YEC explanation for traveling light.
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2012, 07:01 AM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2012 07:40 AM by SixForty.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
To houseofcantor:

"And how is all this about traveling light? "

That's what I actually originally posted here to discuss! It has been taken pretty far off track since then, though, hasn't it?

"640, all yer sources seem to be, you know…"

That's because I'm being asked to defend creationism repeatedly here. So of course most of my sources would be creationist!

"Science ain't absolute, but to say "most likely" or "it is hypothesized" alla time gets old with the quickness."

I know, which is another reason I get tired of the Big Bang and evolution so often. So many people know the general ideas, but when you push them on specifics, you hear so many "likely" and "hypothesized". It is painful sometimes, isn't it? Smile

"Generally, BBT is a "most likely" scenario, evolution is a "near certain" consideration, and YEC is "pretty much quackery.""

BBT is "most likely" ONLY if you accept the philosophical assumptions that it's built upon. Evolution is nowhere "near certain", even if you DO accept the philosophical assumptions that it's built on! As for YEC being "pretty much quackery", that's pretty much prejudicial conjecture. It's arbitrarily reversible - evolution is pretty much quackery.

To Bucky Ball:

Seriously buddy. Take a time out. You're spilling all over the place here.

"So it IS Wikipedia where you get your education. I knew it."

Nope. But I did want to provide resources for you that seemed on your level. It was just a quick, 3 minute exercise to prove how easy it was to find proof that you were wrong. You could have done it yourself if you wanted to know the truth. You can feel free to look further. Almost exclusively, every resource you will find will say that dark matter and dark energy are either hypothetical, or they exist but nobody knows what they really are. Either explanation I consider to be far from the "proven" that you claim.

"You said Dark Energy and Dark Matter had not been proven, and now were up to 94%, so I guess we're getting there."

94% isn't the level to which they are proven. It's the amount that is hypothesized. And it's still not the 99% that you claimed so forcefully to be a fact. So you are wrong on the 99% part, and wrong on the fact part. Double points for you!

"The god crap is child's play. Omniscience...that is "KNOWING everything".. "knowing" is a mental PROCESS. That requires TIME AND MATTER. If you "know" something, a BRAIN is WORKING. "Work being done" requires TIME. Omnipotence means "powerful". Unless your god is impotent she has to ACT. That requires TIME. (If she is "omnipotent" why does she not reveal herself?). "Being holy", the PROCESS of loving, just and providing mercy ALL require time. "Merciful", means "giving mercy". THAT requires TIME. Try try again."

Wow. Such complete and utter lack of understanding. You really should take some introductory philosophy courses. You might not embarrass yourself so bluntly. You clearly have difficultly separating the concept of "being" and "doing". Someone can "be" something without actually "doing" something. Someone can "be" angry without ever "doing" an angry act. On top of that, you haven't even given any reasons for why you think that these are identical. You've simply assumed that they are, and therefore declared that they are - that smacks of circular reasoning. Honestly, your fundamental failure to comprehend these facts actually hurts my very being! (or is it my very doing? Smile )

But let's look at just one of the individual points you've brought up to make this clearer. You claim that "knowing" is a mental process, and thus requires time. You seem to be confusing this with "thinking". "Thinking" is a mental process - "Knowing" is a mental state. You could easily argue that "Thinking" requires time. A process requires a series of events and a sequence of execution. I'd submit that this would require time in some sense. But a state requires no time at all. There is no next step. There is no process. A state of being can be entirely timeless. A process of doing requires time.

"They are all projected human traits."

Yes. Of course. Silly me. Omniscience is a human trait. So is omnipotence. I think I met a guy who had that once. (do I need to put an *end sarcasm* sign here?) These are human traits in the same way as saying that God is infinitely tall. Maybe it's just the concept of infinite that you have trouble understanding - could that be it?

"I give you a week here. Either they will kick you off, or you will flame out like all the others. Humphries indeed. You got nothing."

I actually give myself less than a week here. And it has nothing to do with flaming out (I don't know about the being kicked off part though) It's just I don't usually spend much time online like this. I just had a couple of days to relax, and surfing led me here (I still can't recall what I started out looking for - lousy YouTube! You sucked me in again!)

"EVERYTHING about the "salvation" paradigm requires and assumes god WENT, (get it..TRANSITIONS)..from a state of non-appeasement TO a state of having been appeased by the ACTION, (blood sacrifice) of her child. EVERY bit of that nonsense assumes that your god exists within a temporal dimension. Transitioning takes TIME."

Once again, you get it wrong. Heck, the bible even talks about this, how salvation was God's plan before time began. It was always his state of existence!

But seriously - you need to stop looking at the universe from the inside only. You keep trying to impose internal ideas and constructs of the universe onto external observations about what may exists outside of the universe. It's like you're living in a goldfish bowl. Of course you don't realize that you're wet - it's all you've ever known. But you can't then assume that the rest of the world outside your bowl exists in the same medium that you do, under the same conditions, subject to the same phenomena. The rest of the world just isn't wet. Imposing internal conditions on external observations is fundamentally flawed.

Honestly Bucky Ball, I'll say it again for your sake. You should really sit this one out. You're making yourself look like more and more of an utter fool with almost every statement that you make.

To robotworld:

I must admit, I'm impressed you did the math. Most people would simply rant against the conclusion, without bothering to actually think about it. So you definitely have my respect.

Although I would debate some of the actual numbers you'd put forth there for historical populations, it's not even really necessary. We can take your own previously admitted assumption of extended periods of flat growth throughout history, and add in the fact that historical records from early biblical history show vastly larger family sizes and thus vastly larger growth rates than we see today. This can easily give a much quicker early acceleration followed by periods of flattening in the global population, which could average out to the growth rate you calculated and still end up with the current population.

Now, that's just a hypothetical to think about the concept of how various changes to certain variables will affect the numbers. Please don't jump all over me for this, because I'm stating outright it's a hypothetical without numbers - I'm not actually trying to disprove what you've written here. I present it only to make the following point:

No matter how you reasonably tweak those numbers, you are always going to get a number much closer to 4300 years ago than 200,000 years ago. (which is the current going rate for the introduction of homo sapiens on the planet, according to the latest fossil finds and genetic theories in the evolutionary paradigm) So yeah, say the calculation comes out to 12,000 years instead - I'm sure creationist scientists can explain the discrepancy from 12,000 to 4300 way better than evolution scientists can explain the discrepancy from 12,000 to 200,000.

So I'll still stand by the fact that population growth statistics point to a young earth way more than an old earth.

To Starcrash:

"I did the math, and you didn't present evidence that would be contrary. The findings on Earth of time distortion due to relativity that you presented was in microseconds of difference, or a margin of error at .0000000001% or less. If you believe that light traveled here from distant galaxies and that we perceive it as having traveled at 1.55 million times its known speed, then we're looking at a margin of error at 99.999999999% or more. This isn't using what we've learned from Einstein and applying it to cosmology, but rather coming to a preconceived conclusion (such as a young universe) and just hoping the math fits."

Again, unfortunately I'm going to have to point you to the fact that I'm considering the early expansion of the universe. Maybe I should explain. As a young earth creationist, I don't believe that God created the universe in it's current size at the beginning of creation. I believe the universe was very small on the first day of creation. The on the fourth day of creation, when God created the Sun, Moon and stars, that would be the time that the universe went through a vast expansion process. The expansion of the universe is observable science and I don't deny that. At the same time, there are multiple portions of the bible that actually support this "stretching out of the heavens". So I have no problem with the universe starting out small and expanding out to where it is today.

Now, how that comes into play in this discussion. The time distortion theory presented by Dr Humphreys considers how gravity would have affected the universe at it's beginning, when small, and gravity had a much larger effect on the universe as a whole, and then again during the expansion stage, where both gravity and motion would have had an effect on time in immense ways. The calculation that you are considering regarding a 5 microsecond/year difference only is based solely on the universe as we see it today. But consider the very early stages of that expansion of the universe. All the mass of the universe would be densely packed near the centre (again, this model makes the assumption that the universe does have a centre). There would be massive gravitational effects due to the amount of mass so densely packed. It would likely be a state with higher gravitational effects than the largest black holes we would know of - possibly by factors into the billions in the early stages of expansion. Now that 5 microsecond/year difference is going to amplified possibly billions or trillions of times, possibly more. So during this process, an hour at the middle of the universe could equal a billion hours at the edge. So light from a star at the edge of the universe (which isn't all that far away, since we are still close to the beginning of expansion) starts moving towards the centre - it's going to keep it's constant speed, but given the time distortions of the space that it's going through, it will appear to an observer on earth that it is travelling billions of times faster. As it gets closer and closer to earth, it still travels at the speed of light, but the time distortions are less and less, and an observer on earth sees it as if it's slowing down more and more. Once we get to the point where the universe is today, and the time distortion effects would be minimal, then effectively all light travelling towards earth from any direction is going to appear to be the same speed.

This is just a basic explanation of how such time distortion would affect a universe that has a centre with a centre of gravity, has an edge boundary, and went through a period on expansion in the distant past. Please don't jump all over me for just throwing out hypotheticals with no proof. That paragraph was not meant to prove anything - it was just meant to explain how it would work in the early stages of expansion. I realize that my explanation may not be that great - it's not typically my forte! But honestly, if you want hard science and details as to how it would all work, pick up a copy of Dr Humphreys book Starlight and Time. It can explain it way better than I could, including all the necessary details of how Einsteins theory of relativity plays into this type of cosmology.

"This reminds me a lot of the debate over radiometric dating. We assume that radioactive materials decay at a fixed rate, and young earth creationists believe that they must have decayed at a much faster rate in the past... but not just a little bit... 750,000 times faster. And like radiometric dating, it's not currently speeding up (assumed to have been happening in the past), so those margins or error are theorized to be even greater because such quick change happened over a much shorter time period. I agree there's no evidence to support these assumptions made --- that things always move at the speed they move now --- as you say, they are pretty much accepted as truisms. But it's just utilizing Occam's Razor. Unless we observe a change in decay rate or our perception of the speed of light, there's no reason to expect that they were different at one time. We're using the data we have and extrapolating the simplest explanation."

And those are valid starting points. And like I've said before - if the assumptions the big bang is built on are true, it's pretty good science. But I personally don't accept those assumptions, and also like I've said before, I've seen data that seems to show those assumptions may not be true. Just like radiometric dating - the assumptions of constant rate aren't initially bad assumptions - it's just that there's a fair bit of evidence that shows that hasn't always been the case, so I can't accept them as infallibly valid. Especially when they contradict a whole lot of other evidence.

"Science has an agenda... everyone does. That agenda is to discover knowledge. When you suggest they're "hiding assumptions and philosophies", I think you're suggesting "hidden agenda" here, and that's something you'd have to present evidence for. Attacking someone's philosophies is often an ad hominem attack, so it's possibly irrelevant. It's true that philosophy may result in bias which may skew results, and that's why we have double-blind studies and peer review, as well as attempts to gain data first and then build a model on it rather than the other way around. Assumptions are part of "fitting an argument in the scope of current knowledge", but I don't see what about them is "hidden"."

Although some would suggest "hidden agenda" in the way you would define that, I don't think it's sinister in the way of "we want to steal your children" or anything like that. But I do think it is hidden in the way that it is not openly admitted, and even sidestepped when confronted. Consider again that statement from George Ellis that I quoted earlier in this thread. The problem is that when philosophies of how to interpret data aren't openly known, admitted, and remembered, we often start talking about things as facts, when in reality it is only a certain interpretation of the facts.

As for gaining data first and then building a model on it rather than the other way around, that sort of speaks directly to the point. So much of secular science, especially the historical/evolutionary sciences, have already built a model of naturalism and materialism, and then fit the data into that. Again, it's not necessarily a bad thing, but let's just be honest about it. Certain "scientific facts" aren't actually facts - they are interpretations of the facts through that naturalistic and materialistic model.

"But in a model of a universe created by God, red shift's proliferation (especially compared to blue shift) doesn't have an explanation. One would just assume that God wants everything to move away from Earth or some other point, with no stated purpose."

Not at all! I don't simply assume God wants everything to move away from the earth. I look at the expansion of the universe and accept it for what it is. But I also read in the bible about where God stretched out the heavens so that he could place the Sun, Moon and stars there on day 4 of the creation week. So what I read actually matches up with what I observe. I don't assume God wants everything to move away from the Earth for no stated purpose - I think everything moves away from the earth due to the method he used to create the universe!

"All of the data suggesting a young universe comes from scientists who have a literal-bible agenda, and I dismiss that as easily as I do the Muslims that tell us that modern science keeps confirming the Q'uran."

Unfortunately, this commits the genetic fallacy. Data should be observed for what it is, not for where it comes from. If you are going to dismiss it just because you don't like the source, I'd say this comes back to the very philosophical bias we were discussing earlier. And unfortunately, it actually shows that you do know there is evidence that suggests the earth is young - you just have reasons you don't want to accept it.

"Life from nonlife is abiogenesis, not evolution. I actually felt that you might understand evolution... up to this point. Now I'm not so sure."

Trust me, I understand evolution well enough. And abiogenesis as well. I'm also well acquainted with the common objection from evolutionists that abiogenesis isn't evolution, so don't use the impossibility of abiogenesis to claim evolution is impossible. I've heard it dozens, and possibly hundreds, of times.

First of all, let's clear up whether or not I understand evolution, by the standard definition. I'll put it in my own words, and you tell me if I'm close or not. Neo-Darwinian evolution involves 2 processes: Natural Selection and Genetic Mutation. Natural selection is the process by which members of a population of self-altering replicators, whose survival and reproducibility is influenced by external effects, will gain or lose certain traits, and then those external influences will force the new traits to either disappear from the population, flourish until they infiltrate the entire population, or increase enough until the members affected can break off and form a new population. Genetic mutations are alterations in the DNA code causing non-normal affects. Evolution is variably defined as: a single instance in which a single genetic mutation spreads in a population and is then selected by natural selection to cause a very small change; or the process of billions and billions of such just mentioned very small changes adding up to the common descent of all life from a single ancestor. So - how'd I'd do?

Now, back to Abiogenesis. The problem with evolutionists claiming that evolution and abiogenesis are two different things is this: it's done to distance the theory of evolution from the impossibility of abiogenesis. Evolutionists typically know that abiogenesis is impossible, so they don't want that to distract from the theory of evolution. Okay, I get that. The fatal flaw in that thinking is this - evolution hangs it's hat on abiogenesis. It is the starting point - the very foundation. You can't have the evolution of all life from a single first life form, until you actually have that first life form.

It's like this. Evolution is the study of my son growing up. We measure his height through the years. We measure strength increases. We observe language development, test his knowledge, study social interaction. All sorts of amazing scientific study on my son. Here's the catch - I don't have a son. All that study we did on my son is entirely irrelevant. If he was never born, it's an entire non issue. Abiogenesis is my son being born. So if abiogenesis is impossible, then the entire theory of evolution (at least the common descent definition of it) is pointless. It's a whole bunch of science done on something that doesn't actually exist.

"Darwin was studying to be a parson before he stumbled upon evolution. He didn't presuppose that there was no God, and he wasn't out to prove it."

Well, that's actually up for debate. There is much evidence that Darwin renounced his Christianity after the horrible illness and death of his daughter Annie. He didn't want to believe there was a God who could allow that. Many people would say that Darwin was out to prove that there was no God. However, regardless of that, his motives are mostly irrelevant. To consider his motives would simply be the genetic fallacy, which I try to avoid. I'd rather pay attention to his science, and focus on that.

"He did discover the role of genetics and hereditary traits, which is the foundation for changes from organism to organism, before it was later (or perhaps simultaneously) affirmed by Mendel."

This is also up for debate. Originally Darwin leaned heavily on others who went before him, to the point where he was almost accused of plagiarism. He borrowed heavily from the works of people like Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck, Robert Chambers, and Patrick Matthew. He also borrowed the idea of natural selection from Edward Blythe, amazingly enough a creationist! Regardless, it is true that he was the one who brought it all together into a published work that stuck.

As for your article on Richard Lenski's claimed evolution in bacteria, it's nothing new. Even from the original release of very limited published information, creationists have explained the mutations seen. Once Lenski releases full details of all the information, then we'll see what really occurred and what really is the best explanation. It always takes time for the full story to come out. I'm sure I don't need to remind you of things like Rodhocetus or Archaeoraptor. I'll reserve judgement until I can see all the facts.

"But it does make more sense that life arose from molecules rather than "from nothing", because we've observed things created out of molecules but we have never observed something coming "from nothing", obviously because we've never had a true nothing to observe."

I'd actually take it one step further. I'd say it makes even more sense that the guy who made those very molecules to begin with could also make life with them! Wink

Have a great day!

Oh poor, poor Bucky Ball. You have actually reduced me to pitying you now.

"Dark Energy, and Dark Matter are NOT "hypothetical". There is a lot of evidence for them. What they are exactly, is not known, but their effects have been observed many times. (See any Laurence Krauss book or lecture, among MANY others). The Wikipedia article is outdated. Read something recent. "

And if you want to believe that, you feel free to go right ahead. *pats Bucky Ball on the head*

"SixForty has betrayed a phenomenal ignorage"

I'm not exactly sure what an ignorage is, but I guess I should be thankful for the fact that I am phenomenal at it.

"in the fields of Astronomy, Cosmology, Theology, Philosophy, and Biblical Exegesis, and Form Criticism."

Whoa, whoa, whoa! That's a whole lot of elephant hurling going on there! Good thing I was ready to duck! Next time, give me a little bit more warning please!

"He is wrong about almost everything"

Oh - was I? Sorry, I didn't know. Thanks for pointing that out.

Hey everybody! Gather around for a minute! I just wanted to let everyone here know that apparently I was wrong about almost everything. I apologize. I didn't know until Bucky Ball here pointed it out to me. I guess that means I should take back everything that I've posted here. Now, just so I'm clear on what I need to brush up on, since you claim I was wrong on ALMOST everything, can you tell me what it was I got right? Because I wouldn't want to change my opinion on that!

Honestly, can anyone in here put Bucky Ball back on his leash out in the backyard? He's tearing up the place here, and I think he may have just peed on the rug.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Messages In This Thread
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light. - SixForty - 19-03-2012 07:01 AM
Forum Jump: