Creationists will say anything. God changed the speed of light. God put fossils on earth to test our faith. There is nothing they won't say to try to explain their beliefs. I still remember getting put into teen bible class at 14, my parents last-ditch attempt. I asked the fool about the stars, evolution, etc. He told my parents I was "disruptive", and hopeless, and that he could not continue to teach me the "truth". This was supposed to scare me, didn't work.
What a creationist cop-out! The evidence staring them in the face, and all they can do is cry that we made it up and we don't beleive in god because we'd rather be naughty -Sigh....childish BS!
Anyway shane. Im sure your a nice guy. Im gona pray for you before i go to sleep in a minute. God has done so much for me and my family. I know he's real. Im sorry if you dont understand that. I had a life changing experience nearly ten years ago and i heard god speak to me. Im not a mad person. I could share my experience with you if you where open. Im not trying to shove religion down your face so if you ask ill share it with you.
@TheFaithbaptist Uhh. Microevolution not convincing enough? New strains of the flu, popping up every year or so? The fact that we pretty much have a map of our common ancestors, and the so called "missing link" was actually discovered a long time ago, but media is still trying to make it sound like evolution still isn't a proven fact? Or human organs that are still in our bodies despite being useless (tail, for instance...) and slowly fading away? Stop ignoring actual evidence.
@Abedeuss We need our tail bone for stuff id rather not mention here. if you really think we dont need it then ill gladly pay for yours to be removed lol.
@TheFaithbaptist Uh. Our tail bone is receding. It's no longer a tail, even though sometimes children are born with tails and immediately branded as "cursed" by religious ignorants. And I like how you didn't comment anything other.
@TheFaithbaptist No, she hasn't. She hasn't done anything for you.
You owe everything to sentient beings on earth (both humans - scientists, activists who fight for whatever salary you have left not stolen by banksters - and non-human - the unjust sacrifices forced upon animals) - not some imaginary "gods".
Im not good at equations but don't you need to see the supernova from the start to get solid information on the speed of the ring. Also maybe if the speed of light was the same as now then maybe the remnant ring would not be as big. Maybe its the size it is today because the speed of light was faster. sorry if i dont make much sense people. Anyway if god made the universe then surely he can do whatever he wants with light or anything else for that matter.
@shanedk how do you know their ten hours old. could you also explain why i was wrong by saying maybe if the speed of light was the same as now then maybe the remnant ring would not be as big. Maybe its the size it is today because the speed of light was faster. You replied no just. Have you got a scientific explaination why im wrong. sorry im just inquisitive
Modern humans did not evolve. That's a bit religious isn't it. Why are you stating something as fact when it's not. Evolution is only a theory. There is no proof anything evolved. I'm sorry you believe that. I'm not a very smart guy but i do know that evolution is a faith.
@shanedk Then what's your best evidence for evolution? I have a theory that the reason your doing this video is that you know God is real but you don't want to abide by his rules because your life has sin in it and by pretending that God doesn't exist makes you feel ok about doing whatever you want. In your own words, (which are wrong obviously) "If it weren't a fact, it wouldn't be a theory!"
And you didn't answer my last question which was "how do you know their ten hours old. could you also explain why i was wrong by saying maybe if the speed of light was the same as now then maybe the remnant ring would not be as big. Maybe its the size it is today because the speed of light was faster. You replied no just. Have you got a scientific explaination why im wrong. sorry im just inquisitive."
@TheFaithbaptist Face it, the only way we as observers could see the universe that we do and the Old Testament description of creation be true is if your God is a trickster and a liar.
@shadowstrider0 Your definition of "theory" and the definition scientists use is not the same. A theory in science is a set of statements about a system (say, the universe, or the Earth's vast diversity of species) that is supported by empirical observations. The theory of evolution has been proven correct by thousands upon thousands of properly-controlled studies. I'm not really sure what your definition is actually supposed to mean.
(Part 1)One question arises in my mind with the presentation of your pseudo-science. I'll get to that in a second. I have never heard anyone put forth that the speed of light has slowed down. Completely new to me. But it stinks of horse manure. Now, for my question. Why did you not take into your disdainful observation that light travels both as a particle, and therefore subject to the speed of light, and as a wave, and not subject to the speed of light?
(part 2) Is it not possible, or even plausible that light could travel vast distances instantaneously as a wave? And, being true, where does that leave you with your bag full of pseudo-science? Just playing Devil's Advocate here.
Unfortunately, the reasoning in this video is incorrect (although the correct answer is equally devastating to the YEC argument).
We're measuring the *difference in travel time* between two photons, so the only relevant value of c is what held when one photon was traveling and the other was not. Otherwise both photons were subjected to the same value of c (whatever it was), so the difference cancels out.
Therefore, the only relevant value of c is from 1987, in the 8 months between when the direct light and the reflected light from the SN were observed.
This means that the distance determination of 168,000 ly depends only on the value of c in 1987, which has been directly measured.
The problem for the YEC viewpoint is what happens when the relevant value of c was that which obtained in the distant past. Interestingly, the first time I heard this argument made was by Walt Brown, a YEC!
If you have some source of light emitting one photon after another, during which c is slowing down, it follows that each successive photon takes longer to reach the earth than the previously emitted photon.
The end result is that, from our perspective, everything happening in space would appear to run in "slow motion."
We absolutely do not observe this phenomenon of substantial time dilation; we can observe verifiable physical processes (such as the orbits of binary stars, resonant atomic transitions that can be replicated in the laboratory, or physical processes such as supernovae), and they do not run in "slow motion," certainly not anywhere near the degree required to accomodate YEC models.
@hashmash0 That's a common arguement for the young earth creationists, that light traveled faster in the past and thats how the light from such distant places got here wihtin the time they say that the universe existed.
What he said, repeatedly, was that it's constant in a vacuum not that it cannot be slowed down in a vacuum. It's the young earth creationists that say that the speed of light has slowed down, in a vacuum, since the creation of the universe.
@hashmash0 He said that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum not that it cannot be slowed down. If you refer to the original question it asks about stellar bodies which can only bend the light. That's why stars that are on the other side of the sun can be seen during a solar eclipse. the light gets bent by the sun.
There is absolutely no evidence that light was faster in the past but your explanation is completely wrong. If the light was faster in the past that means that in the past it didn't take 8 months for ring to brighten but much faster than that. Just think about cars coming out of a tunnel every 2 sec traveling 60 km/h. If you are standing 100km in front of the tunnel you will see cars passing by you every 2 sec. But if these cars change their speed to 120km/h they will pass by you every sec.
Very interesting. What happens if you slow down the speed of light though? Hasn't it already been stated that the speed of light isn't constant, and that large enough stellar bodies can slow the speed of light, and even bend it?
No, no no, as there are other objects in the sky that 'show' this maths is correct and the speed of light can't have changed, there has to be another explanation and this is: the speed of light has sped up AND slowed down again, but in different parts of the Universe, it has done this at different paces. Just so it looks like your belief, god can do this because god can do anything, didn't you even know that? Are you stupids, or sumtink
No this is wrong. The time delay would have been much shorter at the ring so the time taken for a photon to travel to the ring would have been much shorter than 8 months, depending on how much higher c was in the past. This doesn't effect the ring radius at all, which is governed by simple trigonometry. Hence if the speed of light was faster in the past then the light would take much less than 168,000 years to cover the distance. The idea of a lightyear should be discarded when c is changing
You have a major flaw in your math. Regardless of the speed of light at any given time, the distance between the supernova and the ring must stay the same. You claim that if it were faster at the time of the nova that the ring would be farther away at about 3:30. But this is incorrect. Assuming that one photon traveling from the nova to Earth and one photon from the nova to the ring and then to Earth always traveled at the same speed simultaneously (continued)
then they would cover the same distance by the time that the first photon hit Earth, and the second one is 8 months out. Because of the small angle of <1 arcsecond between the ring and the nova, the distance between the Earth and the second photon at this point is essentially the same as the distance between the ring and the nova. This is true regardless of the speed of light, even if it changes over time, as long as the two photons are always traveling at the same speed at the same time. (cont)
Therefore the distance from the ring to the nova cannot be anything other than 0.658 ly. You then claim that this means, based on an assumed 784c value at the time of the nova, that the distance from ring to nova is then 784*0.658=515.872 ly. However, we calculated this distance of 0.658 ly based on the difference in arrival time of the two photons, namely, when the photons were going not at 784c but at 1c. Therefore the assumption that it was 0.658 ly based on a speed of 784c is wrong. (cont)
And so, in this scenario, instead of taking ~8 months to traverse this distance, the light from the supernova would have reached the ring in about 7 hours. Please note that I am not defending the position that the speed of light is changing, nor would I, I am just pointing out a flaw in this argument.
@tuorhuorson28 That's why it's a reductio ad absurdum. I get into this in MUCH more detail in the follow-up. You're correct: basic trig says that the supernova can ONLY be 168,000ly away.
@shanedk Yes, basic trig does say that the supernova can only be 168,000 ly away. My problem with your argument is the claim, based on the c-decay theory argument, that the radius between the supernova and the ring is ~516 ly. It must always be 0.658 ly, where light-year is the fixed distance that light travels in a year TODAY (or better, has always traveled). Or maybe a better way of putting it (without using a distance based on a speed) is that the radius must always be 6.22X10^15 meters.
And this is regardless of the speed of light at any time. Assuming of course that the speed of light is the same for both photons at simultaneous times.
@shanedk I just viewed your other video. I notice that you reduce it now to the time it would take to cross the distance between the ring and the nova, rather than the actual length. So it looks like you fixed the error in this video in the second one. I withdraw my objection.
in this this video , u proved that bible is not from god !! but u didnt prove that there is no creation ! in islam book the Quran ,, nothing about the creation was 6000 years ago !! but actually the Quran describe the beginning of the creation and the big bang !!! Qur'an says that "the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit, before We clove them asunder" (21:30).
Read about islam and the Quran my friend ,, and then make another video !!!
Given that creationists also deny radioactive decay, is there another way to know how far the ring is away besides the decay of Cobalt?
I see this being a sticking point with the most stubborn and dumbest creationists. And once they have even the most insignificant thing to grab onto that they believe is false, then everything else falls apart because of it.
So, how do you get around this particular wall of stupidity?
Thank you sir. Well done. I can only image what full retard response will be needed to deny math. Perhaps they'll just call me a nit-wit and not even bother to respond...
0.658 ly ÷ Tan0.000224444444624° = 167,973.07227885813 ly. I don't know why, but I wanted to put this trig calculation together. Weed and Math make a good combo, although, I don't think I'll remember any of this.
@Yesitis808 There's lots of trig in the follow-up video. I use it to prove beyond any doubt that the supernova MUST be 168,000ly away, no more, no less, regardless of what the speed of light was doing in the past.
You forget the obvious problem...they have "magic" on their side. God is magic, so he can do anything and make it look however he wants. And they talk to him, so they have their proof. Of course you and I have completely different standards of evidence so I love this sort of thing, so thank you.
I have a question about the annotation you added to the video about knowing that the time difference between the center brightening and the rings brightening is because of the decay of cobalt, and that that shows it's in real time, and not affected by time dilation. I'm lost. Could you please elaborate?
Creationism is not nonsense! All the information and evidence is found in a science book called 'The Holy Bible', there you will learn all the scientific facts that are being discovered now, such as; talking snakes (dna alteration), parting sea (force fields), miracle healing (modern medicine), resurrection (modern resuscitation) etc need I go on? As far as speed of light issue; light has no mass and therefore it does not really exist so we don't have to worry about it. See, Bible wins again!
@immortalis1001 Yeah, and bats being birds, rabbits chewing cud, a flat Earth set on pillars, it's fixed and immovable, there's a firmament (resulting in the sun, moon, and all the stars being equidistant), epilepsy is caused by demons, lamb's blood is a cure for leprosy, eagles carry their young on their wings...yeah, wonderful science book.
@immortalis1001 "As far as speed of light issue; light has no mass and therefore it does not really exist so we don't have to worry about it. See, Bible wins again!"
Care to put that to the test? I say we get a 100mW laser and shine it in both your eyes. If you're not blinded afterwards, THEN we can say that light may not really exist...
@shanedk Your problem is that you are using logic and reason while I am using the only thing that matters; a blind belief in The Bible. I hope that by now you see that I was not serious when I made my comment. I was tying to make it as ridiculous as possible but then there are people out there who believe the very thing I wrote. You see, I gave up on trying to win any fights with the "Bible" crowd, so now (as a silent protest) I just make fun of them by saying asinine things. Ignorance is bliss.
@immortalis1001 A "Poe" is what you just admitted to being: Poe's Law says that it is impossible to parody creationist arguments in a way as to be indistinguishable from genuine creationists. A "Poe" is used to refer to someone who makes this attempt.
@shanedk LOL and I thought that it had something to do with Edgar Allan Poe. Well, on the bright side someone did sniff out my deception. I have lost so much energy trying to show some people the fallacy of their belief system that I am down to cheap shots and humor. Many cops say that the only way to get through the day is to crack jokes at a messy crime scene. I think I am at this stage now. I know that I should not care but...we all should be free even is the prison is self made.
I could tell by the time you got to the list of scientific facts but your speed of light argument was a great. I could easily imagine a creationist actually making that argument.
If you read more of my comments on this video you will realize that I was being a creationist for a few minutes and that is all it took for me to make a spectacle of myself. I am sure what I said would actually make sense to some of them. What a sad state of affairs.
creationists still fail to understand that everything wasn't created in 6 literal days because the universe is billions of years older than the earth.. it takes billions of years for the light to reach earth from galaxies billions of light-years away and light can't travel faster than the speed of light.
I know this is an old video, and that I'm late arriving at the party, but I can't help but think of the Simpsons episode where Homer disproves God. He gives the paper to Ned Flanders, who destroys it. Somehow, I think this math might be what Homer handed him.
Your argument is flawed as pointed out by zebraone100 - the observations of SN1987A do not proof the speed of light in the past. I made another attempt to explain why your argument is wrong, in my own video response to your second video here: watch?v=pF_G2uBVp-0
@dada31415 I saw it, and you made a mathematical cheat. You put the varying speed of light in, but then just backed over all your math. OF COURSE you ended up with the original distance! Just as you would have if you had used your tire pressure, the Lost numbers, the GPS coordinates of the Massachusetts State Home for the Bewildered, or the number of noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's a cheat.
@shanedk I don't think I cheat: we both agree that because of observations SN19897A has to be 168000ly (=51.4kps) away. I do not argue the distance or the radius of the ring (0,658ly = 0.201ps). So whatever I do, if my calculation gets another result it is plain wrong. Your error is your conclusion in 3:30 in this video: only because light travels faster, it does not make the distance longer: 0.658ly (=0.201ps) with current C are 0,0235 ly with 28xC (still equals 0.201ps). (continued)
@dada31415 "So whatever I do, if my calculation gets another result it is plain wrong."
Whatever you do, your calculation CANNOT get another result because you're just backing over your math again. Go on: try it with the atomic weight of uranium or something crazy like that.
What you SHOULD be doing (which is what I did) is go forward from there: what ramifications would this have?
@shanedk (continued) and yes, if C *remained* at 28x, then the light of the ring would reach us after 8,6 days, not after 8 months, because 28xC covers a distance of 0,201ps in 8,6 days.
BUT: From that point on C "reverts" to 300000 km/s (see the graphs in my video). And then it takes light 8 months to cover the distance of 0,201ps. What I (and zeroone100 and others) have tried to point out is that you make a crucial mistake in your argument. At 3:37 in your video here.
