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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #136]

If you can't yet really grasp the profundity of what Wittgenstein or Burke are explaining here, then no wonder you have so much trouble understanding what I am saying to you.

Yes ... the sun going around the earth looks the same as the earth rotating on its axis to a human, but that explains nothing about what is actually happening. Sounds like the silly statement you've made a few times before that a young Earth made to look old would be indistinguishible from an actual old Earth. So what? Again, that explains nothing and adds zero to an understanding of how old the Earth really is. That required a lot more effort and science.

I don't have any trouble understanding what you type. I just think much of it is dead wrong, or word games to try and make the point that only your view is correct and everyone else is wrong (or stupid, unable to grasp simple concepts, etc.) that disagrees. Your responses too often include (very) thinly-veiled insults to someone's intelligence ... at least you are consistent with that approach as can be see throughout this thread and others.

[brunumb]

I don't have any trouble understanding what you [Inquirer] type. I just think much of it is dead wrong, or word games to try and make the point that only your view is correct and everyone else is wrong (or stupid, unable to grasp simple concepts, etc.) that disagrees. Your responses too often include (very) thinly-veiled insults to someone's intelligence ... at least you are consistent with that approach as can be see throughout this thread and others.

I think we can pinpoint part of the problem with the following quote:

God affects how I interpret things.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #136]

If you can't yet really grasp the profundity of what Wittgenstein or Burke are explaining here, then no wonder you have so much trouble understanding what I am saying to you.

Yes ... the sun going around the earth looks the same as the earth rotating on its axis to a human, but that explains nothing about what is actually happening.

I never said it did, Burke never said it did, Wittgenstein never said it did.

The point is that one's current knowledge, current framework, is what one uses to "explain" things and those frameworks change. What we use today differs from two hundred years ago and will likely differ again in two hundred years.

Every generation thinks they can tell us what's "actually happening".

Sounds like the silly statement you've made a few times before that a young Earth made to look old would be indistinguishible from an actual old Earth. So what? Again, that explains nothing and adds zero to an understanding of how old the Earth really is. That required a lot more effort and science.

By all means describe what I said as "silly" that's just an opinion and there are a lot of them around here. The important point is that what I said was true.

I don't have any trouble understanding what you type. I just think much of it is dead wrong, or word games to try and make the point that only your view is correct and everyone else is wrong (or stupid, unable to grasp simple concepts, etc.) that disagrees.

Ahh "word games" again, is that how you describe an argument in which you've failed to defend your position? accuse the opponent of doing wrong? of being insincere?

Your responses too often include (very) thinly-veiled insults to someone's intelligence ... at least you are consistent with that approach as can be see throughout this thread and others.

Insults like "or stupid, unable to grasp simple concepts, etc." that kind of thing you mean?

[Inquirer]

I don't have any trouble understanding what you [Inquirer] type. I just think much of it is dead wrong, or word games to try and make the point that only your view is correct and everyone else is wrong (or stupid, unable to grasp simple concepts, etc.) that disagrees. Your responses too often include (very) thinly-veiled insults to someone's intelligence ... at least you are consistent with that approach as can be see throughout this thread and others.

I think we can pinpoint part of the problem with the following quote:

God affects how I interpret things.

Knowledge affects how we interpret things, in my case knowledge of God influences me, in your case a belief in a magic fantasy world where profound laws and materials and forces just "happen" to pop into existence and just "happen" to form planets with living self replicating organisms of astonishing complexity who can comprehend those laws.

You believe in magic and I believe in God, one day you too will see the error of your ways and laugh at the beliefs you hold today.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #163]

The point is that one's current knowledge, current framework, is what one uses to "explain" things and those frameworks change. What we use today differs from two hundred years ago and will likely differ again in two hundred years.

Who said otherwise? The heliocentric model of our solar system isn't likely to change in 200 years, or 2000 years. The guesses for what dark matter are most likely will. What's your point?

Ahh "word games" again, is that how you describe an argument in which you've failed to defend your position? accuse the opponent of doing wrong? of being insincere?

What position are you referring to? What position have I taken in this thread that you think has not been defended? Do you also believe that the distances to stars we have worked out are wrong because space, time etc. may be different "out there" than "here"? I've argued against that. Is this the position of mine are you referring to that I have not defended? As you constantly say to Jose (and others) ... quote what I said specifically and where I said it.

Insults like "or stupid, unable to grasp simple concepts, etc." that kind of thing you mean?

Exactly! Those were quoting you which you seem to have missed.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #164]

Knowledge affects how we interpret things, in my case knowledge of God influences me, in your case a belief in a magic fantasy world where profound laws and materials and forces just "happen" to pop into existence and just "happen" to form planets with living self replicating organisms of astonishing complexity who can comprehend those laws.

You believe in magic and I believe in God, one day you too will see the error of your ways and laugh at the beliefs you hold today.

This is exactly what I mean about playing word games to try and claim your view is right and any other view is wrong. You're describing acceptance of the current scientific consensus as a "fantasy world" where things "just happen" (implying randomly, without any cause or reason) and painting the picture that this view is "magic", or in error, that we'll laugh at one day. This completely ignores all of the observations, measurements, work and analysis that went into forming the scientific consensus.

The implication of the word salad is that the "magic" science view is wrong (laughable even) and your belief that a god being is responsible is the only valid conclusion. It isn't.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #163]

The point is that one's current knowledge, current framework, is what one uses to "explain" things and those frameworks change. What we use today differs from two hundred years ago and will likely differ again in two hundred years.

Who said otherwise? The heliocentric model of our solar system isn't likely to change in 200 years, or 2000 years. The guesses for what dark matter are most likely will. What's your point?

How do you know it isn't likely to change? This is precisely the problem I've been warning you about, like thousands before you think you know the "truth".

Ahh "word games" again, is that how you describe an argument in which you've failed to defend your position? accuse the opponent of doing wrong? of being insincere?

What position are you referring to? What position have I taken in this thread that you think has not been defended?

I meant in the general sense, the fact that you resort to accusations of wrong doing means that you were obviously unable to rationally counter argue, anyone can accuses an opponent of "word games" its ridiculous.

Do you also believe that the distances to stars we have worked out are wrong because space, time etc. may be different "out there" than "here"? I've argued against that. Is this the position of mine are you referring to that I have not defended? As you constantly say to Jose (and others) ... quote what I said specifically and where I said it.

Like you, I choose my beliefs. If you believe that laws and constants of nature in the remote past and at remote distances are identical to the laws and constants we observe locally then I applaud that, it is a rational, reasonable belief. But it is nothing more than that it is not "true" it is not "proven" it is not "demonstrable" and can be replaced by other beliefs and no contradiction arises.

Insults like "or stupid, unable to grasp simple concepts, etc." that kind of thing you mean?

Exactly! Those were quoting you which you seem to have missed.

They weren't quotes they were paraphrased accusations.

Now just to be clear, I am right and you are wrong.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #164]

Knowledge affects how we interpret things, in my case knowledge of God influences me, in your case a belief in a magic fantasy world where profound laws and materials and forces just "happen" to pop into existence and just "happen" to form planets with living self replicating organisms of astonishing complexity who can comprehend those laws.

You believe in magic and I believe in God, one day you too will see the error of your ways and laugh at the beliefs you hold today.

This is exactly what I mean about playing word games to try and claim your view is right and any other view is wrong.

I claim only that God, an intelligent agency with a will and power over the material universe is a more rational explanation than the materialists alternative, if you don't like me saying that so what? it's not my fault you believe in the flawed unsound model of reality that you've chosen to believe.

You're describing acceptance of the current scientific consensus as a "fantasy world" where things "just happen" (implying randomly, without any cause or reason) and painting the picture that this view is "magic", or in error, that we'll laugh at one day.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. If you disagree, if you care to defend your view, if you think reasons exist for a reason or that determinism arose from non-determinism then please, go ahead and "explain" this, I'm truly interested, I will listen.

This completely ignores all of the observations, measurements, work and analysis that went into forming the scientific consensus.

You mean observations like the law of biogenesis? isn't that a good example of you ignoring the very same things?

The implication of the word salad is that the "magic" science view is wrong (laughable even) and your belief that a god being is responsible is the only valid conclusion. It isn't.

Claiming that things just appeared uncaused, claims that the presence of a deterministic universe is not itself the result of determinism is not science, it's not and never has been science that I am disagreeing with, do not elevate these unscientific beliefs you hold so dear, to the status of science.

You and some others here routinely ridicule God as an explanation, blissfully unaware of the sheer absurdity and self contradictory alternative that this leaves you with, you need to understand that that alternative is far from any definition of "science" I've ever seen.

[Jose Fly]

Picking up from where we left off....

As Inquirer expressed earlier in this thread, when faced with conflicting interpretations we determine which is valid/accurate by applying scientific testing. That seems very sensible, so let's put it to use.

With the question of the origins of humans (H. sapiens), we have the creationist interpretation of humans arising separately from primates and the evolutionary interpretation of humans arising via common ancestry with other primates. This provides an excellent example to put the "scientific testing" approach to use.

In a 2016 paper, a team of scientists describe the results of a series of tests they conducted addressing this very question....

https://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1101/036327

While there is no doubt among evolutionary biologists that all living species, or merely all living species within a particular group (e.g., animals), share descent from a common ancestor, formal statistical methods for evaluating common ancestry from aligned DNA sequence data have received criticism. One primary criticism is that prior methods take sequence similarity as evidence for common ancestry while ignoring other potential biological causes of similarity, such as functional constraints. We present a new statistical framework to test separate ancestry versus common ancestry that avoids this pitfall. We illustrate the efficacy of our approach using a recently published large molecular alignment to examine common ancestry of all primates (including humans).

We find overwhelming evidence against separate ancestry and in favor of common ancestry for orders and families of primates. We also find overwhelming evidence that humans share a common ancestor with other primate species.

The novel statistical methods presented here provide formal means to test separate ancestry versus common ancestry from aligned DNA sequence data while accounting for functional constraints that limit nucleotide base usage on a site-by-site basis.

Thus, according to the process for identifying the valid/accurate interpretation that we agreed to in this thread, we have our answer. Humans arose via common ancestry with other primates and did not arise separately.

Now comes the fun part. Will creationists accept the results of the process they advocated? Or will they find excuses to reject it because human/primate common ancestry is a conclusion that they will never accept under any circumstances?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #167]

How do you know it isn't likely to change? This is precisely the problem I've been warning you about, like thousands before you think you know the "truth".

Are you seriously suggesting that the observed orbiting of massive celestial bodies around stars (or moons around planets) may change in the future? Not all interpretations have equal probabilities ... some are far more likely to be correct than others. This one is in the far more likely category.

I meant in the general sense, the fact that you resort to accusations of wrong doing means that you were obviously unable to rationally counter argue, anyone can accuses an opponent of "word games" its ridiculous.

So you could not quote anything as I suspected ... got it. The word games are obvious though, as in the post I pointed out for an example.

But it is nothing more than that it is not "true" it is not "proven" it is not "demonstrable" and can be replaced by other beliefs and no contradiction arises.

And? It doesn't have to be proven or demonstrated to serve as a rational assumption until it is shown to be wrong. And there is evidence for it in atomic and molecular spectra, and other observations. No one claimed it was "true."

They weren't quotes they were paraphrased accusations.

No ... they were quotes. Phrases and words you use routinely.

Now just to be clear, I am right and you are wrong.

On what subject? I know you're convinced you are always right, but you need to be more specific.