What was gods purpose for the dinosaurs, and the immense amount of time that elapsed before our existence on earth?

NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
What was gods purpose for the dinosaurs, and the immense amount of time that elapsed before our existence on earth?

  I would like to hear some theists opignions on why god would have made the dinosaurs, for what purpose exactly would he have created acient earths beasts and allowed them to run around for hundreds of millions of years.  Or do you believe the dating of these creatures is wrong?  Just looking for opignions, i cant rationalize it, maybe you can try.


Gaffer (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
In response to "No More

In response to "No More Crazy People" Nov 2nd: The immense amount of time prior to the appearance of human beings on Earth can be analyzed in the context of the fourteen billion year age of the universe, divided by the expansion factor, or the rate at which the universe has expanded since the so-called Big-Bang, established by the Doppler effect of red-shift through the spectrum of light to be approxomately one million squared. Hence, the universe is apparently one million times one million larger than it was at the Big Bang. When fourteen billion years, the age of the universe is divided by the universal expansion factor of one million squared, the result is 0.15, which when multiplied by 365.242, the number of days in the solar year, produces a figure of 6.                     

In other words, all the elements that presently make up the physical universe and their respective ratios were formed in a period that can be no more or no less than of six literal twenty-four hour days. In other words, just as the light from the Sun which takes approximately eight minutes to reach Earth, might take say ten minutes to reach us if the planet was located a bit further away; similarly what was the original six days during which the universe was formed, has since extrapolated into fourteen million years. (Actually the figure is not exactly 6, but around 5.47. However, given the approximate nature of the universal age and expansion factor, a few hours difference represents an easily acceptable margin of error.) So whether you acknowledge the event to be a "creation" or not, given the most up to date conclusions of modern science, the Biblical report of a six day period for the formation of the physical universe appears to be scientifically vindicated.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 LOL Gaffer.

 LOL Gaffer.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Gaffer (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Laughing out loud is not an

Laughing out loud is not an adequate response...


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Scientific my ass. The big

Scientific my ass. The big bang happened in a planck second. That's a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second. The aftermath:

Quote:
It lasted for only about seventeen minutes (during the period from 3 to about 20 minutes from the beginning of space expansion; after that, the temperature and density of the universe fell below that which is required for nuclear fusion. The brevity of BBN is important because it prevented elements heavier than beryllium from forming while at the same time allowing unburned light elements, such as deuterium, to exist.

So massively off the six day mark as to make the bible a transparent lie.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Gaffer (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
What's the problem

What's the problem Sapient...Lost your pocket calculator?


Gaffer (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Yeah but the universe as we

Yeah but the universe as we know it is what happens to a planck second that's been expanding at 186,000 miles per second for 14,000,000 years.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't understand why you

I don't understand why you divide 14 billion by the expansion factor squared, and I don't understand how that gives you the amount of time it took for the universe to be created. Explain it to me.

Gaffer wrote:
When fourteen billion years, the age of the universe is divided by the universal expansion factor of one million squared, the result is 0.15, which when multiplied by 365.242, the number of days in the solar year, produces a figure of 6.

Also,

(14e9) / (1e6)^2 = .014

.014 * 365.242 = 5.11 (based on the numbers you've provided) 

Edit: Maybe the original calculation had more digits or something? Oh, yeah, Gaffer, by the way, what Creationist website did you plagiarize this from? 

Edit: Oh, if I use .015, that gives me 5.48. Hmmm, how convenient.......why not just use .016? We can make it up as we go along, right?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Gaffer wrote:In response to

Gaffer wrote:

In response to "No More Crazy People" Nov 2nd: The immense amount of time prior to the appearance of human beings on Earth can be analyzed in the context of the fourteen billion year age of the universe, divided by the expansion factor, or the rate at which the universe has expanded since the so-called Big-Bang, established by the Doppler effect of red-shift through the spectrum of light to be approxomately one million squared. Hence, the universe is apparently one million times one million larger than it was at the Big Bang. When fourteen billion years, the age of the universe is divided by the universal expansion factor of one million squared, the result is 0.15, which when multiplied by 365.242, the number of days in the solar year, produces a figure of 6.                     

In other words, all the elements that presently make up the physical universe and their respective ratios were formed in a period that can be no more or no less than of six literal twenty-four hour days. In other words, just as the light from the Sun which takes approximately eight minutes to reach Earth, might take say ten minutes to reach us if the planet was located a bit further away; similarly what was the original six days during which the universe was formed, has since extrapolated into fourteen million years. (Actually the figure is not exactly 6, but around 5.47. However, given the approximate nature of the universal age and expansion factor, a few hours difference represents an easily acceptable margin of error.) So whether you acknowledge the event to be a "creation" or not, given the most up to date conclusions of modern science, the Biblical report of a six day period for the formation of the physical universe appears to be scientifically vindicated.

That is not  even close to scientiic evidence atall for the biblical accuracy of time/creation.  And what exactly does this mention about gods purpose for the ancient animals that dwelled the earth for hundreds  of millions of years.  What was the devine purpose for them???   I  mean humans have been around for a couple hundred thousand years at the most depending on when along the timeline you consider the various ancient humonoids to be human.   This is such a small amount of time in comparison to how long we weren't  around and the earth was run by beasts.  What was the purpose for all this time, and all  these beasts he created, was he just messing around or what??? 

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
gaffer wrote:When fourteen

*


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:  I

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

  I would like to hear some theists opignions on why god would have made the dinosaurs, for what purpose exactly would he have created acient earths beasts and allowed them to run around for hundreds of millions of years.  Or do you believe the dating of these creatures is wrong?  Just looking for opignions, i cant rationalize it, maybe you can try.

God made dinosaurs so that we could watch the Flintstones and kids could watch Barney. That, or they have no justification and just pull shit out of their ass. Sorry to spoil the fun. But.........I get a lip twitch reading this stuff.

If the super hero fans want to take a stab at answering this, have at it, but any answer they attempt will be as justified as Thor making lighting.

I really would like to see someone try to answer this. I'll go grab my popcorn bucket. I am such a meanie.

 Never fear believers, my blasphemy is all about debate. If you want to try to justify this, in all seriousness, take a crack at it. But don't take it personally.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Gaffer (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Butterbattle: From your

Butterbattle: From your latest posting, it looks like you ARE making it up as you go along...


Gaffer (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Butterbattle: You don't

Butterbattle: You don't divide fourteen billion by the expansion factor squared - the expansion factor is one milion squared. Read it for Gid's sake, and try and stop those knees jerking


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Gaffer please sign up for

 Gaffer please sign up for an account.  We have to approve anonymous comments by hand, and when we do so we have some limitations on what we're willing to approve.  You have walked the line at least twice, however were you a registered member of the community you would've been given more leeway.

 

Essentially what I'm saying is that an antagonistic manner of speaking isn't tolerated as much as an anonymous member, and you're likely to get to the point where we just don't post your material if you insist on remaining anonymous.  Thought you should know.

 

And yes... your arguments are still hilarious.  And yes, it was an adequate response... I don't feel you're rational enough to accept the reasons why, so dare I say it was the only appropriate response.  And I've laughed at every argument you made, you're cute.  Seemingly so intelligent, yet so very dumb at the same time.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Gaffer (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Sorry about the antagonistic

Sorry about the antagonistic tone Sapient. It won't happen again. And by the way, with you as the source, I humbly accept hilarity as a huge compliment Smiling


Gaffer (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Sapient: P.S. To my previous

Sapient: P.S. To my previous submission. You are right about antagonism being counterproductive, but from my standpoint, after a couple of sincere attempts to participate in the debate I have been called a dumb, irrational, sarcastically-cute, plagiarist, when all I did was to submit a set of figures, which amid all the ad hominem barbs, no one has yet managed to refute. Can't we just stick to analyzing the ideas themselves without all the personal stuff? After all there is still hope that all may yet turn out to be meaningless.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK Gaffer, you are obviously

OK Gaffer, you are obviously making shit up as you go along. The square of 10^6 is 10^12. The age of the universe is a bit less than 14*10^9 years but we can run with that for now.

 

You see, I framed your statement in that way because it really is a simple calculation if you keep everything in a single standardized terminology. The answer is that you will come out with is 0.014 which is exactly what butterbattle did. Had he squared the “expansion factor” (which is a number that you made up BTW), he would have been using 10^24 in his calculation and I am simply not going to bother typing out all of those zeros. There is a reason for using exponents and this is it.

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Gaffer wrote:Butterbattle:

Gaffer wrote:

Butterbattle: You don't divide fourteen billion by the expansion factor squared - the expansion factor is one milion squared. Read it for Gid's sake, and try and stop those knees jerking

You're the one not reading properly. He did the math exactly as described.

Must've been that scientific notation that got you. Why don't you ask the Jesus for better numbers to play with?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Gaffer, I really tried to

 Gaffer, I really tried to dumb it down for you, but since it wasn't clear...

 

YOU CAN BE ANTAGONISTIC, JUST MAKE AN ACCOUNT.  

 

OR WAS YOUR ACCOUNT ALREADY BANNED?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Gaffer (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Honestly, I did not make up

Honestly, I did not make up the fact that the universe is apparently expanding, nor did I invent the approximately acknowledged age of the universe, the rate of expansion, or the number of days in the solar year. I depend upon the same sources of information as everyone else in this forum. I am merely stating the obvious, that a year divided by 365 is equal to approximately twenty four hours for the same reason that fourteen billion years divided by a million squared, as the factor by which we are told the universe has extented since its inception, equals approximately 0.15, which when multiplied by 365 equals approximately six. Given the fact that the precise age of the universe cannot be determined with atomic precision, the figure of 6 literal twenty four hour periods represents an acceptable margin of error for the formation of the physical universe. Of course this figure can be further sub-divided into planck seconds and fractions of planck seconds in the same way as the solar year can be similarly sub-divided, but those quantum sub-divisions will remain proportionately related as subdivisions of 365 in the same way as they will also be subdivisions of six! The implications arising from  the analysis of these accepted figures and their coincidental relationship to the Biblical narrative can be drawn by the individual. However, on the basis of these figures alone, I see no reason except paranoia for the knee-jerk assumption that I am a "creationist."


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Gaffer wrote:Butterbattle:

Gaffer wrote:
Butterbattle: From your latest posting, it looks like you ARE making it up as you go along...

How? I just did what you did. Show me where I made something up.

Gaffer wrote:
Butterbattle: You don't divide fourteen billion by the expansion factor squared - the expansion factor is one milion squared.

I don't get what you're saying. It's confusing to describe it in words. I typed out all the calculations. Why don't you show me what I did wrong?

Do you mean that the expansion factor is 1e6, and we calculate:

14e9 / (EF)^2 ? 

Or that the expansion factor is 1e6^2, and we calculate:

14e9 / EF ?

We get the same answer either way.  

Gaffer wrote:
Read it for Gid's sake, and try and stop those knees jerking 

I did. I was even able to get the same answer you did (after fudging the numbers, lol. Figures.) (well, almost. The 5.47 was rounded down for some reason). Although, I didn't get .15 because (14e9) / (1e6)^2 is .014, not .15.

Now, answer my questions instead of just ignoring them. What is your source for the expansion factor? How does dividing the age of the universe by the expansion factor (squared?) get you the time it took for the universe to be created?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

OK Gaffer, you are obviously making shit up as you go along. The square of 10^6 is 10^12. The age of the universe is a bit less than 14*10^9 years but we can run with that for now.

You see, I framed your statement in that way because it really is a simple calculation if you keep everything in a single standardized terminology. The answer is that you will come out with is 0.014 which is exactly what butterbattle did. Had he squared the “expansion factor” (which is a number that you made up BTW), he would have been using 10^24 in his calculation and I am simply not going to bother typing out all of those zeros. There is a reason for using exponents and this is it.

 

Gaffer obviously didn't even do the calculations himself, which leads me to suspect that he doesn't even know how or he's just too lazy. It's obvious that he meant 0.015 * 365.242, which gets you 5.47863. 0.15 would get you 54.7863 days, which is obviously not what he wants. But, the first operation results in .014 though, not .015, which gets you 5.113388, which is also farther from what he wants.

He's really pathetic. I think I feel sorry for him.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Gaffer wrote:Honestly, I did

Gaffer wrote:

Honestly, I did not make up the fact that the universe is apparently expanding, nor did I invent the approximately acknowledged age of the universe, the rate of expansion, or the number of days in the solar year. I depend upon the same sources of information as everyone else in this forum. I am merely stating the obvious, that a year divided by 365 is equal to approximately twenty four hours for the same reason that fourteen billion years divided by a million squared, as the factor by which we are told the universe has extented since its inception, equals approximately 0.15, which when multiplied by 365 equals approximately six. Given the fact that the precise age of the universe cannot be determined with atomic precision, the figure of 6 literal twenty four hour periods represents an acceptable margin of error for the formation of the physical universe. Of course this figure can be further sub-divided into planck seconds and fractions of planck seconds in the same way as the solar year can be similarly sub-divided, but those quantum sub-divisions will remain proportionately related as subdivisions of 365 in the same way as they will also be subdivisions of six! The implications arising from  the analysis of these accepted figures and their coincidental relationship to the Biblical narrative can be drawn by the individual. However, on the basis of these figures alone, I see no reason except paranoia for the knee-jerk assumption that I am a "creationist."

Never said you did - just that your math is off by quite a bit. 0.014 is quite a bit smaller than 0.15 and multiplying either by 365.242 won't get you 6. I'd like to know where you got this formula.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Gaffer wrote:I am merely

Gaffer wrote:
I am merely stating the obvious, that a year divided by 365 is equal to approximately twenty four hours for the same reason that fourteen billion years divided by a million squared, as the factor by which we are told the universe has extented since its inception, equals approximately 0.15, which when multiplied by 365 equals approximately six.

You don't even understand what you're saying, so it's definitely not "obvious."

The "reason" a year divided by 365 is equal to 24 hours is because 8760 hrs. = 365 days = 1 year. You divided the number of hours in a year by the number of days in a year, and, thus, got the number of hours per day. Logically, your calculations follow in the same way, but they do not have the same units. Expansion factor divided by years would mean the factor of expansion per year. Dividing the other way would mean the number of years per unit of expansion. Multiplying by 365 would mean the number of days per unit of expansion. How this value indicates the number of days it took for the universe to be created is completely beyond me. 

Gaffer wrote:
Given the fact that the precise age of the universe cannot be determined with atomic precision, the figure of 6 literal twenty four hour periods represents an acceptable margin of error for the formation of the physical universe.

Sigh....

6 is not the uncertainty. The value I got was 5.11. You're off by about 14.8% on one test.   

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I'd like to

jcgadfly wrote:
I'd like to know where you got this formula.

*sob*

Me too. Me too. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Sorry for my empty post

Sorry for my empty post above, everyone. I originally posted to point out that 14 billion divided by a million squared equals less than 0.15. Then I noticed that Butterbattle beat me to it and said it better anyway (plus I had accidentally put in an extra zero or two on billion when I calulated so my result was out too oops). I took it down and started to write something else, then promptly fell asleep (lot of late nights lately)..

But now it's been pointed out quite extensively that Gaffer himself can't have even done the simple arithmetic that his claim is supposedly based on, I don't think there's anything else worth saying. Gaffer flagrantly misrepresenting himself is nothing short of an insult to the actual hardworking scientists taking real measurements of the red shifting that he has coopted for his insanity. It just doesn't warrant any more civilised response.

Gaffer. At least get out YOUR calculator, plug in the figures yourself before you say anything more. Until you can demonstrate humility and respect for the facts, enough, to admit your claims were numerically inaccurate you're no man of science, that's for sure.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Gaffer wrote:So whether you

Gaffer wrote:

So whether you acknowledge the event to be a "creation" or not, given the most up to date conclusions of modern science, the Biblical report of a six day period for the formation of the physical universe appears to be scientifically vindicated.

You should transmit these findings to the Nobel Committee immediately. They will certainly have a prize for you.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Gaffer

butterbattle wrote:

Gaffer wrote:
I am merely stating the obvious, that a year divided by 365 is equal to approximately twenty four hours for the same reason that fourteen billion years divided by a million squared, as the factor by which we are told the universe has extented since its inception, equals approximately 0.15, which when multiplied by 365 equals approximately six.

You don't even understand what you're saying, so it's definitely not "obvious."

The "reason" a year divided by 365 is equal to 24 hours is because 8760 hrs. = 365 days = 1 year. You divided the number of hours in a year by the number of days in a year, and, thus, got the number of hours per day. Logically, your calculations follow in the same way, but they do not have the same units. Expansion factor divided by years would mean the factor of expansion per year. Dividing the other way would mean the number of years per unit of expansion. Multiplying by 365 would mean the number of days per unit of expansion. How this value indicates the number of days it took for the universe to be created is completely beyond me. 