Obviously this dude has never left his peanut butter in the back of the fridge for a few months. I did that once and three headed purple goat popped out ... its all about where you leave the peanut butter and for how long ... that or he needs to learn more about amino acid formation,
So what if I say that the bible, at least as far as I've read, does not ever claim, insinuate, infer, or in any way suggest that the universe is 6000 years old. That is a biblical factoid as false as the claim that Jesus was born on December 25th.
It's really annoying when people who don't really know the bible try to make arguments for it, they just end up creating cannon fodder for evolutionists to shoot down.
@slider576 Wrong. There is a SLEW of evidence supporting evolution, including its predictive reliability. In part, you can see that evolution works because of its basis on nested hierarchies (a mathematical concept). Look at the fossil evidence. Look at DNA. Look at speciation. Look at bacteria. The list goes on and on.
Name one field of science that the Bible has influenced significantly. Name one prediction the Bible has made that isn't a form of "interpretation".
Genesis1:1 In the beginning GOD created the heavens(the space of the universe) and the earth. vers3:Then GOD said "Let there be light" and there was light.-So the image of the univers we see today was posted on the sky by GOD 3days earlier then HI created the objects behind the image.Amin.
@classicvox but to conclude that god does exist is simply "unscientific" as there is no evidence what so ever supporting it. There is only the possibility that it may be right.
@swisscheesepotatochi I leave it to the individual, to believe based on their own observations and experience. In my opnion it is wrong to push 'conclusions' based on 'any' evidence for or against.
Anytime there is an opportunity for individuals to have power over another, there will always be people who will exploit that opportunity. They will use any excuse necessary to meet that goal. Sadly many of these egoists will use or hi-jack the 'knowledge of the day' to control behavior in others.
@shanedk If you like being 'told' what to believe, be my guest that is your choice.
I love science and use it every day. My reservations lie with 'scientists' themselves, they are all human and prone to human mistakes, mental limitations and even agendas to advance their egos.
One thing for certain, is we all have a lot to learn and experience!
@shanedk Getting your knowledge from an institution does not make it right. I find errors in many 'theories' written by published scientists and don't even get me started on 'religion', as that in itself is something I do not condone. Though it actually works for some people, so I let them be.
If you are not capable of thinking for yourself then you certainly need to cling to your 'teachers'.
@shanedk Awesome video my man! - Cdk was right when he said so... If you'll excuse a question from a poorly educated man:-
If trig was used to ascertain the distance from 2 remote points in space, isn;t the distance from earth equated as a mulitple of the distance between the two remote points? - Ergo, wouldn't it just be simpler to say that light took 168,000 years to reach us from SN87, regardless of it's distance from earth?
@Tobytrim The follow-up to this (my entry in this year's Pwnage Olympics) goes into that in more detail. Short answer: the multiple is based on the tangent of the angle. I also show that its distance HAS to be 168,000ly, and can't be anything else.
@shanedk I know that the distance was equated from the angle, as with parellelax from lesser distances? I was just curious as to why you went into the other seemingly unnecessary details? I wondered if there is something I hadn't thought of that might bite me in the ass?
There may be another chance for me to challenge a leading creationist guru on TV . If I get a chance to corner and debunk just one argument from him, I think this would be the most compelling, and easily understood.
@classicvox Yet you are doing the same thing you claim to abhor. You are making a judgment that because in YOUR experience schools and scholars have used knowledge to control others that this is the LIKELY outcome.
Science is the thing that works best - from peer review to predictive reliability there has yet to be anything that comes close to giving you reliable knowledge about the world around you. Scientists do science. So what exactly are you trying to say with your diatribes?
@70m0kun so you are saying with your 'peer review', that if "everyone in an institution agrees, then it must be true"?
You must not spend a lot of time in research, do you? You probably don't know how easy it is for 'scientists' to make errors. They like you and I are human and subject to 'human' limitations.
My point is everyone should pursue truth on their own and not put so much faith in 'experts'. If you do not believe you are capable of such pursuit, then by all means follow others!
@classicvox Straw Man. For someone who claims to like science, you sure don't know much about it. You are dead-set on making everything an absolute, when science itself is full of caveats and maybes. Because we can never be absolutely sure, scientists give "provisional assent". The answers are 100%, but they have more predictive reliability thanks to things like peer review, which narrow the margins on human error.
No one is advocating faith here: we are advocating degrees of credibility.
@70m0kun Thanks for making my point. There are too many non-scientists who follow blindy what they do not understand, because a few 'experts' say something is true.
I have no problem with science and do not always blame human malice, when it can many times be easily explained by incompetence.
@classicvox There is a difference between trusting "Experts" and trusting actual experts. It seems by your comments that you make no differentiation between a scientific consensus and some pundit on FOX News.
While you should, as much as possible, evaluate the evidence yourself, that is a far cry from ignoring the findings of an entire field of science like Quantum Physics because you can't check their math. Society thrives by our shared knowledge on many subjects. Hence, peer review.
@70m0kun You really are dense. Of course there is a difference!! I never said there was not! You just 'assumed' like the follower that you are. BTW a certain TV channel has nothing to do with it! Yes really!!!
My point is the general population cannot tell the difference between honest scientific pursuits and science hi-jacked to support agendas. You made my point again, in that you obviously cannot tell the difference either.
Please continue to not question your 'authorities'.
@classicvox Sure, its my fault you communicated your idea so poorly that someone who would've agreed with you... didn't.
" I leave it to the individual, to believe based on their own observations and experience. In my opnion it is wrong to push 'conclusions' based on 'any' evidence for or against."
You are clearly advocating personal experience over scientific inquiry here.
All of your "points" criticize institutions of higher learning and scientific consensus. Hence, "your comments seem ..."
I used to believe in creationism (I was sent to a christian school untill grade 4) and now i'm in year 9 and am constantly learning and trying to learn more about the universe and scientific methodology just so I can proof that creationism is true, joking lol. I no longer believe in much of the bible, with the scientific knowledge I now have I just can't see any way that the "Garden of Eden" is possible, animals can't talk human, and animals have to kill to live, not be best friends.
@aussienerds The reading of your post just brightened my day.
It gives me just a little bit more hope that we're not just screwed when a 9 year old immersed in theology for most of that time can "wake up" to the fact that we really should have better justification for what we believe than: That's what we're supposed to believe or: That's what's most comforting to believe.
What a beautiful video! I'd never see the 'speed of light' issue debunked in such an elegant way. I'd be hard pressed to find a way around the logic, but I'm sure creationists can. *rolls eyes* Keep up the good works!
I've been laughing at shanedk every since he made this ridiculous video. I knew his denials were paper thin but now it seems that the more honest scientists look at the issue the more evidence they discover that the velocity light is indeed in decay. The latest discovery reported is by Henri Sanejouand of the U. of Nantes in France who says the evidence points towards a possible slowing down of c of about 0.02-0.03 m/s per year. Check this out on the Focus (Optics & Photonics) website.
If the speed of light was much larger in the past than it is today, then the sun would have completely obliterated the earth. (The amount of energy released by nuclear fusion is related to E = m(c*c) )
If c were much larger, then this would massively increase the amount of energy released by the sun.
Shane, given that your latest video, "Pwnage Olympics II Event #4..." implicitly aggrees that the rings are a precise distance from the supernova as argued in my video responce more than a year ago, and using the same (well, similar..I used an isosolese triange and you used a right triangle) geometric proof I presented as well...
When are you going to finally concede that this proof is invalid as it requires variable distances on the rings?
@shanedk each step in your proof must still be valid in order for the conclusion to be valid, otherwise you are just carrying forward an error through subsequent steps. Your proof ends very dramatically with C-Decay making the universe older, and yet that conclusion REQUIRES you to increase the size of the rings which you already know that you cant do. Had that conclusion been a valid logical conclusion from the assumption of C-Decay truth, it would have been a perfect reductio ad absurdum.
just for your information, no where in the Bible does it say (or even hint at) an age or other means of time-stamping creation. So this video doesn't discredit the Bible in any way shape or form. It merely offers evidence against a theological concept of a young earth.
