Creationism And Astrophysics.

[MamaElephant 20]

The earliest peoples believed that the sun was a god traveling across the sky. So there. Everyone is wrong.

[UB313 0]

It appears that The Big Bang Theory is not consistent with the evidence provided by astrophysics.

63459[/snapback]

Its interesting that you mention that. If I were a creationist I would be focusing on this periond of faster than light expansion of the universe predicted by the inflationary model. (I assume that is what you mean).

 

To me this inflation looks suspicious - one could probably argue that this is an excellent example of an empirically demostrable, but "supernatural" process.

 

Anyway I'm certainly not defending the big bang model here.

[Guest tharock220]

I don't believe light travels at all, i've looked at various models and worked on many but none of it works. The basics of visual perception is often overlooked. When we look at something what is actually going on? The emission theory states that the light emits (not a travelling speed) from our own eyes not from the object we look at. The intromission theory states the opposite.

 

The emission theory is the most common sense, so i don't believe there is any speed of light. The 'Starlight Problem' has never been a problem for me and the YEC model. The earliest Church Fathers (2nd-4th century AD) who believed in emmision theory also had no problem with starlight and a young universe.

63460[/snapback]

Emission theory??? Are you serious?? Even if it were true it doesn't solve the problem of cosmic distances and c.

 

I'm bothered by the fact that you think a person needs to be 11 million years old to see 11 million year old light. Do you honestly believe that???

[falcone 2]

I don't believe light travels at all, i've looked at various models and worked on many but none of it works.

 

Okay, could you please explain the failings of the following experiment then?

 

A Frenchman, Fizeau, shone a light between the teeth of a rapidly rotating toothed wheel. A mirror more than 5 miles away reflected the beam back through the same gap between the teeth of the wheel. There were over a hundred teeth in the wheel. The wheel rotated at hundreds of times a second - therefore a fraction of a second was easy to measure.

 

By varying the speed of the wheel, it was possible to determine at what speed the wheel was spinning too fast for the light to pass through the gap between the teeth, to the mirror, and then back through the same gap. He knew how far the light traveled and the time it took. By dividing that distance by the time, he got the speed of light. Fizeau measured the speed of light to be 313,300 Km/s.

[Cassiterides 1]

Emission theory???  Are you serious??  Even if it were true it doesn't solve the problem of cosmic distances and c. 

 

I'm bothered by the fact that you think a person needs to be 11 million years old to see 11 million year old light.  Do you honestly believe that???

63480[/snapback]

Assumptions you make if you equate starlight to long periods of time:

 

1. That the Universe is old and that millions of years have already existed.

2. Intromission theory.

 

So what we have is a clear case again of the evolutionists circular reasoning, they start at assuming millions of years have existed despite the fact they never observed these periods and have no evidence they ever occurred.

[Cassiterides 1]

Okay, could you please explain the failings of the following experiment then?

 

A Frenchman, Fizeau, shone a light between the teeth of a rapidly rotating toothed wheel. A mirror more than 5 miles away reflected the beam back through the same gap between the teeth of the wheel. There were over a hundred teeth in the wheel. The wheel rotated at hundreds of times a second - therefore a fraction of a second was easy to measure.

 

By varying the speed of the wheel, it was possible to determine at what speed the wheel was spinning too fast for the light to pass through the gap between the teeth, to the mirror, and then back through the same gap.  He knew how far the light traveled and the time it took. By dividing that distance by the time, he got the speed of light. Fizeau measured the speed of light to be 313,300 Km/s.

63483[/snapback]

This whole experiment starts at the assumption the intromission theory is true, yet it's only a theory. Theories are not fact. There is no evidence light travels at all if you get down to the basics of visual perception.

 

We cease to see when we close our eyes, for over 2000 years it was accepted closing our eyes prevents this emission of light.

 

This is a good book you can buy which covers about visual perception: Visual perception: an introduction By Nicholas Wade, Psychology Press, 2001 - it details how the emission theory has never been disproved and that there is no actual evidence that light travels.

[Javabean 2]

We cease to see when we close our eyes, for over 2000 years it was accepted closing our eyes prevents this emission of light.

 

63486[/snapback]

 

Well this is partially right. We only cease to see because our eye lids do a good job at blocking light from entering our eyes. But if you put a bright enough light in front of someone, they will still see it, because the light will penetrate our lids.

 

Of course when you say "emission" of light it almost sounds like you are saying that light is being emitted by our eyes. Is this something you believe? Or am I reading too much into what you posted there?

 

Thank you in advance for a considerate answer to that query.

[Guest Teller]

This whole experiment starts at the assumption the intromission theory is true, yet it's only a theory. Theories are not fact. There is no evidence light travels at all if you get down to the basics of visual perception.

 

We cease to see when we close our eyes, for over 2000 years it was accepted closing our eyes prevents this emission of light.

 

This is a good book you can buy which covers about visual perception: Visual perception: an introduction By Nicholas Wade, Psychology Press, 2001 - it details how the emission theory has never been disproved and that there is no actual evidence that light travels.

63486[/snapback]

Hi

 

We get afterimages or even a damaged retina after looking at light that's too bright. Doesn't this prove vision comes from light entering the eye?

[MamaElephant 20]

Could we start another thread to discuss the OT subject of emission theory?

Its interesting that you mention that. If I were a creationist I would be focusing on this periond of faster than light expansion of the universe predicted by the inflationary model. (I assume that is what you mean).

 

To me this inflation looks suspicious - one could probably argue that this is an excellent example of an empirically demostrable, but "supernatural" process.

 

Anyway I'm certainly not defending the big bang model here.

63465[/snapback]

But a Creationist (well most of us anyway) does not just latch on to a theory that is not sound, as you can see here and especially in the case of a former evolutionist here, and here, and of course, the evidence in the articles I previously linked.

 

I also made a point that the secular ideas about the origin of the Universe are no better than the Creationists ideas... there is no reason to demand proof from the Creationists when secular scientists can offer no better.

 

The current Creationist theory about the starlight problem is that the evidence shows a finite expanding universe and that involves time dilation at the time that God "stretched out the heavens". Gravitational time dilation, general relativity, and an expansion of the universe in the past are all accepted by all cosmologists and the majority of physicists, creationists or not. Did you read the chapter in the Creation Answers book? Do you have anything specific to ask about that? If you download the PDF you will see a New Cosmology on page 97. It is the best theory that they have at this time. There are references listed. If you have an interest in this I also suggest that you read other articles by John Hartnett. I linked his page here[/url].

[Cassiterides 1]

Hi

 

We get afterimages or even a damaged retina after looking at light that's too bright. Doesn't this prove vision comes from light entering the eye?

63492[/snapback]

No it doesn't. Look up sungazing.

 

http://solarhealing.com/

http://www.sungazing.com/652.html

 

Vv1VPQr7GZ4?fs=1&hl=en_GB

 

Bates Method (Sunning):

 

[Javabean 2]

No it doesn't. Look up sungazing.

 

http://solarhealing.com/

http://www.sungazing.com/652.html

 

Vv1VPQr7GZ4?fs=1&hl=en_GB

 

Bates Method (Sunning):

 

63500[/snapback]

As a Christian how can you suggest links that lead to Jainism? Isn't this putting other Gods before God?

[Cassiterides 1]

As a Christian how can you suggest links that lead to Jainism?  Isn't this putting other Gods before God?

63513[/snapback]

Because if you watched the video, you would understand sungazing is relevant to all ancient cultures or religions, not just Jains. The knowledge though about it became lost, but it is only now being rediscovered.

 

Many early Christians practiced sungazing. It's a form of breatharianism or inedia (extreme fasting), where you fully abstain from eating or drinking. There are many Christians who believe Adam and Eve were originally breathatarians and sungazers (there was no meat before the fall).

 

Ratan Manek achieved no eating or drinking for 211 days via sungazing. Nicholas of Flüe, the patron saint of Switzerland achieved fasting for 19 years. There are other accounts of where people have survived for very long periods without eating or drinking because of sungazing. Sungazing is not only apart of eastern teaching, but is something everyone was originally doing. How it was done however became lost like most other ancient knowledge. If you look up the accounts of Christian mystics who lived for tens of years without eating or drinking. How did they do it? They did it through the sun.

[Guest Teller]

We get afterimages or even a damaged retina after looking at light that's too bright. Doesn't this prove vision comes from light entering the eye?

No it doesn't. Look up sungazing.

 

http://solarhealing.com/

http://www.sungazing.com/652.html

 

63500[/snapback]

Hi

 

From http://solarhealing.com/: "do not ever stare directly into the sun due to the possibility of eye damage and blindness. it is at your own risk that you would participate in such an activity."

 

From http://www.sungazing.com/652.html: The safe hours are anytime within 1-hour window after sunrise or anytime within the 1-hr window before sunset. It is scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt that during these times, one is free from UV and IR rays exposure, which is harmful to your eyes.

 

Unless you think our eyes damage themselves through their own emissions, this shows vision comes from light entering the eye, not vice versa.

 

In any case, emission theory and sungazing don't seem to have anything to do with the speed of light being infinite, which I think was your original claim? We have measured the speed of light and its not infinite, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

[Bex 3]

Because if you watched the video, you would understand sungazing is relevant to all ancient cultures or religions, not just Jains. The knowledge though about it became lost, but it is only now being rediscovered.

 

Many early Christians practiced sungazing. It's a form of breatharianism or inedia (extreme fasting), where you fully abstain from eating or drinking. There are many Christians who believe Adam and Eve were originally breathatarians and sungazers (there was no meat before the fall).

 

Ratan Manek achieved no eating or drinking for 211 days via sungazing. Nicholas of Flüe, the patron saint of Switzerland achieved fasting for 19 years. There are other accounts of where people have survived for very long periods without eating or drinking because of sungazing. Sungazing is not only apart of eastern teaching, but is something everyone was originally doing. How it was done however became lost like most other ancient knowledge. If you look up the accounts of Christian mystics who lived for tens of years without eating or drinking. How did they do it? They did it through the sun.

63520[/snapback]

 

Fasting, under the right conditions, can indeed be a healthy practice. Abstaining from food allows the body rest from digestion and can help cleanse the entire body. Not sure about fasting from liquid though. Either way, one should know what they're doing. Prolonged fasting without proper supervision, can in some cases, be dangerous. I'm not disputing the cases here, because I've heard of such things also, and within my own faith too (but not the sun gazing). This can also be the fact they are sustained completely by God.

 

I'm concerned over the sun gazing, especially these days! Reports of damage and blindness form people staring at the sun too long has and does happen.

 

I don't doubt that at onetime it may have been a possibly safer practise with I also believe the eyes do indeed need natural sunlight. Apparently it also stimulates the immunity when the eyes get enough natural light, plus of course, vitamin D through the skin, and goodness knows what other benefits.

 

But I also remember that once upon a time, people could spend most of the day in the sun without many problems. Nowadays, things appear different. The glare from it, it's more penetrative and quite painful, well it is in new zealand. Alot of people have mentioned the change. I've noticed it as well. Apparently we are right under the hole in the ozone layer. The amount of glare we have, the quick and powerful burning one gets from not even being out for that long does not encourage one to start staring at the sun for prolonged periods of time and certainly not after reports of damage and blindness in those that have!

 

I'm not all for avoiding the sun either, as I know that too has had it's repurcussions. But a bit of caution and moderation? Probably wise!

[Cassiterides 1]

From http://solarhealing.com/: "do not ever stare directly into the sun due to the possibility of eye damage and blindness. it is at your own risk that you would participate in such an activity."

 

From http://www.sungazing.com/652.html: The safe hours are anytime within 1-hour window after sunrise or anytime within the 1-hr window before sunset.  It is scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt that during these times, one is free from UV and IR rays exposure, which is harmful to your eyes.

Those are standard and have to be put up legally. From what i know about this, there are no actual health risks, i have a brother who is into alternitive medicine etc and he's been into sungazing for a while. You don't do it for long, the idea is that you only do it for a few minutes (or even seconds) each day. The idea is that it replaces food and drink and is a source of energy.

 

Moonlight is the opposite - it is destructive. Hence why their is folklore about lunar effect if you look at it. The word lunacy comes from ancient times when the moon was thought to cause mental problems.

 

Unless you think our eyes damage themselves through their own emissions, this shows vision comes from light entering the eye, not vice versa.

There are many other lights, however there is no evidence actually that light travels.

 

In any case, emission theory and sungazing don't seem to have anything to do with the speed of light being infinite, which I think was your original claim? We have measured the speed of light and its not infinite, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

The speed of light is a theory based on the theory of relativity, which attempts to connect space and time.

 

The theory of relativity though is just a theory. Theories are not fact. Anything with theory in it's name is not proven most notebly: the theory of evolution.

 

I could invent a theory now i.e the theory that the sky is yellow, so the ''Yellow Sky Theory''. Obviously this doesn't make it a fact, it's just theoretical.

 

Most evolutionists though have a hard time understanding what is fact and what is theory or assumption, speculation etc. They can't distinguish between the two, and so they think evolution and any other science theory which has a considerable amount of support is a fact when it isn't.

[Cassiterides 1]

Fasting, under the right conditions, can indeed be a healthy practice.  Abstaining from food allows the body rest from digestion and can help cleanse the entire body.  Not sure about fasting from liquid though.  Either way, one should know what they're doing.  Prolonged fasting without proper supervision, can in some cases, be dangerous.  I'm not disputing the cases here, because I've heard of such things also, and within my own faith too (but not the sun gazing). This can also be the fact they are sustained completely by God.

 

I'm concerned over the sun gazing, especially these days!  Reports of damage and blindness form people staring at the sun too long has and does happen.

 

I don't doubt that at onetime it may have been a possibly safer practise with I also believe the eyes do indeed need natural sunlight.  Apparently it also stimulates the immunity when the eyes get enough natural light, plus of course, vitamin D through the skin, and goodness knows what other benefits.

 

But I also remember that once upon a time, people could spend most of the day in the sun without many problems.  Nowadays, things appear different.  The glare from it, it's more penetrative and quite painful, well it is in new zealand.  Alot of people have mentioned the change.  I've noticed it as well.  Apparently we are right under the hole in the ozone layer.  The amount of glare we have, the quick and powerful burning one gets from not even being out for that long does not encourage one to start staring at the sun for prolonged periods of time and certainly not after reports of damage and blindness in those that have!

 

I'm not all for avoiding the sun either, as I know that too has had it's repurcussions.  But a bit of caution and moderation?  Probably wise!

63528[/snapback]

I might create a thread on some of the topic you raised.

 

Regarding some scientific evidence against the speed of light, from what i remember when i studied science a while back i was told that light can not travel through a vaccum (as sound cant). Therefore i have no idea why people believe starlight travels through space. Astronomers knew this for many years which is why they were searching for some kind of aether.

[Guest Teller]

Those are standard and have to be put up legally. From what i know about this, there are no actual health risks, i have a brother who is into alternitive medicine etc and he's been into sungazing for a while. You don't do it for long, the idea is that you only do it for a few minutes (or even seconds) each day. The idea is that it replaces food and drink and is a source of energy.

Hi

 

Yes -- it is only done for a short time because of the risk of damage to the eye by the sun's radiation. As I said.

 

The speed of light is a theory based on the theory of relativity, which attempts to connect space and time.

The speed of light was measured by Romer and Huygens hundreds of years before Einstein's theory of relativity. It was measured fairly accurately by Foucoult and Fizeau in 1862 using a clever machine.

 

It doesn't matter what the speed of light is in relativity theory: the whole point of relativity is that all observers will measure the speed of light to be the same, not that they'll measure some particular speed.

 

Its because the speed of light has been measured that we know for a fact that it has a finite speed.

[Guest Teller]

Regarding some scientific evidence against the speed of light, from what i remember when i studied science a while back i was told that light can not travel through a vaccum (as sound cant). Therefore i have no idea why people believe starlight travels through space. Astronomers knew this for many years which is why they were searching for  some kind of aether.

63533[/snapback]

Hi --- ???

 

Space is a vacuum. We can see the light from stars out in space. Therefore, light can travel through a vacuum.

[Guest tharock220]

Assumptions you make if you equate starlight to long periods of time:

 

1. That the Universe is old and that millions of years have already existed.

2. Intromission theory.

 

So what we have is a clear case again of the evolutionists circular reasoning, they start at assuming millions of years have existed despite the fact they never observed these periods and have no evidence they ever occurred.

63484[/snapback]

1. Starlight is evidence of the universe's age.

2. Huh?

 

It's obvious that the stars have existed for millions of years. The light needed that amount of time to get here.

[Cassiterides 1]

There is no evidence starlight is millions of years old.

[MamaElephant 20]

1.  Starlight is evidence of the universe's age. 

2.  Huh?

 

It's obvious that the stars have existed for millions of years.  The light needed that amount of time to get here.

63541[/snapback]

The problem with this theory is that time is relative. Time dilation is a substantiated occurrence and could very well be the reason that we see the starlight from millions of light years away when it was only created a few thousand years ago. Disclaimer: I am saying that it is possible. I am not dogmatic about the age of the universe.

 

I'm concerned over the sun gazing, especially these days!  Reports of damage and blindness form people staring at the sun too long has and does happen.

63528[/snapback]

Thanks Bex. Here is a quote form one of those sites regarding physical damage:

You can damage your eyes from sungazing, just as you can burn your feet from walking on fire.  I have participated in both practices, my feet and my vision are in perfect working order.

I am more concerned about spiritual damage:

Yes, you may tap into higher spiritual realms as well as other time and space dimensions. Yes, you can live without food.  Yes, you may allow other entities into your space and end up with metallic aliens dancing on your bed (true story).

I am very interested in alternative medicine. It has in fact saved my life. But we need to use caution because some of these practices are connected to false worship and demonism. Tapping into other realms and allowing entities in is not something that a Christian wishes to do. Christian Mystics used to practice this? Christian Mystic should not even be a phrase. For more biblical information please see the tracts about Halloween posted on this board.

[Guest Teller]

There is no evidence starlight is millions of years old.

63545[/snapback]

Hi

 

Of course you don't think there's evidence for this, because you are assuming (without evidence) that:

- Light speed is infinite

- Light is emitted by the eye (rather than received)

- Light cannot travel through a vacuum

 

The evidence for ancient starlight won't make any sense if you hold those assumptions. The problem isn't the evidence; its that your assumptions are wrong. Everyone knows this (including professional creationist astronomers) because:

- Light speed is measured to be finite

- Light is observed to be received by the eye, not emitted

- Light is observed to travel through a vacuum

 

You're certainly entitled to your own assumptions. But why go with assumptions when we have actual measurements and observations?

[Cassiterides 1]

Hi

 

Of course you don't think there's evidence for this, because you are assuming (without evidence) that:

- Light speed is infinite

- Light is emitted by the eye (rather than received)

- Light cannot travel through a vacuum

 

The evidence for ancient starlight won't make any sense if you hold those assumptions. The problem isn't the evidence; its that your assumptions are wrong. Everyone knows this (including professional creationist astronomers) because:

- Light speed is measured to be finite

- Light is observed to be received by the eye, not emitted

- Light is observed to travel through a vacuum

 

You're certainly entitled to your own assumptions. But why go with assumptions when we have actual measurements and observations?

63555[/snapback]

And you are assuming the intromission theory is true which you can not prove.

[MamaElephant 20]

The problem isn't the evidence; its that your assumptions are wrong. Everyone knows this (including professional creationist astronomers) because:

63555[/snapback]

What I would like to know is why you are focusing on only this one hypothesis when others have been presented?

[UB313 0]

I concur with MamaElephant.

 

I explicitly stated that I wanted to discuss creationist ideas about the starlight problem. If anyone is possesed of sufficient masochism to wish to discuss the absurd and whimsical beliefs of Casseritides then may I request that they do so elsewhere. (I would also draw the attention of the moderators to any further posts by Casseritides on this thread).

 

@MamaElephant

 

Unfortunately I am having some trouble viewing the Creation Answer Booklet PDF (I just get an error message and then my whole browser crashes - there's an issue with my software, which I'll try to resolve). But I have read the AIG link you posted, so I will now raise some points from that for discussion.

 

Here's the link again: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/n...starlight-prove

 

That creationist page offers four responses to the starlight problem. Here they are with my initial thoughts:

 

1) The speed of light may not be invariant.

 

The AIG page more or less rejects this as a reasonable argument for creationists to make. I would simply remind people that it would not be sufficient for a creationist to show that the speed of light has decreased - they would have to show that it had done so to the huge degree that would be required to reduce the age of the universe by a factor of 1,000,000. Such a decrease ought to have been observed in the measurements of c that have been made over the last 100 years or so. No such decrease has been observed.

 

2) Time dilation.

 

The second response seems to argue that the passage of time on Earth may be slower than in the rest of the universe. This is the most interesting response to me as it does seem plausible in terms of general relativity. I have two questions/comments:

 

i) The argument suggests that God has placed the Earth in a "special" position in the universe. So astrophysicists would be broadly correct about the overall age of the universe. But why would God carry out this suggested "stretching of time"? What purpose would it serve? And is the creationist argument that this "time stretching" would be empirically distinguishable from the current scientific consensus? If not then it is an argument from non-naturalism (see point 4). If so then:

 

ii) If the Earth really is at the centre of the universe (and thus at the bottom of a "gravity well") then that ought to be empirically detectable. This is good news as it means that the issue can be settled. But initially I would say that such a configuration would mean that you would expect the density of galaxies in the universe to get higher the closer you got to Earth (just as the density of material increases as you get closer to the Earth's core (a gravity well)). This is at odds with what is observed - the homogeneity of material in the universe (at larger scales).

 

In addition (contrary to what Casseritides has claimed) relativity is an exact empirical science. The maths is incredibly difficult, involving tensor analysis, but nevertheless, it should be possible to calculate how deep and steep the Earth's gravity well would need to be in order to dilate time enough that the distant universe was 1,000,000 times older than the Earth. It would have to be incredibly steep to allow a significant time dilation to take effect even when observing objects within our own galaxy, which is believed to be about 100,000 light years across. Where are the calculations?

 

3) Clock Synchronization

 

This seems similar to the time dilation question, but I found it harder to understand. I would need further explanation in order to discuss it.

 

4) Naturalism is an assumption.

 

I agree with this. I do not wish to argue against the possiblility of supernatural events. I would, however, suggest that by their nature supernatural events might be beyond the ability of science to detect. It would make creationism a lot less convincing to me if it simply picked the science that suited it, but when faced with incontrovertible scientific evidence against it, fell back on "naturalism is only an assumption". If so then the science that creationism accepted would be just as questionable as that which it did not. How would we know where the boundary between the natural and supernatural lay?

 

Ok - I wanted to avoid posting walls of text (sorry), which was why I invited creationists to briefly summarise their views. But as MamaElephant was the only one to offer something substantial I thought I'd start with that. I'd invite other evolutionists to take this as a starting point.