Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2017 10:42 PM
349 online now:
DOCJ, DrJones*, GDR, Meddle, ramoss (5 members, 344 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,583 Year: 21,189/21,208 Month: 1,622/2,326 Week: 77/881 Day: 77/119 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Author Topic:   The not so distant star light problem
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1075
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 76 of 111 (711121)
11-15-2013 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by NoNukes
11-14-2013 12:12 PM


Re: Direct Questions.
Actually yes, but it doesn't really matter due to Liouville's theorem. Although the brightness of one star will increase, it's brightness viewed from another point will decrease in a way that compensates, so measuring from a few angles gives you the correct average.
Even more crucially, lensing travels as the object causing it moves, so it isn't too difficult to track that motion and "subtract off" the lensing contribution.

Although I should say that my understanding of cosmological observations would not be the best. I know General Relativity and the observational techniques that are used, but I don't really have an understanding some of the deeper statistical principles and techniques applied in some of WMAP studies for example.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by NoNukes, posted 11-14-2013 12:12 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 111 (711167)
11-15-2013 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Tangle
11-14-2013 2:08 AM


removed

Edited by NoNukes, : pointless


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Tangle, posted 11-14-2013 2:08 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 347 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 78 of 111 (711196)
11-15-2013 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by marc9000
11-14-2013 7:56 PM


I need to break this into two posts. 1
Yes. Not only reached the earth, which only takes a few minutes even now, but the way it originally developed within the sun at creation. Which may not be the way it works now, in the way God sustains it, but only in the way he created it.

Ok, got it. So no to Barry Setterfield and similar arguments for a variation in the speed of light AFTER creation. And the laws of physics are in operation AFTER creation.

Yes, I disagree with the entire tone of your OP, including this line;

quote:you cannot shorten the time required to fit the text of the Bible.

You can, if the supernatural is considered.


Yes, you are correct here as NoNukes has pointed out. This was a flaw in my OP. You score points here.

quote:
In the case of the sun, all that's needed is some mechanism for light to escape the sun (I misunderstood NoNukes here and initially assumed he meant core) quicker than you say, and the photons could then have been produced by fusion.

I simplified the argument and not only accepted such a mechanism but went even further and allowed for a supernatural creation of the light in transit from the core to the surface. Then I made the point that even with that, the fusion is superfluous. Why create it to generate light when it's never really needed to do so. In fact a YEC argument at this point might be "Maybe there isn't a core and fusion isn't really taking place within the sun, you don't know, have you been there?" To which I'd reply, "No, but I was visited by my late Aunt Dorothy who has and she told me all about it," which wouldn't phase him a bit because it wasn't previously recorded and written down 2,000 years ago. (with regard to your objection to the tone of my OP - guilty as charged)

I never posted this after it dawned on me that NoNukes was referring to a variation in c. But a variation in c as he pointed out has a bad consequence for life in our solar system. Increase c and you increase the energy output of the sun and the earth is a cinder. He continued by suggesting more YEC nonsense to which I didn't reply. The suggestion that the reaction rate simultaneously slowed for example is a contradiction as an increase in energy output would result in an increase in the reaction rate.

The superfluous nature of the core to produce light is something to at least wonder about, no? It's similar to those single celled organisms discovered deep within the earth that divide once every thousand years. One has to wonder what the purpose of their creation is.

Let me insert this here as it relates to a point of the OP:

quote:
Are you referring to aspects of reality of which we are presently unaware? Or do you mean that you think we are incapable of understanding the reality of which we are aware? Are you simply distinguishing between God's manner of creation and his resulting creation once completed?

Yes.


With this catch-all you can weasel out of the superfluous core observation above. Let's assume that we don't understand the laws of physics correctly(the reality of which we are aware).

If we speculate that by some unknown natural mechanism the photons are moving from the core to the surface faster, then the energy density is lower in that region of the sun and gravitational forces are no longer balanced against pressure forces so the sun begins to shrink, until a balance is re-established. But now we supposedly have a smaller balanced sun, which has a higher energy density again, which means the photons must be moving slower again, which contradicts the initial speculation.

Faulty speculations like this lead to contradictions by which they are detected in the first place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by marc9000, posted 11-14-2013 7:56 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by NoNukes, posted 11-15-2013 9:42 PM shalamabobbi has responded
 Message 84 by marc9000, posted 11-17-2013 4:12 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

    
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 347 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 79 of 111 (711197)
11-15-2013 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by marc9000
11-14-2013 7:56 PM


part 2
YECs don't think of the laws of physics as being intertwined such that making a change here affects an outcome there. They see them as a mixed bag of tricks any one of which can be set aside or used independent of the rest. In reality the laws operate together as do the various parts of an airplane. YECs want to break off a wing and replace it with a boulder and expect the plane to continue to fly.

If you are a YEC it would be advantageous to study the laws of physics as they actually operate before wandering off to invent faith promoting realities. These self-contradictory pseudo-scientific explanations are not really any different in substance from plain old vanilla supernaturalism to begin with.

Exactly, it's possible to understand the fact that something happened, without knowing the details of how it happened. A person can use a flashlight without knowing exactly how it works. An atheist can believe abiogenesis happened without knowing how it worked.

Alright, I'll concede points here.

"Long" isn't a consideration if it happened in a time realm that is outside of the simple, one dimension time frame that humans know about.

and this

I don't consider the time frame to be identifiable. I guess I disagree with AIG slightly on that one. I think (in some cases) we have to stop short of trying to identify times for religious purposes, or try to claim that early humans and dinosours lived at exactly the same time, as I think AIG does. I think it's a mistake to go out on that limb.


Of course it is. More contradictory evidence then needs to be dealt with. Simply add the assumption that we cannot even comprehend the words of the bible. Of course this makes one wonder why God communicates with us in the first place.

I would think maybe the thread starter would have the burden of sharing his worldview so readers would better know where he's coming from

My world-view is growing and changing as I learn new things. It isn't static as I search for ways to prop it up against the evidence.

the 0.00001% of wackos like me who actually believe what the word of God says.

I hope I have not called you a wacko (and that your percentage figure is accurate). I am respecting your stance in supernaturalism. What I am objecting to is the wall of pseudo-scientific nonsense which YECs erect to hide behind, like ID.

I don't need any help.

Well of course not. You're a student of life with the world's tiniest crib sheet, supernaturalism.

Did God create false evidence to test our faith? Could be, but I think it's clearer that man bends over backwards to dig up false evidence.

It is one of the purposes of threads like this to allow lurkers the opportunity to decide what is clearer for themselves.

This is a result of "putting God to the test", or "leaning on our own understanding".

As a YEC in high school I remember reading a paper about the sun and understanding most of it but being able to reject it all because at the time the accounting for neutrinos didn't add up.

Eventually I encountered enough facts that caused a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance that I began to experience mental blocks that prevented me from not merely accepting the science but from understanding it in the first place. This was a very scary place to arrive at, because I knew, I absolutely knew, that this was damaging and harmful. It finally began to dawn on me that my flavor of superstition that made comprehension taboo could not be a good thing and if it wasn't good it wasn't anything to do with God if there was one.

My points are made, I'm almost done in this thread.

If you don't mind, (stunning victory BTW, congratulations are in order), would you mind starting a thread in the faith and belief forum to elaborate on the merits of refusing to use our minds to think (leaning upon our own understanding) or why you believe it is something worthy of reward in the hereafter. From my recollection this doesn't sit well with the parable about the talents.

Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by marc9000, posted 11-14-2013 7:56 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by marc9000, posted 11-17-2013 4:25 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 111 (711216)
11-15-2013 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by shalamabobbi
11-15-2013 3:07 PM


Re: I need to break this into two posts. 1
The suggestion that the reaction rate simultaneously slowed for example is a contradiction as an increase in energy output would result in an increase in the reaction rate.

Well, no. The goofy decrease in fusion rate was in combination with your proposed increase in C and would leave the energy input the same.

But no increase in C is really required. All that's needed is a supernatural, straight path out of the sun that does not require tens of thousands of years to traverse at normal light speed.

Only the tiniest bits of magic are needed for the nearby sun. More substantial faux science/magic explanations are required for objects tens of thousands of light years away.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-15-2013 3:07 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-16-2013 12:18 PM NoNukes has responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 347 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 81 of 111 (711255)
11-16-2013 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by NoNukes
11-15-2013 9:42 PM


Re: I need to break this into two posts. 1
Early in the dawn of creation the Gods spake amongst themselves.
How big shall we make the sun?*
56.
Yes 56 sounds about right.
We need to get these gammas out in a hurry and we don't have time to let them take their random walk to the surface, for behold, it is late October and time to set the clocks back.
We need to multiply and thermalize them to the proper black body spectrum.
Poof- It is done my Lord.
And don't forget to give the matter its portion of energy lest there be solar burping.
Why did we not simply make it to work the way we wanted without having to constantly tweek it my Lord?

I wrote the Genesis script in a hurry and once the word has left my lips it cannot return void.
At this, Lucifer took note. Writing and speaking are not the same thing.
Be thou cast down, Lucifer!
What's next my Lord?
Off with your head!
Whaaat?
There can be only one!

*Hebrew punctuation is similar to that of English and other Western languages, Modern Hebrew having imported additional punctuation marks from these languages in order to avoid the ambiguities sometimes occasioned by the relative paucity of such symbols in Biblical Hebrew.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_punctuation


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by NoNukes, posted 11-15-2013 9:42 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by NoNukes, posted 11-16-2013 1:21 PM shalamabobbi has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 111 (711260)
11-16-2013 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by shalamabobbi
11-16-2013 12:18 PM


Re: I need to break this into two posts. 1
If you use your iimagination you could come up with simpler narratives.

Suppose God created the sun by forming a fusing core first and then adding hydrogen fuel around the core until gravitation pressure alone sustained fusion. That would be invoke aspects of marc9000's idea that different forces were at work during creation than during steady state.

So that silly inter God conversation you describe need not have happened. You limited your options by assuming God built the sun the way a scientist would do it. Creationist are not so limited.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-16-2013 12:18 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-17-2013 4:01 PM NoNukes has responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 347 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 83 of 111 (711333)
11-17-2013 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by NoNukes
11-16-2013 1:21 PM


reply to post on top of this
I contend that the light we see when we look at the sun was either from the core having its beginning at least 10,000 - 170,000 years ago or it had to be magically created rendering the core superfluous.
You are saying that by allowing God to do it some other way we could get the light from the core to the surface quickly without a variation in c and so the core might be considered non-superfluous.

Your scenario is really no different in substance from my proposal of poofing the photons between the core and the surface into existence and carries only the illusion of a distinction.

The expression of the idea that the core was the source of the photons escaping the surface of the sun is to rely upon an explanatory framework based upon our understanding of physics. As soon as that framework is set aside it no longer makes any sense to argue for a causal connection between the two.

Don't misunderstand me. The creationist allows God to become the mechanism of causation. But that makes my point that the core is relieved of that duty the instant that argument is put into play.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by NoNukes, posted 11-16-2013 1:21 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by NoNukes, posted 11-17-2013 4:44 PM shalamabobbi has responded

    
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 84 of 111 (711334)
11-17-2013 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by shalamabobbi
11-15-2013 3:07 PM


Re: I need to break this into two posts. 1
shalamabobbi writes:

Are you referring to aspects of reality of which we are presently unaware? Or do you mean that you think we are incapable of understanding the reality of which we are aware? Are you simply distinguishing between God's manner of creation and his resulting creation once completed?

marc9000 writes:

Yes.

With this catch-all you can weasel out of the superfluous core observation above. Let's assume that we don't understand the laws of physics correctly(the reality of which we are aware).

Let me go through it in another way then, which sums up my entire position. It does not matter what we understand about physics or any other form of science, it is all completely disconnectable from the supernatural way God created all of reality. If science finds anything that it claims has the ability to falsify a supernatural act, then science is thinking higher of itself than it ought to think, and is no longer a disinterested pursuit of knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-15-2013 3:07 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Tangle, posted 11-17-2013 4:36 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2014 5:06 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 85 of 111 (711335)
11-17-2013 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by shalamabobbi
11-15-2013 3:12 PM


Re: part 2
marc9000 writes:

I don't consider the time frame to be identifiable. I guess I disagree with AIG slightly on that one. I think (in some cases) we have to stop short of trying to identify times for religious purposes, or try to claim that early humans and dinosours lived at exactly the same time, as I think AIG does. I think it's a mistake to go out on that limb.

Of course it is. More contradictory evidence then needs to be dealt with. Simply add the assumption that we cannot even comprehend the words of the bible.

We can't? People do it all the time, some people take such a keen interest in it that it comsumes most of their entire lives. Billy Graham, Charles Spurgeon come to mind. The Bible is very complex, in its history, and in its prescription for living. If someone's talent is in doing something besides spending a lot of time studying it, it can be comparitively simply applied to their lives.

Of course this makes one wonder why God communicates with us in the first place.

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that God communicates with us, most in science don't. The Bible is a very thorough, foolproof way for God to communicate with us. It's the only way he communicates with us, if he did it in any other way, the world, and it's view of him, would be completely different from what they are.

Eventually I encountered enough facts that caused a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance that I began to experience mental blocks that prevented me from not merely accepting the science but from understanding it in the first place. This was a very scary place to arrive at, because I knew, I absolutely knew, that this was damaging and harmful. It finally began to dawn on me that my flavor of superstition that made comprehension taboo could not be a good thing and if it wasn't good it wasn't anything to do with God if there was one.

Today's science education establishment is masterful at catching students at the perfect critical time in their lives, and indoctrinating them into non-religion. Remember, to a small child, the only reason he cannot do some things that he'd like to do is because his parents won't let him. Much later, as an adult, he (hopefully / usually) realizes that there are common sense reasons for not doing something that may seem good (pleasurable) at first glance. The dangerous period is when a child learns that there are limits to parental control, and how to avoid them, yet without nearly enough life experience to know the wisdom of avoiding doing certain things. Roughly the middle school years, though they vary from child to child. The time when "honor thy father and mother", becomes something to seek reasons to circumvent. This is when the scientific community, through education, finds future atheist citizens, to support the political ambitions of the scientific community.

If you don't mind, would you mind starting a thread in the faith and belief forum to elaborate on the merits of refusing to use our minds to think (leaning upon our own understanding) or why you believe it is something worthy of reward in the hereafter. From my recollection this doesn't sit well with the parable about the talents.

I'll go do that now, I should be able to get it in, but high winds are coming, and if it gets much worse I may have to unplug this unit before I get it done.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-15-2013 3:12 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4978
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 86 of 111 (711336)
11-17-2013 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by marc9000
11-17-2013 4:12 PM


Re: I need to break this into two posts. 1
marc9000 writes:

If science finds anything that it claims has the ability to falsify a supernatural act, then science is thinking higher of itself than it ought to think, and is no longer a disinterested pursuit of knowledge

Well that kind of kills the conversation doesn't it? If a fact contradicts a belief, the fact is wrong. Why bother arguing then? you're always right and science is always wrong. But miraculously, science is only wrong when it butts up against a religious belief - and not just any religious belief, just the one you hold.

The rest of the time, like when it wants to make a new drug or send a guy to Mars, it's right. Funny that - I wonder how you think science knows when and how to be wrong? Do you think a few million biologists, paeleontologists, archaeologists, geologists and physicists read these threads, then collude so as to wrong in exactly the right places for you?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by marc9000, posted 11-17-2013 4:12 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 111 (711338)
11-17-2013 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by shalamabobbi
11-17-2013 4:01 PM


Re: reply to post on top of this
You are saying that by allowing God to do it some other way we could get the light from the core to the surface quickly without a variation in c and so the core might be considered non-superfluous.

No, that's not quite what I am saying.

What I am saying instead is that you are insisting that Creationist must believe that God created the sun by gravitational collapse of a ball of gas because science claims that the sun was created from such a collapse.

Well, no that is not the only option for a creationist. God might well have used a creation process that as either a side effect or a desired effect produced light instantly.

Your scenario is really no different in substance from my proposal of poofing the photons between the core and the surface into existence and carries only the illusion of a distinction.

The expression of the idea that the core was the source of the photons escaping the surface of the sun is to rely upon an explanatory framework based upon our understanding of physics.

Yes, they are similar in the fact that a miracle is required, but yes there is a difference. One process implies deception on God's part, and the other does not.

Quite obviously, forming a solar system in a single day cannot be completely explained using natural processes. So yes, the Creationist is going to rely on some miracles.

The distinction between the miracles for the sun, and the miracle for distant stars is that the latter requires postulating deceptions that at least some Young Earth Creationists are loathe to invoke regardless of what miracles they rely on.

