Sorry Guys, Proof That The Earth Is Old...

[Skeptic21 0]

First postulate; The distance from earth to the stars we can see is much greater then the distance that light can travel in 6000 years.

 

Second postulate: If the speed of light is constant, then the world cannot be as young as it says in the bible.

 

First refutation: God must have put the light from those stars already in place.

Conclusion: Invalid reasoning by the laws of the bible; God states that he cannot deceive. To put light in place is deceptive.

 

Second refutation: The speed of light must be slowing down exponentially over time.

Conclusion: Invalid for following reasons:

We need to look at two equations:

-Einstein’s E=MC^2

-The inverse square law of Newton

 

First of all Einstein’s equation reads

Energy is equal to the speed of light squared.

Energy is in joules

Mass is in kilograms

 

The speed of light is in meters per second and must be a CONSTANT

(note: if you don’t believe the above, go to a professor of physics at a regular university)

 

Einstein’s proven theory of relativity says that time is relative and light is constant.

The relationship between mass and energy is also proven: One gram releases 90 quadrillion joules.

1=1 x (3x10^8)^2

=9x10^16 which is 90 quadrillion joules.

 

If C is not constant, then the actual ENERGY CONTENT OF MATTER MUST CHANGE EVERY DAY!

 

However, this runs into a snag from the inverse square law: which states that the relative strength of gravity is M x m/d^2 or

“The gravitational attraction between two objects is equal to the mass of the first object times the mass of the second object divided by the distance between themâ€ÂÂ

So if the mass of two objects increase each by a factor of 2, the gravitational strength between them increases by 4 if 3 than 9 etc. Same with distance (if the space between both is divided by half, the attraction is decreased by 4, 3 by 9, 4 by 16 etc.)

If the speed of light was 10 times faster at one point, then the relative mass must have been 100 times as great.

If the mass of both is increased by 100 times, then the gravitational pull is increased by TEN THOUSAND TIMES.

So if the speed of light was ten times the speed it is now, then the gravitational pull must have been 10,000 times greater.

To give a comparison, a human would be crushed on Jupiter, which would exert a pull of just around 40 times. Life would have been crushed.

Oh, and if it was infinite at the beginning, everything would have been a black hole!

Thus, the earth is almost certainly NOT young.

It means that either

A. The bible is completely untrue

OR

B. The bible was speaking in metaphor by creation.

If this was to be falsified:

 

-You would need to find proof that God completely revamped the laws of physics in the past 4000 years;

There is no mention in the bible of this happening.

 

-You would have to prove that the relationship between matter and energy was completely wrong.

 

-You would have to observe light moving slower in the next 50 years

For instance, some atom smashers have accelerated atoms to 99.749% of the speed of light, so their mass was increased by a factor of about 40,000.

If the speed of light was slowing, then new atom smashers would not be able to make particles go faster, but they do! If light slowed, scientists would find that this speed would not be achievable now.

Thank you for your time.

[Al650 0]

Since you are interpreting the actions of God as written in the Bible. "Let there be light." Since God can create, light can be created as desired.

 

The first man, Adam, possessed an intellect and was not a baby, i.e. born. He was created by God. The environment God placed him in was fully formed for him.

 

 

 

 

God bless,

Al

[Guest 92g]

First postulate; The distance from earth to the stars we can see is much greater then the distance that light can travel in 6000 years.

Creationists are working on theories to explain this from a scientific point of view. Dr. Russle Humphrey's book "Starlight and Time" outlines the basis for a "White Hole" cosmology that allows for the universe to appear old, while being very young.

 

Second postulate: If the speed of light is constant, then the world cannot be as young as it says in the bible.

There is scientific evidence that the speed of light may not be constant. Barry Setterfield has made proposals using measured ata, that demonstrates its been decaying since the creation of the universe.

 

First refutation: God must have put the light from those stars already in place.

Conclusion: Invalid reasoning by the laws of the bible; God states that he cannot deceive. To put light in place is deceptive.

The is as about as silly as it gets. As an unbeliever, you are not in a position to say what the God that created you is allowed to do and what he is not allowed to do. It may be deceptive if he told you to make invalid assumptions, make some measurements, and then claim you know the age of the universe, but he did not do that. Someone else did that, and your gullible enough to believe them, so don't fuss about God deceiving you.

 

The Bible states "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth". That's really all he needs to say for you to realize that you are deceiving yourself.

