YEC explanation for traveling light.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-03-2012, 05:40 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-03-2012 03:29 PM)SixForty Wrote:  First of all, time distortion due to gravity can be measured here on earth. It is completely verifiable. For instance, an atomic clock at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, England, almost at sea level, ticks 5 microseconds per year slower than an identical atomic clock at the National Bureau of Standards in Boulder, Colorado, which is over a mile above sea level. The additional effect of excess gravity at sea level causes time to run slightly slower than at a higher elevation. This 5 microsecond difference is exactly what is predicted by Relativity for the approximately 1 mile difference in altitude. Also, GPS satellites run about 42 microseconds faster per day due to their distance away from earth, and this effect is calculated into adjustments for the system to work. These are just 2 of many examples of gravitational time distortion. So yes, it can be measured and is verifiable.

What you're doing here is equivocating the term "time distortion". I know the theory of relativity states that time changes depending on speed and gravity. I think we all do. What we're talking about is time itself slowing.

You're positing that light, in an observable universe (just the parts of the universe that we can see) that is 93 billion light years wide, took 6000 years to travel half that distance (because we're in the middle of the observable universe). That means that you're suggesting light, due to gravitation, has moved 1.5 million times its estimated speed for all of these years. That means that time goes really, really quickly outside of our galaxy or that time moves really, really slowly here on Earth. We're not talking about microseconds of difference. And light, as you probably know, was also posited in this same theory of relativity to have a fixed speed. Are you just cherry-picking the parts of it that you like?

Quote:As for your accusation that it's an argument from ignorance, that's just absurd. It is definitely not done from ignorance. It's done based on philosophical assumptions stemming from a certain worldview, which is supported by evidence from various other external places. That's nothing different than the Big Bang Theory - it's formulated based on certain philosophical assumptions stemming from a certain worldview. The research done by guys like Dr Humphreys is done with a valid starting point that they have good reason to believe is true. You can deny that you think it's true, but you can't deny that their belief in it is at least plausible.

Please don't give me the spiel about science "based on a worldview". There was no starting assumption that the universe "had to be a certain age". As our technology allows us to look further and further into space, the age gets older and older (because it's always based on the oldest thing we find). Currently it's based on background microwave radiation but before that it was based on many things including the age of stars, cooling of the sun, and (as mentioned here) the distance of starlight. No data that we've ever found has suggested that the universe is 6,000 years old.

On the other hand, it appears that there are scientists that start with an assumption that the universe is 6,000 years old and then try to find evidence to support it... and surprise! surprise! they find it. If your premise is wrong, it's easy to make to make a wrong conclusion, too.

Quote:First of all, the Big Bang theory may give a very good explanation for many things, but it is not without it's problems. There are many known problems without sufficient solutions. So as for being the "best" answer, it really only wins by default at the moment. Don't forget that at one point, the scientific explanation for geocentrism was a far better explanation than the theory of heliocentrism. That didn't make it right though.

I don't know what "problems" you're referring to (except that it contradicts the biblical narrative), but I think we're all well-aware that science doesn't always give us the "right" answer... it just keeps leading to a "less wrong" answer. It's true that at one time we believed in geocentrism (because we were using the bible as a science textbook) but as we collect more data we become less wrong. And again, you're cherry-picking the data. Geocentrism as a "better explanation" than heliocentrism is an anomaly, not the standard.

Quote:Second, in terms of a best answer, the common criteria used to determine that usually boils down to: 1) is it a simpler explanation; and/or 2) does it have more explanatory scope (give better predictions about things). (this is an over-simplification, but is sufficient for the discussion at hand) As for point 2, Dr Humphreys model does explain certain things that the Big Bang theory can't - for example, the Pioneer Spacecraft anomaly is effectively explained by default, whereas we still can't come up with any explanation based on the Big Bang theory that isn't special pleading. As for point 1, Dr Hartnett's cosmology (which I admit I have only begun to research, and have only limited knowledge of) appears to explain the universe without the need for Einstein's famous "fudge factor", a constant built into Einstein's Relativity equations that he always thought shouldn't be necessary, because it complicated the elegant simplicity of it. An answer to the universe without such added complexity from Einstein would seem to be a simpler explanation, thereby satisfying point 1.

All of this is simply ideas floating around at the moment, though. Whether it be the 2 creationist models I mentioned, or the Big Bang itself, we're still in the very infancy stage of understanding our universe.

I don't know what the Pioneer Spacecraft anomaly is, or Einstein's "fudge factor". You may have a good point about these, but I would need to know more than a basic understanding of cosmology to even answer this. I've gone through all of the Khan Academy lessons on "Cosmology and Astronomy" (and I'd certainly recommend them) but you're blinding me with science that is beyond my capacity to understand... and I'm curious about whether you understand it or are repeating what you simply accept from these gentlemen. If you do understand it, please elaborate on it.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2012, 06:42 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-03-2012 05:40 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  What you're doing here is equivocating the term "time distortion". I know the theory of relativity states that time changes depending on speed and gravity. I think we all do. What we're talking about is time itself slowing.

You accuse me of equivocating on the term "time distortion". I have done no such thing. I have clearly explained the true effects of how time is distorted through gravitation. How is that equivocation? I think you may be throwing out a term that you may not understand.

(17-03-2012 05:40 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  You're positing that light, in an observable universe (just the parts of the universe that we can see) that is 93 billion light years wide, took 6000 years to travel half that distance (because we're in the middle of the observable universe). That means that you're suggesting light, due to gravitation, has moved 1.5 million times its estimated speed for all of these years. That means that time goes really, really quickly outside of our galaxy or that time moves really, really slowly here on Earth. We're not talking about microseconds of difference. And light, as you probably know, was also posited in this same theory of relativity to have a fixed speed. Are you just cherry-picking the parts of it that you like?

Again, you are accusing me of things which I have not stated. You are making assumptions here which are entirely unwarranted. First of all, I don't claim that light currently travels at different speeds. I accept that light travels at a fixed speed. Second, I am not making claims about the way time is distorted now - the claims were about the points in time when the universe was well contracted in the past. During the expansion of the universe, gravitational effects (in a non-homogeneous universe) would affect the flow of time differently. Time would flow faster towards the edges of the universe, and slower towards the middle. The further back we go into the past, as the universe was smaller, gravity would have a greater effect and the time distortions would be immense. For example, think about how time is distorted in a black hole at a greater rate due to it's greater gravity.

Contrary to what you claim, I'm not cherry picking the parts I like. The whole theory of relativity adequately explains the way time distortions would work in a non-homogeneous, bounded universe. Honestly, before you call me on the carpet, you should actually read the theory put forward by Dr Humphreys himself. Pick up a copy of his book Starlight and Time, and then read the articles that he's published in various technical journals. Once you have an idea of the explanation, you'd see that all of your objections here are well covered.

(17-03-2012 05:40 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Please don't give me the spiel about science "based on a worldview". There was no starting assumption that the universe "had to be a certain age".

True - the Big Bang does not begin with an assumption of a certain age. However, it does begin with other assumptions which are entirely unprovable. The Big Bang is built on the assumptions that the universe is homogenous everywhere, it has no centre, and it has no edge. (there are other assumptions, but these will suffice for now) These aren't necessarily bad assumptions, since from where we sit, it seems this way. But that's just the point - we only observe the universe from one location. It's quite presumptuous to believe that it looks the same EVERYWHERE! We have no possible way to prove that at this point in time, we simply have to accept that. I'll freely admit that if the assumptions that the Big Bang is built upon are true, then it's a very good scientific model of the universe. I just don't accept those assumptions.

See, this is the problem with so much of mainstream science. It tries to hide the assumptions and philosophies that certain theories are built upon. I really like a comment that George Ellis made one time. He's one of the most prominent cosmologists in the world, who has even coauthored a book with Stephen Hawking. He said "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"

As for the other assumptions in the Big Bang, there may actually be evidence to show that they aren't true. The quantization of red-shifts from distant galaxies seems to present a model that actually shows the universe is not homogeneous, and that there is a distinct centre, and that the earth is quite close to that centre. If this does pan out and is true, then the whole Big Bang theory comes crashing down - 13.5 billion years and all.

(17-03-2012 05:40 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  No data that we've ever found has suggested that the universe is 6,000 years old.

Now that's just not true and you know it. There's plenty of evidence. If you want to explain it away under a cosmological evolutionary paradigm, you're welcome to believe that. But to claim that the evidence doesn't even exists is just sticking your head in the sand.

(17-03-2012 05:40 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  On the other hand, it appears that there are scientists that start with an assumption that the universe is 6,000 years old and then try to find evidence to support it... and surprise! surprise! they find it. If your premise is wrong, it's easy to make to make a wrong conclusion, too.

I'm glad you post this, because it highlights the exact problem with evolution - if you presuppositionally believe that man evolved from molecules, surprise, surprise! You can find the evidence! In your exact words - if you start with a wrong premise, it's easy to make a wrong conclusion! Smile

(17-03-2012 05:40 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I don't know what "problems" you're referring to (except that it contradicts the biblical narrative), but I think we're all well-aware that science doesn't always give us the "right" answer... it just keeps leading to a "less wrong" answer. It's true that at one time we believed in geocentrism (because we were using the bible as a science textbook) but as we collect more data we become less wrong. And again, you're cherry-picking the data. Geocentrism as a "better explanation" than heliocentrism is an anomaly, not the standard.