If in fact, you don't care about that difference, then I wonder what the point of this thread really is. Perhaps I have missed your point.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-17-2013 4:01 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-18-2013 11:59 AM NoNukes has responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 347 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 88 of 111 (711406)
11-18-2013 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by NoNukes
11-17-2013 4:44 PM


Re: reply to post on top of this
It's difficult to talk about nonsense. Communication breaks down. Add to that the YECs acceptance of the premise that thinking is taboo if it threatens their world view and it isn't possible to communicate at all with a YEC.

What I am saying instead is that you are insisting that Creationist must believe that God created the sun by gravitational collapse of a ball of gas because science claims that the sun was created from such a collapse.

No, that's not quite what I'm saying. God can use any trick in the book.

Well, no that is not the only option for a creationist. God might well have used a creation process that as either a side effect or a desired effect produced light instantly.

Then it is not from the core but from some side effect.

Yes, they are similar in the fact that a miracle is required, but yes there is a difference. One process implies deception on God's part, and the other does not.

There is no essential difference in the level of deception. God made things to appear as if we could infer an explanation that apparently is false.

Quite obviously, forming a solar system in a single day cannot be completely explained using natural processes.

It cannot even be partially explained in this manner. When the explanations become some mixture of the natural explanation with the super natural non-explanation they are not really any more explained except in the mind of a YEC.

So yes, the Creationist is going to rely on some miracles.

Some? God is a miracle. He upholds all, so we are living in 100% miracle land to the YEC. Contradictory evidence does not matter in this world view since God put it there to test our faith. The only way out of this delusion is to question the merits and purposes of this kind of behavior on the part of God. To this the YEC replies with some nonsense about Daddy knows what's better for you. This shut down of your mental capacity is somehow for your own good. And then he tosses in some vague allusions to pleasure and he thinks he has an argument that makes sense.

The distinction between the miracles for the sun, and the miracle for distant stars is that the latter requires postulating deceptions that at least some Young Earth Creationists are loathe to invoke regardless of what miracles they rely on.

marc9000 doesn't seem to posses such a loathing. I found consideration of the sun to be more persuasive.

If in fact, you don't care about that difference, then I wonder what the point of this thread really is. Perhaps I have missed your point.

The point was not to argue about which is the better device, the sun or the distant star argument. Perhaps the chosen title of the thread has created some mis-understanding there. The point was that the distant star problem was met with by AiG by stating that it depends upon several assumptions on the part of scientists any one of which if wrong means that the scientific explanation is wrong. This manner of 'reasoning' is deeply ingrained in the YEC approach to apologetics. It is identical to the manner in which I tossed out the scientific explanation of the operation of the sun by pointing to a nit, the neutrino accounting issue. Marc9000 does the same thing when he quotes the standard candle issue in post #65 and is able to toss out all of cosmology. Again, AiG does it by alluding to the 'unreasonable' assumptions of science. I thought the sun argument relied upon none of these assumptions except naturalism, then all the rest could be stripped aside, and the YECs could be forced to rely upon supernaturalism alone. In reality that is all they rely upon anyhow. The pseudo-scientific arguments they construct might sound impressive to the man in the street but they are really just smoke and mirrors.

The right approach is to accept marc9000s criticism of the candle issue and allow him to toss out the universe as understood and accepted by the scientific community but then to demand of him his view of the universe in its place. OK marc9000 let's have your tiny universe with the stars really all much closer in then we suppose them to be because this obviously has no problems whatever with any observed data right?

OK AiG we see that we were relying upon faulty assumptions so lets have your model that doesn't contradict any evidence whatsoever. Then they toss down the bible on top of the desk and as the dust clears we see that what they have is supernaturalism alone because their nit-picking at the assumptions of science is far outweighed by the mountain of contradictory evidence that their model incurs.

Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by NoNukes, posted 11-17-2013 4:44 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by NoNukes, posted 11-18-2013 5:22 PM shalamabobbi has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 111 (711426)
11-18-2013 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by shalamabobbi
11-18-2013 11:59 AM


Re: reply to post on top of this
NoNukes writes:

Well, no that is not the only option for a creationist. God might well have used a creation process that as either a side effect or a desired effect produced light instantly.

Then it is not from the core but from some side effect.

No, no. I proposed that the light came from the core.

By side effect I mean something produced but not necessarily intended. In this case, according to the narrative, human beings and other life were going to show up on earth in a few days. So God would want the light to arrive ASAP and it would be understandable that he chose a method that would make light appear quickly.

If instead there were no reason for light to appear instantly, then it is possible that the quick appearance of light was a mere side effect of whatever method God used.

marc9000 doesn't seem to posses such a loathing

I'd like to hear how you reached that conclusion. Marc9000 completely denied the possibility that scientists could know that a star could be hundreds of thousands light years away despite the fact he is not even a proponent of YEC. He's also not the type of Creationist that would even bother with a scientific explanation; he does not seem familiar with much physics anyway.

On the other hand, with regard to the sun, he sees no problem, but that's exactly what I am arguing should be the case. Creationists have absolutely no difficulty with the sun providing light instantly and will invoke whatever magic is necessary. They can use bits and pieces of science as necessary (using fusion, gravitational balancing, etc.) to explain how the sun operates.

Perhaps the chosen title of the thread has created some mis-understanding there

The title and the entire discussion regarding the ten thousand plus year delay for sunlight to appear?

It is identical to the manner in which I tossed out the scientific explanation of the operation of the sun by pointing to a nit, the neutrino accounting issue.

Was that in the original post?

Here is the question you asked at the end of your post.

This thread is an opportunity for young earth creationists to explain how scientists have it all wrong and to explain how light takes no time at all to get from the core of a star to its surface. This is your chance to be a star and shine

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-18-2013 11:59 AM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-20-2013 3:35 PM NoNukes has not yet responded
 Message 91 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-20-2013 3:40 PM NoNukes has responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 347 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 90 of 111 (711590)
11-20-2013 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by NoNukes
11-18-2013 5:22 PM


Re: reply to post on top of this
I'd like to hear how you reached that conclusion. Marc9000 completely denied the possibility that scientists could know that a star could be hundreds of thousands light years away despite the fact he is not even a proponent of YEC.

Yes, so would I as you are reading the meaning of my statement 180 degrees opposite to what I thought I meant.

The distinction between the miracles for the sun, and the miracle for distant stars is that the latter requires postulating deceptions that at least some Young Earth Creationists are loathe to invoke regardless of what miracles they rely on.

So the YECs who ARE loathe to invoke deceptions despite their stance in supernaturalism are the ones who might be inclined to accept the distant starlight problem as a reasonable argument against their reliance upon supernaturalism, but the ones who don't seem to possess such a loathing are the ones who aren't moved from their position regardless of the deception(s) involved.

On the other hand, with regard to the sun, he sees no problem, but that's exactly what I am arguing should be the case. Creationists have absolutely no difficulty with the sun providing light instantly and will invoke whatever magic is necessary. They can use bits and pieces of science as necessary (using fusion, gravitational balancing, etc.) to explain how the sun operates.

But notice the manner in which he had no problem with the argument.(message 74)

quote:

Yes, I disagree with the entire tone of your OP, including this line;

quote:you cannot shorten the time required to fit the text of the Bible.

You can, if the supernatural is considered.



He couldn't muster a pseudo-scientific explanation (like Barry Sutterfield) in an attempt to provide a natural explanation as to how the scientists had it wrong. He had to fall back on supernaturalism.

quote:
This thread is an opportunity for young earth creationists to explain how scientists have it all wrong and to explain how light takes no time at all to get from the core of a star to its surface. This is your chance to be a star and shine.

This should be a natural explanation showing how the 'false' assumptions of scientists have led them to arrive at 'false' conclusions and how by correcting those 'false' assumptions we could see how the matter might be cleared up.

That was the reason for the thread. The sun argument didn't rely upon any possible false assumptions, except one, naturalism.

My goal was not so ambitious as to topple supernaturalism. It was merely to back the YECs into a corner where they could no longer claim that the scientific viewpoint of an old universe and/or earth was based upon good reasoning that was unfortunately founded upon faulty assumptions. Rather than debate the notion that the assumptions are faulty I provided an example that I thought was immune to the need of any 'faulty' assumptions with the exception of naturalism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by NoNukes, posted 11-18-2013 5:22 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Prev12345
6
78Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017