|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Doesn't the distance of stars disprove the young earth theory? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
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. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4836 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flyer75 Member (Idle past 2451 days) Posts: 242 From: Dayton, OH Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
misha Member (Idle past 4655 days) Posts: 69 From: Atlanta Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
misha Member (Idle past 4655 days) Posts: 69 From: Atlanta Joined: |
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. A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem - creation.com I haven't had the opportunity to disect this argument yet and could probably use some help from the more intellectually inclined physisicts present.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5046 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4538 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10081 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5046 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
misha Member (Idle past 4655 days) Posts: 69 From: Atlanta Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024