Don't be too hard on the creationist!They need sympathy, not facts ...
Suffering from Down's syndrome makes your life a mess without support from others, Asperger's syndorme is much milder and in some cases goes undected whereas suffering from creationism, well, it's kind of in between I guess and then you're up shit creek without a padle ...
@technicallyabsurd You've seen creationists abuse modern astrophysics? That's weird, I've never seen a creationist who knew any physics past general relativity and quantum mechanics. Which are roughly 100 years old...
You are using a simple s=v.t (where v = c).So (1) s1= c.t and (2) s2=784.c.t
Thing is,if c is slowing down we got a problem because of E=mc^2.
Also,changing the speed of light means time will change.However if E=mc^2 is corect,and c is slowing down,this will mean that the bigger the univerce gets,the less energy it has.And what happens to time?
If someone claims that the universe is 6,000 years old, it is an insult to treat them like sane human being. Logic and evidence has long past such creatures.
Uhh you guys are only calculation the "visible spectrum of our universe"(which by the way is increasing every Second) of our universe. Its a confusing concept but, the universe is incalculable. Since "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light." that's exactly what it means. "nothing" or you might call it "space" or a "vacuum" can travel faster than the speed of light and expand indefinitely because it is not bound by the laws of physics which only applies to "matter"
@Halo3pwns Well, it's not actually travelling faster than light; space is being created throughout the universe. This means that points are getting further apart without actually moving. So it doesn't violate the speed of light limitation.
isn't there some line of thought that posits the speed of light used to be faster due to the big bang, or at least before the big bang? I can't remember more than this token gesture
Science has given us a STAGGERING degree of understanding, both in breadth and depth of knowledge about everything. What you've shown here is complicated in its own right, but it still only scratches the surface. I know just enough to realize how much I DON'T know!
I'm an atheist, and I absolutely am against the idea that the earth and universe in general is only 6000 years old, but I have a question that may seem to promote the Creationist argument, and for that I am sorry.
The farthest reaches of the observable galaxy is I believe to be calculated to be over 40 billion light years away (correct me if I'm wrong), yet scientists have evidence that the universe is only about 13.6 billion years old.
Religion: Running face first into the brick wall of maths and logic and still not being being smart enough to realise it should stop.
terrabun 2 months ago
Creationists will say anything. God changed the speed of light. God put fossils on earth to test our faith. There is nothing they won't say to try to explain their beliefs. I still remember getting put into teen bible class at 14, my parents last-ditch attempt. I asked the fool about the stars, evolution, etc. He told my parents I was "disruptive", and hopeless, and that he could not continue to teach me the "truth". This was supposed to scare me, didn't work.
8698gil 2 months ago in playlist My Highly Favourite Videos 6
What a creationist cop-out! The evidence staring them in the face, and all they can do is cry that we made it up and we don't beleive in god because we'd rather be naughty -Sigh....childish BS!
Lennon4ever1 3 months ago
Anyway shane. Im sure your a nice guy. Im gona pray for you before i go to sleep in a minute. God has done so much for me and my family. I know he's real. Im sorry if you dont understand that. I had a life changing experience nearly ten years ago and i heard god speak to me. Im not a mad person. I could share my experience with you if you where open. Im not trying to shove religion down your face so if you ask ill share it with you.
TheFaithbaptist 3 months ago
@TheFaithbaptist Thank you for admitting that you have no logical response to the data.
shanedk 3 months ago 6
@shanedk ok then have it your way shane. What is your best evidence for evolution then.
TheFaithbaptist 3 months ago
@TheFaithbaptist Asked and answered.
shanedk 3 months ago
@TheFaithbaptist Uhh. Microevolution not convincing enough? New strains of the flu, popping up every year or so? The fact that we pretty much have a map of our common ancestors, and the so called "missing link" was actually discovered a long time ago, but media is still trying to make it sound like evolution still isn't a proven fact? Or human organs that are still in our bodies despite being useless (tail, for instance...) and slowly fading away? Stop ignoring actual evidence.
Abedeuss 1 week ago
@Abedeuss We need our tail bone for stuff id rather not mention here. if you really think we dont need it then ill gladly pay for yours to be removed lol.
TheFaithbaptist 2 days ago
@TheFaithbaptist Uh. Our tail bone is receding. It's no longer a tail, even though sometimes children are born with tails and immediately branded as "cursed" by religious ignorants. And I like how you didn't comment anything other.
Abedeuss 2 days ago
@TheFaithbaptist No, she hasn't. She hasn't done anything for you.
You owe everything to sentient beings on earth (both humans - scientists, activists who fight for whatever salary you have left not stolen by banksters - and non-human - the unjust sacrifices forced upon animals) - not some imaginary "gods".
mphello 1 month ago
Im not good at equations but don't you need to see the supernova from the start to get solid information on the speed of the ring. Also maybe if the speed of light was the same as now then maybe the remnant ring would not be as big. Maybe its the size it is today because the speed of light was faster. sorry if i dont make much sense people. Anyway if god made the universe then surely he can do whatever he wants with light or anything else for that matter.
TheFaithbaptist 3 months ago
@TheFaithbaptist "Im not good at equations but don't you need to see the supernova from the start to get solid information on the speed of the ring."
a) No, and b) We have pictures of the supernova less than 10 hours old.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk how do you know their ten hours old. could you also explain why i was wrong by saying maybe if the speed of light was the same as now then maybe the remnant ring would not be as big. Maybe its the size it is today because the speed of light was faster. You replied no just. Have you got a scientific explaination why im wrong. sorry im just inquisitive
TheFaithbaptist 3 months ago
@TheFaithbaptist "how do you know their ten hours old"
Because there was a picture of the same region taken 10 hours earlier and there was a star there.
"maybe if the speed of light was the same as now then maybe the remnant ring would not be as big"
Because the speed of light had nothing to do with the formation of the ring. Just basic inertia.
shanedk 3 months ago
Modern humans did not evolve. That's a bit religious isn't it. Why are you stating something as fact when it's not. Evolution is only a theory. There is no proof anything evolved. I'm sorry you believe that. I'm not a very smart guy but i do know that evolution is a faith.
TheFaithbaptist 3 months ago
@TheFaithbaptist Evolution is a theory AND a fact. If it weren't a fact, it wouldn't be a theory!
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk Then what's your best evidence for evolution? I have a theory that the reason your doing this video is that you know God is real but you don't want to abide by his rules because your life has sin in it and by pretending that God doesn't exist makes you feel ok about doing whatever you want. In your own words, (which are wrong obviously) "If it weren't a fact, it wouldn't be a theory!"
TheFaithbaptist 3 months ago
@TheFaithbaptist Check out my book, and a good number of my videos.
shanedk 3 months ago
And you didn't answer my last question which was "how do you know their ten hours old. could you also explain why i was wrong by saying maybe if the speed of light was the same as now then maybe the remnant ring would not be as big. Maybe its the size it is today because the speed of light was faster. You replied no just. Have you got a scientific explaination why im wrong. sorry im just inquisitive."
