Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 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 866 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

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 866 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

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 866 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024