Jump to content


Photo

It's A Matter Of Time


  • Please log in to reply
334 replies to this topic

#41 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 08 April 2014 - 03:48 PM

 

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

 

You said it. Good grief where did this fellow get those ideas if not from die-hard, atheist, Christ rejecting elements of Neo-Darwinian thought?

 

"...if creation science wants to be accepted as science," Accepted? We don't care about being 'accepted' by that branch of the scientific community we disagree with on the most fundamental points: the origin and cause of the universe, creation of life on earth, and the development of man, all of which the Bible is clear about and we don't need to change what the Lord clearly told us in no uncertain terms in order to be 'acceptable' to whom we believe are wrong to begin with.



#42 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 - 04:15 PM

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

LP, I believe Pi wants us to pretend that his worldview is perfectly coherent.

So, for this thought experiment Pi is not a Darwinist or a believer in the Big Bang or even a godless materialist... all we know is that Pi embodies all rational concepts. ;)

#43 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

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

Posted 08 April 2014 - 04:59 PM

Accepted? We don't care about being 'accepted' by that branch of the scientific community we disagree with on the most fundamental points: the origin and cause of the universe, creation of life on earth, and the development of man, all of which the Bible is clear about and we don't need to change what the Lord clearly told us in no uncertain terms in order to be 'acceptable' to whom we believe are wrong to begin with.

 

Yes, but there's a subtle admission there as well.  Theistic naturalists DO want to be accepted by Darwinists. 



#44 greg

greg

    Member

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

Posted 08 April 2014 - 05:45 PM

LP, I believe Pi wants us to pretend that his worldview is perfectly coherent.
So, for this thought experiment Pi is not a Darwinist or a believer in the Big Bang or even a godless materialist... all we know is that Pi embodies all rational concepts. ;)


Dude.

#45 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 - 06:01 PM

Dude.

Is that a good "dude" or a bad "dude"? :)

#46 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 08 April 2014 - 10:21 PM

 

Yes, but there's a subtle admission there as well.  Theistic naturalists DO want to be accepted by Darwinists. 

 

Quite.



#47 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 09 April 2014 - 05:30 AM

Yes, but there's a subtle admission there as well.  Theistic naturalists DO want to be accepted by Darwinists. 

This is an interesting point. I'm sure the theistic evolutionist would claim they're following the evidence wherever it leads. I know how many times I've heard the appeals to popularity to justify theistic evolution however. The protest is something like "How do you expect your witness to be effective taking such a polarized view as biblical creationism?"

The undercurrent being that we need to appeal to what others already believe. Truthfully I'm not opposed to the notion of seeking common ground. However, I'm also not going to abandon what I've come to as true via a hard fought investigation for some artificial notion of being appealing to more people.

#48 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

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

Posted 09 April 2014 - 11:15 AM

This is an interesting point. I'm sure the theistic evolutionist would claim they're following the evidence wherever it leads. I know how many times I've heard the appeals to popularity to justify theistic evolution however. The protest is something like "How do you expect your witness to be effective taking such a polarized view as biblical creationism?"

The undercurrent being that we need to appeal to what others already believe. Truthfully I'm not opposed to the notion of seeking common ground. However, I'm also not going to abandon what I've come to as true via a hard fought investigation for some artificial notion of being appealing to more people.

 

Indeed and I would argue that this method is actually not an effective apologetic.  Atheists love when TEs lock arms with them and affirm their world view, but they see these alternative interpretations as just that—alternatives to what the text really says.  

 

Even more problematic is the rate at which youth in the church are leaving the church.  They see how badly damaged the foundation is and are looking elsewhere.  If their own church leaders are telling them that can't trust some of it, why trust any of it?  They've intellectually outgrown their church community.  They love us and tolerate us, but just can't match our blind faith and arbitrary interpretations.  



#49 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 12 April 2014 - 09:51 PM

They see how badly damaged the foundation is and are looking elsewhere.  If their own church leaders are telling them that can't trust some of it, why trust any of it?  They've intellectually outgrown their church community.  They love us and tolerate us, but just can't match our blind faith and arbitrary interpretations.

I pray that some of them are looking into this matter for themselves...

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/

...to discover that the people that have boldly claimed our foundation is shattered are also those same people that exercise extraordinary levels of blind faith, pretending to understand a great deal but have mostly little more than speculation to rely on.

#50 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 13 April 2014 - 12:07 PM

For some perspective: Our nearest interstellar neighbor, Alpha Centauri A, is about 275,000 Astronomical Units away from us. Our "deep space" probe Voyager 1 is 127AU away from us now. It is .005% of the way to our nearest neighboring star and it only took 37 years to get that far. Ignore the fact that it's on limited life support and slowing down as it goes... Our most successful long distance journey to reach the heavens could make it to our nearest neighbor in 740,000 years! We're so smart and technological. :P

#51 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 13 April 2014 - 04:24 PM

So I've been engaging in a few threads today and I want to tie the discussion going on here...

http://evolutionfair...e=3#entry105392

...to this light/time dilemma. It's part of my ongoing demonstration to value candor and vulnerability above posturing and rhetoric. I'll explain...

In this thread, I believe I've been demonstrating what popoi should be doing in the Beneficial Mutation thread. I admit that the empirical evidence doesn't work well in this one case with what I believe. However, I'll still gladly explain why my faith leads me to accept a state of knowledge (while the light/time dilemma is convincing on a certain level) that there must be something we don't understand that leads us to this conclusion.

If you watch popoi tap-dancing in the other thread, I pray people understand the value that true science starts with humility not a bogus assumption of godlessness.

#52 Dig4gold

Dig4gold

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Raleigh, NC

Posted 13 April 2014 - 05:40 PM

Maybe they should change the name from Voyager to Hitchhiker. ; )

#53 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 13 April 2014 - 06:29 PM

Maybe they should change the name from Voyager to Hitchhiker. ; )

Haha!

By today's standards, the hardware on Voyager 1 is pretty low-tech but I would argue the most stringent science was produced by the engineers knocking the probe together and figuring out its trajectory. The people like Sagan who were spreading their personal philosophy were light years behind (pun intended) those guys working to make sure the probe would be space worthy.

#54 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 April 2014 - 06:55 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?

 

Technically speaking it probably should affect light since light contains mass (a very small amount) and thus there is something tangible for the gravity to "pull" on. We already know that blackholes suck up light, (hence they are named "black" as there is no light ), and they do so via gravity, so gravity should be able to affect the speed of light. Additionally since in black holes time and space are affected, again due to the extreme gravity they have, then this may also have some implications for time as well.



#55 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 14 April 2014 - 07:55 PM

 

Technically speaking it probably should affect light since light contains mass (a very small amount) and thus there is something tangible for the gravity to "pull" on. We already know that blackholes suck up light, (hence they are named "black" as there is no light ), and they do so via gravity, so gravity should be able to affect the speed of light. Additionally since in black holes time and space are affected, again due to the extreme gravity they have, then this may also have some implications for time as well.

 

Humphreys' models (the subject of this thread) are in fact based on the relationship between gravity and light. In his older model, he started with a "white hole", where the waters spoken of in Genesis 1:2 are in a concentrated mass that produces an outer event horizon where achronicity (timelessness) exists. In that model, as the "waters above" are spread out to create the universe by the "expansion" (hebrew-raqia') of outer space inside those waters, that event horizon shrinks and eventually disappears. So, as the event horizon passes the earth, the earth would experience timelessness while the universe outside the event horizon would experience the normal passage of time. One of the reservations I had regarding his older model was the timing of the achronicity of the earth. At least, as I understand it, in order for the earth to experience an indefinite amount of achronicity while the rest of the universe (and the light coming from it) experiences "normal" time, the event horizon would have to "hover" on the earth, which in turn would mean the universe had stopped expanding for that time. In other words, there would still be a direct association between the time experienced by the rest of the universe and the earth, just at different rates, the only exception being exactly at the event horizon.

 

In Humphreys' new model, anything inside the event horizon would experience achronicity, which, in turn, would disassociate the passage of time for any object outside the gravity well from any object inside the well, until that object passed outside of the well. In other words, any amount of time could pass outside of the gravity well independent of objects inside the well, until the well collapsed. I hope I explained that accurately enough. I'm interested to see what Pi's "guru" has to say about the math.



#56 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 15 April 2014 - 06:16 AM

Humphreys' models (the subject of this thread) are in fact based on the relationship between gravity and light.

Was I derailing this thread? Sorry. :(

Wouldn't you agree that these models all get stuck in the realm of speculation? I guess there could be some observations that could bolster the argument.

Has Humphrey's, or anyone else, used the anomalous observations of space to postulate the possibilty that our perception of distant phenomena are distorted by stretched/condensed time flow? Maybe the universe isn't accelerating, our time perspective just makes it look that way.

...or am I way out in left field?

#57 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 15 April 2014 - 11:02 PM

Was I derailing this thread? Sorry. sad.png


No problem. I think Pi and I are both waiting to see what his "guru" has to say, although I've been too busy with other stuff as well to get into this too deeply yet.
 

Wouldn't you agree that these models all get stuck in the realm of speculation? I guess there could be some observations that could bolster the argument.


Any model about the past is stuck in speculation. Even conceding Pi's point that as look farther out you are looking farther back in time doesn't tell you how those objects came to be in the state that you observe. It just shifts the question farther back into the indefinable past. wink.png The thing I like about Humphreys' model is it begins with a Scriptural view of the start of the universe.
 

Has Humphrey's, or anyone else, used the anomalous observations of space to postulate the possibilty that our perception of distant phenomena are distorted by stretched/condensed time flow? Maybe the universe isn't accelerating, our time perspective just makes it look that way.

...or am I way out in left field?


I'm not sure what you mean by "anomalous observations". Are you talking about the example Calypsis gave of the fact that we still see spiral galaxies as far out as we can see? Actually, I think Cal got his argument backwards in that the farther out we look, the farther back in time we are presumably seeing, until we eventually reach time 0. Galaxies farther out should appear younger (not yet wound up into spirals) in BB cosmology.

 

Interestingly enough, similarly "aged" galaxies as you go farther out would be consistent with a progressive creation of those galaxies converging on the earth as the universe expanded, and culminating on Day 4 as the light from those galaxies and stars reached the earth while the earth passed outside of the gravitational well.



#58 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 16 April 2014 - 06:57 AM

Hi Bony,

 

Quote: "I'm not sure what you mean by "anomalous observations". Are you talking about the example Calypsis gave of the fact that we still see spiral galaxies as far out as we can see? Actually, I think Cal got his argument backwards in that the farther out we look, the farther back in time we are presumably seeing, until we eventually reach time 0. Galaxies farther out should appear younger (not yet wound up into spirals) in BB cosmology."

 

Actually, what you said is exactly my position so unless I just worded myself wrong then you've stated in correct terms just where I stand on the issue. The point being that if stellar evolution theory is correct then why are there 'mature' galaxies from the closest (Andromeda 4.5 million light yrs out) all the way to BX442 (approx. 10.7 billion light years out). So then where are all the 'children' galaxies? Where are all the 'elderly' galaxies? It makes no sense...unless they were created as the scriptures tell us: all at once.



#59 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 16 April 2014 - 07:33 AM

Hi Bony,

 

Quote: "I'm not sure what you mean by "anomalous observations". Are you talking about the example Calypsis gave of the fact that we still see spiral galaxies as far out as we can see? Actually, I think Cal got his argument backwards in that the farther out we look, the farther back in time we are presumably seeing, until we eventually reach time 0. Galaxies farther out should appear younger (not yet wound up into spirals) in BB cosmology."

 

Actually, what you said is exactly my position so unless I just worded myself wrong then you've stated in correct terms just where I stand on the issue. The point being that if stellar evolution theory is correct then why are there 'mature' galaxies from the closest (Andromeda 4.5 million light yrs out) all the way to BX442 (approx. 10.7 billion light years out). So then where are all the 'children' galaxies? Where are all the 'elderly' galaxies? It makes no sense...unless they were created as the scriptures tell us: all at once.

 

Then I did misunderstand your argument. Sorry Cal biggrin.png



#60 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 16 April 2014 - 10:25 AM

 

Then I did misunderstand your argument. Sorry Cal biggrin.png

 

Hey, no problem, Bony.smile.png






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users