TheFaithbaptist 3 months ago
@TheFaithbaptist "And you didn't answer my last question which was "how do you know their ten hours old. "
I DID answer it. This is what ALL creationists do when pwned: they turn to LIES. Because lies are ALL YOU HAVE.
shanedk 3 months ago
@TheFaithbaptist Face it, the only way we as observers could see the universe that we do and the Old Testament description of creation be true is if your God is a trickster and a liar.
terrabun 2 months ago
@shanedk if evolution was a fact it wouldnt be a theory. theorys just explane facts.
shadowstrider0 1 month ago
@shadowstrider0 Your definition of "theory" and the definition scientists use is not the same. A theory in science is a set of statements about a system (say, the universe, or the Earth's vast diversity of species) that is supported by empirical observations. The theory of evolution has been proven correct by thousands upon thousands of properly-controlled studies. I'm not really sure what your definition is actually supposed to mean.
elixwhitetail 1 month ago
Thats why they call them CREATARDS!
baxtar1963 4 months ago
Started the video with unprovable assumption, then moved on to straw man arguments. Fail.
jeremydean 4 months ago
@jeremydean No, just basic math and trigonometry. No assumptions AT ALL.
shanedk 4 months ago
(Part 1)One question arises in my mind with the presentation of your pseudo-science. I'll get to that in a second. I have never heard anyone put forth that the speed of light has slowed down. Completely new to me. But it stinks of horse manure. Now, for my question. Why did you not take into your disdainful observation that light travels both as a particle, and therefore subject to the speed of light, and as a wave, and not subject to the speed of light?
mogeroithe 5 months ago
(part 2) Is it not possible, or even plausible that light could travel vast distances instantaneously as a wave? And, being true, where does that leave you with your bag full of pseudo-science? Just playing Devil's Advocate here.
mogeroithe 5 months ago
@mogeroithe "Is it not possible, or even plausible that light could travel vast distances instantaneously as a wave?"
No. It can only travel a single Planck-length that way.
shanedk 5 months ago
Unfortunately, the reasoning in this video is incorrect (although the correct answer is equally devastating to the YEC argument).
We're measuring the *difference in travel time* between two photons, so the only relevant value of c is what held when one photon was traveling and the other was not. Otherwise both photons were subjected to the same value of c (whatever it was), so the difference cancels out.
jpc4256 6 months ago
Therefore, the only relevant value of c is from 1987, in the 8 months between when the direct light and the reflected light from the SN were observed.
This means that the distance determination of 168,000 ly depends only on the value of c in 1987, which has been directly measured.
jpc4256 6 months ago
The problem for the YEC viewpoint is what happens when the relevant value of c was that which obtained in the distant past. Interestingly, the first time I heard this argument made was by Walt Brown, a YEC!
If you have some source of light emitting one photon after another, during which c is slowing down, it follows that each successive photon takes longer to reach the earth than the previously emitted photon.
jpc4256 6 months ago
The end result is that, from our perspective, everything happening in space would appear to run in "slow motion."
We absolutely do not observe this phenomenon of substantial time dilation; we can observe verifiable physical processes (such as the orbits of binary stars, resonant atomic transitions that can be replicated in the laboratory, or physical processes such as supernovae), and they do not run in "slow motion," certainly not anywhere near the degree required to accomodate YEC models.
jpc4256 6 months ago
@jpc4256 See the follow-ups.
shanedk 6 months ago
its over 9000!
classicgamerguy112 7 months ago
You forgot the "Unregistered Power Video User" in the bottom right. lol
CrimsonFlameRTR 8 months ago
@hashmash0 That's a common arguement for the young earth creationists, that light traveled faster in the past and thats how the light from such distant places got here wihtin the time they say that the universe existed.
What he said, repeatedly, was that it's constant in a vacuum not that it cannot be slowed down in a vacuum. It's the young earth creationists that say that the speed of light has slowed down, in a vacuum, since the creation of the universe.
lautz73 9 months ago
@hashmash0 He said that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum not that it cannot be slowed down. If you refer to the original question it asks about stellar bodies which can only bend the light. That's why stars that are on the other side of the sun can be seen during a solar eclipse. the light gets bent by the sun.
lautz73 9 months ago
@hashmash0 note the "in a vacuum" portion of that statement?
lautz73 9 months ago
This wideo was more amazing when you had the Vangelis mix synced with it. But, it's still awesome!
jblw189 9 months ago
There is absolutely no evidence that light was faster in the past but your explanation is completely wrong. If the light was faster in the past that means that in the past it didn't take 8 months for ring to brighten but much faster than that. Just think about cars coming out of a tunnel every 2 sec traveling 60 km/h. If you are standing 100km in front of the tunnel you will see cars passing by you every 2 sec. But if these cars change their speed to 120km/h they will pass by you every sec.
srki22 10 months ago
@srki22 Sigh...see the follow-up.
shanedk 10 months ago
@srki22 what i dont get is why the creationists are even bothering to say this
if 'god ' or any other 'deity' really did it as they claim
then by definition it can do anything it likes without need for any explanation other than ' instant wish magic'
[ which of course is no explanation at all , except perhaps for those with the intellect level of creationists]
whitesquirrel7 9 months ago
Dude, your my hero!
AcmeEvil 10 months ago
Very interesting. What happens if you slow down the speed of light though? Hasn't it already been stated that the speed of light isn't constant, and that large enough stellar bodies can slow the speed of light, and even bend it?
vanzcorp 10 months ago
@vanzcorp Um, no. They can bend the path the light takes to reach you, but its actual speed (in a vacuum) doesn't change.
shanedk 10 months ago
No, no no, as there are other objects in the sky that 'show' this maths is correct and the speed of light can't have changed, there has to be another explanation and this is: the speed of light has sped up AND slowed down again, but in different parts of the Universe, it has done this at different paces. Just so it looks like your belief, god can do this because god can do anything, didn't you even know that? Are you stupids, or sumtink
pineapplepenumbra 11 months ago
@pineapplepenumbra I guess this comment was just too stupid. no one could even be bothered to argue with it, Damn! I clearly have no life.
pineapplepenumbra 11 months ago
No this is wrong. The time delay would have been much shorter at the ring so the time taken for a photon to travel to the ring would have been much shorter than 8 months, depending on how much higher c was in the past. This doesn't effect the ring radius at all, which is governed by simple trigonometry. Hence if the speed of light was faster in the past then the light would take much less than 168,000 years to cover the distance. The idea of a lightyear should be discarded when c is changing
runningman97 1 year ago
Great video... Keep it up
kokopingo 1 year ago
Great video.
bluemoonrising26 1 year ago
See another explanation here: ht tp://homepages . wmich.edu/~korista/supernova_agesize.html
tuorhuorson28 1 year ago
You have a major flaw in your math. Regardless of the speed of light at any given time, the distance between the supernova and the ring must stay the same. You claim that if it were faster at the time of the nova that the ring would be farther away at about 3:30. But this is incorrect. Assuming that one photon traveling from the nova to Earth and one photon from the nova to the ring and then to Earth always traveled at the same speed simultaneously (continued)
tuorhuorson28 1 year ago
then they would cover the same distance by the time that the first photon hit Earth, and the second one is 8 months out. Because of the small angle of <1 arcsecond between the ring and the nova, the distance between the Earth and the second photon at this point is essentially the same as the distance between the ring and the nova. This is true regardless of the speed of light, even if it changes over time, as long as the two photons are always traveling at the same speed at the same time. (cont)
tuorhuorson28 1 year ago
Therefore the distance from the ring to the nova cannot be anything other than 0.658 ly. You then claim that this means, based on an assumed 784c value at the time of the nova, that the distance from ring to nova is then 784*0.658=515.872 ly. However, we calculated this distance of 0.658 ly based on the difference in arrival time of the two photons, namely, when the photons were going not at 784c but at 1c. Therefore the assumption that it was 0.658 ly based on a speed of 784c is wrong. (cont)
tuorhuorson28 1 year ago
And so, in this scenario, instead of taking ~8 months to traverse this distance, the light from the supernova would have reached the ring in about 7 hours. Please note that I am not defending the position that the speed of light is changing, nor would I, I am just pointing out a flaw in this argument.
tuorhuorson28 1 year ago
@tuorhuorson28 That's why it's a reductio ad absurdum. I get into this in MUCH more detail in the follow-up. You're correct: basic trig says that the supernova can ONLY be 168,000ly away.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Yes, basic trig does say that the supernova can only be 168,000 ly away. My problem with your argument is the claim, based on the c-decay theory argument, that the radius between the supernova and the ring is ~516 ly. It must always be 0.658 ly, where light-year is the fixed distance that light travels in a year TODAY (or better, has always traveled). Or maybe a better way of putting it (without using a distance based on a speed) is that the radius must always be 6.22X10^15 meters.
tuorhuorson28 1 year ago
And this is regardless of the speed of light at any time. Assuming of course that the speed of light is the same for both photons at simultaneous times.
tuorhuorson28 1 year ago
@tuorhuorson28 You are correct.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I just viewed your other video. I notice that you reduce it now to the time it would take to cross the distance between the ring and the nova, rather than the actual length. So it looks like you fixed the error in this video in the second one. I withdraw my objection.
tuorhuorson28 1 year ago
in this this video , u proved that bible is not from god !! but u didnt prove that there is no creation ! in islam book the Quran ,, nothing about the creation was 6000 years ago !! but actually the Quran describe the beginning of the creation and the big bang !!! Qur'an says that "the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit, before We clove them asunder" (21:30).
Read about islam and the Quran my friend ,, and then make another video !!!
khsalem147 1 year ago
Given that creationists also deny radioactive decay, is there another way to know how far the ring is away besides the decay of Cobalt?
I see this being a sticking point with the most stubborn and dumbest creationists. And once they have even the most insignificant thing to grab onto that they believe is false, then everything else falls apart because of it.
So, how do you get around this particular wall of stupidity?
Great video by the way.
WWJellyfish 1 year ago
@WWJellyfish Yes. See the follow-up: using nothing more than basic trig, I prove with 100% certainty that it MUST be 168,000ly away.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Thank you sir. Well done. I can only image what full retard response will be needed to deny math. Perhaps they'll just call me a nit-wit and not even bother to respond...
WWJellyfish 1 year ago
0.658 ly ÷ Tan0.000224444444624° = 167,973.07227885813 ly. I don't know why, but I wanted to put this trig calculation together. Weed and Math make a good combo, although, I don't think I'll remember any of this.
Yesitis808 1 year ago
@Yesitis808 There's lots of trig in the follow-up video. I use it to prove beyond any doubt that the supernova MUST be 168,000ly away, no more, no less, regardless of what the speed of light was doing in the past.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Awesome.
Yesitis808 1 year ago
Comment removed
Yesitis808 1 year ago
You forget the obvious problem...they have "magic" on their side. God is magic, so he can do anything and make it look however he wants. And they talk to him, so they have their proof. Of course you and I have completely different standards of evidence so I love this sort of thing, so thank you.
rrpostalagain 1 year ago
I have a question about the annotation you added to the video about knowing that the time difference between the center brightening and the rings brightening is because of the decay of cobalt, and that that shows it's in real time, and not affected by time dilation. I'm lost. Could you please elaborate?
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
@Juxtaroberto I made a follow-up video to this that goes into it in detail.
shanedk 1 year ago
ITS OVER 9000!!!!!!
WilkoPhilip 1 year ago
@WilkoPhilip not according to the bible. that would make DBZ a liar. DBZ doesnt lie.
HighFlyActionGuy 1 year ago
@HighFlyActionGuy lol why reply to me?
WilkoPhilip 1 year ago
@WilkoPhilip you're the one that said the dragonball z quote.
HighFlyActionGuy 1 year ago
@HighFlyActionGuy Maybe he doesn't realize that's where it's from.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk its a sad world when someone can quote something they dont understand
HighFlyActionGuy 1 year ago
@HighFlyActionGuy I debunk creationists; I'm used to it.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk that made me laugh.
HighFlyActionGuy 1 year ago
Creationism is not nonsense! All the information and evidence is found in a science book called 'The Holy Bible', there you will learn all the scientific facts that are being discovered now, such as; talking snakes (dna alteration), parting sea (force fields), miracle healing (modern medicine), resurrection (modern resuscitation) etc need I go on? As far as speed of light issue; light has no mass and therefore it does not really exist so we don't have to worry about it. See, Bible wins again!
immortalis1001 1 year ago
@immortalis1001 Yeah, and bats being birds, rabbits chewing cud, a flat Earth set on pillars, it's fixed and immovable, there's a firmament (resulting in the sun, moon, and all the stars being equidistant), epilepsy is caused by demons, lamb's blood is a cure for leprosy, eagles carry their young on their wings...yeah, wonderful science book.
shanedk 1 year ago
@immortalis1001 "As far as speed of light issue; light has no mass and therefore it does not really exist so we don't have to worry about it. See, Bible wins again!"
Care to put that to the test? I say we get a 100mW laser and shine it in both your eyes. If you're not blinded afterwards, THEN we can say that light may not really exist...
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I volunteer to be the one who holds him down while the laser is shone into his eyes. For science, of course.
SCIENCE!!!!!!
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@shanedk Your problem is that you are using logic and reason while I am using the only thing that matters; a blind belief in The Bible. I hope that by now you see that I was not serious when I made my comment. I was tying to make it as ridiculous as possible but then there are people out there who believe the very thing I wrote. You see, I gave up on trying to win any fights with the "Bible" crowd, so now (as a silent protest) I just make fun of them by saying asinine things. Ignorance is bliss.
immortalis1001 1 year ago
@immortalis1001
Poe?
Scoforever 1 year ago
@Scoforever You said "Poe?", I say; Clarify please.
immortalis1001 1 year ago
@immortalis1001 A "Poe" is what you just admitted to being: Poe's Law says that it is impossible to parody creationist arguments in a way as to be indistinguishable from genuine creationists. A "Poe" is used to refer to someone who makes this attempt.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk LOL and I thought that it had something to do with Edgar Allan Poe. Well, on the bright side someone did sniff out my deception. I have lost so much energy trying to show some people the fallacy of their belief system that I am down to cheap shots and humor. Many cops say that the only way to get through the day is to crack jokes at a messy crime scene. I think I am at this stage now. I know that I should not care but...we all should be free even is the prison is self made.
immortalis1001 1 year ago
@immortalis1001
I could tell by the time you got to the list of scientific facts but your speed of light argument was a great. I could easily imagine a creationist actually making that argument.
Scoforever 1 year ago
@shanedk Is that another way of saying creationists fail the Turing test?
johnrainrules 1 year ago
@shanedk and i wanted to make a paordy creationist website as well
MidnightCardinal 1 year ago
@immortalis1001 - yeah it is just a hallucination that you are watching TV - or that it is daytime
MidnightCardinal 1 year ago
@MidnightCardinal Well, I do have to agree with you. :)
If you read more of my comments on this video you will realize that I was being a creationist for a few minutes and that is all it took for me to make a spectacle of myself. I am sure what I said would actually make sense to some of them. What a sad state of affairs.
immortalis1001 1 year ago
I just watched this again. I understood a little bit more this time around, but my head hurts again.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
I'm not a creationist, but my head still hurts.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
creationists still fail to understand that everything wasn't created in 6 literal days because the universe is billions of years older than the earth.. it takes billions of years for the light to reach earth from galaxies billions of light-years away and light can't travel faster than the speed of light.
CreationDebunked 1 year ago
Long live Cdk007 and shanedk!
LikeALeadZeppelin 1 year ago 2
I know this is an old video, and that I'm late arriving at the party, but I can't help but think of the Simpsons episode where Homer disproves God. He gives the paper to Ned Flanders, who destroys it. Somehow, I think this math might be what Homer handed him.
stingernick 1 year ago
this is absolutely hilarious.
Could you do a video where the speed of light was slower in the past, then sped up? Then you could have the ring be smaller and "closer". I think.
Would that make the calculations fit? And what would the numbers look like?
Korkzor 1 year ago
You just FALCON PAWNCHED all the young earth creationists xD
mudfan1010 1 year ago
Your argument is flawed as pointed out by zebraone100 - the observations of SN1987A do not proof the speed of light in the past. I made another attempt to explain why your argument is wrong, in my own video response to your second video here: watch?v=pF_G2uBVp-0
dada31415 1 year ago
@dada31415 I saw it, and you made a mathematical cheat. You put the varying speed of light in, but then just backed over all your math. OF COURSE you ended up with the original distance! Just as you would have if you had used your tire pressure, the Lost numbers, the GPS coordinates of the Massachusetts State Home for the Bewildered, or the number of noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's a cheat.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I don't think I cheat: we both agree that because of observations SN19897A has to be 168000ly (=51.4kps) away. I do not argue the distance or the radius of the ring (0,658ly = 0.201ps). So whatever I do, if my calculation gets another result it is plain wrong. Your error is your conclusion in 3:30 in this video: only because light travels faster, it does not make the distance longer: 0.658ly (=0.201ps) with current C are 0,0235 ly with 28xC (still equals 0.201ps). (continued)
dada31415 1 year ago
@dada31415 "So whatever I do, if my calculation gets another result it is plain wrong."
Whatever you do, your calculation CANNOT get another result because you're just backing over your math again. Go on: try it with the atomic weight of uranium or something crazy like that.
What you SHOULD be doing (which is what I did) is go forward from there: what ramifications would this have?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk (continued) and yes, if C *remained* at 28x, then the light of the ring would reach us after 8,6 days, not after 8 months, because 28xC covers a distance of 0,201ps in 8,6 days.
BUT: From that point on C "reverts" to 300000 km/s (see the graphs in my video). And then it takes light 8 months to cover the distance of 0,201ps. What I (and zeroone100 and others) have tried to point out is that you make a crucial mistake in your argument. At 3:37 in your video here.
dada31415 1 year ago
Obviously this dude has never left his peanut butter in the back of the fridge for a few months. I did that once and three headed purple goat popped out ... its all about where you leave the peanut butter and for how long ... that or he needs to learn more about amino acid formation,
nathanielselby 1 year ago
So what if I say that the bible, at least as far as I've read, does not ever claim, insinuate, infer, or in any way suggest that the universe is 6000 years old. That is a biblical factoid as false as the claim that Jesus was born on December 25th.
It's really annoying when people who don't really know the bible try to make arguments for it, they just end up creating cannon fodder for evolutionists to shoot down.
slider576 1 year ago
@slider576 The question isn't what is false about the bible, but what evidence do you have that ANYTHING in it about a "god" is true?
70m0kun 1 year ago
@70m0kun the same can be said about evolution
slider576 1 year ago
@slider576 Wrong. There is a SLEW of evidence supporting evolution, including its predictive reliability. In part, you can see that evolution works because of its basis on nested hierarchies (a mathematical concept). Look at the fossil evidence. Look at DNA. Look at speciation. Look at bacteria. The list goes on and on.
Name one field of science that the Bible has influenced significantly. Name one prediction the Bible has made that isn't a form of "interpretation".
70m0kun 1 year ago
Genesis1:1 In the beginning GOD created the heavens(the space of the universe) and the earth. vers3:Then GOD said "Let there be light" and there was light.-So the image of the univers we see today was posted on the sky by GOD 3days earlier then HI created the objects behind the image.Amin.
justy1325 1 year ago
Very nice. :-)
fourtrees44 1 year ago
We are a long way from knowing all. To 'conclude' there is no God based on such minuscule evidence is simply 'unscientific'.
classicvox 1 year ago
@classicvox See my video "Atheism and the Null Hypothesis."
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk your video illustrates how 'limited' human understanding really is.
classicvox 1 year ago
@classicvox but to conclude that god does exist is simply "unscientific" as there is no evidence what so ever supporting it. There is only the possibility that it may be right.
Mayhem108 1 year ago
@Mayhem108 I conclude 'human' understanding is incapable of knowing what to base such decision on.
classicvox 1 year ago
@classicvox minuscule evidence? wow...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi Yes! the more one knows, the the more one should realize that one knows nothing!
Learning from others is not 'knowing', it only gives one a false sense of understanding.
classicvox 1 year ago
@classicvox but claiming there is a god based no evidence is better?
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi I leave it to the individual, to believe based on their own observations and experience. In my opnion it is wrong to push 'conclusions' based on 'any' evidence for or against.
Anytime there is an opportunity for individuals to have power over another, there will always be people who will exploit that opportunity. They will use any excuse necessary to meet that goal. Sadly many of these egoists will use or hi-jack the 'knowledge of the day' to control behavior in others.
classicvox 1 year ago
@classicvox In other words, you want to go solely based on anecdotes. Welcome to the Dark Ages.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk If you like being 'told' what to believe, be my guest that is your choice.
I love science and use it every day. My reservations lie with 'scientists' themselves, they are all human and prone to human mistakes, mental limitations and even agendas to advance their egos.
One thing for certain, is we all have a lot to learn and experience!
classicvox 1 year ago
@shanedk Getting your knowledge from an institution does not make it right. I find errors in many 'theories' written by published scientists and don't even get me started on 'religion', as that in itself is something I do not condone. Though it actually works for some people, so I let them be.
If you are not capable of thinking for yourself then you certainly need to cling to your 'teachers'.
classicvox 1 year ago
@shanedk Awesome video my man! - Cdk was right when he said so... If you'll excuse a question from a poorly educated man:-
If trig was used to ascertain the distance from 2 remote points in space, isn;t the distance from earth equated as a mulitple of the distance between the two remote points? - Ergo, wouldn't it just be simpler to say that light took 168,000 years to reach us from SN87, regardless of it's distance from earth?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim The follow-up to this (my entry in this year's Pwnage Olympics) goes into that in more detail. Short answer: the multiple is based on the tangent of the angle. I also show that its distance HAS to be 168,000ly, and can't be anything else.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I know that the distance was equated from the angle, as with parellelax from lesser distances? I was just curious as to why you went into the other seemingly unnecessary details? I wondered if there is something I hadn't thought of that might bite me in the ass?
There may be another chance for me to challenge a leading creationist guru on TV . If I get a chance to corner and debunk just one argument from him, I think this would be the most compelling, and easily understood.
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@shanedk Say..Have you actually posted that video you mentioned yet? I'd like to see it.
And though I agree with you about CDK007's videos, your's are non too shabby either!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@classicvox Yet you are doing the same thing you claim to abhor. You are making a judgment that because in YOUR experience schools and scholars have used knowledge to control others that this is the LIKELY outcome.
Science is the thing that works best - from peer review to predictive reliability there has yet to be anything that comes close to giving you reliable knowledge about the world around you. Scientists do science. So what exactly are you trying to say with your diatribes?
70m0kun 1 year ago
@70m0kun so you are saying with your 'peer review', that if "everyone in an institution agrees, then it must be true"?
You must not spend a lot of time in research, do you? You probably don't know how easy it is for 'scientists' to make errors. They like you and I are human and subject to 'human' limitations.
My point is everyone should pursue truth on their own and not put so much faith in 'experts'. If you do not believe you are capable of such pursuit, then by all means follow others!
classicvox 1 year ago
@classicvox Straw Man. For someone who claims to like science, you sure don't know much about it. You are dead-set on making everything an absolute, when science itself is full of caveats and maybes. Because we can never be absolutely sure, scientists give "provisional assent". The answers are 100%, but they have more predictive reliability thanks to things like peer review, which narrow the margins on human error.
No one is advocating faith here: we are advocating degrees of credibility.
70m0kun 1 year ago
@70m0kun Thanks for making my point. There are too many non-scientists who follow blindy what they do not understand, because a few 'experts' say something is true.
I have no problem with science and do not always blame human malice, when it can many times be easily explained by incompetence.
classicvox 1 year ago
@classicvox There is a difference between trusting "Experts" and trusting actual experts. It seems by your comments that you make no differentiation between a scientific consensus and some pundit on FOX News.
While you should, as much as possible, evaluate the evidence yourself, that is a far cry from ignoring the findings of an entire field of science like Quantum Physics because you can't check their math. Society thrives by our shared knowledge on many subjects. Hence, peer review.
70m0kun 1 year ago
@70m0kun You really are dense. Of course there is a difference!! I never said there was not! You just 'assumed' like the follower that you are. BTW a certain TV channel has nothing to do with it! Yes really!!!
