Starlight Within a Young Universe

This is not a good debate tactic I think. It's the same as a young earth creationist saying that some particular evidence doesn't conclude one way or the other because the bible is so convincing otherwise. It doesn't further the debating at all.Although, I have just one question for Confidence. What is behind this large "wall" of ice?

I don't see a parallel at all! The bible is not scientific evidence. Findings in other areas such as astronomy as geogology ARE and as such must be also be discounted in order for Humphrey's ideas to hold water.No evidence exists in a vaccuum. Confidence is proposing that a lack of conclusive evidence about the Oort cloud constitutes a refutation of ALL other evidence. I don't see how this can stand.

Hi, Nm.I can see your point, and I can agree to a point. However, I think one point that must be made is that often creationists come in with that One Piece of Information That Totally Refutes Darwinianism Once and For All. Creationists have to realize that science does not work like that. If it did, then we wouldn't have any theories at all, because every theory has several puzzles that still need to work be worked out. That there are still a few puzzles in regards to the theory of evolution, or of solar system formation, or cosmology that need to be investigated is not surprising: that is the way it is with all theories in all sciences. Granted, Confidence doesn't seem to be taking that tactic, but it is still a point worth making.Theories are not accepted because they explain every single detail and there are no puzzles left to be solved. Theories are accepted because they explain so much of the evidence that exists despite the few unanswered questions that remain; theories are accepted because they continue to make accurate predictions despite the occasional surprise that pops up.It is fair, I agree, for Confidence to have challenged me on that point; I was expecting it. I would then have explained how, despite the potential puzzles, the standard theories of cosmology, solar system formation, earth geology, and biology are all internally consistent and fit well together with each other; they form a unified, consistent view of the universe. Creationists, however, solve their puzzles by throwing in unrelated ad hoc explanations without any thought of the whole picture and without asking how well the explanation fits with other data.This is the difference, for example, between the Oort cloud and Humphrey's cosmology. The Oort cloud fits in very well with what we know about solar system formation, and one can make predictions based on the model and then check to see whether the predicted phenomena can be observed. Humphrey's cosmology, on the other hand, doesn't work with physics as it is known, Humphrey hasn't seemed to really done much to test his theory by making predictions that should be observed, and what predictions have been made, like "quantized red-shifts", have been refuted.So, I do see your point. In partial answer to your point, I was expecting this challenge, or a similar one, and I was prepared to give the more or less explanation that I have just given.This, by the way, is what makes the job so hard for creationists. The standard theories that we have work well and form a unified consistent view of the universe, and creationists can only just point to one minor individual puzzle or another. They can't really find any major systematic problems, and they cannot propose a unified theory of their own. They need to mount a massive frontal assault if they are to succeed, but all they can do is muster up a few snipers.Edited by Chiroptera, : This is the Humphrey thread.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

I'm going to both agree and disagree.I agree, so long as one doesn't show that the concept of short period comets is false or that comets can exist that this doesn't answer the question.The evidence does do this: the argument is based on misinformation and the concept as developed does not show that comets cannot exist, just that the author finds it incredible that they do - there is no derivation of how long comets could exist based on the astronomical evidence at hand, so comparison of existing comets cannot be done to a theoretical level. That isn't science, it is the argument from incredulity and a logical fallacy.I disagree, in that the creationists ignore mountains of evidence that the earth is old in favor of anthills sandcastles that show the earth CAN be young (but don't require it to be young either). That's why we have these PRATTs of moon dust to comets to the orbit of the moon.The more realistic approach is to look at all the evidence - evidence touted for an old earth and evidence touted for a young earth ... and see how solid and consistent each one is ...... and then look at the evidence that contradicts either the earth being old or the earth being young, and see which evidence is refuted or explained by natural (versus supernatural) explanations or which is shown to be false science (based on bad calculation and misinterpretations of evidence).The problem is double edged for the creationist, as it is possible for evidence of young age to exist within an old system, so just finding one piece of evidence of young age is not good enough to show that a young age HAD to be the answer, ALL the evidence for an old age HAS to be refuted in order to make that a realistic possibility.The problem for the creationist is compounded by the evidence for an old earth being consistent and corroborative -- the ages derived by many systems agree on what that age is -- while the evidence for a young earth is inconsistent, variable and does NOT corroborate other evidence, and USUALLY shows an age older than their 6000 years ANYWAY.Take comets: it takes longer than 6000 years to disperse and break up all the existing comets that we know about, doesn't address the much higher number of comets that were in a younger universe (as evidence by bombardment of earth, moon, mars etc.) and that account for the ones that have decayed and broken up.http://www.geocities.com/...veral/launchpad/1364/Comets.html

quote:

---

Halley's Comet (shown below) is perhaps the most known in the world. It is visible to us without aid of a telescope every 76 years. It was last near Earth in 1986 and space probes were sent to take a closer look. One space probe passed within 600 km of the comet's nucleus and the photographs it sent back show violent jets of gas and dust erupting from a dark potato-shaped nucleus just 15 km long and 8 km wide. Haley's Comet will be back in 2061. A comet can only last for several thousand circuits of the Sun before its store of energy is exhausted and it fades away.

---

Let's see ... neglecting "several" (>2) thousand -- 76 x 1000 = 76,000 >> 6,000 years -- based on one comet alone. Therefore the earth can be way older than 6,000 years and still have comets. And Haley is one of the comets with a shorter orbital period:Solar System Fluff

quote:

---

Comets can be divided into two basic groups depending on their orbital periods. There are long period comets with orbital periods that can be thousands to millions of years long, and short period comets with orbital periods less than about 200 years. Their alignments with the plane of the planet orbits is also different. The long period comet orbits are oriented in all different random angles while the short period comets orbits are within about 30 degrees of the solar system plane. These orbital characteristics point to two regions beyond the realm of the planets: the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt.

​

Long period comets have very elliptical orbits and come into the inner solar system from all different random angles (not just along ecliptic). Kepler's third law says that they have orbital periods of 100,000's to millions of years. However, their orbits are so elliptical that they spend only 2 to 4 years in the inner part of the solar system where the planets are and most of their time at 50,000 to 100,000 A.U. With such long orbital periods their presence in the inner solar system is, for all practical purposes, a one-time event. Yet we discover several long period comets every year.

​

At the great distances of the Oort Cloud, comets can be affected by the gentle gravitational tugs of nearby passing stars. The passing stars tug on the comets, "perturbing" their orbits, sending some of them into the inner solar system. The comets passing close to a jovian planet are deflected by the planet's gravity into an orbit with a shorter period, only decades long. Jupiter and Saturn tend to deflect long period comets completely out of the solar system (or gobble them up as Jupiter did with Shoemaker Levy-9). Uranus and Neptune tend to deflect the long period comets into orbits that stay within the solar system. Halley's Comet may be an example of a deflected comet. Unlike other short period comets, Halley's Comet's orbit is retrograde.

---

Orbital periods of a million years -- that means 1,000 x 1,000,000 - 1 billion ... possible age of the solar system, times a "couple" (4.5?).Further, what we do see is that comets with low eccentricity orbits and periods of orbit less than planets are gone from the system, the only ones left have highly eccentric orbits that extend out into the depths of space where objects that could become comets if disturbed from their orbits exist. We also see evidence of some of these short period comets having been deflected from previous long period orbits.Thus the evidence shows (1) an old age is possible and (2) "young" sort period orbit comets can be generated from existing material by natural means so their existence is not problematic for an old system.Bottom line, comets do not invalidate an old earth.There are no comets that could ONLY exist in a young system -- which can be evidence that the system is NOT young.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

More space. At least, the Bible hints at another heaven(the word that represents space in certain contexts). What is behind that? not sure.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

I also do not see how such an argument can stand. But please show me where I made such a statement? It seems this is not the first time people like to misread what the other party is trying to say. Let us all be careful and not try to misquote anyone. For this statement is absurd and I never did say that it 'refutes ALL other evidence'. All I said that so far it favours a young earth.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

I have often wondered about starlight as it relates to the age estimate, but I reserve for myself a tentative view on the age of the universe. I have only assigned it a pro tempore value because there are so many variables to consider, that claiming a definitive would be a disservice to myself.Starlight only presents a problem for Young-earth creationists. I ask for the distinction to show that not all creationists are alike, just as all evolutionists are not alike. The astronomer Hugh Ross is a creationist, but he believes that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is roughly 11 billion years old. Having made that distinction, this argument made against the YEC probably is the single argument that presents the most difficulty for them to reconcile. But the dichotomy may only appear insoluble. The first premise of a refutation would be to ask how such a deduction ever came to be in the first place. These are worthy questions.But I, in particular, want to know how we can truly ascertain distance from objects so far away without having been to two or more points. In other words, I'll offer a for-instance:If you are looking at a photo of a bird in the sky, and there is nothing to distinguish its size by comparing it relatively to another object, could you tell if the bird in the photo was a large bird, and the snapshot was taken far away, or could you tell that it was a small bird, and the snapshot was taken close up?Or if you were sailing and suddenly on the horizon you see a land mass in the distance, could you tell if it was a large island far away, or might you surmise that it was a small island closer up? This is the question that I asked myself years ago, and it prompted me to find out what measurement they used to deduce the distance of stars. Even in spite of the inquiry, I'm still unclear on the veracity of any of the claims.Could you use triangulation on stars to ascertain their distance? Some astronomers say that you can depending on the parallax angle. The criteria is that you must have an imaginary line going to a remote, inaccessible point, such as a star would be. Measuring from two other points, both that we would be able to access in order to measure the distance across. If we measure the angles between the baseline formed by the accessible points, and the lines from the two ends of the baseline to the inaccessible point, then a measurement might be accurate. And then again, it might not.I it all dependent on where the earth is in its rotation and orbit. As well, its been noted that when looking at stars, you might not even be looking at where the star is actually situated. This makes me think of two mirrors facing each other from opposite ends. If the alignment is off-kilter, the image can distort, and it will appear as though the hallway in the background of the image is curving to the left or to the right in an incremental sloping effect. So, perhaps its a bit deceiving. Or I should say, triangulation can be deceiving, insomuch as us being unable to access certain distances physically.How are we able to know for sure if that's the case unless we are able to access all three points of the triangle? I think its safe to say that stars are indeed very far away. But perhaps they are not millions of light-years away, but rather, that they are millions or billions of miles away. It is said that it takes the sun's light, in realtime, appoximately 12 minutes to reach us. That brings me to the other theory held by creationists, that perhaps God sent the starlight immediately so that Adam could see the stars because Moses said that God gave us the starry host for reasons of distinguishing time and seasons. But this theory lacks any scientific backbone. Particularly because there is no way of proving it or disproving it.The theory that is most sensible to me is that the speed of light was not always constant (c). The reason I see this as the most plausible scenario is because Einstein’s general theory of relativity demonstrates that gravity can distort time. When matter becomes so dense the gravitational distortion can be so strong a force that not even light can escape. This is apart of what Hawking calls, "Event Horizon." Among such proponents, is Joo Magueijo, who has expanded the Variable Speed of Light theory.As well, it has already been demonstrated, by two separate teams, that the cessation and aggregate speed of light can be manipulated. So, if we know that it is at least possible to slow or speed up light more or less than its constant, then this serves to give it more credence than just a presupposition.Any thoughts from the audience?

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

How thick is this wall? What's its total mass?I'll bet that if it's over two molecules thick it'll outweigh the rest of the universe combined. And it won't be a real strong wall, either.

quote:

---

In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ”shouldn’t have been’...

​

...This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably powerful lattice bonds, so there is no way that subsequent biological contamination can be expected to find its way into the interior...

​

...Labelling this detectable C-14 with such words as ”contamination’ and ”background’ is completely unhelpful in explaining its source, as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp

---

Edited by Confidence, : No reason given.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

Many claims that Humphrey is not a real scientist are not founded on good arguments.

quote:

---

NOTE: In this paper, Dr. Humphreys makes predictions for the strengths of the magnetic fields for Uranus and Neptune, well before these magnetic fields were measured by the Voyager spacecraft. His predictions were "right on,"...
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)

---

AND

quote:

---

In 1984, when no space craft had yet reached Uranus and Neptune, I published a theory predicting the strength of the magnetic fields of those two planets in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, a peer-reviewed creationist scientific journal.2 I made the predictions on the basis of my hypotheses that (A) the raw material of creation was water (based on II Peter 3:5, "the earth was formed out of water and by water"), and (B) at the instant God created the water molecules, the spins of the hydrogen nuclei were all pointing in a particular direction.3 The tiny magnetic fields of so many nuclei would all add up to a large magnetic field. By the ordinary laws of physics, the spins of the nuclei would lose their alignment within seconds, but the large magnetic field would preserve itself by causing an electric current to circulate in the interior of each planet. By the same laws, the currents and fields would preserve themselves with only minor losses, as God rapidly transformed the water into other materials. After that, the currents and fields would decay due to electrical resistance over thousands of years.4 Not all creationists agree with my hypothesis that the original material was water, but all agree that once a magnetic field existed, it would decay over time.
The Institute for Creation Research

---

Edited by Confidence, : No reason given.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

And that's exactly what is used as the baseline in annual parallax measurements! We know pretty dang precisely where the earth is in its orbit every day and minute of the year - heck, Bessel knew pretty closely back in 1838 when he measured one of the first parallaxes. And two angles are enough to define any triangle, as all triangles' internal angles sum to 180 degrees. The few thousands of stars that have had parallaxes measured really are up to hundreds of light-years away.There's a galaxy called Messier (mess-ee-ay, for a Frenchman who cataloged it) 106 that's had it's distance measured as 25,000,000 light years by a differenr geometric method: it has a disk of hot matter rotating near its core. The disk has "knots" of radio emission that can be tracked with great accuracy over years of radiotelescope observation. The speed of rotation of the disk can also be measured by the redshift on the side receding from us and the blueshift on the side approaching - just like the traffic cop measures your speed. The margin of error of the measurement overall is +/- 4%, or a million light years.We also know that stars are far away just from their brightness: nobody seems to think that the taillights of that receding semi get dim because the truck turns into a Tonka toy when it gets a quarter-mile away from you. Slow, yes. Speed up, no.

Indeed. But neutrons can get into that lattice as if it were vacuum, and make carbon-14 out of carbon-13 (present at 1.1% in earth-bound carbon) or nitrogen-14 (present in variable amounts in most diamonds.) And it takes only a smidgen of 14C to get the "ages" AiG reports. Note that they didn't report nitrogen content or provenance (with respect to possible neutron sources like uranium ore) of any of their coals or diamonds.

Yes, but I want to know how they have come to this understanding. Of all the arguments I engage in on EvC, this is the least known to me.

Which "understanding," Nem? The triangulation part is precisely the same thing surveyors use on land, and was known to the ancient Greeks. The size and shape of the Earth's orbit has been very well known since 1800 or before, and is known to a gnat's whisker here in the Space Age.

Can you be more specific? What don't you get?

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.