Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 12:45 PM
40 online now:
14174dm, Diomedes, dwise1, edge, ooh-child, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Stile, vimesey (10 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,197 Year: 5,234/19,786 Month: 1,356/873 Week: 252/460 Day: 4/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Doesn't the distance of stars disprove the young earth theory?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6049
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 16 of 138 (549085)
03-03-2010 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Flyer75
03-03-2010 11:27 AM


So, what did you mean
Galaxy or Universe?
Because they are drastically different things. The answer will give us a much better idea of where you are coming for and what you truly understand about cosmology.

Edited by Theodoric, : punctuation


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Flyer75, posted 03-03-2010 11:27 AM Flyer75 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Flyer75, posted 03-04-2010 8:37 AM Theodoric has responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 17 of 138 (549087)
03-03-2010 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Flyer75
03-03-2010 8:56 PM


That's why theistic evolutionists really baffle me. I can understand the atheist more then I can the Christian who feels the need to have science prove "God" and creation.

That's not the position of a Theistic Evolutionist. Only creationists try to use their science-ey type stuff to "prove" god.


"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."

-Carl Sagan


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Flyer75, posted 03-03-2010 8:56 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14819
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 18 of 138 (549106)
03-04-2010 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Flyer75
03-03-2010 8:56 PM


quote:

Good points. I think most Creationists (certainly the 6 day literal ones) believe that God created an "aged" universe, but still not one that is millions of years old. For example, if you believe the Genesis account, it's fairly obvious that God didn't create Adam as a newborn infant, but more likely someone in their 20's or so. Same with the vegetation.

I think that a more accurate statement would be that some appearances of age are inevitable, but others are not. Starlight from before the stars were created is obviously not necessary (especially in the case of supernovae - since the supernova event can't have happened).

quote:

The more I read on this board and have done some very new studying on my own, the more I realize that the issue isn't whether science can prove or disprove something, but whether man is choosing science or God.

I get a completely different impression - to the point where I would describe creationism a the worship of Creationists. At most the choice is between what science tells us about the universe and creationist doctrine.

quote:

f you believe in a God that raised his Son from the dead after being buried for three days (something science cannot do or explain), then why is it so hard to grasp the creation event?

You see, this question doesn't make sense to a theistic evolutionist. They don't have a problem understanding the creation stories in Genesis. They just don't follow the Creationist doctrine that these stories must be taken as accurate and literal descriptions of the history of the world. Within Christianity it is a battle between human-created doctrines and interpretations. It isn't about God - it's about which humans have the most accurate ideas about God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Flyer75, posted 03-03-2010 8:56 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

    
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2919 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(2)
Message 19 of 138 (549107)
03-04-2010 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Flyer75
03-03-2010 8:56 PM


Hello Flyer,

Flyer75 writes:

The more I read on this board and have done some very new studying on my own, the more I realize that the issue isn't whether science can prove or disprove something, but whether man is choosing science or God

Admittedly, this isn't the topic of discussion, but I feel that you are making a huge mistake, so I can't resist responding to you on this.

What you have done is set up a false dichotomy. You say "Science" or "God", as if the two were interchangeable but mutually exclusive. They're not.
Science and faith fill two separate roles. You can accept science (presumably you're using a computer to type your posts), but it doesn't replace religious faith. Conversely, while I don't consider the Bible (or any ancient scripture) to be an authority on issues of modern science, I do believe my faith has given me more meaning in life, gives me moral guidance, and inspires me to live for a greater purpose. I therefore do not see a conflict between science and faith.

In truth, you don't actually believe accepting scientific truths and believing in God are mutually exclusive. I suspect what you are referring to is a small subset of scientific truths that conflict with what you perceive as biblical Truth. As such, you generally have no problem accepting science as a means to uncover truth about reality. However, when the same rigorous scientific methods that gave us the theory of gravity, atomic theory, and your computer, produce theories that conflict with your religious beliefs, then suddenly these same methods are no longer valid for attaining truth.

As such, you are straddling the fence. Either science is a valid road to truth, or it isn't. You can't arbitrarily decide when science works and when it doesn't.

Flyer75 writes:

That's why theistic evolutionists really baffle me. I can understand the atheist more then I can the Christian who feels the need to have science prove "God" and creation. If you believe in a God that raised his Son from the dead after being buried for three days (something science cannot do or explain), then why is it so hard to grasp the creation event? The atheist at least says, "there is no God". That makes more sense.

I don't like to describe myself as a "theistic evolutionist". The term implies a belief that evolution requires a "divine tinkerer" to work. And I don't think that's been scientifically evidenced. However, I am a believing theist, and I am an "evolutionist" (I don't like that term either, but it's a far cry better than "darwinist"). So I probably fit your idea of a "theistic evolutionist".

I have never felt the need to "prove" God's existence scientifically. In fact, I think that would undermine faith. You can't have faith in something that's been proven. It's funny though that you accuse theistic evolutionists of this behaviour, as the whole modus operandi of "scientific creationists" (including YECs) is to try to prove God's existence via science. I don't see many theistic evolutionists attempting this feat.

Flyer75 writes:

If you believe in a God that raised his Son from the dead after being buried for three days (something science cannot do or explain), then why is it so hard to grasp the creation event?

Because evidence does not rule out that Jesus was raised from the dead. Neither is there scientific evidence for it, so it's purely a faith position. However, there is plenty of evidence for how the universe and our planet originated, and it conflicts with YEC dogma. Christians are not mandated to accept the dogmatic beliefs of YECs.

Flyer75 writes:

The atheist at least says, "there is no God".

Some atheists say that. Others say: "I see no reason to believe in a God, therefore I do not believe he exists", holding to the null hypothesis until they have evidence. This is a reasonable position to take. Science does not rule out the existence of God, nor does it provide unequivocal proof that He exists. Nor can it. Science is a study of natural phenomena with natural causes.

So why believe in God? Certainly not because His existence has been "proven" through science! In my case it's because I have seen God acting in my life and in the life of other Christians. I have faith in God. I can't know for certain that my faith is well-placed in the same sense that I can know that 2+2=4 or that E=mc^2. But faith is a personal thing, and I personally believe God reveals himself through people.

In light of all this, I can not accept that an honest and benevolent Creator would create the universe with an appearance of billions of years of existence. Even if star light were created in transit for some odd reason, there would be no need to fill the universe with (apparently) ancient stars, scarred and cratered planets, and black holes. Either the Universe was created by a trickster god, or it's been around for billions of years.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

ABE:
This is going off topic. Perhaps the admins would prefer if we continued this discussion in a separate thread? Or alternatively, if you'd like to respond to anything in my post you can message me instead.

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Flyer75, posted 03-03-2010 8:56 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

    
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 534 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 20 of 138 (549130)
03-04-2010 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Theodoric
03-03-2010 10:09 PM


Re: So, what did you mean
Theodoric writes:

Galaxy or Universe?
Because they are drastically different things. The answer will give us a much better idea of where you are coming for and what you truly understand about cosmology.

I suppose I meant Universe. Trust me, as I said in my very first post a couple of weeks ago, I'm brand spanking new to all this. I have zero, and I mean zero, background in science. I just started reading on my own in the last month...admittedly from a YEC perspective.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2010 10:09 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Theodoric, posted 03-04-2010 10:54 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

    
misha
Member (Idle past 2738 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 21 of 138 (549131)
03-04-2010 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Flyer75
03-03-2010 8:56 PM


Flyer75 writes:

. . . but whether man is choosing science or God. That's why theistic evolutionists really baffle me. I can understand the atheist more then I can the Christian who feels the need to have science prove "God" and creation. . .

But I, as well as most other theistic evolutionists, don't feel the need to have science prove "God." I need science to understand natural phenomena. I need God to understand things beyond the natural. Of course we can not use the natural sciences to prove the existence of something supernatural. And the existence of the supernatural is more of a philosophical question than a naturalistic one. Hence, philosophy should be used to question the supernatural and methodological naturalism should be used to question the natural. And honestly, I'm still too young and not well read enough to completely understand if and when the two intersect. That is why I believe faith is an evidence of things unseen and science is the methodological collection of evidence of things seen.

The ID crowd and the Creationists (young earth and old) are the ones claiming that science must hold to their current beliefs of God. For most theistic evolutionists God is not a cosmic tinkerer constantly adjusting his little machine in order to fix it. Most theistic evolutionists have a view of God that sees Him creating a masterful plan without the need to tinker.

This doesn't mean that I'm a determinist either. There is no need to say that God demanded that the higher lifeforms capable of pondering questions of His existence needed to be primates or even mammals. But I do think that many evolutionists agree that at some point, even if it took another billion years, our niche would be filled. Maybe this makes me more of a naturalist and deist when it comes to natural phenomena. However, I still feel that God acts in this world, although rarely. I believe those actions even more rarely transpire in the physical world that we can observe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Flyer75, posted 03-03-2010 8:56 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12590
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 22 of 138 (549132)
03-04-2010 8:47 AM


Moderator Comment
Until and unless someone joins the discussion on the other side of the "distant stars" issue, the digression onto the choice between science and God , though off-topic, is fascinating and should continue.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
misha
Member (Idle past 2738 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 23 of 138 (549136)
03-04-2010 8:56 AM


NOW! back to the topic at hand.

The only other creationist explanation I have heard about starlight travel has been about euclidean geometry of the universe.

http://creation.com/...-to-the-starlight-travel-time-problem

I haven't had the opportunity to disect this argument yet and could probably use some help from the more intellectually inclined physisicts present.


Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-04-2010 11:20 AM misha has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6049
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 24 of 138 (549151)
03-04-2010 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Flyer75
03-04-2010 8:37 AM


Re: So, what did you mean
So you believe in alternate universes?
I guess this is the first time I ever heard of a YEC that believed in alternate universes. Is this a belief brought on by understanding the physics arguments for or a gut feeling type of thing?

How would the physical laws in another universe have any bearing on the physical laws(universe) of this universe?

I know we are getting into an very theoretical part of science here, but I just don't understand what your original statement has to do with the topic.

Quite frankly, we have no clue what the speed of light is in another galaxy. It might be the same as here on earth...it may be a ton less or a ton more...who knows?

We know what the speed of light is throughout our universe. It doesn't matter if you go to a galaxy beyond the perception of any instrument we have, the speed of light is the same there as it is here. I can not explain the physics to you, but others here can. If the speed of light fluctuates then the basic laws of physics would have to fluctuate and that would be bad. Basically the universe couldn't exist.

Now the speed of light in another universe would have no bearing on this topic. This is because the most distant stars and galaxies in our universe are still in our universe. Still beholden to the same laws.

Just some quick advice. This is not meant to be condescending or rude. Know the basics of your subject before you post on it. It will save you and others a lot of time wasted trying to figure out what you mean. I am not a hard science guy. The science guys here have taught me more than I ever knew before. Open up your mind. Understand that there are things in the realm of science that you will never truly understand, but there are others out there that do. Just because you don't understand the nitty gritty doesn't mean it isn't correct. If it is too simple it probably isn't correct.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Flyer75, posted 03-04-2010 8:37 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

    
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3128 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 25 of 138 (549152)
03-04-2010 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
03-03-2010 9:59 AM


Is the slowing down thing true?
quote:
2) That other changes occurred so that just happen to mask any evidence of the change in speed. (For instance we should see a "slowing down effect" in observations of distant objects because the later the light is emitted, the slower it must go).

Hi Paul K,

Is this slowing down thing true? I can see why it would be, but I know that I'm thinking classically about it. Does the same thing apply if relativity is taken into account?

If it is true, then it's a very strong argument against change in light speed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2010 9:59 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 03-04-2010 11:27 AM Peepul has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Peepul, posted 03-05-2010 5:07 AM Peepul has not yet responded

    
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2621 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 26 of 138 (549154)
03-04-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by misha
03-04-2010 8:56 AM


Evaluating the evidence.
Now, I'm not by any means a physicist, and I did not by any means grasp all the maths and such that the author used in the article you cited However, I do see something interesting in the conclusion that is perhaps a clue as to the validity of this creationist arguement. (Emphasis mine.)

quote:
A new model, of a type similar to Humphreys’, has been described that allows billions of years to pass in the cosmos but only 24 hours on Earth during Day 4. In this model, the laws of physics are suspended while creation is in progress and enormous time dilation occurs between Earth clocks and astronomical clocks. This solves the light-travel-time problem faced by creationist cosmology and makes all astronomical evidence fit the Genesis account. No non-physical requirements are placed on the model.

And there's more reasoning like this throughout.

Any model that requires the suspension of reality in order to work has very little explanatory value, so far as I'm concerned.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by misha, posted 03-04-2010 8:56 AM misha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 03-04-2010 11:44 AM ZenMonkey has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Peepul, posted 03-04-2010 12:22 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14819
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 27 of 138 (549157)
03-04-2010 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Peepul
03-04-2010 10:57 AM


Re: Is the slowing down thing true?
Yes it is true. If light is slowing down the time it would take to reach us is increasing.

So the observed time between two events will be the actual time between the events, plus the extra time it takes the slower light from the later event to reach us. Because the time taken is increased things will appear to happen more slowly. And all this is just classical physics.

I don't think that relativity would make a difference to this directly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Peepul, posted 03-04-2010 10:57 AM Peepul has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7701
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 28 of 138 (549159)
03-04-2010 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by ZenMonkey
03-04-2010 11:20 AM


Re: Evaluating the evidence.
Any model that requires the suspension of reality in order to work has very little explanatory value, so far as I'm concerned.

Not only that, but it is a case of creation "scientists" shooting themselves in the foot. They try to construct a model that is scientific, or at least appears to be scientific, in order to give their explanation credence. However, when the model hits a snag they have to introduce magic. So why not do it from the very start?

We see the same problem with Humphrey's model. While it attempts to explain the starlight problem it completely avoids the geologic problems where age is quite apparent. Humphrey's model is incapable of explaining dates derived through radiometric dating, the absence of short lived nuclides, helioseismology, etc. One can only insert magic in an omphalos type explanation to explain these features, so why not just inject magic to explain starlight as well?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-04-2010 11:20 AM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by misha, posted 03-04-2010 12:57 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3128 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 29 of 138 (549162)
03-04-2010 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ZenMonkey
03-04-2010 11:20 AM


Re: Evaluating the evidence.
quote:
Now, I'm not by any means a physicist, and I did not by any means grasp all the maths and such that the author used in the article you cited However, I do see something interesting in the conclusion that is perhaps a clue as to the validity of this creationist arguement. (Emphasis mine.)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new model, of a type similar to Humphreys’, has been described that allows billions of years to pass in the cosmos but only 24 hours on Earth during Day 4. In this model, the laws of physics are suspended while creation is in progress and enormous time dilation occurs between Earth clocks and astronomical clocks. This solves the light-travel-time problem faced by creationist cosmology and makes all astronomical evidence fit the Genesis account. No non-physical requirements are placed on the model.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And there's more reasoning like this throughout.

Any model that requires the suspension of reality in order to work has very little explanatory value, so far as I'm concerned.


And note the motivation - this is not a theory developed to explain something we observe in the real world - it's brought into existence solely to make a book appear to be true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-04-2010 11:20 AM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

    
misha
Member (Idle past 2738 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 30 of 138 (549165)
03-04-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taq
03-04-2010 11:44 AM


Re: Evaluating the evidence.
Taq writes:

We see the same problem with Humphrey's model. While it attempts to explain the starlight problem it completely avoids the geologic problems where age is quite apparent.

I didn't realize at the time that my earlier post was concerning the same fringe creationist explanation.

Humphreys is claiming a Euclidean geometry to the universe rather than a Reimannean. Even Hugh Ross of the creationist outlet Reasons to Believe debunks Humphreys' papers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 03-04-2010 11:44 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019