YEC explanation for traveling light.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2012, 03:31 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(05-04-2012 09:51 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(04-04-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Oh right. 10,000,000 Africans starve last year, thousands of Japaneese die in a tsunami. Yeah, she's REAL interested, isn't she. Such VAST interest in stunningly breathtaking.


Just a pet peeve - but what the fuck does that hafta do with traveling light? Know how many Africans and Japanese I see in my house? If you guessed zero... How come shit like this only gets mentioned to express a degree of moral outrage? Are we theists, or are we atheists?

Having seen the LC, I got a sense of "moral relativism" that's kinda absolute. When I say there ain't no "right thing," I mean - there ain't no right thing. Wink


It has nothing to do with traveling light, just like almost all the rest of the posts on this thread. It DOES have to do with a false assertion that there exists a being with "vast interest" in humans, (with NO supporting evidence), and VAST amounts of counter evidence.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Assistant Manager, Vice Detection, Whoville : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2012, 05:00 PM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2012 05:06 PM by San Onofre Surfer.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(05-04-2012 06:26 AM)SixForty Wrote:  As for creationists that don't stand within the consensus opinion, here's a list for you: Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Bacon, Pascal, Pasteur, Faraday, Joule, Maxwell.

Those are all dead people, in case you hadn't noticed. Human knowledge has come a LONG way since then. Do you take antibiotics ? If so, you believe in evolution. Do you know what goes on in bactertiology labs ?

"Peer reviewed" YEC ? Now *there's* an oxymoron for ya. The last time I checked, I wasn't here to learn logic forom a YEC. You would be the absolute last person I would expect to learn about logic from.
SixFourty dateline='[1333628787' Wrote:  You seem to misunderstand so many fundamentals here. It's hard to distinguish between your rantings and your ignorance. It's really not that hard to understand. An entity which created the universe is not subject to the conditions and attributes of that universe he created.

THAT is (practiaclly the definition, of special pleading. It's also not an argument, (and you have no evidence for that statement).
SixFourty dateline='[1333628787' Wrote:  However, that universe that he created is subject to him. Maybe if I really dumb down an analogy for you, you might grasp it. Let's pretend you build a bookcase. You can make all sorts of designs for it and changes to it. It is subject to how you want to build and maintain it. You, however, are not subject to the bookcase. You are not required to sit on one of the shelves. That's a very basic example, and the situation is much more complicated than that, but I can't really think of a more basic way to put it that you might understand.

Very lame simplistic, false analogy. I am subject to TIME. If I make something, it's an action. So is "creation". You still have not explained how your god *changed* from a state of being not appeased, to being appeased, after the death of her child ? Are you gonna answer that ? You told us god had a "plan" "before time began". You aplogized for saying that. An apology is not an explanation. You evaded the question, and continue to do so. Everything you say about your god, requires it to exist in (anthropomorpically projected), dimensions of space-time.
SixFourty dateline='[1333628787' Wrote:  You are making an argument against interceding, but the point at issue here was interest. Someone can clearly be interested in something without interceding.

So, she's just plain mean then.
SixFourty dateline='[1333628787' Wrote:  more Logical Fallacy - Genetic Fallacy (arguing against creationists simply because they are creationists), Philosophical Bias (assuming historical texts are mythology)

Proof again, you know nothing about the Bible, or ancient Near Easten texts. No reputable Biblical scholar says they are "historical", any longer. (And spare me the straw man come-back). Where did you study the bible, as you were apparently "home schooled" ?
BTW, god is a "she". Please tell us what your god's testosterone levels are ? How do you know he's not an hermaphrodite ? Or gay ?

The angry gods require sacrifice. Now get outside and slay them a goat. Cadet in Terse But Deadly
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2012, 08:04 AM (This post was last modified: 12-04-2012 07:19 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(04-04-2012 08:43 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  The point of where your god arose is NOT irrelevant. You obviously can't deal with the questions, about history, and religion, (because you can't find Humphrey's opinions on the subject). Your lame attempt to have me stop asking my embarrassing questions is not going to work. Nice try, pops. Calling my questions "rabbit holes", is your usual evasion. again...ANSWER THE QUESTION. Clearly, there are things being raised, you can't deal with.
You are 110 % wrong about the Argumentum ad Verecumdiam. Credentials are only ONE part. The other half, is that the authority lies within the consensus of opinion. Humphries DOES NOT. There are kooks in every field, (even Einstein was wrong about some things). Humphreys is one. Weren't you just talking about "peer reviewed" ?
Don't worry about embarrassing me, you embarrass yourself. YEC indeed. Carbon dating is verified, because it has been independantly corroborated, with dates that are KNOWN, aside from Carbon dating, (pyramids, mummies, myriads of ancient artifacts, who age is KNOWN, independantly of Carbon dating). How stupid can anyone be ? So much for that nonsense.

Mommy did him no favors when she decided to home-school him.

the "Curve of Knowns"
http://www.c14dating.com/int.html
Empirical data for a vast range of radionuclides now exists. Kaye & Laby's Tables of Physical & Chemical Constants, devised and maintained by the National Physical Laboratory in the UK, contains among the voluminous sets of data produced by the precise laboratory work of various scientists a complete table of the nuclides, which due to its huge size, is split into sections to make it more manageable, in which data such as half-life, major emissions, emission energies and other useful data are included. The sections are:
[1] Hydrogen to Flourine
[2] Neon to Potassium
[3] Calcium to Copper
[4] Zinc to Yttrium
[5] Zirconium to Indium
[6] Tin to Praesodymium
[7] Neodymium to Thulium
[8] Ytterbium to gold
[9] Mercury to Actinium
[10] Thorium to Einsteinium
[11] Fermium to Roentgenium (name not yet officially recognised by IUPAC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_dating
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/09/hu...young.html
http://www.reduciblycomplex.com/index.ph...-debunked/
http://home.earthlink.net/~ironmen/qumran5.htm
http://www.harvardhouse.com/Gabriel-to-D...Method.htm
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creat...html#prove
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educat...teach.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Learning.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/McKinney.html
http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/...gback.html
http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/...index.html
http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-3/
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/vi...184#269184
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...161307.htm

There are multiple methods used all of which give answers in about the same range. (When you're dealing with ages in billions of years being off by a million or three is a small percentage). The Earth is estimated to be about 4.6 billion years old.

These methods include:
Radiocarbon dating
Potassium-Argon dating
Uranium-Lead dating.

All of these relate a known, relatively constant rate of decay of a radioactive isotope. They're not affected by external factors such as temperature, pressure, etc.

There are other dating methods as well that can be used to establish that the age of the Earth is WELL over anything the Creationists are proposing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_ti…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric…
http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creat...-14-dating

In Hebrew/Biblical culture, there is not even a word "historical" -- the concept was "known", but not the point. ( http://video.pbs.org/video/1051895565/ )
I would be willing to bet, he can't even tell you when Hebrew culture became monotheistic, (within a hundred years), or why, or even when exactly Genesis was first written, or in what language, when that language first appeared, and began to be written, and how, exactly the editors, who pasted together the Y(J), D, E, K, and P sources, had any way of knowing what happened before a human was "created", since that didn't happen, until the sixth "day".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/flood.html


Hope the Ether Bunny is good to y'all up there. Einstein

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Assistant Manager, Vice Detection, Whoville : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2012, 08:09 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
God created the universe to look old...to which I respond "So God is fooling us?"

"Praise Sweet Baby Jesus!" - RevJ. Cool

My Sites: www.jesuschristarcade.com - www.facebook.com/jesuschristarcade - Twitter@jesusarcade
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 08:59 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
Sorry about resurrecting an old thread, but this is the kind of nonsense that creationists spew. It sounds vaguely "sciency" but it's full of holes that take other scientists to debunk, read this:
Russel Humphreys
Or this:
Russel Humphreys debunked

A good description of this type of YEC dreck is the "loose brick" critic. they try to get the whole building condemned by finding a loose brick, 100's of years of science is not going to be de-railed by a creationist goof ball that comes up with things like God transmuting all of the elements from water

The tree of delusion is nourished by the vague promises and skewed perception of prayer. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 10:39 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
The speed of light doesn't pose a problem for YECs. It is only the YUCs (young universe creationists) that have to explain it. Some people are in both of these groups but some aren't.

http://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2014/07...-universe/

God's invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Romans 1:20 ESV

blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 11:52 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 10:39 AM)theophilus Wrote:  The speed of light doesn't pose a problem for YECs. It is only the YUCs (young universe creationists) that have to explain it. Some people are in both of these groups but some aren't.

http://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2014/07...-universe/

Wow is all I can say, here it is from that site: " If you read the Bible account carefully you will see that it says that God placed lights in the sky, not that he created the bodies that were the source of those lights. There were three days and three nights before this. That proves that the sun already existed. We have all experienced times when the sky was covered with clouds that kept us from seeing the sun but still allowed light to reach the ground. A condition like this must have existed during the first three days of the earth’s creation."

And then they go on to spout this: " Belief in a young earth and an old universe presents no Biblical or scientific difficulties."

Are you kidding me? Despite a mountain of geologic evidence, along with dendochronology, biology, varve chronology, even archeological evidence that refutes the Genesis myth, it presents "no scientific difficulties".

I like this, basically I can ignore inconvenient facts, pretend they don't exist.

The tree of delusion is nourished by the vague promises and skewed perception of prayer. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 12:34 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(13-01-2012 12:23 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Does anyone know their apologetics for this?

I've heard "God placed the light there" and "we don't know how long ago God created the light before the earth" and "God did it. Period."

Do they have a better satisfactory answer?

Triangulation or parallax calculations are basically just plotting a star's location and traveling speed by checking where it's at when we're at different points in the Earth's orbit, seeing it from different positions. Same kind of math used to determine the length of the side of a triangle that got used in math class.

Of course you are assuming that Big Bang theory is true and everything is travelling from an original core explosion, and that it's the explosion causing the stars to travel outward. If they were created in original positions and God is expanding the universe as the Bible repeatedly states (e.g. Job 9:8, Isaiah 44:24) then your triangulation calculations won't work.

So in essence triangulation is just circular reasoning, you have to assume the universe is old to get calculations that believe it is old.

My website refuting alleged contradictions will be at BereaWiki.com.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 12:42 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 12:34 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(13-01-2012 12:23 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Does anyone know their apologetics for this?

I've heard "God placed the light there" and "we don't know how long ago God created the light before the earth" and "God did it. Period."

Do they have a better satisfactory answer?

Triangulation or parallax calculations are basically just plotting a star's location and traveling speed by checking where it's at when we're at different points in the Earth's orbit, seeing it from different positions. Same kind of math used to determine the length of the side of a triangle that got used in math class.

Of course you are assuming that Big Bang theory is true and everything is travelling from an original core explosion, and that it's the explosion causing the stars to travel outward. If they were created in original positions and God is expanding the universe as the Bible repeatedly states (e.g. Job 9:8, Isaiah 44:24) then your triangulation calculations won't work.

So in essence triangulation is just circular reasoning, you have to assume the universe is old to get calculations that believe it is old.

I'm not sure where to even start with all the misinformation here. Triangulation and parallax techniques are only useful for stars that are very close to us (relatively speaking). This is a tiny percentage of stars in general. The distance (and age) of stars in general is calculated using other techniques, most of which pre-date the Big Bang theory and have little or nothing to do with it. The stars are where they are (and are as old as they are) regardless of how they got there and what causes their movement. There is no circular reasoning involved except in your own muddled mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
17-07-2014, 12:42 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 11:52 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Wow is all I can say, here it is from that site: " If you read the Bible account carefully you will see that it says that God placed lights in the sky, not that he created the bodies that were the source of those lights. There were three days and three nights before this. That proves that the sun already existed. We have all experienced times when the sky was covered with clouds that kept us from seeing the sun but still allowed light to reach the ground. A condition like this must have existed during the first three days of the earth’s creation."
And this also fails to account for stars other than our sun, the nearest of which is about 4.3 light years away. So 3 days and 3 nights is a "little" short on time.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: