Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Doesn't the distance of stars disprove the young earth theory?
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 31 of 138 (549212)
03-04-2010 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nlerd
03-03-2010 3:46 AM


The Fun Part Coming Soon!
nlerd writes:
Since we know how fast light moves and how far away certain stars are from the earth wouldn't any star being more then 6000 light years away disprove the young earth theory, or at least a young universe? This popped into my head a couple of nights ago and I haven't been able to discuss it with anyone.
I understand that there is some movement in NASA to send high-quality observational telescopes to solar orbits far outside that of earth's. Such a move would, in it's most mundane objective, clearly establish the distance of stars well beyond any 6k light years through the extremely well established principle of parallax.
Now I realize some mathematical concepts may be beyond the understanding of creationists, such as calculus being based upon making the discrete infinitely small in order to create a curve, or indeed even fitting a curve to the data as in fossils or strata or radiometric dating or....well pretty much all of science. However, having to deny trigonometry and indeed surveying, that should prove even more ridiculous.
What's next? addition and subtraction are products of the devil?

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nlerd, posted 03-03-2010 3:46 AM nlerd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by lyx2no, posted 03-04-2010 11:13 PM anglagard has replied
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2010 12:14 AM anglagard has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 32 of 138 (549215)
03-04-2010 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by anglagard
03-04-2010 11:02 PM


Re: The Fun Part Coming Soon!
What's next? addition and subtraction are products of the devil?
Wouldn't that be multiplication?

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by anglagard, posted 03-04-2010 11:02 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by anglagard, posted 03-04-2010 11:35 PM lyx2no has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 33 of 138 (549216)
03-04-2010 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by lyx2no
03-04-2010 11:13 PM


From Parallax to Covergence - an OT rant?
lyx2no writes:
Wouldn't that be multiplication?
I am sure that when any 'Great Leap Forward' occurs, it can easily subtract a few steps in the 'Great March' to the 'Cultural Revolution' some of our evangelicals intend to proscribe.
Yeah, heard that one before.
Estimates vary between 20-60 million outright murdered along with a similar number staved to death due to the rejection of modern science and even mathematics in favor of a pick-and-choose authoritarian ideology.
Except for the Aeronautics and Petroleum industries, which were somehow hypocritically exempt from any denial of fact, due to their 'importance' to the state.
May seem OT in the narrow sense, but to deny math in service to the 'great leader,' would there not be an obvious similarity?
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.
Edited by anglagard, : clarity, and previously more appropriate subtitle

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by lyx2no, posted 03-04-2010 11:13 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by lyx2no, posted 03-04-2010 11:59 PM anglagard has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 34 of 138 (549217)
03-04-2010 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by anglagard
03-04-2010 11:35 PM


Re: From Parallax to Covergence - an OT rant?
What's next? addition and subtraction are products of the devil?
Product: multiplication. Ha ha!
Okay, that's my explanation. What did yours mean?

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by anglagard, posted 03-04-2010 11:35 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by anglagard, posted 03-05-2010 12:10 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 35 of 138 (549218)
03-05-2010 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by lyx2no
03-04-2010 11:59 PM


Re: From Parallax to Covergence - an OT rant?
lyx2no writes:
Product: multiplication. Ha ha!
Okay, that's my explanation. What did yours mean?
It means that after three Tom Collins, It's time to go to bed.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by lyx2no, posted 03-04-2010 11:59 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 36 of 138 (549219)
03-05-2010 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by anglagard
03-04-2010 11:02 PM


Re: The Fun Part Coming Soon!
Hi anglagard, how's things?
However, having to deny trigonometry and indeed surveying, that should prove even more ridiculous.
Ah, but you see it is not the math that would be the issue.
... there is some movement in NASA to send high-quality observational telescopes to solar orbits far outside that of earth's.
These are the people that faked the lunar landings after all. What's a little added hoax of fake satellite data to that?
Probably filled with made up footage of "views" from the purported satellites that show things according to their false "secular materialistic" agenda, such as showing the earth orbiting the sun.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by anglagard, posted 03-04-2010 11:02 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by hooah212002, posted 03-05-2010 12:55 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 37 of 138 (549222)
03-05-2010 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by RAZD
03-05-2010 12:14 AM


Re: The Fun Part Coming Soon!
Probably filled with made up footage of "views" from the purported satellites that show things according to their false "secular materialistic" agenda, such as showing the earth orbiting the sun.
Don't get SO started again.......

"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
"On a personal note I think he's the greatest wrestler ever. He's better than Lou Thesz, Gorgeous George -- you name it."-The Hulkster on Nature Boy Ric Flair

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2010 12:14 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 38 of 138 (549223)
03-05-2010 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by misha
03-03-2010 2:45 PM


This is precisely the question I asked myself in my high school physics class that pushed me on a long path from YEC->OEC->ID->Science.
This is why you shouldn't ask questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by misha, posted 03-03-2010 2:45 PM misha has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 39 of 138 (549228)
03-05-2010 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Peepul
03-04-2010 10:57 AM


Bump for Cavediver / Son Goku
I'm hoping that our resident fundamental physicists can help me with a question...
Paul K has proposed that a reduction in the speed of light in recent vs ancient times would result in ancient events appearing to happen more slowly when we observe them from earth.
This makes perfect sense if we think classically about this - but I'm wondering whether this conclusion is true if we take into account relativity?
thanks!

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by cavediver, posted 03-05-2010 5:13 AM Peepul has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 40 of 138 (549229)
03-05-2010 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Peepul
03-05-2010 5:07 AM


Re: Bump for Cavediver / Son Goku
but I'm wondering whether this conclusion is true if we take into account relativity?
Distant events already appear to proceed more slowly by virtue of the cosmological expansion/red-shift. If you think about it, that is exactly the cause of red-shift: the peaks of your light wave are arriving further apart than when they were emitted, so you are seeing the light wave "slowed-down".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Peepul, posted 03-05-2010 5:07 AM Peepul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Peepul, posted 03-05-2010 5:16 AM cavediver has replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 41 of 138 (549230)
03-05-2010 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by cavediver
03-05-2010 5:13 AM


Re: Bump for Cavediver / Son Goku
Ok, I understand that. Thanks! So I guess that means that the rotation speeds we measure for distant pulsars are actually higher in reality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by cavediver, posted 03-05-2010 5:13 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Huntard, posted 03-05-2010 5:21 AM Peepul has not replied
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 03-05-2010 5:43 AM Peepul has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 42 of 138 (549232)
03-05-2010 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Peepul
03-05-2010 5:16 AM


Re: Bump for Cavediver / Son Goku
Peepul writes:
Ok, I understand that. Thanks! So I guess that means that the rotation speeds we measure for distant pulsars are actually higher in reality?
No, I don't think that's correct. For the interval between two "pulses" does not take longer, it's just that the light from both is red shifted. They pulse so fast I think it's negligible. I could be wrong though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Peepul, posted 03-05-2010 5:16 AM Peepul has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 43 of 138 (549236)
03-05-2010 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Peepul
03-05-2010 5:16 AM


Re: Bump for Cavediver / Son Goku
So I guess that means that the rotation speeds we measure for distant pulsars are actually higher in reality?
Not usually - most pulsars we examine are not sufficently far enough away to have a dominant cosmological red-shift. The local motion of the pulsar will be a more important factor to take into account.
But a distant pulsar, say 100MLyr away, would definitely have a noticable cosmological slowing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Peepul, posted 03-05-2010 5:16 AM Peepul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Peepul, posted 03-05-2010 9:01 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 44 of 138 (549244)
03-05-2010 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by cavediver
03-05-2010 5:43 AM


Re: Bump for Cavediver / Son Goku
Thanks, Cavediver.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 03-05-2010 5:43 AM cavediver has not replied

  
nlerd
Member (Idle past 3604 days)
Posts: 48
From: Minnesota
Joined: 03-03-2010


Message 45 of 138 (549320)
03-05-2010 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Huntard
03-03-2010 8:37 AM


Re: No and yes
It doesn't disprove a young earth since the age of the universe has nothing to do with the age of the earth. It does however disprove a young universe. At least, it does without invoking some crazy, completely unevidenced stuff like "God created the light en-route to earth!".
But in the bible it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Gen 1:1, and he said "Let there be light" Gen 1:2 after creating the earth so earth should appear to be OLDER then we could see the oldest light to be. But then it goes on to say that he created stars "to divide the day from the night" and "to give light upon the earth" on the third DAY so now I'm getting lost. This is just in Gen 1:1-19 in the King James, so I gues if the bible is that confusing trying to add science would muddle it up even more.
And sorry for taking so long to reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 03-03-2010 8:37 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Apothecus, posted 03-05-2010 7:29 PM nlerd has not replied
 Message 47 by Taq, posted 03-09-2010 11:26 AM nlerd has replied
 Message 50 by Huntard, posted 03-10-2010 5:45 AM nlerd has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024