Starlight and Time

[dad1]

Does science know what time, specifically time in the distant universe is? If you claim it does, then be prepared to support that claim.

If science does not know that time exists out there in a way we know it here, then one implication is that no distances are knowable to distant stars.

Why? Because distances depend on the uniform existence of time. If time (in this example 4 billion light years from earth) did not exist the same as time near earth, then what might take a billion years (of time as we know it here) for light to travel a certain distance in space might, for all we know, take minutes weeks or seconds of time as it exists out THERE!

So what methods does science have to measure time there? I am not aware of any. Movements observed at a great distance and observed from OUR time and space would not qualify. Such observations would only tell us how much time as seen here it would take if time were the same there.

How this relates to religion is that a six day creation thousands of years ago cannot be questioned using cosmology if it really did not take light that reaches us on earth and area a lot of time to get here.

[brunumb]

How do you then let creationists off the hook?

I do not consider them experts in science either. But at least they would admit basing things on belief, one would hope.

Creationism is not based on science. It is purely based on faith in ancient stories with no evidentiary support. Cosmology is based on countless observations and calculations which taken together make a compelling case for the validity of the conclusions reached. But that aside, we don't need to look out into space or question the rate of time out there to find evidence that Earth is very much older than 6000 years.

[dad1]

Creationism is not based on science. It is purely based on faith in ancient stories with no evidentiary support. Cosmology is based on countless observations and calculations which taken together make a compelling case for the validity of the conclusions reached. But that aside, we don't need to look out into space or question the rate of time out there to find evidence that Earth is very much older than 6000 years.

I'm tempted to divert from the topic now that folks here have failed to support the belief of science they use to model universe origins. But maybe let's give people a little more time to try to defend the fundamental basis and beliefs of so called science regarding the heavens.

It does seem that a complete change in space and time in the universe as compared to the solar system and area here, could affect red shifts. Ionization, and charge changes in atoms (used in spectral interpretation) and etc, that hopelessly skew the basic assumptions of cosmology for deep space. It also would make parallax measures useless.

[brunumb]

It does seem that a complete change in space and time in the universe as compared to the solar system and area here, could affect red shifts. Ionization, and charge changes in atoms (used in spectral interpretation) and etc, that hopelessly skew the basic assumptions of cosmology for deep space. It also would make parallax measures useless.

There is no reason for charges on the fundamental particles in atoms to change. They are not even affected by known time dilation. Specifically how would parallax measurements be affected? Please demonstrate the validity of the claims you are making.

[otseng]

So, this is the opportunity for sincere believers in origin science fundamentals to try and show they are not just God haters that grasp at any straw for no reason at all, but actually have something more than belief alone.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making negative comments about groups of people.

Please review the Rules.



______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

For the sake of argument, time has been shown to be different on earth than in space. Therefore dad1 can inform us that _________?

That science stories of origins is a crock.

Which origin stories do you mean? You have failed to show us anything. Please make a point if you have one.

Hey, and anyone even explain why time behaves the way it does here? Usually when I ask this all sorts of weird answers follow.

Have a cookie and put some work in yourself. If that is too hard, pick a religion. Those will supply you with all the answers you desire.

Such as 'time is not real it is just in out minds' etc etc

Strawman argument as that has not been made here.

I do understand the allure of pretending to know more than the experts.

It is not knowing how creation was done that people with different beliefs than science are all about. It is knowing that science is based on beliefs alone when it comes to their weird little alternate creation stories!

Science is based on beliefs alone and has creation stories? Science is a method. It would do you well to learn about that which you wish to disparage as at this point you should be embarrassed.

People who base it all on belief are not experts in anything but believing real hard making stuff up.

Why are you bringing this up?

So, this is the opportunity for sincere believers in origin science fundamentals to try and show they are not just God haters that grasp at any straw for no reason at all,

You need to calm down. Perhaps ask the Holy Spirit for help. Your words make as much sense as claiming an adult is a Santa hater.

So, what would I assume time exists the same in all the universe?

You are not allowed to believe such a thing due to being saddled with ancient religious beliefs. You cannot follow the evidence where it leads, so assume what you need to about the universe so you can maintain your religious beliefs, but please don't expect others to follow this line of non-reasoning.

Even if time were shown to behave differently, that doesn't make any of the gods as real and science will still be the best METHOD we have at arriving at truths. Therefore, I just don't understand your complaints about science not knowing everything.

[Inquirer]

How do you then let creationists off the hook?

I do not consider them experts in science either. But at least they would admit basing things on belief, one would hope.

Creationism is not based on science.

Science isn't based on science, I've tried to explain this to you many times now.

It [creationism] is purely based on faith in ancient stories with no evidentiary support.

That's untrue, creationism is a rational thing to infer, that something as sophisticated as the universe owes its presence to a mind is rational, it ight be true it might not, but it's a reasonable thing to consider.

The presence of a rationally intelligible universe is evidentiary support, it's not "proof" but then no self respecting science ever claims any explanation is proof do they.

Cosmology is based on countless observations and calculations which taken together make a compelling case for the validity of the conclusions reached.

Not it isn't. Cosmology is based on several assumptions and an interpretation of countless observations within the context of those assumptions. How many times must people be told about the cosmological principle!

But that aside, we don't need to look out into space or question the rate of time out there to find evidence that Earth is very much older than 6000 years.

That's a matter of opinion, different people see things in different ways, different people assume different things, different people interpret observations in different ways, this applies to all people, be they laymen or scientific researchers.

Your way of interpreting the world is not the only way, despite the constant insinuation otherwise.

[Jose Fly]

But that aside, we don't need to look out into space or question the rate of time out there to find evidence that Earth is very much older than 6000 years.

That's a matter of opinion, different people see things in different ways, different people assume different things, different people interpret observations in different ways, this applies to all people, be they laymen or scientific researchers.

Your way of interpreting the world is not the only way, despite the constant insinuation otherwise.

Do you believe in any sort of actual reality, or is everything just "interpretation" and "opinion" in your world?

[Tcg]

Science isn't based on science, I've tried to explain this to you many times now.

That makes as much sense as saying water isn't made of water. Oh well, I guess this is what we've come down to. Non-water water.


Tcg

[dad1]

Science isn't based on science, I've tried to explain this to you many times now.

Glad you appear to be coming around:)

[dad1]

Do you believe in any sort of actual reality, or is everything just "interpretation" and "opinion" in your world?

I like that. Do you BELIEVE---Beliefs affect reality I guess.