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

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

Laughing out loud is not an adequate response...

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

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

Also,

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh....

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

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

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

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

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

This is nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit:

Sigh...

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

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

5.11 / 6 = x / (14e9) 

x = 11.923e9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A theist is someone who believes in god.

An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god.

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

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