YEC explanation for traveling light.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2012, 01:46 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(23-01-2012 12:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-01-2012 12:36 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(23-01-2012 12:29 PM)Jasrace Wrote:  
(13-01-2012 03:12 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  The recent experiments that prove sub-atomic particles can travel faster than light have been used by some YEC to claim that the universe is much younger than science suggests. They believe this is because, if light can travel faster than originally thought, it would reach our eyes sooner, hence a younger universe. However, they fail to realize that experiment only applies to the quantum level.

That hasn't been proven at all. Most scientists say it is an error. It also wasn't light traveling faster than 300k miles a second, it was neutrinos that arrived 60 nanoseconds faster than light.

Still, this does nothing to undermine evolutionary theory. Life still evolves.

You'd think the fact that there is no vaccine or cure for the common cold would be enough to convince non evolutionists.

Or that there is a new influenza vaccine every year.

But viruses don't change into people- Creationist. *facepalm*
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2012, 01:49 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(23-01-2012 01:46 PM)Jasrace Wrote:  
(23-01-2012 12:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-01-2012 12:36 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(23-01-2012 12:29 PM)Jasrace Wrote:  
(13-01-2012 03:12 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  The recent experiments that prove sub-atomic particles can travel faster than light have been used by some YEC to claim that the universe is much younger than science suggests. They believe this is because, if light can travel faster than originally thought, it would reach our eyes sooner, hence a younger universe. However, they fail to realize that experiment only applies to the quantum level.

That hasn't been proven at all. Most scientists say it is an error. It also wasn't light traveling faster than 300k miles a second, it was neutrinos that arrived 60 nanoseconds faster than light.

Still, this does nothing to undermine evolutionary theory. Life still evolves.

You'd think the fact that there is no vaccine or cure for the common cold would be enough to convince non evolutionists.

Or that there is a new influenza vaccine every year.

But viruses don't change into people- Creationist. *facepalm*

You laugh, but this is just a position stated from ignorance. The same goes for some atheists that try and argue theology. Many times there are a flurry if facepalms on my part, but I accept the fact that they are mostly ignorant.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
23-01-2012, 02:41 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(23-01-2012 01:49 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(23-01-2012 01:46 PM)Jasrace Wrote:  
(23-01-2012 12:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-01-2012 12:36 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(23-01-2012 12:29 PM)Jasrace Wrote:  That hasn't been proven at all. Most scientists say it is an error. It also wasn't light traveling faster than 300k miles a second, it was neutrinos that arrived 60 nanoseconds faster than light.

Still, this does nothing to undermine evolutionary theory. Life still evolves.

You'd think the fact that there is no vaccine or cure for the common cold would be enough to convince non evolutionists.

Or that there is a new influenza vaccine every year.

But viruses don't change into people- Creationist. *facepalm*

You laugh, but this is just a position stated from ignorance. The same goes for some atheists that try and argue theology. Many times there are a flurry if facepalms on my part, but I accept the fact that they are mostly ignorant.

So do you accept the fact humans have evolved?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2012, 03:00 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(23-01-2012 02:41 PM)Jasrace Wrote:  
(23-01-2012 01:49 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(23-01-2012 01:46 PM)Jasrace Wrote:  
(23-01-2012 12:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-01-2012 12:36 PM)germanyt Wrote:  You'd think the fact that there is no vaccine or cure for the common cold would be enough to convince non evolutionists.

Or that there is a new influenza vaccine every year.

But viruses don't change into people- Creationist. *facepalm*

You laugh, but this is just a position stated from ignorance. The same goes for some atheists that try and argue theology. Many times there are a flurry if facepalms on my part, but I accept the fact that they are mostly ignorant.

So do you accept the fact humans have evolved?

Uh-huh.

Click on my name. I'm an EC.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2012, 11:20 AM
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?

The best answers to date are usually found on the Answers in Genesis website. I've already rebutted their answers on this, but to sum them up again, they're making a case for "reasonable doubt" and disregarding that the burden of proof lies on them to make a positive case for us misreading or misjudging the evidence given by measurements of background radiation. If anyone wants to posit that we sit in a "gravity well" or that light may have traveled at different speeds, they need to give evidence that these things are true or possible, not wait for us to disprove them.

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
31-01-2012, 07:58 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
The best idea for young earth creationism involving starlight is certainly the idea of the universe being created with appearance of age. I always scratch my head when young earth creationists attempt to find natural solutions to what they would deem a supernatural creation. The appearance of age idea just makes the most sense to me when I look at it from their standpoint.

Some may argue that it makes God deceptive, one could argue, if they accept the YEC interpretation of The Bible that it was plainly spelled out and shame on us for being so arrogant as to think we know better than God.

So in conclusion, finding natural solutions to a supernatural occurrence is self defeating. The anisotropic synchrony convention that Dr Jason Lisle presented is one example of bad science being used to create "evidence" for a young universe as it disregards some basic principles in physics. It is best that a young earth be believed through faith than trying to find evidence to support it. The only way the Earth could possibly be young is if it was created with the appearance of age like the rest of the universe would allegedly be, if this were to be so, then the evidence of an old universe would mean nothing to one with that sort of viewpoint.

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:" Peter 3:15
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2012, 05:51 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2012, 08:17 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(13-01-2012 12:23 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Does anyone know their apologetics for this?

I don't see why anyone needs to apologise for travelling light.

Countless times I've popped over to Bangkok for a weekend with just my passport, my wallet and a toothbrush.

[I can buy condoms and viagra when I get there]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2012, 08:41 AM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2012 09:21 AM by Starcrash.)
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.

It's a fine answer, except that it's not the best answer. Like all of their answers, it's an Argument from Ignorance... a case for reasonable doubt. Can anyone measure time distortion? How could you even do that from inside time? Is it verifiable in any way?

When we're looking for answers, we don't simply want "an answer"... we want the best answer. That's an answer that fits within the scope of known science, that's testable, that doesn't create more problems than it answers... and the big bang theory does that better than the alternatives. Answers involving time distortions would require evidence that time is being distorted right now, and at a rate that explains the vastness of the known universe in such a short amount of time... and it doesn't provide that. The length of a second here on Earth has always been the same for as long as we've measured it. If time isn't getting distorted here on Earth but you believe it is throughout the universe, then you're making a case of special pleading for our planet, saying it's an exception just because it has to be. But how about our perception of time? It could be true that a second is getting shorter but we don't perceive the change... in which case you're making a case of special pleading for our perception of time when studying the universe that doesn't apply to Earth. It's true that time is "relative"... but if your standpoint is virtually unchanging, then your perception of time relative to the movement of time is also unchanging... Einstein's theory wouldn't explain "slow light".

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
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
17-03-2012, 03:29 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-03-2012 08:41 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  It's a fine answer, except that it's not the best answer. Like all of their answers, it's an Argument from Ignorance... a case for reasonable doubt. Can anyone measure time distortion? How could you even do that from inside time? Is it verifiable in any way?

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.

As to your exception that it is not the best answer, first of all that's open to interpretation. But even so, I'll happily submit that the question of distant starlight appears more difficult to answer in a creation paradigm than in an evolutionary paradigm. Does that one difficulty mean we just give up and abandon the theory? Of course not - and evolutionists wouldn't do that either. Take for example the Cambrian explosion - it's way, way better explained by creation than evolution. Are you automatically give up evolution and become a creationist just because creation has the best answer for that issue?

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.

(17-03-2012 08:41 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  When we're looking for answers, we don't simply want "an answer"... we want the best answer. That's an answer that fits within the scope of known science, that's testable, that doesn't create more problems than it answers... and the big bang theory does that better than the alternatives. Answers involving time distortions would require evidence that time is being distorted right now, and at a rate that explains the vastness of the known universe in such a short amount of time... and it doesn't provide that. The length of a second here on Earth has always been the same for as long as we've measured it. If time isn't getting distorted here on Earth but you believe it is throughout the universe, then you're making a case of special pleading for our planet, saying it's an exception just because it has to be. But how about our perception of time? It could be true that a second is getting shorter but we don't perceive the change... in which case you're making a case of special pleading for our perception of time when studying the universe that doesn't apply to Earth. It's true that time is "relative"... but if your standpoint is virtually unchanging, then your perception of time relative to the movement of time is also unchanging... Einstein's theory wouldn't explain "slow light".

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.

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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: