# Carbon's Rambles (1)

#### CarbonBasedGhost

##### New Member
Carbon's theory of learning everything about earth:

If the wormhole theory is true it is possible that we could travel to a different part of space and observe earth's light from there allowing for us to see what happened in the past. So, there would no longer exists any theories about what happened to past earth.

#### TheMechEngineer

##### New Member
Answer: In theory, yes. Supernovas and cool stuff happening in space as observed by us today happened thousands of years ago because light can only travel so far in a year. So to see what the earth was like in 1900, you'd need to travel 114 light years away and get a pretty good telescope to gaze at the old version of our blue marble planet. To put that distance into perspective, the nearest star to Earth other than the Sun is Alpha Centauri, which is almost 5 light years away. There's apparently 10,000 different star systems within 100 light years of Earth. To put into perspective how far you'd need to travel in order to look into the distant past of Earth, the Milky Way galaxy is 100,000-120,000 light years across, so you'd most likely only have to space travel within our own galaxy. If you were to peer at Earth from the Andromeda Galaxy right now, you'd be seeing an Earth that is 2.5 million years younger than it is now, so most likely there won't be signs of civilisation. There might be some dinosaurs eating each other, but otherwise you'll be kicking yourself that you spent all that money on a space travel ticket to Andromeda for no reason.

#### CarbonBasedGhost

##### New Member
Answer: In theory, yes. Supernovas and cool stuff happening in space as observed by us today happened thousands of years ago because light can only travel so far in a year. So to see what the earth was like in 1900, you'd need to travel 114 light years away and get a pretty good telescope to gaze at the old version of our blue marble planet. To put that distance into perspective, the nearest star to Earth other than the Sun is Alpha Centauri, which is almost 5 light years away. There's apparently 10,000 different star systems within 100 light years of Earth. To put into perspective how far you'd need to travel in order to look into the distant past of Earth, the Milky Way galaxy is 100,000-120,000 light years across, so you'd most likely only have to space travel within our own galaxy. If you were to peer at Earth from the Andromeda Galaxy right now, you'd be seeing an Earth that is 2.5 million years younger than it is now, so most likely there won't be signs of civilisation. There might be some dinosaurs eating each other, but otherwise you'll be kicking yourself that you spent all that money on a space travel ticket to Andromeda for no reason.
Well, we would see tons of stuff!

Whether or not dinosaurs had feathers and a chance to study a new world of organisms.

Not to mention we would also be able to %\$#^ creationists if we travel not as far out and prove there was no flood.

ThatOneSlowking

#### TheMechEngineer

##### New Member
Not to mention we would also be able to %\$#^ creationists if we travel not as far out and prove there was no flood.

Nice way to start a religion argument, I believe in creation but I don't bash on people who say the Earth was millions of trillions of years old. There's enough of that religion/anti-religion bashing going on already.

#### CarbonBasedGhost

##### New Member
Nice way to start a religion argument, I believe in creation but I don't bash on people who say the Earth was millions of trillions of years old. There's enough of that religion/anti-religion bashing going on already.
I never said that creationism was not true, I said it is a good way to prove it untrue meaning I do not have any proof or reminiscence of proof and I am not trying to start a religion argument, I am a Catholic who does not believe in Creationism but inflicted evolution.

ThatOneSlowking

#### Celestialphoenix

##### Too Much Free Time
In theory- yes.
Though given the effects of attenuation and dispersion- even without background noise and other light sources- you'd be hard pushed to see any real details.

#### pizzawolf14

##### New Member
Imagine how trippy it would be if you looked out your spaceship window and saw the earth going back/forward in time...

#### malicious_bloke

##### Over-Achiever
Not to mention we would also be able to %\$#^ creationists if we travel not as far out and prove there was no flood.

There's this little thing called geology.

It's already demonstrated that the idea of a global flood is frankly ridiculous infantile nonsense.

Besides, creationists also claim the speed of light was faster in the past (because they need to lie their way round the fact we can see things further away than 6000 light years...as they don't do reality they can conveniently ignore that altering a fundamental constant would collapse the entire edifice of particle physics), so they already have their dishonest equivocations set up to deal with this one.

#### CarbonBasedGhost

##### New Member
There's this little thing called geology.

It's already demonstrated that the idea of a global flood is frankly ridiculous infantile nonsense.

Besides, creationists also claim the speed of light was faster in the past (because they need to lie their way round the fact we can see things further away than 6000 light years...as they don't do reality they can conveniently ignore that altering a fundamental constant would collapse the entire edifice of particle physics), so they already have their dishonest equivocations set up to deal with this one.
Yes, but the problem is there are many things saying the global flood happened and saying it didn't happen. The only evidence they would possible take is physical evidence coming from viewing something not happening. They have explanations for rock samples they have explanations for 9,000 year old trees they have explanations for everything. But they cannot deny physically watching there never be a flood.

#### malicious_bloke

##### Over-Achiever
Yes, but the problem is there are many things saying the global flood happened and saying it didn't happen. The only evidence they would possible take is physical evidence coming from viewing something not happening. They have explanations for rock samples they have explanations for 9,000 year old trees they have explanations for everything. But they cannot deny physically watching there never be a flood.

Oh they can deny pretty much anything. Creationism is based on an unbelievable pile of internally inconsistent and intellectually dishonest ad hoc rationalisations of individual things, often flatly contradicting previous attempts to explain other things.

There is no limit to their ability to ignore, distort or lie about evidence that doesn't support their rather silly position.

ThatOneSlowking

#### CarbonBasedGhost

##### New Member
Oh they can deny pretty much anything. Creationism is based on an unbelievable pile of internally inconsistent and intellectually dishonest ad hoc rationalisations of individual things, often flatly contradicting previous attempts to explain other things.

There is no limit to their ability to ignore, distort or lie about evidence that doesn't support their rather silly position.
If you really wan't a good laugh look a creationists explanation for dinosaurs XD.

ThatOneSlowking

#### Celestialphoenix

##### Too Much Free Time
If you really wan't a good laugh look a creationists explanation for dinosaurs XD.

I've seen the the loch ness monster used as evidence to disprove evolution.

The sad thing was it was 'science' in a children's schoolbook.

#### malicious_bloke

##### Over-Achiever
I've seen the the loch ness monster used as evidence to disprove evolution.

The sad thing was it was 'science' in a children's schoolbook.

'murica.

ThatOneSlowking

#### CarbonBasedGhost

##### New Member
I've seen the the loch ness monster used as evidence to disprove evolution.

The sad thing was it was 'science' in a children's schoolbook.

Oh they can deny pretty much anything. Creationism is based on an unbelievable pile of internally inconsistent and intellectually dishonest ad hoc rationalisations of individual things, often flatly contradicting previous attempts to explain other things.

There is no limit to their ability to ignore, distort or lie about evidence that doesn't support their rather silly position.

What I do not get is why do so many devout Catholics only accept Creationism and no other theory. I am a Catholic and I believe in Evolution and the Big-Bang and I do not understand how you can begin to comprehend the ridiculous theory of a New Earth. There explanations baffle me even more. The primary one is logic today, did not necessarily exist back then. Observational Science ≠ Historical Science according to Creationist Ken Ham. Well, this is ridiculous. The Bible offers many guidelines to how our lives should be lived but (by my belief) Genesis is just a collection of metaphors to teach us lessons and explain things.

#### malicious_bloke

##### Over-Achiever
What I do not get is why do so many devout Catholics only accept Creationism and no other theory. I am a Catholic and I believe in Evolution and the Big-Bang and I do not understand how you can begin to comprehend the ridiculous theory of a New Earth. There explanations baffle me even more. The primary one is logic today, did not necessarily exist back then. Observational Science ≠ Historical Science according to Creationist Ken Ham. Well, this is ridiculous. The Bible offers many guidelines to how our lives should be lived but (by my belief) Genesis is just a collection of metaphors to teach us lessons and explain things.

It's especially odd since the catholic church accepts evolution. I always thought creationinsanity was more of a protestant (particularly 'merkin protestants) type of thing.

The observational science vs historical science thing is hilarious bollocks, if we accept that line of reasoning we need to release any criminal who was convicted on the basis of forensic evidence with no eyewitness testimony backing it up.

But yeah, as clarification, I don't begrudge anyone their faith. Many people find it a comforting and positive influence on their lives and that's chuffing great. It's just once people go off the deep end and start spinning this web of whacked out nonsensical lies to try and pretend that reality actually conforms to a literal reading of texts written by pre-scientific authors that it becomes a problem.

#### CarbonBasedGhost

##### New Member
Also if anyone wants to see a good Creationism Debate watch this.
It is a Creationism expert (Ken Ham) versus Bill Nye The Science Guy

ThatOneSlowking