 

There are other scientific data points that indicate the earth is young, e.g. the earth's magnetic field, and the helium found in zircons, so while you have done a good job of deceiving yourself, please don't be offended if we don't join you your delusion.

 

In the future keep it would be helpful if you would keep your posts a little more brief.

 

Terry

[Skeptic21 0]

There is scientific evidence that the speed of light may not be constant.  Barry Setterfield has made proposals using measured ata, that demonstrates its been decaying since the creation of the universe.

 

You mind citing sources, please. First of all, as a scientist/engineer in training with a fairly good background in physics, I have heard no reason to doubt that the speed of light is constant.

 

If it weren't, then how do atom smashers consistently accelerate the atoms to even FASTER speeds now, if the speed of light was slowing down, they wouldn't be able to do that.

 

The is as about as silly as it gets. As an unbeliever, you are not in a position to say what the God that created you is allowed to do and what he is not allowed to do. 

 

It isn't what God created, but what the bible says God created. Big difference.

 

It may be deceptive if he told you to make invalid assumptions, make some measurements, and then claim you know the age of the universe, but he did not do that.  Someone else did that, and your gullible enough to believe them, so don't fuss about God deceiving you.

 

The Bible states "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth".  That's really all he needs to say for you to realize that you are deceiving yourself.

 

In the future keep it would be helpful if you would keep your posts a little more brief.

Terry

13013[/snapback]

So you're saying we cannot we not trust the world?

If God really did create it, then he wouldn't need to fool with radiometric dating, potassium-argon, uranium-thorium, zircons, etc.

 

Reality says that the earth is old, and certainly not that it cannot be young. If God changed the very nature of the laws of physics, then wouldn't the bible say something about it?

[Guest 92g]

You mind citing sources, please.  First of all, as a scientist/engineer in training with a fairly good background in physics, I have heard no reason to doubt that the speed of light is constant.

At the tender age of 23, I have my doubts that your really a trained "scientist/engineer". I'm pushing 44, have a B.S.E.E, M.S. Mathematics, and and M.S. E.E., and I would not claim that its not possible for the speed of light to change.

 

If your interested, Barry Satterfield has a web page that you can peruse with your trained mind...

 

Barry Setterfield's Web Page

 

It isn't what God created, but what the bible says God created.  Big difference.

So you're saying we cannot we not trust the world?

If God really did create it, then he wouldn't need to fool with radiometric dating, potassium-argon, uranium-thorium, zircons, etc.

The Bible is God's word, and he says he created it. In fact, the Bible says that Jesus created it for himself. You being part of creation were also created for him, and he has commanded you to repent and believe in him.

 

 

Reality says that the earth is old, and certainly not that it cannot be young.  If God changed the very nature of the laws of physics, then wouldn't the bible say something about it?

You don't know what reality is. You have just put your faith in Pseudo-Science so you can ignore Jesus. Its Ok, one day you are going to admit you are wrong, and that's fine with me.

 

The reality is that people have convinced themselves that the earth is old, just as they have convinced themselves that T-Rex bones that are 65 millions of years old can still have soft tissue in them... What a fool believes....

 

Terry

[Skeptic21 0]

At the tender age of 23, I have my doubts that your really a trained "scientist/engineer".  I'm pushing 44, have a B.S.E.E, M.S. Mathematics, and and M.S. E.E., and I would not claim that its not possible for the speed of light to change.

 

I believe I said "in training"

Not yet, but soon.

 

The Bible is God's word, and he says he created it.  In fact, the Bible says that Jesus created it for himself.  You being part of creation were also created for him, and he has commanded you to repent and believe in him. 

 

No offence intended, but thats circular logic.

-The bible is true because it is the word of God

-God exists because the bible says so

 

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. You have to look outside to know for sure.

 

You don't know what reality is.

 

Reality is what I can observe and test. Unless you have a better explanation.

 

You have just put your faith in Pseudo-Science so you can ignore Jesus.

 

Pot, meet kettle. I consider the real world and the study of which to be real science, and from my POV (and the point of view of 99.9% of all scientists) creationism is pseudo-science

 

Its Ok, one day you are going to admit you are wrong, and that's fine with me.

 

I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong when I am given sufficient proof.

 

The reality is that people have convinced themselves that the earth is old, just as they have convinced themselves that T-Rex bones that are 65 millions of years old can still have soft tissue in them... 

 

The same thing could be said of you, seeing as you convince yourself that the earth is young, despite the evidence that it cannot be.

 

What a fool believes....

 

Nice ad hominem there, you know that such attacks make you look childish...

 

 

In conclusion, I have yet to recieve any scientific opposition to my claims, the best that was done was to post a link to a site that didn't challenge nor answer my assertations.

 

I am a bit disappointed, because it seems that the only thing everyone does is brush aside the facts with the assertion that "I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG"

 

I really had hoped for a "good, honest and fun" debate, but since those words came from a site that calls evolution a fairy tale, I'm glad I didn't get my hopes up too much.

[ikester7579 19]

First postulate; The distance from earth to the stars we can see is much greater then the distance that light can travel in 6000 years.

 

Second postulate: If the speed of light is constant, then the world cannot be as young as it says in the bible.

 

First refutation: God must have put the light from those stars already in place.

Conclusion: Invalid reasoning by the laws of the bible; God states that he cannot deceive. To put light in place is deceptive.

 

Second refutation: The speed of light must be slowing down exponentially over time.

Conclusion: Invalid for following reasons:

We need to look at two equations:

-Einstein’s E=MC^2

-The inverse square law of Newton

 

First of all Einstein’s equation reads

Energy is equal to the speed of light squared.

Energy is in joules

Mass is in kilograms

 

The speed of light is in meters per second and must be a CONSTANT

(note: if you don’t believe the above, go to a professor of physics at a regular university)

 

Einstein’s proven theory of relativity says that time is relative and light is constant.

The relationship between mass and energy is also proven: One gram releases 90 quadrillion joules.

1=1 x (3x10^8)^2

=9x10^16 which is 90 quadrillion joules.

 

If C is not constant, then the actual ENERGY CONTENT OF MATTER MUST CHANGE EVERY DAY!

 

However, this runs into a snag from the inverse square law: which states that the relative strength of gravity is M x m/d^2 or

“The gravitational attraction between two objects is equal to the mass of the first object times the mass of the second object divided by the distance between themâ€ÂÂ

So if the mass of two objects increase each by a factor of 2, the gravitational strength between them increases by 4 if 3 than 9 etc. Same with distance (if the space between both is divided by half, the attraction is decreased by 4, 3 by 9, 4 by 16 etc.)

If the speed of light was 10 times faster at one point, then the relative mass must have been 100 times as great.

If the mass of both is increased by 100 times, then the gravitational pull is increased by TEN THOUSAND TIMES.

So if the speed of light was ten times the speed it is now, then the gravitational pull must have been 10,000 times greater.

To give a comparison, a human would be crushed on Jupiter, which would exert a pull of just around 40 times. Life would have been crushed.

Oh, and if it was infinite at the beginning, everything would have been a black hole!

Thus, the earth is almost certainly NOT young.

It means that either

A. The bible is completely untrue

OR

B. The bible was speaking in metaphor by creation.

If this was to be falsified:

 

-You would need to find proof that God completely revamped the laws of physics in the past 4000 years;

There is no mention in the bible of this happening.

 

-You would have to prove that the relationship between matter and energy was completely wrong.

 

-You would have to observe light moving slower in the next 50 years

For instance, some atom smashers have accelerated atoms to 99.749% of the speed of light, so their mass was increased by a factor of about 40,000.

If the speed of light was slowing, then new atom smashers would not be able to make particles go faster, but they do! If light slowed, scientists would find that this speed would not be achievable now.

Thank you for your time.

13008[/snapback]

If you are a true agnostic, then you will be able to ponder what I am about to show you.

 

Now you sound like someone who has probably debated enough to know you way around the bible and the subject of creation. So I'd like you to ponder this:

 

What is time without death?

 

You see until Adam and Eve sinned there was no death. So if it took 5 million years for Adam and Eve to sin. How old would they be? Time with no death is eternity, correct?

 

So by what action does death occur in non-eternity time? It occurs through the action of aging. So we can conclude that in eternity that death does not happen because the aging process does not exist. With me so far?

 

But this also posing a problem for the time-line as we understand it. We understand that things have to have a begining (birth), a time-line (aging), and death (an end). But how do you get any of these things if aging and death are not a part of the time-line? In other words, time passes but you never age. Now for the reason creation had to happen.

 

During the creation time-line (Genesis 1 until the first sin). Time was eternal. So if something were born into that time-line, where aging does not happen. When would it ever grow up? It never would. So if God created Adam and Eve as babies, they would never grow up (eternity equals no aging). And neither would any of the animals created. This is why both the animals and man were created with age. Because the law of eternity is: The age you are created at, is the age you will stay at. So nothing in eternity can be birth for that very reason. "All things" have to be created, and created with the age to survive.

 

So now we will apply this to the rest of creation.

 

Sun:

 

So if aging is not a process of creation in eternity time (before the first sin). When would the sun cool down enough to allow life to exist on this planet? It would not. Aging for the sun equals 2 thing.

 

1) It becomes cool enough so that life can exist upon this planet.

2) It becomes stable enough so that life can exist upon this planet.

 

So what would be the proper age to create the sun to sustain life on this planet, in a time where aging is not a current process? 4.5 billion years old. This is how you get a 4.5 billion year old aged sun in 6 thousand years. Because creation equals everything being created with age to either survive, or perform the task in which it was created for.

 

Earth:

 

Same thing. When would the earth cool down enough to support life if it were birthed into a time where aging was not part of it? It would never cool down. So what age would be perfect for life to exist upon this planet? 4.5 billion years aged sound about right?

 

The trinities:

 

God works in numbers. And what number represents life? The number three. So what in creation applies to this?

 

1) The only planet to sustain life is what planet from the sun? Third planet.

2) Water which is essential to life comes in how many forms? Liquid, solid, and gas.

3) Time comes in three section: past, present, and future.

 

Etc...

 

Creation-firmaments:

 

There are 4 sections (4 firmaments) in which creation was broken up into. The first 3 where centered around sustaining life upon this planet.

 

1) Was the canopy.

2) Was our atmosphere.

3) Was out solar system.

4) Space beyond our solar system.

 

The first three were created with age according to what would sustain life upon this planet.

 

The forth (outer space) was not. So upon the creation of stars beyond our solar system. The things that determined their age was how far their light had to travel to reach the earth. And is why such stars can be dated this way

 

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

 

"Let there be lights", tells us that the things placed in space were already producing light.

 

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 

The first part of this verse tells why they were created (to give light upon the earth). the second part shows that it had to be made so for it to happen. So light started out in space around the object that produced it. And when it's light was made to shine upon the earth. The object aged according to how many light years it's light had to travel in one day to reach the earth.

 

So a star 400 million light years away became 400 million years aged upon it's light being made to shine upon earth in one day.

 

You can read more about this here: http://www.yecheadquarters.org/Creation9.0.1.html

[Skeptic21 0]

Now you sound like someone who has probably debated enough to know you way around the bible and the subject of creation. So I'd like you to ponder this:

 

What is time without death?

 

Death is a concept that applies to life, and life alone. A rock can age, but it cannot "die"

 

You see until Adam and Eve sinned there was no death. So if it took 5 million years for Adam and Eve to sin. How old would they be? Time with no death is eternity, correct?

 

They would still be 5 mil years old...even if they didn't die.

Plus, that is assuming Adam and Eve actually existed.

 

So by what action does death occur in non-eternity time? It occurs through the action of aging.

 

Again, death is a biological term.

 

 

And neither would any of the animals created. This is why both the animals and man were created with age. Because the law of eternity is: The age you are created at, is the age you will stay at.

Scientifically, that only holds true for EM radiation, seeing as time has stopped for things moving at the speed of light.

All other things age.

 

Sun:

 

So if aging is not a process of creation in eternity time (before the first sin). When would the sun cool down enough to allow life to exist on this planet? It would not. Aging for the sun equals 2 thing.

 

1) It becomes cool enough so that life can exist upon this planet.

2) It becomes stable enough so that life can exist upon this planet.

 

The temperature of the sun was probably relatively constant for the past 4.55 billion years. It is not cooling down, just using it's hydrogen.

 

So what would be the proper age to create the sun to sustain life on this planet, in a time where aging is not a current process? 4.5 billion years old. This is how you get a 4.5 billion year old aged sun in 6 thousand years. Because creation equals everything being created with age to either survive, or perform the task in which it was created for.

This is where the biggest problem with your model comes in: who says that the sun needed to be 4.5 billion years old to sustain life? It burns by the fusion of hydrogen, and that is what makes it shine. It loses this hydrogen at a relatively constant rate, and we don't feel the sun getting colder every day.

 

Earth:

 

Same thing. When would the earth cool down enough to support life if it were birthed into a time where aging was not part of it? It would never cool down. So what age would be perfect for life to exist upon this planet? 4.5 billion years aged sound about right?

 

Some bacteria can survive in boiling water/acid.

 

 

The trinities:

 

God works in numbers. And what number represents life? The number three. So what in creation applies to this?

 

1) The only planet to sustain life is what planet from the sun? Third planet.

2) Water which is essential to life comes in how many forms? Liquid, solid, and gas.

3) Time comes in three section: past, present, and future.

 

This can be done with many different numbers, like two; day and night, light and darkness, heat and cold etc. or four; four seasons, four states of matter, four directions, etc.

If God exists and he uses numbers, his favorite number is probably phi

 

 

The forth (outer space) was not. So upon the creation of stars beyond our solar system. The things that determined their age was how far their light had to travel to reach the earth. And is why such stars can be dated this way

They aren't dated by the age of the light, because light doesn't age. Scientists study the shifts in the light, the intensity, and how far it had to travel.

 

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

 

This implies that he created the ability for light, like photons. This is described by the big bang as well.

 

"Let there be lights", tells us that the things placed in space were already producing light.

How does that make light travel faster?

If they were put into the universe making light four billion light-years away, it would still take four billion years to reach us.

 

The first part of this verse tells why they were created (to give light upon the earth). the second part shows that it had to be made so for it to happen. So light started out in space around the object that produced it. And when it's light was made to shine upon the earth. The object aged according to how many light years it's light had to travel in one day to reach the earth.

This "aging" that you speak of would still require the light to move faster then normal, meaning c is not constant, and that gravity would be so great that it would crush every living thing.

 

 

I see what you're getting at, but this is still based on the concept of light traveling faster then normal so the very light that we see at night is proof of an old earth or a deceptive God, because if it was created, then it was done through natural processes. It's not just light, it's the very structure of atoms, the very nature of the universe.

 

But thumbs up for giving me an interesting view that I hadn't heard before.

 

 

Edit: By ikester. Note: Forum program can only do 10 quotes per post. It's not an option that can be changed by us, so we are limited to this as well. I put your two quotes over 10 in bold so the rest would work.

[deadlock 3]

Pot, meet kettle. I consider the real world and the study of which to be real science, and from my POV (and the point of view of 99.9% of all scientists) creationism is pseudo-science

 

Argumentum ad populum.

[Greyhound 0]

I would not claim that its not possible for the speed of light to change.

13016[/snapback]

Neither would I for certain, but what I would claim is that the speed of light could not change without making *extreme* changes to the Universe - not least of which would be that early life would have had to deal with even sunlight being deadly.

 

Certainly one could hand-wave that invoking godly intervention but it won't be science.

[ikester7579 19]

Skeptic 21, how can you be Agnostic when your mind is already made up?

[Greyhound 0]

You have just put your faith in Pseudo-Science so you can ignore Jesus.

13016[/snapback]

This may be too involved a question for this thread, but I'd have to ask whether you think science exists at *all* and if so what counts?

 

The Big Bang model is classic science in that it explains what we see and makes predictions. But then you link Setterfield, who clearly takes the Creation as his basis and then finds a model to fit it - which is seemingly the definition of pseudo-science.

[Skeptic21 0]

Skeptic 21, how can you be Agnostic when your mind is already made up?

13034[/snapback]

 

An agnostic is one who has not seen enough proof for a divine being. My mind is made up in the sense that I need to see real proof for such a thing. Once I do, I will change that.

[ikester7579 19]

An agnostic is one who has not seen enough proof for a divine being.  My mind is made up in the sense that I need to see real proof for such a thing.  Once I do, I will change that.

13052[/snapback]

And I do not even see a remote chance that you are even looking for that proof. All I see is a thread O.P. that sounds just like every other atheist post.

 

Also, does it make me agnostic if I also claim the same about evolution?

[Greyhound 0]

Also, does it make me agnostic if I also claim the same about evolution?

13054[/snapback]

It makes you agnostic about evolution. In common usage of the word agnostic on its own though it is presumed to refer to God.

[Guest 92g]

This may be too involved a question for this thread, but I'd have to ask whether you think science exists at *all* and if so what counts?

That's a good question.... Of course I believe science exists, but we must be careful about what we call "Science".

 

Science is the study of cause-and-effect relationships in real-time.

 

Origins Science is the application of scientific knowledge to determine the origin of life, the age of the universe, etc.... The scientifc method requires repeated experimentation, and we cannot do that with the past that is out of human observation. Hence Origins Science can be scientific, but its not genuin science.

 

The Big Bang model is classic science in that it explains what we see and makes predictions.  But then you link Setterfield, who clearly takes the Creation as his basis and then finds a model to fit it - which is seemingly the definition of pseudo-science.

The big bang model is also trying to fit a certain bias.

 

1) That there is a 100% materialistic explanation to the universe.

2) That we are not at the center of the universe.

3) That the universe is unbounded.

 

The Big-Bang is pseudo-science. No one is making big-bangs and creating their own universe and trying to explain how it happens through repeated experimenation.

 

The big bang postulates that the universe is made up of ~75% "Dark Matter" which is not detectable, that hardly sounds scientific......

 

There are scientists who recognize the dogma that the "Big-Bang" has become and are challenging.

 

Scientists opposed to the Big Bang

 

Terry

[Guest 92g]

Neither would I for certain, but what I would claim is that the speed of light could not change without making *extreme* changes to the Universe - not least of which would be that early life would have had to deal with even sunlight being deadly.

 

Certainly one could hand-wave that invoking godly intervention but it won't be science.

13033[/snapback]

If we found evidence that the speed of light decayed in the past, and none of what you claim happened, then it would be scientific evidence of divine intervention, or evidence that we as humans do not understand things as well as we claim, or both.

 

Terry

[Greyhound 0]

That's a good question.... Of course I believe science exists, but we must be careful about what we call "Science".

 

Science is the study of cause-and-effect relationships in real-time.

 

Origins Science is the application of scientific knowledge to determine the origin of life, the age of the universe, etc.... The scientifc method requires repeated experimentation, and we cannot do that with the past that is out of human observation. Hence Origins Science can be scientific, but its not genuin science.

This certainly throws a spanner in the forensic science thread! It's an interesting definition. Are you saying that even if we watch species 'evolve' over the next billion years and they become completely different things, we wouldn't be warranted in extrapolating backwards? Or perhaps watching geology over a similar time period and assuming it happened markedly differently previously? I'm not sure I understand why.

 

The big bang model is also trying to fit a certain bias.

 

 

1) That there is a 100% materialistic explanation to the universe.

That's not so much the bias of science so much as it is all science can deal with. We'll be into metaphysics before we know it otherwise.

 

2) That we are not at the center of the universe.

Strictly not true. We ARE at the centre of the Universe but at the same time there IS no centre. I heard it well explained the other day when someone said it's like that old video game 'Asteroids' where you'd disappear off one side of the screen and reappear on the opposite side.

 

3) That the universe is unbounded.

That's not a bias of the theory that I know off. What exactly do you mean by 'unbounded'?

 

The Big-Bang is pseudo-science. No one is making big-bangs and creating their own universe and trying to explain how it happens through repeated experimenation.

Well that throws up a problem with what you were saying earlier. We can actually (indeed only) watch events far away, as they happened a long time ago. If we watch a far distant star go supernova today (e.g.) are we watching a present event or a past one?

 

The big bang postulates that the universe is made up of ~75% "Dark Matter" which is not detectable, that hardly sounds scientific......

One might say that protons, neutrons, electrons, or indeed gravity, don't exist for the same reason.

 

If we found evidence that the speed of light decayed in the past, and none of what you claim happened, then it would be scientific evidence of divine intervention, or evidence that we as humans do not understand things as well as we claim, or both.

I would generally claim the latter.

[Fred Williams 0]

Pot, meet kettle. I consider the real world and the study of which to be real science, and from my POV (and the point of view of 99.9% of all scientists) creationism is pseudo-science

 

Argumentum ad populum.

13032[/snapback]

Not only that, it's flat not true.

 

Fred

[Fred Williams 0]

First postulate; The distance from earth to the stars we can see is much greater then the distance that light can travel in 6000 years.

 

Second postulate: If the speed of light is constant, then the world cannot be as young as it says in the bible.

13008[/snapback]

What Skeptic21 either doesn’t realize or is failing to mention is that distant star light is also serious problem for evolutionists! We’ve discovered that the universe is isotropic throughout, that is, it’s the same temperature everywhere. However, if the universe is 20 billion years old, there isn’t near enough time for light to reach every corner to produce this isotropic state. In fact only a fraction should be isotropic.

 

Scientists call it the “horizon” problem and have created a flimsy hypothesis called “inflation” to try to explain it. Ironically, one creation scientist I know told me that if you slightly tweak the “inflation” data, it also solves the star light problem for creationists!

 

For those who doubt my claim that the inflation theory is really a just-so story to explain the evolutionist’s starlight problem, check out the many prominent astronomers and physicists who agree with me:

 

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

 

Fred

[Greyhound 0]

The trouble with discussing the Big Bang as a layperson is that whilst I've read quite a lot about it, I can't pretend to understand the subject in enough depth to argue with the scientists involved (particularly on the mathematical level).

 

Scientists call it the “horizon†problem and have created a flimsy hypothesis called “inflation†to try to explain it. Ironically, one creation scientist I know told me that if you slightly tweak the “inflation†data, it also solves the star light problem for creationists!

...But inflation is no longer a "flimsy hypothesis". It predicted that the Universe would not be *entirely* flat or homogenous and to what tune that would be. These predictions have been borne out, as close to exactly as makes no differenece, in the last few years by ever more accurate astronomical instruments. It may smack a bit of a "cosmological constant", but it does work...

 

For those who doubt my claim that the inflation theory is really a just-so story to explain the evolutionist’s starlight problem, check out the many prominent astronomers and physicists who agree with me:

Whilst Halton Arp may well be described as a "prominent astronomer", he has long touted his own theory (mainly regarding quasars) which stands contra to the Big Bang and is very contraversial in cosmology. As it is his life's work I'm not surprised that he is sticking to his guns despite the fact that our instruments - so much better than in the 1960's when he came up with his theory - have pretty much explained away the anomalies he based them on.

 

I'm wary of making the following statement, being as it may well be construed as some king of argument to authority, but I think the list of names would be more indicative if it didn't include engineers, doctors and other non-cosmological professionals and especially "independent researchers" - after all, I might include myself in *that* list! I'd ask how, given that even many cosmologists struggle to understand the theory, do people who don't work in the field itself expect to know enough to object to it? If that is the case it leaves us with a bit of a problem. If Big Bang theory proves to be useful technologically, do we just leave the scientists to it and default to our own beliefs?

[wombatty 0]

Whilst Halton Arp may well be described as a "prominent astronomer", he has long touted his own theory (mainly regarding quasars) which stands contra to the Big Bang and is very contraversial in cosmology.  As it is his life's work I'm not surprised that he is sticking to his guns despite the fact that our instruments - so much better than in the 1960's when he came up with his theory - have pretty much explained away the anomalies he based them on.

 

Do you have any references for your claim that Arp's observations '...have [been] pretty much explained away...'? I've read Arp's books and I would be really interested in seeing how the establishment has come to terms with his observations.

 

In any case, I think it is particularly revealing of the 'state of the establishment' how Arp's observations were dealt with in the past. His telescope time was revoked, he was ostracized and eventually had to move to Germany to breathe the air of academic freedom.

 

IF (and I regard that as a BIG if) the establishment has 'explained away' his observations, it still leaves the issue of professional decorum and standards of conduct. Running someone out of town on a rail because he dares publish observations that run contrary to the currently prevailing theory is an extraordinarily poor way to coduct the scientific enterprise. And there is no sign that the establishment has corrected this mentality.

 

Scott

[wombatty 0]

 

The big bang model is also trying to fit a certain bias.

 

That's not a bias of the theory that I know off.

 

Big Bang theory is chockfull of bias. Edwin Hubble himself paraded his bias for all to see:

 

“But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs.â€ÂÂ

 

{Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p.51}

 

“…the density of nebular distribution increases outward symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy within the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, …to escape the horror of a unique position….â€ÂÂ

 

{ Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p. 58-59}

 

…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…such a favored position is intolerable…Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.

 

{ Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p. 50,51 & 58}

 

These passages are loaded with emotionally charged words and bias; declaring that ‘…the horror of a unique position’ is ‘intolerable’, ‘unwelcome’ and ‘must be avoided at all costs’. Of course, the horror he felt was due to the metaphysical/theological implications of universe being Earth-centric.

 

Interesting that despite his book’s title, Observational Approach to Cosmology, he was clearly willing to disregard his observations in favor of his theory.

 

This is parallel to the ID/Evolution controversy today - though evolutionists will not admit it. Evolutionists are horrified by ID for precisely the same reasons that Hubble was horrified at an Earth-centric universe.

 

That said, there is nothing wrong with such bias – in fact it is unavoidable. Scientific theories require axioms (i.e. foundational assumptions) to even get off the ground. Such axioms are by definition, unprovable. I don’t see a problem as long as a scientist is upfront about his biases and starting assumptions, as Hubble was. The problem is that most in the establishment do everything in their power to hide their starting assumptions from the public to foster the illusion of objectivity.

 

Incidentally, this also highlights the inadequacy of science. In many cases, science itself is completely unable to judge which set of axioms/starting assumptions has more relative validity. This is where history, philosophy, metaphysics & theology enter the picture. Science offers, at best, an incomplete picture of reality and must be complimented by other disciplines in order to construct a fully-orbed picture of reality.

 

Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis clearly layed out the issue where he stated that:

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

 

(W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.)

 

This is an area where I think that Creationists, in general, far outshine their evolutionary counterparts. Creationists are very upfront about their philosophical/metaphysical biases and how they impact their scientific models and theories. Evolutionists, as mentioned above, usually stridently deny their philosophical/metaphysical biases in an attempt to make their theories and models ‘objective’.

 

In reference to Ellis’ point above, Humphreys, Hartnett, Gentry and others have proposed just such Earth-centric cosmologies. The work of Humphreys and Hartnett in particular are completely consistent with relativity and other relevant science and squarely address the light-travel time issue.

 

What exactly do you mean by 'unbounded'?

 

The term ‘unbounded’ refers to the supposed lack of boundaries for the universe. In other words, there are no ‘edges’ and thus, no center. If the universe has:

 

-Zero curvature; the universe could be envisioned as a infinite, flat plane.

 

-Positive curvature: the universe could be envisioned as a infinite plane warped back onto itself as a ‘hyper-sphere’. In this picture, the 3D space of the universe would be analogous to the 2D surface of an inflated balloon. This option makes it possible to have a finite universe that is nevertheless 'unbounded'.

 

-Negative curvature: the universe could be envisioned as a infinite plane warped into a saddle-shape.

 

[Greyhound 0]

IF (and I regard that as a BIG if) the establishment has 'explained away' his observations, it still leaves the issue of professional decorum and standards of conduct. Running someone out of town on a rail because he dares publish observations that run contrary to the currently prevailing theory is an extraordinarily poor way to coduct the scientific enterprise. And there is no sign that the establishment has corrected this mentality.

13087[/snapback]

Nobody ran him out of town. Arp lost his telescope time because his theory just doesn't work as well as the Big Bang. Telescope time is precious and they don't just dish it out if there isn't a very good reason. A steady, stable, infinite universe just doesn't fit what is seen. The problems he once thought existed with quasars being intrinsic objects have, under scrutiny from the telescopes developed over the last 50 years, have turned out to be non-existent.

 

These passages are loaded with emotionally charged words and bias; declaring that ‘…the horror of a unique position’ is ‘intolerable’, ‘unwelcome’ and ‘must be avoided at all costs’. Of course, the horror he felt was due to the metaphysical/theological implications of universe being Earth-centric.

"Of course"? Why of course? I read it as meaning that an Earth-centric model throws up too many scientific problems, not ethical/metaphysical ones.

 

As for the rest...the Big Bang is based on maths and the readily accepted laws of physics. It's the simplest model that works. That's why I accept it as the most likely model for now.

 

But as I said, it's not my field, so I remain well aware of my limitations in understanding.

[Fred Williams 0]

First postulate; The distance from earth to the stars we can see is much greater then the distance that light can travel in 6000 years.

13008[/snapback]

Here’s the bottom line response to the OP. I've ignored some of the strawman claims such as having to see light slowing over the last 50 years.

 

Summary

 

The long agers have the SAME problem, called the “horizon” problem. Their solution, the inflation theory, if true would be the SAME solution for the YEC view. Long agers can’t have it both ways.

 

In addition, there are several competing secular theories out there to explain the horizon problem that require the speed of light to have been very fast at the beginning. Again, this also would solve the YEC problem. You can’t have it both ways!

 

See the penultimate paragraph of this Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

 

Fred