|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Universe is young--here's proof | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
booboocruise Inactive Member |
(From a creation scientist)
Many scientists say that truth is a relative thing (if that's true, then truth CAN BE absolute--so dont believe them). Okay, here's the goal, many people say that the universe is an infinite number of years old (that it's always been here). But that's impossible. The universe has to have had a beginning--otherwise the second law of thermodynamics would have taken toll and there would be nothing left in the universe. Let me explain why infinity is not possible as a real number of time: What is infinity minus infinity??? You'll get a contradictory statement. Example: if you subtract all the even numbers (2,4,6...infinity) from all the regular numbers (0,1,2...infinity) you get this: Infinity - Infinity = Infinity.HOWEVER, if you subtract all the numbers greater than two (3,4,5...infinity) from all the natural numbers (0,1,2...infinity) you get this: Infinity - Infinity = 3 !!! Both times I subtracted the same amount from the same amount and got contradictory answers--so the universe HAD to have had a beginning if there was not an infinite number of years. Now, a star blows up every 30 years or so (from what we observe)--that is called a nova or a supernova. There are only 300 remains of novas or supernovas found in the universe, based on distribution of stars and galaxies. So, if you take 30 star-deaths and multiply it by 300 dead stars, you get about 9,000 years! A lot of people say that stars are born again, but that has not been proven. Scientists may say that they see stars being born in the Crab Nebula, but that's not true--they only see the dust clearing and therefore a star that already WAS there coming into sight--stars have been here since the beginning of time, as far as we can observe.Also, the law of the conservation of angular momentum disproves the big bang. That law states that all rotations from a rotating origin will maintain rotation in the same direction. In otherwords, if a bomb explodes while spinning, all the pieces that fly off will be spinning in the same direction. So, if the big bang theory is true, then why are many stars, galaxies, and planets spinning in opposite directions? Seriously, there are plenty of stars, galaxies, and planets out there that are spinning in opposite directions--the should all be rotating in the same direction IF the big bang was true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi BooBoo,
An amusing post, I am not a scientist, but then again neither are you, maybe you could clear up a few points for me. From a creation scientist)
Many scientists say that truth is a relative thing (if that's true, then truth CAN BE absolute--so dont believe them). Many scientists, do you have any particular ones in mind? You do not quote any scientists that claim this; this is a pretty amateur error on your part. Why should we believe that any scientist says this when you do not reference an example, will we take your word for it?The thing is, every educated person, scientist or not says this, of course truth is relative, everything is relative. For example, how do you know that something is heavy if you do not have a concept of something being light? Is it true that an elephant is heavy? Well it is relatively heavy compared to a mouse, but then again it is relatively light compared to the Eiffel Tower. Therefore a truth is relative, the elephant can be both heavy and light, both observations are true, but only relatively speaking. Yes truth can be absolute. It is true that Kent Hovind is a moron that is absolutely true. Hey, but relatively speaking could Kent be a genius! If he was compared to well say a creation scientist then Kent could be a mastermind. You seem a bit confused, but I suppose that goes with the territory of creation science, you claim that scientists say that truth is relative, and that in your opinion that means there can be absolute truth, so we are not to believe the scientists. What do you actually mean here? Let me give you an example that maybe you could explain to me in a way that fits your claim. A scientist invents a tablet, let us say Alexander Fleming, he discovers penicillin, now isn’t it relatively true that the penicillin will cure more people with an infection that praying to God will? So the example is, one hundred people have a serious infection, 50 take penicillin and the other 50 pray to Jesus, now I am willing to bet that the 50 that take the penicillin will have far more survivors than the 50 that pray to Jesus, so relatively speaking, it is true that penicillin is a far better cure for infections than praying to Jesus. Thus, if the scientist provides the documentation that penicillin is better at fighting infections than praying to Jesus, then we are not to believe him? I may have misunderstood your claim and, if I have, could you perhaps explain it a little clearer for me?
Okay, here's the goal, many people say that the universe is an infinite number of years old (that it's always been here).
Who says this?
But that's impossible. The universe has to have had a beginning--otherwise the second law of thermodynamics would have taken toll and there would be nothing left in the universe. Do you have any idea what the second law of thermodynamics is about? You describe yourself as a creation ‘scientist’, yet everyone knows that creation ‘scientists’ have no idea what the second law is. Maybe you could explain in layman’s terms, because I am not a scientist, how the second law disproves an infinite universe. Oh and make sure you are accurate, and get the correct definition, as there are real scientists here who will correct you. Oh, and could you maybe put it into your own words and not cut and paste from academically redundant websites like, ICR, Dr.Dino and AiG ?
Let me explain why infinity is not possible as a real number of time: What is a ‘real number of time’? Do you mean a real amount of time?
What is infinity minus infinity??? You'll get a contradictory statement. Example: if you subtract all the even numbers (2,4,6...infinity) from all the regular numbers (0,1,2...infinity) you get this: Infinity - Infinity = Infinity. What is a walrus minus a walrus? No walruses. This example is puerile. You give no reason for having the premises that you use. Are 2, 4 and 6 not regular numbers, oh look 2 is an even number and a regular one. Since infinity doesn’t have a value, we then give it a ‘value’ of ‘x’, now what is ‘x’ — ‘x’?
HOWEVER, if you subtract all the numbers greater than two (3,4,5...infinity) from all the natural numbers (0,1,2...infinity) you get this: Infinity - Infinity = 3 !!! Jesus this is absurd, are you sure you got through a university course? Look at your example, you give no reason for starting off at the numbers greater than 2, you just pluck it out of the air. You do know that by starting at ‘3’ you have negated infinity, as you have a starting point this means that what you are working with is not ‘infinity’. You even contradict your first remark when you inform us that ‘infinity’ means that it has always been here, in your calculations you have left out the 0,1 and 2 from your first figure, so what you have is not infinity because the 0,1 and 2 should have ‘always’ been there.
Both times I subtracted the same amount from the same amount and got contradictory answers--so the universe HAD to have had a beginning if there was not an infinite number of years. ‘The same amount from the same amount,’ this is not what you are doing, you are subtracting a number that starts calculating at ‘3’ away from a number that starts with at ‘0’, these are not the same amounts, so of course you are going to have a different answer.
Now, a star blows up every 30 years or so (from what we observe)--that is called a nova or a supernova. There are only 300 remains of novas or supernovas found in the universe, based on distribution of stars and galaxies. So, if you take 30 star-deaths and multiply it by 300 dead stars, you get about 9,000 years! Wow good maths, but very very very poor science. You are assuming that each star’s life is only 30 years longer than the one before it! Lets put our logical heads on, I know it goes against your beliefs but let us try it for a minute or two, you may enjoy the experience of having an independent thought. Ok, I am going to accept you figures here for the sake of argument, I suspect they are probably nowhere near correct but they suffice for now. We observe a star ‘blowing up’ every 30 years and have seen 300 of these ‘dead’ stars. Now, you calculation requires that one star ‘dies’ then 30 years later another star dies and so on, this gives a total of 9000 years. Well I have a few problems with that. Here they are: 1. First of all you seem to ignore how long the first star in your fantasy existed before it ‘blew’ up. Because we observe one ‘blowing’ up, it is very poor science to assume that the star was only 30 years old! The first star in your sequence could have been billions of years old, and I am sure it was, before it blew up. 2. You do realise that for your figure of 9000 years to be correct it requires the first star in the sequence to come into existence and ‘die’ in just 30 years? 3. You are giving different life spans to each star, after the unknown amount of years before the first star blew up, the second star existed for another 30 years, then the next one for 60 years and so on. Why should one star exist for only 30 years and another one exist for 6000 years? 4. What would happen if two stars died at the same time, will the next one live twice as long? 5. How can the universe be 9000 years old when it was created on 23rd October 4004 BCE?
A lot of people say that stars are born again but that has not been proven. Well, John 3:3 says In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. Although stars are a bit more rational than any born again Christian I have ever met. But seriously, who claims this, and how can a star be ‘born’. Your post is littered with unsupported arguments. Try and cast your mind back to University, if you were ever at university, were you not required to reference anything?
stars have been here since the beginning of time, as far as we can observe. So we have observed the beginning of time, great, maybe we can now put a date on it, what is your guess to the age of the universe? I am going with Bishop Ussher’s date of 23rd October 4004 BCE, because this is what the Bible says and if it is in the Bible it just has to be true.
Also, the law of the conservation of angular momentum disproves the big bang. That law states that all rotations from a rotating origin will maintain rotation in the same direction. In otherwords, if a bomb explodes while spinning, all the pieces that fly off will be spinning in the same direction. So, if the big bang theory is true, then why are many stars, galaxies, and planets spinning in opposite directions? Seriously, there are plenty of stars, galaxies, and planets out there that are spinning in opposite directions--the should all be rotating in the same direction IF the big bang was true. This final part really does convince me that you really are not a scientist, although you could be a ‘creation scientist’, what is your degree in? Let me guess, you have a B.A. in Business Studies, although this does qualify you as a creation scientist, it doesn’t qualify you as a real scientist. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that the planets that you are talking about are all in out solar system, I am just guessing because I know you cretin scientists have all sorts of wonderful insights. But ask yourself this; are these planets the same age as the rest of the universe? Were these planets created at the same time as the big bang? If they weren’t, and they came into being much later and at different times, do they really need to be spinning in the same direction? The last I heard was that the Big Bang was about 14.6 billion years ago and that the Earth is only about 4.5 billion years old, would an event more than 10 billion years ago have any direct influence on another object after so long a time? Anyway, if I were you I would get the Bible out and pray like mad because the real scientists here, and I repeat that I am not a scientist, are going to make you look pretty ignorant. Just out of curiosity, what qualifications do you personally have that allows you to describe yourself as a ‘creation scientist’? I am truly interested to know because, personally, I don’t think you have the intelligence to get a job in MacDonald’s. ------------------Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Booboo - If your posts reveal that you know what you're talking about then the "I'm a creation scientist" claim is unnecessary, and if they don't then the claim is silly. Either way it's an unflattering form of self-inflating puffery and appears to be drawing derision. You might want to consider leaving this claim out of future messages.
Brian Johnston - Please follow the guidelines and avoid making personal comments. --------------------EvC Forum Administrator |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The answers we work out are all relative to the infomation we have at our disposal. This isn't the same as claiming or disclaiming that Truth with a capitol T is absolute or relative. It isn't even a claim that Truth with a capitol T even exists at all, nor is it a disclaimer.
quote: I assume you mean "lots of people pre-1920 or so." Relativity pretty much killed the idea of a static universe.
quote: Actually, there would be nothing warm in the universe after a certain time has passed, but there would still be lots of stuff. Or, more precisely, there would be no temperature differentials.
quote: You really should read up on Cantor, infinite sets and the pitfalls of dealing with infinity.
quote: Assuming that your figure is correct-- I didn't check-- what you mean is that there are only 300 remains that we know about. It is a huge stretch to say that those we know of are the only ones. For one, after a star explodes it settles down into one of several objects that are rather difficult to detect, as they only give off light under special circumstances.
quote: How is the bloody hell do you know that? Any of it? Did you see the star before the dust cleared? Don't think so. And you are aware of the relationship between distance and time, right? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Scientists may say that they see stars being born in the Crab Nebula, but that's not true-- No foolin'! The Crab is a supernova remnant, and booboo is a troll.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mike Holland Member (Idle past 511 days) Posts: 179 From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia Joined: |
Most of your points have been dealt with by now, but here is one more.
When a star goes nova, it is visible from great distances. So we regularly see novas in other galaxies, millions of light years away. But the left-over remnants generally do not shine by their own light, but by light reflected from the remains of the central star, or from nearby stars. So they are a lot dimmer, and we only see a few nearby in our own galaxy. So you cannot compare theser numbers. Please read more, and ask questions when you do not understand, before rushing into print. There are many experts here to explain things, and a little searching around these forums will show that they already have, in most caes. Mike.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gzus Inactive Member |
I doubt 'Booboocruise' has even read these replies. He is obviously using hit and run tactics and has no intention to defend this random creationist propaganda that he downloaded from AiG
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
booboocruise Inactive Member |
You are self-decieved.
AiG is a website I hardly ever use. In fact, I use creationist books when I can, because they are most scientifically legitimate. Anyway, my point, all you rude people who call me a 'troll' and who accuse me of things that (1) you don't even know and (2) aren't you freakin' business!!! My point is, nobody has every proven the birth of a star. (Nebula's a bright clusters of stars, where astronomers often see "new" stars they did not see before, but that does not prove it's a NEW star). Read a book once in a while!!! Thermodynamics and Boyle's law DO apply to stellar evolution, as well as evolution, and the creationists are right on that. I admit creationists do not usually elaborate enough on the law of entropy but they ARE right about the sun's energy not adding an INCREASE in life's complexity. (and the sun's energy would HAVE to have had a hand in evolution because it is our source of heat and warmth, but the sun is destructive to all matter with the exception of chlorophyll)!Try to focus on what you believe, One way or another, you are wrong about the age of the universe, and I'll be prepared to file a lawsuit against any schools who will attempt to teach my children evolution--seeing how I'll have the right to notorize an exempt form against the school's teaching of evolution to my kids).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gzus Inactive Member |
You have kids? i though you were still in high school?
What i meant when i referred to AiG is that you seem to be spewing out the same regurgitated 'evidence' that has been refuted so many times on this website, similar to that perpetuated by AiG and others. P.S. There's no court anywhere in the civilised world that would support such a lawsuit. [This message has been edited by Gzus, 04-24-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5180 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
booboocruise writes: You are self-decieved.AiG is a website I hardly ever use. In fact, I use creationist books when I can, because they are most scientifically legitimate. Scientifically legitimate? What exacly do you mean by that and can you give me the name of one of these 'scientifically legitimate' books?
booboocruise writes: Anyway, my point, all you rude people who call me a 'troll' and who accuse me of things that (1) you don't even know and (2) aren't you freakin' business!!! Until recently you actions have been very troll-like. Perhaps some people where hastly in labling you as one. We shall see.
booboocruise writes: My point is, nobody has every proven the birth of a star. Science doesn't PROVE anything. The fact that you don't know this doesn't bode well for your assertion regarding 'scientifically legitimate' creationist books.
booboocruise writes: (Nebula's a bright clusters of stars, where astronomers often see "new" stars they did not see before, but that does not prove it's a NEW star). A nebula is not a bright cluster of stars.A nebula is the remnant of a supernova explosion. See this site. booboocruise writes: Read a book once in a while!!! Thermodynamics and Boyle's law DO apply to stellar evolution, as well as evolution, and the creationists are right on that. I admit creationists do not usually elaborate enough on the law of entropy but they ARE right about the sun's energy not adding an INCREASE in life's complexity. (and the sun's energy would HAVE to have had a hand in evolution because it is our source of heat and warmth, but the sun is destructive to all matter with the exception of chlorophyll)! Yes, Thermodynamics does apply to stellar evolution as well as evolution. However, neither of these violate the laws of Thermodynamics. Hint: Thermodynamic entropy has nothing to do with disorder. I have never heard of Boyle's Law being used as an argument against evolution. Can you state how this applies wrt evolution and why you think evolution violate the law?
booboocruise writes: Try to focus on what you believe, One way or another, you are wrong about the age of the universe, and I'll be prepared to file a lawsuit against any schools who will attempt to teach my children evolution--seeing how I'll have the right to notorize an exempt form against the school's teaching of evolution to my kids). Science (and by extenstion myself) might be wrong but you have yet to provide evidence that we are. We are not all going to ignor everything we know about how the universe works simply because you say we are wrong. Where is the evidence? ------------------He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife. - Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Compmage,
Compmage writes:
A nebula is not a bright cluster of stars.A nebula is the remnant of a supernova explosion. See this site. I believe a nebula is a cloud of gas and dust in space. Some nebula *are* the remains of exploded stars, others are simply clouds of material with potentially many sources. The main source of material for those nebula that aren't a direct result of exploded stars would be original hydrogen, helium and lithium that had never been part of any star, material from long ago exploded stars that drifted for eons and eventually joined a nebula, and material cast into space by other astromical processes such as the pressure from a burning star that pushes the gaseous material in the star's inner system outward, stellar near collisions and so forth.
Hint: Thermodynamic entropy has nothing to do with disorder. Others here will know what you mean, but I think this hint is more likely to seem like a blatant error to Booboo. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5180 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Percipient writes: I believe a nebula is a cloud of gas and dust in space. Some nebula *are* the remains of exploded stars, others are simply clouds of material with potentially many sources. The main source of material for those nebula that aren't a direct result of exploded stars would be original hydrogen, helium and lithium that had never been part of any star, material from long ago exploded stars that drifted for eons and eventually joined a nebula, and material cast into space by other astromical processes such as the pressure from a burning star that pushes the gaseous material in the star's inner system outward, stellar near collisions and so forth. You are correct. I was thinking about the Crab Nebula from a previous post in this thread and wasn't careful about my wording. Mistakes happen when you try to sneak in posts between work.
Percipient writes: Others here will know what you mean, but I think this hint is more likely to seem like a blatant error to Booboo. This is part of the problem, but I suppose you are correct. booboocruise: Let me put it a different way. Thermodynamic entropy is a measure of the heat that is unavailable to do work. It is NOT indicative of the level of order or disorder. ------------------He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife. - Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe T Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 41 From: Virginia Joined: |
quote: Whether BooBoo knows it or not, his argument stems, and all other creationist arguments about Super Nova Remnants (SNR) originate with - Keith Davies , "Super Nova Remnants - How old is the universe anyway?," Creation Discovery Project. A little background on types of SNRs is shown below in the table from Does supernova data prove that the universe is young?. This table indicates that there are four stages of SNRs. One of Davis’ arguments is that there have been no stage 3 SNRs discovered so; therefore, the earth is less than 100,000 years old. The main problem with arguments based upon things not discovered is that they often eventually do get discovered. As shown by Moore at least six have been discovered. Dave Moore goes to great lengths to examine the YEC SNR argument in the link above; however, he could have stopped right here. Davis’ argument is one that should go on AIG’s do not use list (OOPS it is one that they still use)--------------------------------------- Table 1. A supernova records the death of a star. According to the current theoretical model, it goes through four separate stages: 1. Stage 1: (a.k.a. the free expansion stage): The star explodes, leaving behind a supernova remnant (SNR). This stage lasts for about 90 to over 300 years.2. Stage 2: (a.k.a. the adiabatic or Sedov stage): This stage starts at the end of the first stage and lasts from 100 to 100,000 years. 3. Stage 3: (a.k.a. Snowplough or Radiative phase): Again, this stage begins at the end of the second stage, and lasts until about 1 million years or so. 4. Stage 4: What’s left over after stage 3. ------------------------------------------ BTW I spotted something interesting while looking into this. There is a very simple arithmetical error that creationists made in one of their arguments. It is one widely used (slowing rotation of the earth) and the error totally invalidates the argument. The Canadian group, religioustolerance.org, did an experiment by emailing 15 creationist webmasters and pointing out the simple error. One guess how many corrected it. Unsuccessful dialog with young-earth creationists about an error An old friend of Dr. Page’s was one of them. Here is the conversation with Dr. Luke Codon Randall as reported by religioustolerance.org:
quote: Joe T.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
BBC, we're all interested in your reponse to msg 13. It certainly appears that you've lost one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agent Uranium [GPC] Inactive Member |
OK, I must apologise here but I don't understand what you said here at all. It just seems like "witty" calculations, similar to how people manipulate words to "prove" something completely different. Let me give you another maths-based example: 45 - 45 == 45 Bear in mind that all integers between 1 & 9 inclusive (or 1 "through" 9 for those who use American-style terminology) add up to 45. So 987654321 - 123456789 == 864197532. Add up the numbers in the result and you get ... 45 How does that differ from what you just did??? ------------------
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024