Just a short list of problems with the Big Bang would be the Horizon Problem (let's invent Inflationary theory to save it, even though it goes against all known laws of physics), Comet Disintegration (let's invent an Oort Cloud to solve it, even though there is no actual evidence for it), Super Nova Remnants, and on and on. We can talk about dark matter and dark energy, which we have no observational evidence for, but they are simply hypothetical ideas to explain problems that come out of the Big Bang theory.

As for geocentrism, it never came from the bible. First of all, it existed in various societies entirely separated from the ancient Jewish nation. Second, there is nothing in the bible that actually claims geocentrism.

(17-03-2012 05:40 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I don't know what the Pioneer Spacecraft anomaly is, or Einstein's "fudge factor". You may have a good point about these, but I would need to know more than a basic understanding of cosmology to even answer this. I've gone through all of the Khan Academy lessons on "Cosmology and Astronomy" (and I'd certainly recommend them) but you're blinding me with science that is beyond my capacity to understand... and I'm curious about whether you understand it or are repeating what you simply accept from these gentlemen. If you do understand it, please elaborate on it.

Although I usually hate to quote wikipedia as a source, it may give you a good start. Here is a primer on the Cosmological Constant, otherwise known as Einstein's fudge factor (not just my term, Wikipedia lists the Cosmological Constant on it's Fudge Factor page.): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Constant. And as I mentioned, Dr Hartnett's cosmology seems to explain the universe without the need for this tweaking, or without the need for certain hypothetical entities like dark matter. As I mentioned before, I have only done a cursory overview of Dr Hartnett's work, so can't really comment on it too in depth - it's on my bookshelf in the pile of "get to these as soon as you can"!

As for the Pioneer Spacecraft anomaly, here's a quick overview. Basically, the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft are slowing down as they escape our solar system. This is due to various gravitational forces acting on them, almost exclusively the Sun, but others as well. However, they were calculated to actually be slowing down at a rate more than all the known gravitational effects that should be acting on them. Studies were done to try and figure out the cause, including such things like fuel leaks or the effects of cosmic radiation. Combinations of various potential effects added together still don't have a good explanation for this phantom deceleration. However, if the cosmological model that Dr Humphreys proposed is true, and the universe does have a "centre of gravity" somewhere, then such a deceleration is a natural, expected event, that would present itself once the spacecraft were sufficiently far enough away from other overly dominant gravitational forces (i.e., our Sun)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2012, 07:16 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
Ya'know, the bible says that god is not the author of confusion.
Then why did he create a deceptive universe? And, an even more deceptive book that causes intelligent and rational people to make up some kind of pseudo science to conform to the "word". As a recovering Christian I find science to be much more obvious and beautiful.
How can you argue with someone who says " God can do whatever he wants" ?

Each of us a cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete
Genetic blends with uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt that's far too fleet. Neil Peart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2012, 07:50 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
SixForty Wrote:As for the other assumptions in the Big Bang, there may actually be evidence to show that they aren't true. The quantization of red-shifts from distant galaxies seems to present a model that actually shows the universe is not homogeneous, and that there is a distinct centre, and that the earth is quite close to that centre. If this does pan out and is true, then the whole Big Bang theory comes crashing down - 13.5 billion years and all.

Well, this does not automatically make the hypothesis that the universe is 6000 years old correct... There might be a better theory backed up with more evidence to triumph the Big bang theory, or there may be new evidence to prove the Big Bang theory correct.

A fine example would be the classical model of wave theory and the current prevailing model of wave-particle duality. The whole wave theory does not come crashing down even though the evidence for the particle nature of light has been proven true through experiments such as the photoelectric effect. Instead, the theory is modified to fit the evidence presented.

SixForty Wrote:Now that's just not true and you know it. There's plenty of evidence. If you want to explain it away under a cosmological evolutionary paradigm, you're welcome to believe that. But to claim that the evidence doesn't even exists is just sticking your head in the sand.

Very funny. I would like to hear your evidence that the universe is 6000 years old. In the meantime, here are the evidences against a recent creation:

1) Dendrochronology - A method of scientific dating which is based on annual tree growth patterns called tree rings.

2) Erosion - Evident in many geological structures such as the Grand Canyon.

3) Geomagnetic reversals - Reversals of the Earth's magnetic poles that happen every 50,000 to 800,000 years.

4) Radioactive Decay - Constant predictable decay of unstable atoms into more stable isotopes or elements. Measurements of atomic decay allows the dating of objects far older than 10,000 years old. Besides carbon dating, other methods of radioactive dating are, but not limited to: argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, potassium-argon, rhenium-osmium, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, uranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, and uranium-uranium.

5) Lack of DNA in fossils - When organisms die, their DNA begins to decay under the influence of hydrolysis and oxidation. The speed of this decay varies on a number of factors. If fossils of the dinosaurs were less than 6,000 years old, detectable fragments of DNA should be present in a sizable percent of dinosaur fossils, especially in the Arctic and Antarctic regions where the decay of DNA can be slowed down 10-25 fold.

SixForty Wrote:I'm glad you post this, because it highlights the exact problem with evolution - if you presuppositionally believe that man evolved from molecules, surprise, surprise! You can find the evidence! In your exact words - if you start with a wrong premise, it's easy to make a wrong conclusion!

[Image: tumblr_ldc9b7sjaj1qcjilu.png]

THE WORD YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IS.... ABIOGENESIS!!!

Simply put, evolution refers to the change in allelic frequency in a population over a period of time.

SixForty Wrote:Just a short list of problems with the Big Bang would be the Horizon Problem (let's invent Inflationary theory to save it, even though it goes against all known laws of physics), Comet Disintegration (let's invent an Oort Cloud to solve it, even though there is no actual evidence for it), Super Nova Remnants, and on and on. We can talk about dark matter and dark energy, which we have no observational evidence for, but they are simply hypothetical ideas to explain problems that come out of the Big Bang theory.

They will indeed remain hypothetical until new evidence can be found which supports the hypothesis, or new evidence which overturns the current hypothesis for one that fits the evidence. That's how science works.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes robotworld's post
17-03-2012, 10:21 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-03-2012 07:50 PM)robotworld Wrote:  Well, this does not automatically make the hypothesis that the universe is 6000 years old correct... There might be a better theory backed up with more evidence to triumph the Big bang theory, or there may be new evidence to prove the Big Bang theory correct.

A fine example would be the classical model of wave theory and the current prevailing model of wave-particle duality. The whole wave theory does not come crashing down even though the evidence for the particle nature of light has been proven true through experiments such as the photoelectric effect. Instead, the theory is modified to fit the evidence presented.

That's true. Sometimes new evidence that assumptions are not true causes minor tweaks in a theory, as you say. Another good example is how Relativity affected Newton's theory of gravity. It didn't throw it out entirely - it just clarified that Newton's laws are special case approximations which are good enough for almost everything we need. But sometimes, new evidence that assumptions are not true cause the whole theory to come crashing down, as seen by the replacement of geocentricism with heliocentrism. The key then becomes this - how likely is the disproval of an assumption to affect the theory? In the case of the Big Bang theory, it rests very strongly on the assumption that the universe has no centre. Very strongly. If that assumption is proven to be false, then the theory is likely to suffer greatly, not just needing a little tweak. That assumption is woven very intimately into the Big Bang.

And while you are correct in saying that it wouldn't automatically make the hypothesis that the universe is 6000 years old correct, it would provide a ton of support to it. First of all, that theory would need absolutely no changes at all. Second, it would actually be supported, since one of it's assumptions would no longer be an assumption - it would now be a supporting fact. And third, there are effectively no other models out there currently, so it would gain strength from the lack of other explanations. That's not to say other explanations wouldn't surface, and it would still need to provide a better explanation than competing models. All I'm saying here is that if the universe was found to have a centre, and the Big Bang theory did start to fall apart as a result, then a 6000 year hypothesis would gain sufficient support.

(17-03-2012 07:50 PM)robotworld Wrote:  Very funny. I would like to hear your evidence that the universe is 6000 years old. In the meantime, here are the evidences against a recent creation:

1) Dendrochronology - (snip)

2) Erosion - (snip)

3) Geomagnetic reversals - (snip)

4) Radioactive Decay -(snip)

5) Lack of DNA in fossils - (snip)

Before I go into evidences for a 6000 year old earth, let's have a look at your evidences against a recent creation:

1) Dendrochronology - this is not based solely on annual tree growth as you say. First, it assumes uniformity in growth ring production although this has been proven to be incorrect. Seasonal climate patterns show growth ring production in many species of trees at times 10 times higher than normal - 10 rings can be produced in a single year. Second, ages are cross calibrated with C-14 dating methods, and so are not independent. And C-14 is unreliable in this regard, as mentioned below in the section on radiometric dating. Surprisingly enough, the oldest known trees using actual verifiable methods are all in the ballpark of 4,000 years old.

2) Erosion - the fact that erosion exists doesn't prove the age of anything. Erosion is simply erosion. If you accept the unproven assumptions of uniformitarianism, you can come up with old dates. However, why should we accept such assumptions? They've been proven to be false through countless natural disasters. For example, it was once thought that the Columbia River in the Northwestern US was the cause of all the erosion for the canyons that it flowed through. Uniformitarianistic philosophy dictated that the rate of erosion today means the canyons must be millions of years old. However, now we know different - severe flooding caused the canyon to form in much less time. Look up the Missoula Flood to learn about it. Another fantastic example is the Little Grand Canyon that was formed by one of the eruptions of Mount St Helens. It's about a 1/40th scale model of the Grand Canyon, and it was formed in 1 single day. Completely carved out from nothing by a mud flow. So once we realize that uniformitarianism in geology is wrong, as has been proven, then the whole concept of using erosion to date things goes out the window. Present day rates of erosion simply can't be extrapolated into the past carte blanche.

3) Geomagnetic Reversals - these don't actually date anything. The timing for geomagnetic reversals in the past are themselves dated from external sources. So they aren't evidence for or against a recent creation.

4) Radioactive decay - one of my favourite subjects! Another dating method based on assumptions. We can measure what decay rates are today, but we can't measure what they were in the past. We simply assume that they were the same. Here's the problem - once again there exists evidence that radioactive decay rates have increased drastically at various points in history. You should read up on the RATE project (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) There are multiple lines of discovery that show evidence for accelerated decay rates in the past. But even without that, we can show severe inconsistencies in radiometric dating. Let's head back to Mount St Helens. Igneous rocks from the lava dome created at the most recent eruption have been tested with radiometric dating techniques. These rocks are 30 years old, and we know this through active physical observations. However, when dated with the K-Ar method (the potassium-argon method you actually mentioned) they come out to a date of over 250,000 years old. Experiments like this have been done multiple times for verification. Multiple methods have been used. Multiple volcanoes of known age have been tested. And consistently, the dating methods almost always come out wrong. If they can't get the answer right for rocks that we actually DO know the age of, why should we believe them for rocks that we DON'T know the age of. There are obviously problems with the methods, and obviously things that we don't currently understand about radiometric dating. It's definitely not something that I'd be wanting to hang my hat on!

5) Lack of DNA in Fossils - But this has actually been found. DNA has been found in dinosaur bones as you would like. It's also been found in neanderthal bones, insects trapped in amber, and various other fossil sources. So I'm not sure what the problem is. And even beyond that, there has been soft tissue and red blood cells found in dinosaur bones also - all these things could not last over 10,000 years maximum under normal conditions, and 100,000 years maximum even under the most favourable possible conditions for preservation. So how are these finds evidence against a recent creation?

As for evidence for a recent creation, here's 5 counter points you may have fun with:

1) Helium Diffusion Rates - Helium is produced as a by-product of uranium decay. When a uranium-238 atom in a rock decays to a lead-206 atom, 8 helium atoms will be produced from the 8 instances of alpha decay. By measuring the amount of uranium and lead in a rock, we can find out the amount of helium produced. By measuring the amount of helium left in the rock, we can calculate the amount of helium that has diffused out of the rock. By measuring the rate of helium diffusion, we can find out how long it took for the helium that has diffused out to actually leave the rock, thus calculating the age of the rock. This method dates the age of some of the oldest rocks on earth at approximately 6000 +/- 2000 years.

2) Supernova Remnants - When a star goes supernova, it goes through multiple stages that take various periods of time. Based on the observed number of stage 2 supernovas in the milky way (approximately 200) and the frequency at which stars are calculated to go supernova in our galaxy (approximately 1 every 25 years), we can calculate the age of the milky way at approximately 7000-9000 years old.

3) Carbon-14 Present in Diamonds - Diamonds are thought to be some of the oldest rocks on the planet. Since carbon-14 decays with a half life of 5,730 years, there should be effectively no carbon-14 left after 57,300 years - at least none measurable by todays equipment with the precision that we have available. But carbon-14 has been found in diamonds at more than 10 times the tolerance level for the machines used. This shows that the diamonds in question are vastly less than 57,300 years old at the absolute maximum, in the most favourable possible conditions.

4) Comet Disintegration - Comets lose much of their mass each time they come close to the sun. Most scientists agree that comet's can't last more than 10,000 years due to this disintegration. And yet we still see comets today. So they must have been formed less than 10,000 years ago, and hence the solar system also. (Or someone could invent a hypothetical Oort cloud to explain them, instead of accepting what the evidence shows.)

5) Population Statistics - Take commonly known population numbers and growth rates throughout history, extrapolate backwards, and you hit the beginning of the human race somewhere between 4000 and 4500 years ago, right around when Noah and his family would be stepping off the ark.

Now, none of these are absolute proof, and I don't claim they are. I'm sure there are many people here just waiting to jump all over them. Smile But each of these is strong evidence to point to a young earth, a young universe, and a recent creation.

(17-03-2012 07:50 PM)robotworld Wrote:  [Image: tumblr_ldc9b7sjaj1qcjilu.png]

THE WORD YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IS.... ABIOGENESIS!!!

Simply put, evolution refers to the change in allelic frequency in a population over a period of time.

Nice picture! Smile My comment was made in reference to confirmation bias. Creationists are accused of it all the time - I'm simply showing that it occurs in the world of evolution also.

I'm well aware of the word abiogenesis. It's one of the most absurd concepts I've come across in my lifetime. The statistical odds against such a thing are so astronomically immense, it's almost comical that people can believe it's true. It's a far, far, far greater miracle to believe in abiogenesis than something like the virgin birth (seriously, other species are parthenogenic, so believing Mary was a one time DNA mutant who developed this trait is far, far more likely that abiogenesis)

As for your definition of evolution, you teeter close to equivocation there. I have no doubt species have changed over time. Natural variations and mutations can cause all sorts of changes to a species. Automatically extrapolating that backwards from humans to bacteria is an absurd jump.

(17-03-2012 07:50 PM)robotworld Wrote:  They will indeed remain hypothetical until new evidence can be found which supports the hypothesis, or new evidence which overturns the current hypothesis for one that fits the evidence. That's how science works.

Exactly - and yet people hold to the Big Bang theory so tightly, despite all it's fundamental flaws, it's often nothing short of dogma. So many scientists won't even consider an alternative explanation, because it goes against their philosophical beliefs, and so they do everything they can to save a flawed theory. The science isn't driven by the desire to find an answer - it's driven by the desire to save the current answer, because it's the answer so many people WANT to be true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2012, 10:37 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-03-2012 05:51 AM)SixForty Wrote:  The best answers for this question actually come from Dr Russ Humphreys or Dr John Hartnett. Both have developed quite sound cosmological models that give strong support to the issue of a young universe allowing distant starlight. Dr. Humphreys simply starts from the standpoint of not accepting the philosophical assumptions that the Big Bang is based on (i.e., the universe is homogeneous everywhere, it has no centre and has no edge). If you don't use those assumptions, then the act of an expanding universe (whether 13 billion years ago or 6000 years ago) will necessarily, due to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, have immense time distortions due to non-uniform gravitational effects. It's actually pretty basic science, once someone understands Relativity. And once a universe has such immense time distortions, the appearance of different ages at different parts on the universe follows logically. For anyone who has the education level to read either of those authors, it's highly interesting theoretical reading.


Russ Humphries is SO full of crap his eyes turned brown. EVERYTHING he says is refutable by a high-school student.
1. He WASTES everyone's time by trying to prove the Genesis version of creationism is true, while knowing NOTHING about Biblical scholarship. Example: all that crap about trying to prove the line about "the waters above the heavens" to be accurate. EVERYONE, (except him), knows the ancient Near Eastern cosmos, had a "heavenly vault", and above that were the "waters above the heavens". IT's MYTHOLOGY, and EVERY reputable Biblical scholar knows that. He is simply ignorant of both Biblical studies, AND philosophy.
2. Every creationist must explain how a creative act "began" BEFORE spacetime. He hasn't even tried.
He assumes HIS god, (Yahweh Sabaoth), the "lord of hosts"/"god of the armies" IS that creator. That is laughable.
Why do old men who have some credentials in one discipline think they get to "go off" in fields about which they KNOW NOTHING ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
17-03-2012, 10:57 PM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2012 11:03 PM by Logisch.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/hawaii.html

K-Ar on xenoliths is an intellectually DISHONEST example of radiometric dating because it's been shown to be inaccurate on xenoliths. Any ignorant person may look at that and go - "OH MAN I didn't know that, well, i guess ALL radiometric dating is wrong! I should believe that." BZZZZZT, wrong.

We know there are specific methods of radiometric dating that work better on some resources more than others. Another example is that we can't use the same methods for dating the moon since it's exposed to things that can carry larger quantities of materials than what we'd find on earth, therefore that would also be inaccurate. Well if we can't use it on moonrocks on the same methods we'd find here on earth then it must ALL be wrong! No.. Therefore they go through various methods of testing to ensure the accuracy, they tested that method on xenoliths and went "Yep that's not gonna work." so to use it as an example to say - "Well we know overall that ALL forms of radiometric dating obviously work in our favor" is intellectually DISHONEST.

(the actual report about K-Ar on xenoliths)
http://www.icr.org/article/excess-argon-...on-dating/

So please, if you are going to use examples, please don't leave out all methods, all examples and try to nit pick and try to assume that because on inaccuracy is found in one method that all others must be too (I'll reword that to the inaccuracy of a method on xenoliths vs other rocks). We know that's not how science works. By all means, if this is entirely inaccurate and we are to discard radiometric dating, bring a full example of why, have it peer reviewed and accepted and we'll talk about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2012, 11:16 PM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2012 11:22 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-03-2012 05:51 AM)SixForty Wrote:  The best answers for this question actually come from Dr Russ Humphreys or Dr John Hartnett. Both have developed quite sound cosmological models that give strong support to the issue of a young universe allowing distant starlight. Dr. Humphreys simply starts from the standpoint of not accepting the philosophical assumptions that the Big Bang is based on (i.e., the universe is homogeneous everywhere, it has no centre and has no edge). If you don't use those assumptions, then the act of an expanding universe (whether 13 billion years ago or 6000 years ago) will necessarily, due to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, have immense time distortions due to non-uniform gravitational effects. It's actually pretty basic science, once someone understands Relativity. And once a universe has such immense time distortions, the appearance of different ages at different parts on the universe follows logically. For anyone who has the education level to read either of those authors, it's highly interesting theoretical reading.


Maybe have a little look at this. There IS now proof that the universe IS homogeneous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...ByekIx7XXw

Your statement that "The science isn't driven by the desire to find an answer - it's driven by the desire to save the current answer, because it's the answer so many people WANT to be true." is simply patently false, and proves that you do not know even one cosmologist, or physicist, (exept your creationist friends). If you think you can go, and copy-paste creationist nonsense and think it's gonna fly here, you are sadly mistaken.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2012, 11:22 PM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2012 12:01 AM by SixForty.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-03-2012 10:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
Russ Humphries is SO full of......
(and a whole bunch of other stuff)

Wow! I can't remember the last time I was hit by this many logical fallacies at once! Your comments barely deserve an answer, but given their absurdity, it might be fun.

"Russ Humphries is SO full of crap his eyes turned brown."

Ad Hominem

"EVERYTHING he says is refutable by a high-school student."

Mere Opinion

"1. He WASTES everyone's time by trying to prove the Genesis version of creationism is true, while knowing NOTHING about Biblical scholarship."

Unsubstantiated prejudicial conjecture. For the record, he's quite well versed in biblical scholarship.

"Example: all that crap about trying to prove the line about "the waters above the heavens" to be accurate."

He's starting with an assumption, and going from there. Just like almost any other scientific theory, like the Big Bang, for example. Why is that bad?

"EVERYONE, (except him), knows the ancient Near Eastern cosmos, had a "heavenly vault", and above that were the "waters above the heavens". "

You're point? Are you saying he's wrong just because someone else had a similar idea in the past to the bible? Smells of the genetic fallacy here.

"IT's MYTHOLOGY"

More prejudicial conjecture

"and EVERY reputable Biblical scholar knows that."

Wow - a two for one combo! The false appeal to the majority stacked on top of the no true Scotsman fallacy! Impressive combo there! As to your point, the vast majority of biblical scholars disagree with you on this one. The general consensus is that Genesis was written as historical narrative, and was meant to be read as a true description of history. Whether or not people accept it as true history is a different matter - the point is that it was quite clearly written as if it is true history.

"He is simply ignorant of both Biblical studies, AND philosophy."

More ad hominem attacks. Seriously, I'm starting to wonder if you've even said a phrase yet that wasn't logically fallacious.

"2. Every creationist must explain how a creative act "began" BEFORE spacetime. He hasn't even tried. "

That's because the answer to that is very well known in Christian creationist circles. The entire concept of "before" space-time is absurd. It's like asking what is north of the north pole. Prior to time existing, time didn't exist! The problem here is that you can't seem to get your mind out of looking at things through the concept of time. Once you realize that time doesn't exist outside of our space-time universe, you realize that your question is irrelevant.

"He assumes HIS god, (Yahweh Sabaoth), the "lord of hosts"/"god of the armies" IS that creator. That is laughable."

It's not just an empty assumption, it's backed up by numerous historical facts and documents. It's not like he's picking his assumption out of mid air, the concept of Yahweh has a very long, well developed history and foundation.

"Why do old men who have some credentials in one discipline think they get to "go off" in fields about which they KNOW NOTHING ?"

More ad hominem attacks, and once again, not even true. He's highly credentialed in physics, and does impressive work in that field. You seem to want to discredit him, simply because he takes historical facts discussed in the bible and uses them as a basis for certain thoughts about the universe. Why is that wrong? He's done some good science that way. You should read up on how his models of planetary magnetism based on ideas from Genesis were actually able to predict the magnetic fields on Uranus and Neptune, while secular scientists were off by factors of 100,000. You know what, maybe when a scientific theory can make such good predictions, there's something to that.
(17-03-2012 10:57 PM)Logisch Wrote:  We know there are specific methods of radiometric dating that work better on some resources more than others. Another example is that we can't use the same methods for dating the moon since it's exposed to things that can carry larger quantities of materials than what we'd find on earth, therefore that would also be inaccurate. Well if we can't use it on moonrocks on the same methods we'd find here on earth then it must ALL be wrong! No.. Therefore they go through various methods of testing to ensure the accuracy, they tested that method on xenoliths and went "Yep that's not gonna work." so to use it as an example to say - "Well we know overall that ALL forms of radiometric dating obviously work in our favor" is intellectually DISHONEST.

