|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the speed of light allow new earth creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:BTW, the term is "Young earth creationists" (YEC's) not "New earth creationists". As Dr A has said, there are a number of standard answers. 1) the simplest answer: God created light in transit. But when one considers the vast amount of information which is contained in the light from a star, this makes God seem deceptive. (The spectrum tells us elemental composition, recessional velocity, rotational velocity, etc.) Thus some YECs have said this argument should not be used. 2) another answer is that the speed of light was much faster in the past. But the main evidence for this is an imaginative analysis of historical data by Setterfield, which has been questioned even by other YECs. Again, some YECs have said that this argument should not be used. 3) Jason Lisle has recently proposed an imaginative theory, that the speed of light moves instantaneously toward an observer, and at 1/2 c away from an observer. He claims freedom to do this because he believes that we can only measure the round trip speed of light, but not the one-way speed of light. But in this he is wrong. We have good measurements of the one-way speed of light, and devices such as particle accelerators and free-electron lasers would not work if the one-way speed of light were not c. I think the speed of light is a good issue to raise with YECs. I have a YEC friend who became an OEC ("old earth creationist") after thinking about the explosion of SN 1987A."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
3) Jason Lisle has recently proposed an imaginative theory, that the speed of light moves instantaneously toward an observer, and at 1/2 c away from an observer. He claims freedom to do this because he believes that we can only measure the round trip speed of light, but not the one-way speed of light. But in this he is wrong. We have good measurements of the one-way speed of light, and devices such as particle accelerators and free-electron lasers would not work if the one-way speed of light were not c. Also, consider how the fact that the speed of light was finite was first discovered. It made sense of the apparent motion of the moons of Jupiter, which didn't make sense on the assumption that it was infinite. Now that, of course, was light coming from the moons of Jupiter to observers on Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The quote below is from the article Jason Lisle's article "Anisotropic Synchrony ConventionA Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem"
Anisotropic Synchrony ConventionDistant Starlight
| Answers Research Journal
quote: Imaginative is not the word I'd have used to describe this reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Imaginative is not the word I'd have used to describe this reasoning. Reasoning is not the word I'd have used to describe this flight of imagination. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
From what I have read, the constancy of the period of pulsars disproves Setterfield, and I would think the steady expansion of light rings around supernovae, which have been used to confirm astronomical distance measurements, would disprove Jason Lisle's Thought (I could not call it a theory)
Edited by Pollux, : Quasar changed to pulsar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 603 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
There are a ton of scientists who are creationists, just not young earth creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Do you see theistic evolutionists (as in religious scientists who reject both Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design Creationism) as Creationists?
Edited by Pressie, : Altered sentence Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
In that case, I doubt we agree on what the definition of "scientist" is. Perhaps you'd care to define it for us?
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 370 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
There are a ton of scientists who are creationists, just not young earth creationists. Assuming that your average scientist weighs around 180 lbs that makes about 12 of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Yes, but among the scientist who study a discipline which informs them about how species arose, how the solar system came to be, or how the earth has evolved, the number of Creationists is quite a small percentage.
Of course I'm using the term Creationists in the narrow sense to apply only to those young earth creationists and old earth creationists who claim that Genesis is a literal account of how, and in what order, were created life, man, the sun, moon, and stars.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
From what I have read, the constancy of the period of quasars disproves Setterfield, . . . The fact that there were oxygen breathing animals during Earth's history is enough to disprove Setterfield's "theory". His equations also call for a reduction in mass, and this results in oxygen reaching the escape velocity for Earth. This, and other refutations of Setterfield's "theory" can be found here: http://homepage.mac.com/...x1/cdecay/cdecay_2007Jellison.pdf
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
Hi Taq.
Thanks for that link. Setterfield has more problems than I thought. It is a pity people have to spend so much time and effort refuting hare-brained ideas!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OpticalIllusions Junior Member (Idle past 4385 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
No scientist is a creationist? What about Newton?
Why do atheists think they get to decide who is a scientist and who isn't? Aren't all humans basically scientists trying to understand the nature of the universe? If there are no creationist scientists, then who created scientists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Show me a creationist who is published in any reputable journal with a paper discussing creation "science" (and I use the term science loosely in this case since we all know creationism isn't science).
Go on, we can wait. Take all the time you need."Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Aren't all humans basically scientists trying to understand the nature of the universe? No. It is not the case that all humans are science. Was this supposed to be a trick question?
What about Newton? Newton of course was a scientist, and an alchemist, and his investigation of light led him to stick sharp objects behind his eyes. What is your point?
If there are no creationist scientists, then who created scientists? Yikes. What's the logic here? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024