the universe isn't eternal - that way, you only have to explain one thing, Nature, rather than two, Nature and the creator-entity.

It's not moving the goal-posts - it says that the simplest explanation for everything is to say that the universe (Nature) is eternal.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:56 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 10 of 14
 [ 272 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
cron