Oh please - this is special pleading at it's best. "We don't get the answers that we like for this little bit here, or that bit there, so we're not going to use it for either of those little bits, but we'll trust the rest because we get answers we like". Come on now - if you seriously think that's good science, I don't even know how to respond. Just more buying into the indoctrination, I guess.
(17-03-2012 11:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Maybe have a little look at this. There IS now proof that the universe IS homogeneous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...ByekIx7XXw

Your statement that "The science isn't driven by the desire to find an answer - it's driven by the desire to save the current answer, because it's the answer so many people WANT to be true." is simply patently false, and proves that you do not know even one cosmologist, or physicist, (exept your creationist friends). If you think you can go, and copy-paste creationist nonsense and think it's gonna fly here, you are sadly mistaken.

I had a look at your video - I really don't think you comprehend the term homogeneous there. The video had nothing to do with the homogeneity of the universe - it's about the small scale fabric of space time instead. Maybe I need to clear you up on this - the homogeneity of the universe that is assumed by the Big Bang is the idea that, everywhere you stand in the universe, when you look around you, it's always going to look approximately the same. Matter is spread out generally evenly and energy is spread out generally evenly. Therefore, all universal forces (and by that I mean non-local forces) acting on you would cancel each other out. You'd feel no universal gravity acting on you - just local gravitational effects. Now that you now what I'm talking about in regards to this homogeneity, you can go back and try and find another video.

And my statement made about the science of the Big Bang model is true. There are so many things being added to it to try and save it (i.e., inflation, dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, etc) that go against so many fundamental laws of physics that we know, it's clear the science is being driven by the effort to maintain the current theory instead of coming up with a better one.

As for your comments about "creationist friends", it's clear you are simply prejudiced against anyone with a different view, and commit the genetic fallacy again here. "If it comes from a creationist, it's wrong by default! It doesn't matter whether it's true or not!" That's a great way to go through life! And copying and pasting? Seriously - have you read any of my posts? I've clearly been writing this all myself with my own explanations here.
(17-03-2012 10:57 PM)Logisch Wrote:  http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/hawaii.html

So I read through the links you provided. Sadly pathetic, I must say.

The second link is simply a straw man refute - I made no comments about the Hawaiian lava flow mentioned there. My comments were about different lava flows, where the measurements have been verified, repeated, and published in journals.

The first link is a collection of links to articles written by various scientists. The vast majority of these have never been published, and have actually been refuted. For example, the complaints made by Dr Kevin Henke have been refuted multiple times by Dr Russ Humphreys, to the point where Dr Henke actually gave up trying anymore. And again, the complaints by Dr Joe Meert against the RATE project have also been addressed, refuted, and once again he has no follow up response.

You really should do your complete homework on issues before providing links like this. The data concerning the invalidity of radiometric dating that I posted about has all been published in appropriate peer-reviewed journals. The refutations that you've pointed out have not been published in peer-reviewed journals, and have all been answered by the scientists in question anyway. The facts are there, for anyone who wants to look at the whole story, and not just one side of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2012, 12:55 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
"There are so many things being added to it to try and save it (i.e., inflation, dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, etc) that go against so many fundamental laws of physics that we know, it's clear the science is being driven by the effort to maintain the current theory instead of coming up with a better one."

Ok lets hear a better one. (and NOT the Bible). They're not "added to it" They ARE it.

Just like the Bible. Every time they come up with another contradiction, or error, they REinterpret it.
He is obviously NOT "well versed" in Biblical anything, or he would be making ridiculous arguments about the "waters above the heavens". Prove it. What sort of Biblical education has he got, and where did he get it ? He is NOT just making a "similar point". He specifically and particularly singles out the verse, and attempts to prove it. The bible is NOT "historical". It's MYTHOLOGY, and the concept of "history" did not exist in human culture at that time. It's been proven to be in error countless times. There is no "general consensus" that it's "historical", except in fundie circles. You are simply wrong, and obviously have no education on the matter.

When you "look" at the universe, you can't even see 99 % of it as it's been PROVEN to be Dark Energy and Dark Matter. If you don't know that at least there is SOMETHING that has gravitational pull, you are beyond help.

Name ONE quality of (god's) "existence", that DOES NOT require TIME.

Here is a little lesson about your pathetic Yahweh god.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg

Are you sure your name isn't Egor ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: