Carbon's Rambles (1)

C

CarbonBasedGhost

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
910
-1
0
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.
 
T

TheMechEngineer

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
220
0
0
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.
 
C

CarbonBasedGhost

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
910
-1
0
TheMechEngineer said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThatOneSlowking
T

TheMechEngineer

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
220
0
0
CarbonBasedGhost said:
Not to mention we would also be able to %$#^ creationists if we travel not as far out and prove there was no flood.
Click to expand...

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.
 
C

CarbonBasedGhost

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
910
-1
0
TheMechEngineer said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThatOneSlowking
malicious_bloke

malicious_bloke

Over-Achiever
Jul 28, 2013
2,961
2,705
298
CarbonBasedGhost said:
Not to mention we would also be able to %$#^ creationists if we travel not as far out and prove there was no flood.
Click to expand...

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.
 
C

CarbonBasedGhost

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
910
-1
0
malicious_bloke said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

malicious_bloke

Over-Achiever
Jul 28, 2013
2,961
2,705
298
CarbonBasedGhost said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThatOneSlowking
C

CarbonBasedGhost

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
910
-1
0
malicious_bloke said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you really wan't a good laugh look a creationists explanation for dinosaurs XD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThatOneSlowking
C

CarbonBasedGhost

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
910
-1
0
Celestialphoenix said:
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.
Click to expand...

malicious_bloke said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

malicious_bloke

Over-Achiever
Jul 28, 2013
2,961
2,705
298
CarbonBasedGhost said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom