the light of stars
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-07-2016, 07:14 PM
the light of stars
hi I was wondering if someone can respond to this article if you don't want to read all of it I will understand http://www.gotquestions.org/star-light.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2016, 07:23 PM
RE: the light of stars
[Image: Ricky-Gervais-Putting-Head-Back-and-Laughing.gif]

Oh, man. Our physicists are going to have fun with you!

I'd start to respond, but I'm honestly laughing too hard.

Edit to Add: Seriously, guys, you've GOTTA read this!!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
24-07-2016, 07:29 PM
RE: the light of stars
(24-07-2016 07:23 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  [Image: Ricky-Gervais-Putting-Head-Back-and-Laughing.gif]

Oh, man. Our physicists are going to have fun with you!

I'd start to respond, but I'm honestly laughing too hard.

Edit to Add: Seriously, guys, you've GOTTA read this!!

Im not saying this is true or not true I just want someone else opinion
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2016, 07:39 PM (This post was last modified: 24-07-2016 07:44 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: the light of stars
Okay, bud... if you're being serious about wanting to know, rather than just doing a "drive-by" to try to make us consider magic as a real thing, I'll teach you some basic steps toward critical thinking.

Start with the easiest, so you don't need to get into the science of it to tell if the people who wrote the article (who obviously have an agenda, even if it's one with which you agree) are telling the truth about the scientist they're quoting, or if they're quote-mining to make him say something he wasn't saying.

Do a Google search on a large chunk of the phrase they quoted... see if you can find it on non-theist websites (theists will often copy something another Christian site wrote, verbatim, so it's not a confirmation unless you find it in a place that's not part of the same information-chain, like a university website or Scientific American's website, for instance), and in a broader or different context.

Then look up the scientist they're quoting, Dr. George Ellis, of South Africa, and see if his other writings suggest he believes anything like what they're claiming. (Hint: they don't. I already looked.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._R._Ellis

And I'm only talking about one passage in that article! The rest of it is worse, which would be quickly apparent to you if you had taken high-level physics courses at university. But I'll leave that for our guys who enjoy physics, rather than steal their thunder. I'm the guy you'll want to talk about for the topic of evolutionary biology. Smile

Edit to Add: If it sounds like I'm being a jerk, I apologize. I honestly am not trying to embarrass or offend you, here. I consider having a chance to teach someone about the scientific method of doing things to be a high honor, the way you would feel about evangelizing to a willing listener, I suppose. But the philosophy boils down to this: LOOK FOR YOURSELF. Don't just believe what I say, or what anyone says. Check. Double-check. Consider sources and their reliability. Then cross-check to see who disagrees with whom, on the topic, and whether the people who claim one thing have misrepresented their case in a demonstrable way. Only after you have satisfied yourself that there's a consistent pattern, even among those who have cause to disagree with one another, should you begin to accept things as factual. Otherwise you are clutching at straws, and likely to swallow falsehoods from charlatans looking to prey on your credulity. I think you will find the world a much more wonderful place, once you learn this important set of skills.

Good luck!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
24-07-2016, 07:43 PM
RE: the light of stars
The universe is not 6000 years old. The birth, life and death of the millions of species on this earth will attest to that, let alone the birth life and death of stars.

"They think, therefore I am" - god
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2016, 08:14 PM (This post was last modified: 24-07-2016 08:49 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: the light of stars
Read the Top 20 questions.
OMG. Heh heh

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2016, 08:17 PM
RE: the light of stars
(24-07-2016 07:39 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Okay, bud... if you're being serious about wanting to know, rather than just doing a "drive-by" to try to make us consider magic as a real thing, I'll teach you some basic steps toward critical thinking.

Start with the easiest, so you don't need to get into the science of it to tell if the people who wrote the article (who obviously have an agenda, even if it's one with which you agree) are telling the truth about the scientist they're quoting, or if they're quote-mining to make him say something he wasn't saying.

Do a Google search on a large chunk of the phrase they quoted... see if you can find it on non-theist websites (theists will often copy something another Christian site wrote, verbatim, so it's not a confirmation unless you find it in a place that's not part of the same information-chain, like a university website or Scientific American's website, for instance), and in a broader or different context.

Then look up the scientist they're quoting, Dr. George Ellis, of South Africa, and see if his other writings suggest he believes anything like what they're claiming. (Hint: they don't. I already looked.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._R._Ellis

And I'm only talking about one passage in that article! The rest of it is worse, which would be quickly apparent to you if you had taken high-level physics courses at university. But I'll leave that for our guys who enjoy physics, rather than steal their thunder. I'm the guy you'll want to talk about for the topic of evolutionary biology. Smile

Edit to Add: If it sounds like I'm being a jerk, I apologize. I honestly am not trying to embarrass or offend you, here. I consider having a chance to teach someone about the scientific method of doing things to be a high honor, the way you would feel about evangelizing to a willing listener, I suppose. But the philosophy boils down to this: LOOK FOR YOURSELF. Don't just believe what I say, or what anyone says. Check. Double-check. Consider sources and their reliability. Then cross-check to see who disagrees with whom, on the topic, and whether the people who claim one thing have misrepresented their case in a demonstrable way. Only after you have satisfied yourself that there's a consistent pattern, even among those who have cause to disagree with one another, should you begin to accept things as factual. Otherwise you are clutching at straws, and likely to swallow falsehoods from charlatans looking to prey on your credulity. I think you will find the world a much more wonderful place, once you learn this important set of skills.

Good luck!

I know you weren't being mean. Do you mind saying what else is wrong with the article? If you don't want to I understand but no one else has tried to explain why it's wrong so what else do you think is wrong with it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2016, 08:23 PM (This post was last modified: 24-07-2016 08:32 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: the light of stars
Sorry ... we're not trying to be mean. Really.
It's a pretty common theme in Creation circles and YEC circles to say that light was created and put in place so it "looks" like it was already on the way here.

There are dozens of reason why YEC is messed up :
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_ag...t_creation
http://csharp.com/starlight.html
http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/C-decay

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
24-07-2016, 08:28 PM
RE: the light of stars
(24-07-2016 08:17 PM)genericamerican22 Wrote:  
(24-07-2016 07:39 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Okay, bud... if you're being serious about wanting to know, rather than just doing a "drive-by" to try to make us consider magic as a real thing, I'll teach you some basic steps toward critical thinking.

Start with the easiest, so you don't need to get into the science of it to tell if the people who wrote the article (who obviously have an agenda, even if it's one with which you agree) are telling the truth about the scientist they're quoting, or if they're quote-mining to make him say something he wasn't saying.

Do a Google search on a large chunk of the phrase they quoted... see if you can find it on non-theist websites (theists will often copy something another Christian site wrote, verbatim, so it's not a confirmation unless you find it in a place that's not part of the same information-chain, like a university website or Scientific American's website, for instance), and in a broader or different context.

Then look up the scientist they're quoting, Dr. George Ellis, of South Africa, and see if his other writings suggest he believes anything like what they're claiming. (Hint: they don't. I already looked.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._R._Ellis

And I'm only talking about one passage in that article! The rest of it is worse, which would be quickly apparent to you if you had taken high-level physics courses at university. But I'll leave that for our guys who enjoy physics, rather than steal their thunder. I'm the guy you'll want to talk about for the topic of evolutionary biology. Smile

Edit to Add: If it sounds like I'm being a jerk, I apologize. I honestly am not trying to embarrass or offend you, here. I consider having a chance to teach someone about the scientific method of doing things to be a high honor, the way you would feel about evangelizing to a willing listener, I suppose. But the philosophy boils down to this: LOOK FOR YOURSELF. Don't just believe what I say, or what anyone says. Check. Double-check. Consider sources and their reliability. Then cross-check to see who disagrees with whom, on the topic, and whether the people who claim one thing have misrepresented their case in a demonstrable way. Only after you have satisfied yourself that there's a consistent pattern, even among those who have cause to disagree with one another, should you begin to accept things as factual. Otherwise you are clutching at straws, and likely to swallow falsehoods from charlatans looking to prey on your credulity. I think you will find the world a much more wonderful place, once you learn this important set of skills.

Good luck!

I know you weren't being mean. Do you mind saying what else is wrong with the article? If you don't want to I understand but no one else has tried to explain why it's wrong so what else do you think is wrong with it?

It never answers the question. You read a convoluted mess that kinda sorta explains theory of relativity and red shift to say a billion years to us could be seen differently in another part of the universe. Then it expects the reader to make the leap and say "ohhhhhh so those billions of years *could* just be 6,000 years from Earth's perspective" without any data to connect the dots.

"If there's a single thing that life teaches us, it's that wishing doesn't make it so." - Lev Grossman
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Nurse's post
24-07-2016, 10:41 PM
RE: the light of stars
(24-07-2016 08:17 PM)genericamerican22 Wrote:  Do you mind saying what else is wrong with the article? If you don't want to I understand but no one else has tried to explain why it's wrong so what else do you think is wrong with it?

Start with this statement at the top:
Quote:If there was not a strong scientific case for the YE perspective, this contradiction would not merit a second thought.
Given that there isn't any scientific case for YEC, and a whole lot against it, this doesn't merit a second thought. Doesn't look like it involved a first thought either.

Then there's:
Quote:But this is a philosophical presupposition, not a scientific conclusion founded upon empirical data.
Which is Weaslespeak for "You can't prove us wrong because this is just random hand-waving rather than actual science." Mind you I can simply dismiss it as the baseless speculation that they've admitted it is.

Here's the quick-N-dirty version. The YEC crowd need the universe to be ~6000 years old but speed of light in a vacuum becomes a pesky problem. You have to either change c (universe goes boom), vary t (universe goes crunch), or make your deity out to be a complete fraud (audience goes bwa-ha-ha!).

One of the favorite tricks employed to try to make it look like this could work is to muck about with relativity. That's because the overwhelming majority of people don't understand it in the slightest. No surprise there, not many people can follow Einstein. They're counting on your ignorance of a very complex scientific process to cover for their lie. Quantum mechanics is another favorite. As a quick tip you can ignore any argument made using either.

So to keep things simple, what they're really trying to do is put the Earth on the "edge" of a curved universe. That lets them bend time around so 13.8 billion years passes for everybody else while only 6000 years passes for Earth.

That doesn't work for a whole host of reasons but here are the easy ones:

- The disortions in space-time that they're invoking are so extreme as to smash ordinary matter into some very exotic forms of plasma. Think black hole several orders of magnitude more massive than our galaxy. That's the sort of phenomenon they're casually tinkering with and that's a good indication of just how poorly they've thought out the ramifications of their foolishness.

- The universe doesn't appear to have any "edges". That's according to the best observational data to date.

- Do you see an "edge"? No? It just conveniently wandered off? There ought to be a pocket of space-time less than 6000 lightyears from us that's absurdly redshifted. Remember, time runs slower there so Earth's only been gone from the "edge" for about a day. Precious little time for it to evaporate/expand/disappear coincidentally.

- Life in a strongly redshifted environment sucks. The corresponding blueshift that the rest of the universe appears to have converts visible light into high-energy gamma radiation. The time dilation compresses it and intensifies it. Basically you get ~300 years worth of starlight every hour ramped up to high-intensity ionizing radiation. That's going to be bad for many lethal reasons.

- The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It doesn't matter where you put it, there's simply no getting around it. Every attempt to make it fit a 6000 year age just makes things go boom when you run processes that require billions of years orders of magnitude too fast and explode the world. Please don't explode the world, we've become fond of it.

And yes, that was the short version. I hope that it helps.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: