Jump to content


Photo

It's A Matter Of Time


  • Please log in to reply
334 replies to this topic

#21 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 05 April 2014 - 10:20 AM

I apologize if anyone feels this is off-topic.  I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to astronomy and physics.  But whenever I see someone arguing against YEC via cosmology, I am always reminded that the school of thought they are typically coming from is the convention of Big Bang cosmology.  This is a theory that has to invent fantasy objects to even begin to maintain itself, to the point where even secular physicists and other scientists question whether or not the Big Bang can even qualify as being a scientific theory.

OK.... we can eliminate the Big Bang.  For purposes of this discussion, we can take the position that the BB is completely, totally, absolutely, 100% false.

 

Now, how can we directly observe objects millions, even billions of light years distant in a 6,000 year old universe?

 

 

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community (Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.  But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors....

 

(list of signees at link)  http://cosmologystatement.org/

 

Actually, more recent analysis of data indicates "inflation" may have been confirmed.  On March 17, this was published:

"The detection of gravitational waves by the BICEP2 experiment at the South Pole supports the cosmic inflation theory of how the universe came to be."

Source:  http://news.stanford...ion-031714.html

 

"Dark energy" was proposed as a temporary explanation for the accelerating expansion of the universe discovered a few years ago.  Basically, we know the expansion of the universe is speeding up.  That requires some source of energy.  The source of energy is unknown.  Hence the term "dark energy."  In other words, we know it's there because we can observe it's effects, but we don't know what it is.

 

 

 

The reason I bring this is up is because I am always so struck by the hubris with which proponents of conventional cosmology launch attacks against the YEC model, usually based on a single problem.  Conventional cosmologists are arguing from a foundation sinking in sand.   If they were to apply the same critical standards to their own cosmological model that they direct towards YEC, they would all but obliterate their entire framework for understanding the universe.   That's all I wanted to say. 

Like I said... toss the BB out.  It does nothing to change our ability to see objects millions of times farther than we should be able to in a 6,000 year old universe.  What remains is whatever happened to create the universe.... "Big Bang;"  God saying: "Let there be light."; or some other event.... it took place around 13.8 billion years ago.



#22 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 05 April 2014 - 10:39 AM

I really do wish there was more information on the cosmologystatement.org site. I would like to read some of the specific grievances. I'd also like to see what's updated from 2004. If there are more signers, or less based on current research. I'd also be curious how they would interpret the new findings of the gravitational waves that just came out.

#23 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 05 April 2014 - 01:05 PM

OK.... we can eliminate the Big Bang.  For purposes of this discussion, we can take the position that the BB is completely, totally, absolutely, 100% false.

 

Now, how can we directly observe objects millions, even billions of light years distant in a 6,000 year old universe?

 

Actually, more recent analysis of data indicates "inflation" may have been confirmed.  On March 17, this was published:

"The detection of gravitational waves by the BICEP2 experiment at the South Pole supports the cosmic inflation theory of how the universe came to be."

Source:  http://news.stanford...ion-031714.html

 

"Dark energy" was proposed as a temporary explanation for the accelerating expansion of the universe discovered a few years ago.  Basically, we know the expansion of the universe is speeding up.  That requires some source of energy.  The source of energy is unknown.  Hence the term "dark energy."  In other words, we know it's there because we can observe it's effects, but we don't know what it is.

 

Like I said... toss the BB out.  It does nothing to change our ability to see objects millions of times farther than we should be able to in a 6,000 year old universe.  What remains is whatever happened to create the universe.... "Big Bang;"  God saying: "Let there be light."; or some other event.... it took place around 13.8 billion years ago.

 

Then what's the problem with a YEC proposing a physical entity or past process that allows us to see distant starlight in a young universe?  We might not know what that entity is, but we can "see it's effects".  Big Bang cosmologists (and old-universe believers) have been using this type of rationale for decades, invoking invisible entities to explain gaps in data.  (take the Oort Cloud for example)

 

Heck, that rationale practically defines conventional materialism.  How was the Earth formed?  Well we can't say for sure, but we can "see the effect" of the Earth being here so here's this Nebular Hypothesis... yea it has tons of problems, but it's the best explanation so far, and we *know* the planets were formed by unguided natural processes somehow, so don't worry, 'science' is working on it...

 

You really don't see any kind of double standard at work in your argument that the distant starlight problem should serve as some kind of 'instant falsification' of a young universe?  I have no problem with people using this against YEC, nor do I have a problem admitting weakness in the YEC model, but in my opinion the whole "case closed" attitude just comes off as a bit silly all things considered. 

 

If that isn't your position, then I apologize, but it seems to be the stance you've taken in the past. 



#24 greg

greg

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • America

Posted 05 April 2014 - 01:28 PM

but in my opinion the whole "case closed" attitude just comes off as a bit silly all things considered. 

In my experience, I've come across more YEC "case closed" attitude than OEC, or even my experience with atheists. Just noting my observation. I have a feeling that others have experienced something different.

#25 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 April 2014 - 04:40 PM

Heck, that rationale practically defines conventional materialism.  How was the Earth formed?  Well we can't say for sure, but we can "see the effect" of the Earth being here so here's this Nebular Hypothesis... yea it has tons of problems, but it's the best explanation so far, and we *know* the planets were formed by unguided natural processes somehow, so don't worry, 'science' is working on it...


LP, you hit the nail on the head.

When asked how and what we're looking at when we observe objects multiple trillions of miles away and I say "I don't know" suddenly it's my worldview that's supposed to be in crisis. ;)

But the moment I abandon my worldview, I'll find myself amongst a bunch of either; cognizantly confused intellectuals that don't have a clue or the worse variety, those that revel in the clueless explanations of science-fiction pretending its science. YECs seem to attract the second type like a lightening rod. :D

You really don't see any kind of double standard at work in your argument that the distant starlight problem should serve as some kind of 'instant falsification' of a young universe?  I have no problem with people using this against YEC, nor do I have a problem admitting weakness in the YEC model, but in my opinion the whole "case closed" attitude just comes off as a bit silly all things considered.  

LP, there's this tree, that if you eat from it, you'll be like God.

#26 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 05 April 2014 - 08:15 PM

"...nor do I have a problem admitting weakness in the YEC model."

 

I used to struggle with that one. But after studying the various anomalies in our universe (i.e. the 'mature' galaxies from Andromeda to BX442 which is 9.6 to 10.7 billion light yrs out) as well as the biblical teaching that God stretched out His created universe, it really doesn't seem to be a problem after all. Things were simply not the same in the time of Adam and Eve as they are now. What they saw in the night sky was much different than what we now see;

 

starryskyinAdamstimeperhaps.jpg



#27 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 07 April 2014 - 07:26 AM

 

 Things were simply not the same in the time of Adam and Eve as they are now. What they saw in the night sky was much different than what we now see;

 

 

Can you point to some sources from which you make this conclusion?



#28 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 07 April 2014 - 08:25 AM

I guess I can live with one head-scratcher regarding the images of distant stars and perceived light speed and continue to trust God's Word.

 

LOL.  This I think captures the real issue at hand. God has provided us so much evidence and verification, but there's always going to be something we can't quite connect the dots on yet.  You'd think though, that God has built up enough of a reputation that He can be trusted by his people.  Starlight and time is a puzzle, but even in that last century, we've learned some pretty amazing things about the relativity of time.  Couple that with God's supernatural intervention in the creation process—the stretching out of the heavens mentioned more than a dozen times in scripture, and even this shouldn't be too difficult of a subject to trust God on.  

 

The real concern I have for the church, is their practice using science to judge the Bible.  In extreme cases this results on a denial of essential doctrines like the Resurrection.  

 

A quick story:  CMI (creation ministries international) shared about an experience they had with a man who became convinced the Bible was true based on recent discoveries about snakes having a sense of hearing.  Of course they don't have ears, and scientists previously believed they were deaf, so when the Bible implied they could hear, he rejected the Bible as unreliable.  That was until he'd found out that science had recently confirmed snakes could indeed hear. Based on that, he became a believer. The problem is, what then happens if science changes its mind again on this issue?  Does he then go back to rejecting the Bible?  At what point does God build up enough reputation with us that we trust him first, even before science catches up?  At what point does scripture become a testimony we can trust, even over the scientists of our day?


  • Fred Williams likes this

#29 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 April 2014 - 10:16 AM

 At what point does scripture become a testimony we can trust, even over the scientists of our day?

Thanks for the great post!

It is a very potent form of ridicule that is directed at those of us that have crossed the threshold of true trust and see the inconsistencies in evidence or arguments, as our problem, not God's.

It's not like His Word discourages us from being emperical or questioning apparent inconsistencies. In fact, I would say this is a major division line between cultish behavior and true Biblical Christianity; the ability to be candid with information on its own merit.

To your point about the person that hinged his faith on a trivial perceived inconsistency, did he learn his lesson? We can pray he did.

My faith was formed and solidified on questioning things. I don't believe God ever asks us to turn that off. The awesome part is that we can have a very strong unweivering faith without ever turning our candor off. God is big enough to handle our questions.

The prayer I have for wishy-washy Christians is they take to heart this dilemma warned about in scripture...

"...always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (II Timothy 3:7 NKJV)"

Truth starts with Christ and the anchor to our lives is in His Word. Do you really trust Him? If not, you will spend a lifetime with your feet planted in the air running hard and going nowhere.

#30 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 April 2014 - 08:34 PM



Can you point to some sources from which you make this conclusion?

 

Plenty, but here's one for starters:

 

 

Because they have maintained their shape, either galaxies are young, OR unknown physical phenomena are occurring within galaxies (d). Even structures composed of galaxies are now known to be so amazingly large, and yet relatively thin, they could not have formed by slow gravitational attraction (e). Slow, natural processes cannot form such huge galactic structures; rapid, supernatural processes may have.

(From Pahu on ForumGarden.com)

 

But that's just one problem. Here's another:

 

 

The Origins of Spiral Arms

May 28, 1998 (figures added Jan 17, 2001, by popular request)

Charles Danforth

 

The origins and very natures of spiral arms has been a slippery problem. The initial and obvious theory is that the stars are simply arranged in a spiral pattern. Among the original pioneers of the field was Bertil Lindblad who worked on spiral structure steadily from 1927 through 1965 (Binney and Tremaine 94, hereafter BT94). Lindblad realized that the naive idea of stars arranged permanently in spirals was untenable due to the winding problem. Since galactic disks rotate differentially over most of their surface (as evidenced by the characteristic flat rotation curves observed spectroscopically), a radial line object (a spoke) will quickly become curved as the galaxy rotates. However, as the inner particles revolve faster than those at the edge, the spoke will quickly become wrapped around the galaxy in an increasingly tight spiral. Clearly this winding problem calls for more sophisticated solutions to the structure of spiral arms. Any material spiral arms would last a few galactic years (complete revolutions of the galaxy at some radius) at most. http://casa.colorado...science/spiral/

 

Spiral galaxies should last only a few million years to make a complete turn on its axis. Then why do we see spiral galaxies to near the edge of Hubbell's range of visibility at the edge of the universe where all galaxies should be totally unrecognizable as spirals because they are supposed to be the oldest?

 

183B3360.jpg

 

All of the above depicted galaxies appear mature even though the nearest and the most distant are approx. 104 million light yrs away from each other. The ones furtherest away should have dissipated as spirals long ago. Something is very wrong with the stellar evolution time frame.



#31 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 08 April 2014 - 12:07 AM

Then what's the problem with a YEC proposing a physical entity or past process that allows us to see distant starlight in a young universe?  We might not know what that entity is, but we can "see it's effects". 

Well, there's the "appearance of age" model.  That one runs into what are (to me) serious theological problems.  When we see objects like Sn1987a, the light carries the signature of a series of very specific events.  In "appearance of age" those events would never have taken place.  For example, the star Sanduleak 69-202 never existed and the supernova explosion that resulted in its redesignation as Sn1987a never took place.  In other words, more than 99.99999999% of the observable universe isn't what it seems.

 

Then we have the "stretching the heavens" claim.  We do, in fact, see the heavens stretching.  However, stretching the heavens would also stretch the light in them.  This would result in absolutely HUGE red-shifts.... even of (astronomically) nearby objects.  Not only that, but if the heavens stretched faster than the speed of light, we'd never see those really distant objects.

 

Could you clarify exactly what effects we see that would explain our ability to see  beyond 6,000 ly?

 

 

Big Bang cosmologists (and old-universe believers) have been using this type of rationale for decades, invoking invisible entities to explain gaps in data.  (take the Oort Cloud for example)

But recall, I've conceded fo purposes of this discussion that the BB is totally false.  My claim here is merely that the creative event took place 13.8 billion years ago, not a few thousand.

 

 

Heck, that rationale practically defines conventional materialism.  How was the Earth formed?  Well we can't say for sure, but we can "see the effect" of the Earth being here so here's this Nebular Hypothesis... yea it has tons of problems, but it's the best explanation so far, and we *know* the planets were formed by unguided natural processes somehow, so don't worry, 'science' is working on it...

Yes, and improved instrumentation has allowed us to see some of the hypothesized objects.  I'm old enough to recall when creationists were claiming the solar system was unique because the Sun is the only star with planets.  Then, as improvements in technology were made, we began to discover a few really big planets orbiting close to their stars and the creationist argument became....  "well, the only planets we've found couldn't support life."  New we have hundreds of extra-solar planets with thousands of planet candidates.  We find planetary systems with multiple planets some of which are in the "Goldilocks zone" within 12 ly of Earth.  In other words, it turns out solar systems are quite common ..... as the Nebular model predicted and YEC denied.

 

So tell me.... are you aware of any creation science research into the process by which the planets formed?

 

 

You really don't see any kind of double standard at work in your argument that the distant starlight problem should serve as some kind of 'instant falsification' of a young universe?  I have no problem with people using this against YEC, nor do I have a problem admitting weakness in the YEC model, but in my opinion the whole "case closed" attitude just comes off as a bit silly all things considered. 

In other posts, I've listed multiple reasons I reject Genesis literalism.  This is just the one that is most glaring and easiest for most to understand.  The case isn't "closed" either.... but if you want to claim creationism is scientific, you're going to have to do a lot better than that.

 

 

If that isn't your position, then I apologize, but it seems to be the stance you've taken in the past. 

Here's my stance.... if creation science wants to be accepted as science, it will need to answer the simple questions before it takes on the hard ones.  If they can't handle the questions of freshman physics, why should I trust them on cosmology?



#32 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 April 2014 - 04:19 AM

If they can't handle the questions of freshman physics, why should I trust them on cosmology?

In your estimation, which model does this? As of late, Piasan, you've become increasingly slippery, by not claiming to defend any positive position. You did mention the nebulous nebular hypothesis. Does that pass freshman physics?

You say that all this evidence points to a 13.8 billion year old universe. What you're failing to grapple with is that your own colleagues (because they've swallowed the Big Bang) recognize and distort their own calculations to "allow for" a grossly inflated faster-than-light expansion to the universe. Don't worry I won't put that on you since you're current modus operendi is non-committal to everything... and while your feet are planted in the air... criticize.

#33 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 08 April 2014 - 06:13 AM

In your estimation, which model does this?

Right off the top of my head.... Setterfield's "C-decay,"  Humphreys' (original) "White Hole Cosmology," and Lisle's "Anisotropic Synchrony."

 

 

As of late, Piasan, you've become increasingly slippery, by not claiming to defend any positive position.

Here's the positive position I'm claiming here.... the universe is billions of years old, not thousands.  The Big Bang can be absolutely, totally false and that will do nothing to change my claim regarding the age of the universe.

 

 

 You did mention the nebulous nebular hypothesis. Does that pass freshman physics?

Actually, I didn't bring the nebular hypothesis up, lifepsyop did.  I merely responded by pointing out that the nebular hypothesis has been supported by more recent findings of extrasolar planets which YEC denied exist.  And yes, it does pass freshman physics.

 

 

You say that all this evidence points to a 13.8 billion year old universe.

No.  I say our ability to directly observe objects billions of light years from Earth points to a universe billions of years old.  As far as I know, the most distant observed object is 13.1 billion light years.  The 13.8 billion year age comes from calculations based on data from the WMAP instrument.

 

 

What you're failing to grapple with is that your own colleagues (because they've swallowed the Big Bang) recognize and distort their own calculations to "allow for" a grossly inflated faster-than-light expansion to the universe.

Two points.... you're back to the Big Bang which I've pointed out can be false without impacting ANY of the evidence leading to the conclusion the universe is billions of years old.  Also, more recent data seems to confirm the inflation model.  (Note: That analysis still needs to be confirmed.)

 

 

 Don't worry I won't put that on you since you're current modus operendi is non-committal to everything... and while your feet are planted in the air... criticize.

I've been committed to my opening statements since the beginning of this discussion.  The creationists have been trying to drag this in other directions with attacks on the BB, spiral galaxies, and nebular hypothesis....  all of which can be totally false without changing ANY of the data leading to the conclusion of an ancient universe.

 

It isn't either the BB or YEC.  That's why I keep pointing out that the creative event, regardless of what it may have been, took place about 13.8 billion years ago.... not 6,000.



#34 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 April 2014 - 06:50 AM

... findings of extrasolar planets which YEC denied exist..

Why would they do that? Is this a common argument? I've never heard this or think of a reason to assume such. Can you site any prominent creationists claiming this?

And yes, it does pass freshman physics.

Show me a sphere of gas condensing under its own mass/gravity to form a solid body.

Remember as that gas cloud condenses, it will get hotter. As it gets hotter, there are forces at play, Mr. Freshman Physicist, that are much stronger than the weak force of gravity. Of course, you may wish to skip all the physics and just assume ;) large solid bodies are already present.

You can have all the time you want, you will ultimately have to fudge the numbers on your side at some point to pretend it works.

Since there are stars and planets, even if the physics can't demonstrate it, something like the nebular hypothesis MUST be true. We're here, right? ;)

And your problems suddenly make me realize that a young earth with a puzzle of light/time isn't that big of a deal.

All your replacements have holes that I can drive a Mac Truck through them.

Just repeat "only naturalism, only naturalism, only naturalism, only naturalism..."

#35 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 April 2014 - 09:59 AM

If the universe is only 6,000 years (or so) years old, how is it possible we can observe objects billions of light years from Earth?

There are lots of possibilities. Bonedigger named several and not one involved a deceptive creator.

The creationists have been trying to drag this in other directions with attacks on the BB, spiral galaxies, and nebular hypothesis....  all of which can be totally false without changing ANY of the data leading to the conclusion of an ancient universe.

You do understand why right?

It's not the correlation that's relevant, it's the speculations that are bandied about for the myriad of things that PHDs run into as huge problems (forget the freshman physicists) when it comes to formulating answers for their supposed godless universe.

So you and these PHD physicists pretend that baseless speculations are ok for any number of problems that plague the godless storytellers but for us and the light/time dilemma? Stop the presses! Observational catastrophe!

We're just exposing your double-standard, friend.

I already aknowledge the difficulty in the light/time dilemma. If there was ever YEC Kryptonite. This is it... but here is my stance... all the other evidence tells me that there is something we don't understand yet that leads us to this dilemma.

I guess at one point in time observation was obvious that the sky moved instead of the Earth. Heck it still looks that way.

There will be an awesome revelation the day God shares with us the nuts&bolts of how it worked if we don't figure it out on our own first.

Is that ok or do I have to abandon my YEC beliefs and adopt all the inconsistencies that old earthers speculate over trying to prop up their godless assumptions?

#36 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 April 2014 - 10:07 AM

Pi, do you believe in the Oort Cloud? If so, why?

#37 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 08 April 2014 - 12:14 PM

Well, there's the "appearance of age" model.  That one runs into what are (to me) serious theological problems.  When we see objects like Sn1987a, the light carries the signature of a series of very specific events.  In "appearance of age" those events would never have taken place.  

 

Wait back up here, because it seems there is a conflation of terms.  The 'age of appearance' issue, has nothing specifically to do with the 'light-in-transit' model which you're refuting above.  Just to be clear, age of appearance, is not a model.  Anytime you have a proposed creative act of God, where men don't believe it, you can have confusion about something's age.  But this is never the intent of God.  If a man has a false view of something's age, it's likely because he has false suppositions about how it was formed.  This can happen if the information is withheld from him, or he refuses to believe it when it is revealed to him.  

 

But God never creates with the purpose of making something appear older than it is.  This is solely a problem man makes for himself due to his unbelief.  And it has nothing to do with LIT theory, which I haven't heard a creationist propose in several decades.  But it should never be preposed as the age-of-appearance theory.  That's a complete distortion (although clever, I'll give you that). 



#38 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 08 April 2014 - 01:07 PM

I have what may be, an elementary question, but why is it so hard to believe that time and gravity cannot change the speed at which light travels? We can see its effects even in our own orbit. Astronauts have reported that time moves more quickly in space. In fact the further one gets from a source of gravity, the faster times moves. Would this not be the same of light? That it's bent or refracted by gravity thereby affecting it's speed or even it's direction? If this is the case, then the speed of light on earth isn't even a constant, which would invalidate our measurements of it outside our planet's gravity, would it not?

#39 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 April 2014 - 02:52 PM

I have what may be, an elementary question, but why is it so hard to believe that time and gravity cannot change the speed at which light travels?

Pi will argue that the discernible difference isn't significant enough. He might be right but the argument can be made for plausibility if we accept the high likelihood that our perception is what it is because we're in the deep end of the pool by design. We have to own that our end is pretty speculative.

#40 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 08 April 2014 - 03:21 PM

Here's my stance.... if creation science wants to be accepted as science, it will need to answer the simple questions before it takes on the hard ones.  If they can't handle the questions of freshman physics, why should I trust them on cosmology?

 

I'm really sorry but this is a laughable rebuke coming from a neo-Darwinist. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users