My point is the general population cannot tell the difference between honest scientific pursuits and science hi-jacked to support agendas. You made my point again, in that you obviously cannot tell the difference either.
Please continue to not question your 'authorities'.
classicvox 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@classicvox Sure, its my fault you communicated your idea so poorly that someone who would've agreed with you... didn't.
" I leave it to the individual, to believe based on their own observations and experience. In my opnion it is wrong to push 'conclusions' based on 'any' evidence for or against."
You are clearly advocating personal experience over scientific inquiry here.
All of your "points" criticize institutions of higher learning and scientific consensus. Hence, "your comments seem ..."
70m0kun 1 year ago
I used to believe in creationism (I was sent to a christian school untill grade 4) and now i'm in year 9 and am constantly learning and trying to learn more about the universe and scientific methodology just so I can proof that creationism is true, joking lol. I no longer believe in much of the bible, with the scientific knowledge I now have I just can't see any way that the "Garden of Eden" is possible, animals can't talk human, and animals have to kill to live, not be best friends.
aussienerds 1 year ago
@aussienerds The reading of your post just brightened my day.
It gives me just a little bit more hope that we're not just screwed when a 9 year old immersed in theology for most of that time can "wake up" to the fact that we really should have better justification for what we believe than: That's what we're supposed to believe or: That's what's most comforting to believe.
Again, thanks.
steveb0503 1 year ago
What a beautiful video! I'd never see the 'speed of light' issue debunked in such an elegant way. I'd be hard pressed to find a way around the logic, but I'm sure creationists can. *rolls eyes* Keep up the good works!
maarakailet1 1 year ago
I've been laughing at shanedk every since he made this ridiculous video. I knew his denials were paper thin but now it seems that the more honest scientists look at the issue the more evidence they discover that the velocity light is indeed in decay. The latest discovery reported is by Henri Sanejouand of the U. of Nantes in France who says the evidence points towards a possible slowing down of c of about 0.02-0.03 m/s per year. Check this out on the Focus (Optics & Photonics) website.
Calypsis4 1 year ago
@Calypsis4 well that just means universe IS OLDER then anyone had toughed
atlachannel 1 year ago
If the speed of light was much larger in the past than it is today, then the sun would have completely obliterated the earth. (The amount of energy released by nuclear fusion is related to E = m(c*c) )
If c were much larger, then this would massively increase the amount of energy released by the sun.
AnalHaemorrhage 1 year ago
Shane, given that your latest video, "Pwnage Olympics II Event #4..." implicitly aggrees that the rings are a precise distance from the supernova as argued in my video responce more than a year ago, and using the same (well, similar..I used an isosolese triange and you used a right triangle) geometric proof I presented as well...
When are you going to finally concede that this proof is invalid as it requires variable distances on the rings?
Yes, We both agree that C-Decay is crap.
zebraone100 1 year ago
@zebraone100 You still don't get it! This proof is SUPPOSED to be invalid! That's why it's a reductio ad absurdum.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk each step in your proof must still be valid in order for the conclusion to be valid, otherwise you are just carrying forward an error through subsequent steps. Your proof ends very dramatically with C-Decay making the universe older, and yet that conclusion REQUIRES you to increase the size of the rings which you already know that you cant do. Had that conclusion been a valid logical conclusion from the assumption of C-Decay truth, it would have been a perfect reductio ad absurdum.
zebraone100 1 year ago
and kids, the moral of the story was: even if creationist were right they still EPIC FAIL
patrickledford420 1 year ago
just for your information, no where in the Bible does it say (or even hint at) an age or other means of time-stamping creation. So this video doesn't discredit the Bible in any way shape or form. It merely offers evidence against a theological concept of a young earth.
Aretraes 1 year ago
If increasing the speed of light in the early universe makes it even older, how does decreasing the speed of light work out?
janwillem1982 1 year ago
@janwillem1982 Well it would mean that light would of taken even longer to get to us from the things we see 11billion lyrs away, making it older.
The universe only works if the speed of light is constant.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
Don't be too hard on the creationist!They need sympathy, not facts ...
Suffering from Down's syndrome makes your life a mess without support from others, Asperger's syndorme is much milder and in some cases goes undected whereas suffering from creationism, well, it's kind of in between I guess and then you're up shit creek without a padle ...
heyawhaw 1 year ago
Whenever Creationists abuse modern astrophysics like this, I just say "Occam's Razor" and walk away.
technicallyabsurd 1 year ago
@technicallyabsurd You've seen creationists abuse modern astrophysics? That's weird, I've never seen a creationist who knew any physics past general relativity and quantum mechanics. Which are roughly 100 years old...
TakesTwoToTango 1 year ago
@TakesTwoToTango I argue with them regularly.
technicallyabsurd 1 year ago
You are using a simple s=v.t (where v = c).So (1) s1= c.t and (2) s2=784.c.t
Thing is,if c is slowing down we got a problem because of E=mc^2.
Also,changing the speed of light means time will change.However if E=mc^2 is corect,and c is slowing down,this will mean that the bigger the univerce gets,the less energy it has.And what happens to time?
rozovo 1 year ago
@rozovo That's not likely to make much of a difference to someone who says that relativity is wrong. I already tried that angle with him.
shanedk 1 year ago
If someone claims that the universe is 6,000 years old, it is an insult to treat them like sane human being. Logic and evidence has long past such creatures.
Kitt0000 1 year ago
Uhh you guys are only calculation the "visible spectrum of our universe"(which by the way is increasing every Second) of our universe. Its a confusing concept but, the universe is incalculable. Since "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light." that's exactly what it means. "nothing" or you might call it "space" or a "vacuum" can travel faster than the speed of light and expand indefinitely because it is not bound by the laws of physics which only applies to "matter"
Halo3pwns 1 year ago
@Halo3pwns Well, it's not actually travelling faster than light; space is being created throughout the universe. This means that points are getting further apart without actually moving. So it doesn't violate the speed of light limitation.
shanedk 1 year ago
Hi shane
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
@TheHomelessCripple Hiya.
shanedk 1 year ago
isn't there some line of thought that posits the speed of light used to be faster due to the big bang, or at least before the big bang? I can't remember more than this token gesture
thewhitey360 1 year ago
funnnny, etc
cdmcl3 1 year ago
brilliant!!!! very simple and yet makes the point emphatically
DiosanXaquerry 1 year ago
u got guts bro nice haha
41312111 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The reason Evolutionists/Naturalists attack Creationists is because it's too late to cry
Facts with NO religious spin:
(1) DNA code is language.
(2) Language originates in a mind.
(3) Information exists independent of its medium.
(4) Information and language are not matter or energy.
(5) Biological life forms are the creative and purposeful product of information and language.
Those are the scientific facts.
There are only two known languages to man:
(1) of human mind origin (2) DNA code
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
The music linked in the side bar is much nicer :-)
Great video!
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
Science has given us a STAGGERING degree of understanding, both in breadth and depth of knowledge about everything. What you've shown here is complicated in its own right, but it still only scratches the surface. I know just enough to realize how much I DON'T know!
Great vid. Thanks for sharing.
rmcdaniel423 2 years ago 13
Nice video, and @mellow, the universe, 13.5 or so billion yrs old, check out the 1989 wmap image....good stuff
whiteblazejunky 2 years ago
@whiteblazejunky 1989 was COBE. The WMAP survey didn't begin until 2001.
shanedk 1 year ago
everytime i try to watch this on veoh it quits at about 2.40ish and some moses video icon appears on top of the invideo text, tampering?
paulspydar 2 years ago
I'm an atheist, and I absolutely am against the idea that the earth and universe in general is only 6000 years old, but I have a question that may seem to promote the Creationist argument, and for that I am sorry.
The farthest reaches of the observable galaxy is I believe to be calculated to be over 40 billion light years away (correct me if I'm wrong), yet scientists have evidence that the universe is only about 13.6 billion years old.
How is that possible?
MelowMurder 2 years ago