It just occurred to me, by this formula that Gaffer has suggested, you noted we are now ~5.1 (streeeeetched out) days into the life of the universe (assuming inception at the big bang). So according to the bible the sea "teems with living creatures", but we, humans, aren't arriving till tomorrow.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: So according

Eloise wrote:

 So according to the bible the sea "teems with living creatures", but we, humans, aren't arriving till tomorrow.

Be patient!

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Gaffer wrote:Yeah but the

Gaffer wrote:

Yeah but the universe as we know it is what happens to a planck second that's been expanding at 186,000 miles per second for 14,000,000 years.

This is nonsense.

There is Planck time, which is the time it takes light to travel the Planck length, which is a distance of about 16 X 10-36 meter. It doesn't 'expand', it is a constant.

Now if you are talking about the Universe expanding from that size to whatever its size is today, then we don't know if it is has been expanding uniformly since that time, in fact the most widely accepted theory is that there was an early very fast expansion known as inflation, originally proposed by Alan Guth, followed by a more steady expansion since that time.

It is meaningless to describe the 'rate' of expansion by a velocity. What part of the universe are you saying had a 'velocity' of of light-speed, and with respect to what other part? Remember, from Relativity, there is no absolute velocity. Also remember there is no edge of the Universe, and for a long time now, the distance between remote parts of the Universe has been increasing at greater than the speed of light, and so they cannot 'see' each other. The limit of the speed of light only applies to local observation of apparent speed with respect to other objects and does not take into account any actual expansion of space itself between them.

The rate of expansion can be described as the rate at which a volume of space large enough to be dominated by this expansionary effect is expanding, as a percentage increase in distance between any two objects per second.

The relative velocity with which any two objects are apparently moving away from each other will be proportional to the distance between them multiplied by the proportional increase in distance due to expansion.

The formation of the elements was initially almost exclusively hydrogen. Heavier elements have been forming mainly inside stars, so they started forming only once stars began to 'burn', and then were distributed into space when any of those stars exploded.

Don't really see how this fits with your story.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Gaffer wrote:... The

Gaffer wrote:
... The implications arising from  the analysis...

I found your mistake. You think this drivel constitutes an "analysis". It doesn't. What you have here is what scientists very accurately calls "fucking bullshit". Multiplying and dividing numbers with each other without any justification can be done to find anything and nothing, although in your case you didn't even do the math right, as others have pointed out. Pretty pathetic.


Gaffer (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
No argument. But how about

No argument. But how about the difference between 13.73 (give or take 0.12,) and 14 billion years, offered, depending upon who you ask, as the age of the universe? That's not exactly an insignificant variation either. The same goes for the less than microscopic precision of the expansion factor established as an implication of the Hubble Constant and the Doppler variation in red-shift, as approximately one million squared. If you cut me slack on my careless typo with the decimal point, the division of one by the other, producing 0.015, (not of course, 0.15) multiplied by 365.242, renders the variation between 5.11 and 6, days, representing a few hours over fourteen million years, insignificant, especially considering the already-existing variation in estimates for the universal age, and the "ball-park" nature of the proposed expansion rate.                                                                                                                                                                       I readily accept your helpful observation that the number of years divided by the expansion factor merely gives the annual rate of expansion. But when the annual expansion rate of 0.015 is multiplied by the number of days in the year, I propose that the product of 6 would represent planck time, with the original micro-fractions of a second extrapolated at light speed over a period of fourteen million years. I would be interested to hear your observations on this possibility.


Gaffer (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Sapient: I signed up, just

Sapient: I signed up, just got my password. Sorry for the delay.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Gaffer wrote:No argument.

Edit:

Gaffer wrote:

No argument. But how about the difference between 13.73 (give or take 0.12,) and 14 billion years, offered, depending upon who you ask, as the age of the universe? That's not exactly an insignificant variation either. The same goes for the less than microscopic precision of the expansion factor established as an implication of the Hubble Constant and the Doppler variation in red-shift, as approximately one million squared. If you cut me slack on my careless typo with the decimal point, the division of one by the other, producing 0.015, (not of course, 0.15) multiplied by 365.242, renders the variation between 5.11 and 6, days,

Sigh...

14e9 / (1e6)^2 is 0.014, not 0.015. If we take a smaller number for the age of the universe, the result will be a smaller number of days. For example, if you take 13.73e9 / (1e6)^2, you'll get .01379, multiplied by 365.242 is 5.03 days. That's even farther from 6.

Quote:
representing a few hours over fourteen million years, insignificant, especially considering the already-existing variation in estimates for the universal age, and the "ball-park" nature of the proposed expansion rate.

The value you wanted was 6. The value I got was 5.11. We can't really calculate uncertainty here, but if you want to calculate uncertainty, you should be comparing your result, 5.11, to the value you're looking for, 6; it's a matter of ratio between your data and your hypothesis. That's not a small margin of error. These six days, stretched out, represent the age of the universe, right? So if you compare it like this: 

5.11 / 6 = x / (14e9) 

x = 11.923e9

You're off by over two billion years. I think this is right. Someone correct me if I'm doing something wrong here.

Quote:
 The same goes for the less than microscopic precision of the expansion factor established as an implication of the Hubble Constant and the Doppler variation in red-shift, as approximately one million squared.

Again, what source did you get the 'expansion factor' from, and what were the calculations for it? 

Quote:
I propose that the product of 6 would represent planck time, with the original micro-fractions of a second extrapolated at light speed over a period of fourteen million years.

I already showed that this number was the number of days per unit of expansion, based on your numbers and units. How is that Planck time? 

I really wish I could understand you. How does "the product of 6" represent planck time? How is it 'extrapolated' at light speed?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Butter, at this point it

Butter, at this point it just seems he's just making numbers and equations up then adding words to it all to try to give it some meaning, but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You are basically going to go around in circles with this type of mental exercise.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Gaffer wrote:Yeah but the

Gaffer wrote:

Yeah but the universe as we know it is what happens to a planck second that's been expanding at 186,000 miles per second for 14,000,000 years.


No.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's quite obvious why god made all these creatures

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

  I would like to hear some theists opignions on why god would have made the dinosaurs, for what purpose exactly would he have created acient earths beasts and allowed them to run around for hundreds of millions of years.  Or do you believe the dating of these creatures is wrong?  Just looking for opignions, i cant rationalize it, maybe you can try.

 

NoMoreCrazy - he was trying to test our love for him.

From an atheist's perspective is obvious god never made these beasts. They evolved to fill available niches over hundreds of millions of years and when sudden changes found them unable to adapt quickly enough to challenging new environments, many species died out and were replaced by other critters more capable of doing so.

Of course, a dinosaur is the concestor of birds, so specialised and highly successful dinosaurs are with us today.

They're cracking great creatures dinosaurs - there are about 100 fossils of T-Rex and thousands upon thousands of other dinosaur fossils and the numbers are growing all the time.

I too, would love a theist position on what dinosaurs are doing in these old, old rocks.

Perhaps satan put them there just after he and god had a bust up over who spilled the bongwater -  that classic housemate bingle.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Still waiting for any

Still waiting for any theists personal philosophies on the reasoning for all pre-human creatures on earth and that vast amont of time we werent  around.  The math games fun but im looking for reasoning.  If asked honestly, just wondering what you believe. Is their a meaning in theses animals  and this time im missing?  Enlighten me!!!  Or is  it just the gods day can = a billion years and vise versa thing?


fishpaste (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Not a theist, but as a

Not a theist, but as a former christian this is a fairly simple question. Pre-Human creatures were needed to establish the arrivals of humans on the earth, so that they may function properly (since humans are a product of billions of years of development from the first Eukaryotic cell). In short, the answer is simply "so that humans could be". An anti-theist could simply respond "Well why didn't he just make em that way in the first place" but the answer to that is also fairly simple, it would be impractical and would make humans non-organisms.

Or at least that's one possibility. The other, less likely but more biblical possibility is that humans were around at the same time that all of the other animals were. However this raises more questions then it answers.

 


Gaffer (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The difference between 5.11

The difference between 5.11 days, and 6 days, is a relatively-insignificant amount of time in the context of 14 billion years. However, you appear to have multiplied this difference itself by 14 billion to produce a figure of 2 billion which you cite above as an error in the calculations. This is un-necessary, since irrespective of whether or not you agree with the validity of the formula, the figure of 14 billion years has already been included, either rightly or wrongly, in the calculations initially used to produce the figures, 5.11 or 6 days in the first place.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:So if you

butterbattle wrote:
So if you compare it like this: 

5.11 / 6 = x / (14e9) 

x = 11.923e9

You're off by over two billion years. I think this is right. Someone correct me if I'm doing something wrong here.

What you've done here demonstrates the proportion of difference between 5.11 and 6 which is different to to calculating the relative error but not wrong.

If you want the relative error of the fomula in estimating 6 days since creation then you take the absolute error- the value you you're claiming to match with minus the value your approximation gives you - and divide it by the value you intended to match with. So in this case the realtive error is given by 0.89/6 = ~0.148

To get the percentage error you just multiply that number by 100, so the percentage error of the calculation is around 15%, HUGE.

EDIT: Also let me just point out that to properly vindicate the claims of the bible with this formula you cannot look for the age of the universe to be proportionally equal to 6 extended days since according to Genesis we are already well into at least the seventh day. Thus I submit the percentage error of this formula in doing what Gaffer claims it to do is no less than 30%   A percentage of error that high means that by numerical analysis the approximation is simply worthless.

Quote:

Quote:
 The same goes for the less than microscopic precision of the expansion factor established as an implication of the Hubble Constant and the Doppler variation in red-shift, as approximately one million squared.

Again, what source did you get the 'expansion factor' from, and what were the calculations for it? 

I'm sure there isn't a source Butter. I don't know what Gaffer thinks he is talking about but the units of his formula are as following:

time = time / factor

It's pretty obvious that for his formula to be true the factor needs to be dimensionless, but he has already said it exists in units of velocity.If that's the case then the equation is just elementary nonsense, it can't possibly have a reputable source.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Gaffer wrote:The difference

Gaffer wrote:

The difference between 5.11 days, and 6 days, is a relatively-insignificant amount of time in the context of 14 billion years. However, you appear to have multiplied this difference itself by 14 billion to produce a figure of 2 billion which you cite above as an error in the calculations. This is un-necessary, since irrespective of whether or not you agree with the validity of the formula, the figure of 14 billion years has already been included, either rightly or wrongly, in the calculations initially used to produce the figures, 5.11 or 6 days in the first place.

Then you made the same mistake because your work was followed step by step.

Oh, if you have a job, take 6 days of when you only have 5.11 days of vacation left and see just how big of a difference that is.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:What you've

Eloise wrote:
What you've done here demonstrates the proportion of difference between 5.11 and 6 which is different to to calculating the relative error but not wrong.

If you want the relative error of the fomula in estimating 6 days since creation then you take the absolute error- the value you you're claiming to match with minus the value your approximation gives you - and divide it by the value you intended to match with. So in this case the realtive error is given by 0.89/6 = ~0.148

To get the percentage error you just multiply that number by 100, so the percentage error of the calculation is around 15%, HUGE.

Yeah, I did that in post #23. I understand it better now though, thanks.

Eloise wrote:
I'm sure there isn't a source Butter. I don't know what Gaffer thinks he is talking about but the units of his formula are as following:

time = time / factor

It's pretty obvious that for his formula to be true the factor needs to be dimensionless, but he has already said it exists in units of velocity.If that's the case then the equation is just elementary nonsense, it can't possibly have a reputable source.

Sigh...that's what I thought, but I still keep asking him the same questions out of some childish hope that he'll eventually stop ignoring me and realize that he doesn't even know what the f*** he's talking about.

Gaffer wrote:
The difference between 5.11 days, and 6 days, is a relatively-insignificant amount of time in the context of 14 billion years. However, you appear to have multiplied this difference itself by 14 billion to produce a figure of 2 billion which you cite above as an error in the calculations.

No, no, no, it's not the difference. It's the ratio. I set 5.11/6 = x/(14e9) as a proportion and cross-multiplied. x = 11.9e9, which represents the figure that would give you the same margin of error if you were trying to get 14 billion. Yes, 6 days is insignificant compared to 14 billion years, but that's irrelevant. The number you want is 6, and the number you got from your data was 5.11, so to calculate the margin of error, you have to subtract 5.11 from 6, which gets you .89, and multiply that by 6, which gets you about .148 or 14.8%.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
fishpaste wrote:Pre-Human

fishpaste wrote:

Pre-Human creatures were needed to establish the arrivals of humans on the earth, so that they may function properly (since humans are a product of billions of years of development from the first Eukaryotic cell). In short, the answer is simply "so that humans could be". An anti-theist could simply respond "Well why didn't he just make em that way in the first place" but the answer to that is also fairly simple, it would be impractical and would make humans non-organisms.

 

I cant see how thats a good argument, why does their all-powerful god need to obide by any ``practical laws``, he made the laws.   Its only practical in the mind of someone considering natural laws, if god made the laws theirs no reason for allowing time for developement when he had the final image in mind, and i dont see that being practical at all actually quite the opposite.


Fishpaste. (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The argument holds logical

The argument holds logical water, despite you not seeing why:

 

1. God made man in his image and made the world as it is so that it could represent his glory.

 

2. It follows then that everything we see in the world as it is, is there because god specifically desired it to be so (with the exception of sin, which man desired to be so).

 

3. Since evolution is an element of the material world, it is an important thing that god wanted in the world to glorify himself and for humans to marvel at.

 

4. Therefore, if it were the case that evolution stopped working, or never existed in the first place by some circumvention of god's will, this would go against his intentions.

 

5. Therefore it is logical to say that evolution, and the time needed for it to produce humans, was necessary for god's intentions to be met and his prophecies fulfilled as per the bible.

 

The simplified, stupid version of this is "Cause it's part of god's plan", but most atheists get angry at that and think it's a copout because they fail at theology, so I decided to format it in syllogism.

 

 


Gaffer (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I much appreciate the

I much appreciate the patience of Butterball, and the insight of Eloise and BobSpence1 embodied in the above exchanges. I have learned a lot from your criticisms of this proposal. Thanks, Gaffer.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is called having your cake and eating it

Fishpaste. wrote:

 

2. It follows then that everything we see in the world as it is, is there because god specifically desired it to be so (with the exception of sin, which man desired to be so).

 

3. Since evolution is an element of the material world, it is an important thing that god wanted in the world to glorify himself and for humans to marvel at.

 

 

I wish I belonged to a religion affording me such diverse readings of the text. Maybe some kind soul could define theist for me - depending on who you talk to christians seem to believe just about everyhing. I feel like Henry Huggins out on the front lawn trying to hunt up night crawlers. I never can quite hang onto any of them.

And I just love fishpaste's 2nd point. I do desire certain sin - trouble is I can't seem to get my hands on any of it. Come on satan. Pull your finger out. I want to sin and you're not doing your bloody job. 

Why am I stuck with behaving like a christian?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


fishpaste (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Yes, because all christians

Yes, because all christians must be old earth creationists or literalists, because people who have no grasp of theology whatsoever say so.

 

A theist is someone who believes in god.

 

An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god.

 

The funny thing about those two is I can only make one valid assumption about each of them, leaving them both open to believe quite a lot of things (equal amounts of things, in fact.)


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Fishpaste. wrote:3. Since

Fishpaste. wrote:

3. Since evolution is an element of the material world, it is an important thing that god wanted in the world to glorify himself and for humans to marvel at.

How is evolution more glorious than Creationism?  

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Fishpaste. wrote:The

Fishpaste. wrote:

The argument holds logical water, despite you not seeing why:

 

1. God made man in his image and made the world as it is so that it could represent his glory.

 

2. It follows then that everything we see in the world as it is, is there because god specifically desired it to be so (with the exception of sin, which man desired to be so).

 

3. Since evolution is an element of the material world, it is an important thing that god wanted in the world to glorify himself and for humans to marvel at.

 

4. Therefore, if it were the case that evolution stopped working, or never existed in the first place by some circumvention of god's will, this would go against his intentions.

 

5. Therefore it is logical to say that evolution, and the time needed for it to produce humans, was necessary for god's intentions to be met and his prophecies fulfilled as per the bible.

 

The simplified, stupid version of this is "Cause it's part of god's plan", but most atheists get angry at that and think it's a copout because they fail at theology, so I decided to format it in syllogism.

 

 

 

Even if this is a valid argument for the time/developement of life it certainly doesnt explain why life was so violent, hence "beasts".  Life of all sizes can be violent, but dinosaurs because of their sheer size and level of power and violence are iconic in this way.   Hundreds of millions of years of carnage and war amoung the beasts,  to me amazing and i am in awe of the thought but for me it furthers my non-belief in god.   From a non-theistic evolutionary standpoint it is awesome to look at, but when i put on my christian hat and allow myself to believe in a creator i find this to be waistful, and far to unnecesarrily violent to be a good gods rational route  to creating life in his image.


Atheist_Pilgrim
Atheist_Pilgrim's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
THE number ...

Surely the answer always has to be 42 ????