The not so distant star light problem

Message 1 of 111 (710269) 11-02-2013 5:29 PM

Fantastic Tim! Many years indeed. So many in fact that you properly decided to leave that figure out of your remarks. Likewise for the stars in the night sky Tim. For our sun those many years are between 10,000 and 170,000 years as the photons generated in the core make a "random walk" to the surface. The required travel time can be calculated using a Monte-Carlo simulation. As much as you'd like to throw Twinkies at these figures Tim and cast doubt about their reliability one thing is certain, you cannot shorten the time required to fit the text of the Bible.

Please direct me to the scripture that relates how the sun and stars remained dark for many years after being created. I'm not finding it.

It is strange that young earth 'researchers' have invented fanciful cosmologies to answer the distant starlight problem without even being aware of the not so distant starlight problem.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/.../nab/does-starlight-prove

So of the assumptions listed in the previous link we can now remove all but one, the assumption of naturalism. This is the get out of jail free card. When reason, logic, and evidence let you down, simply regard the need for their inclusion to be an unwarranted assumption.

Now maybe young earthers can stop weaving pseudoscience into their ideas and just stick to supernaturalism. Next they can stop complaining that science doesn't countenance their beliefs since supernaturalism by definition is not science.

This thread is an opportunity for young earth creationists to explain how scientists have it all wrong and to explain how light takes no time at all to get from the core of a star to its surface. This is your chance to be a star and shine!
(if only dimly)

Message 3 of 111 (710273) 11-04-2013 9:28 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by shalamabobbi 11-02-2013 5:29 PM

This seems like a lot of work to do in order to get to the point that the order of creation described in Genesis cannot possibly be right. Just having the earth formed before the sun is wrong enough. In fact there was no period of time when the earth surface existed and no sunlight shined on it.

And how sure are you that the first light generated by the sun took thousands of years to escape. That is certainly what we expect right now, but at the time when the sun was first condensing from a gas cloud and the generation of visible light first began, how long did it take light to escape? I suspect that answer is "somewhat shorter than the current timeframe".

Finally, I doubt that this kind of argument would phase many YEC'ers anyway. They simply would deny that the sun's history is what you say it is.

Message 4 of 111 (710291) 11-04-2013 10:46 AM

Reply to: Message 3 by NoNukes 11-04-2013 9:28 AM

Hi NoNukes.
I would consider it a great accomplishment if a YEC were forced to consider stellar dynamics at all. The question would then become how did the sun age and get to its current condition so quickly?
There are many versions of creationism afloat. Some have 'answers' for the earth being created before the sun which involve the earth falling (as in fall of Adam kind of falling) to its present position from another system.
Confirmation bias and 'shelving' or compartmentalization are what keep people from thinking and continuing to live with cognitive dissonance. Every little bit helps. As soon as a crack in the dam is made it is not long before the waters are released. Doesn't happen for a lot of people perhaps but it does for some of us.

Edited by shalamabobbi, : gray matter early morning startup fart.

Message 5 of 111 (710295) 11-04-2013 10:51 AM

Report on the 2013 International Conference on Creationism

Message 6 of 111 (710300) 11-04-2013 11:18 AM

Reply to: Message 4 by shalamabobbi 11-04-2013 10:46 AM

So would I. But I believe the question is quite easily ducked. There may indeed be some people who bother with 'answers' to those questions, but there are far more people who simply believe that man's ideas about stellar formation and evolution are simply wrong, and in any event don't describe how God created this particular solar system.

Message 7 of 111 (710415) 11-05-2013 9:36 AM

Reply to: Message 4 by shalamabobbi 11-04-2013 10:46 AM

God did it.

Message 8 of 111 (710455) 11-05-2013 12:33 PM

Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote 11-04-2013 10:51 AM

International no less. Is that to be sure enough people will be in attendance? 354 creation scientists and supporters but I see they didn't break that figure down. Is that 3 creation scientists and 351 supporters? Does that count mom and dad, sons and daughters? Did they pay a few homeless to come inside and warm themselves? dunno.

Oh but dozens of authors presented peer reviewed papers. Would that be bakers dozens or regular dozens? dunno. Which peers did the reviewing? Peers as in a jury of your peers? Oh but wait, nearly all of the papers were 'technical' in nature. Woah! So some were not technical in nature and may have contained poetry? dunno.

Gravity driven events that occurred during the Genesis Flood?? Must have their own theory of gravitation I guess.
Dr. Tomkins will set the record straight on the similarity in the DNA between a human and a chimpanzee? Headline news stuff going on at this conference. Where was the media coverage? How'd they miss this?
Brian Thomas and the dino soft tissue. Oh wait, is this current? hmmmm, 2013.
The Byron C. Nelson and the Luther D. Sunderland awards?
Many thanks to the volunteers that helped make the conference a success? (what tightwads). Many thanks to the technical referees? Is that the peer review referred to earlier? Who were these referees? dunno.

I had to click on that impressive looking "That's a fact" button where to my delight I found plenty of scientific articles and discussion on topics such as how the dinos fit onto the ark, what Fibonacci numbers reveal about the creator, how God's design was apparently intended to allow us to play the game of baseball (God is a big baseball fan. It may be the reason he created mankind in the first place), oh goody - biblical giants!, the ToE weighed in the balance by the metric of how many people believe in it today, and I had to stop on episode 17 - sharp teeth. Here's the caption,

Oh my gosh! episode 8! what a gem! Here's the caption,

More. Humans are unique. We are the only creatures on earth that celebrate holidays!
Episode 5 is fun. "Evolution in action." Worried that baby animals that don't resemble their parents such as tadpoles -> frogs or caterpillars -> butterflies might be interpreted as evidence for evolution they state,

Episode 1 is about how huge a number a billion is. Then some speculation that it is unreasonable that the earth could be , not just one billion , but FOUR billion years old. It ends with,

Kinda reminds me of that old TV commercial, the one about frying an egg, "this is your brain on drugs."

Message 9 of 111 (710459) 11-05-2013 1:04 PM

Reply to: Message 6 by NoNukes 11-04-2013 11:18 AM

Well that is the point of my post. Since they are relying upon supernaturalism to begin with why all of the weaving of pseudoscientific BS into their arguments? Why not just be satisfied with supernaturalism?

When I was getting my education years ago I was under the burden of YECism, but a particular variety that didn't have quite the number of difficulties to deal with as the standard variety. I was sure that I'd be able to answer the tuff questions when I got around to researching it on my own. Finally the time arrived when I felt I knew enough to begin studying these issues. So I looked into the isochron method of dating. I felt sick to my stomach as I realized the initial condition loophole was no longer available to fall back on. In desperation I corresponded with young earth scientists not unlike those from ICR. When I received their answer I was floored.

Message 10 of 111 (710460) 11-05-2013 1:07 PM

Enlighten me. Call me back from the brink!

Message 11 of 111 (710473) 11-05-2013 2:57 PM

Reply to: Message 9 by shalamabobbi 11-05-2013 1:04 PM

Deep down they know that the scientific argument is the better and more rational explanation. Just look at how they use the word "faith" or "religion" as a terms of derision when talking about evolution. All of the time you see creationists claiming that evolution requires too much faith, or is just another religion. Not once have I ever seen a scientist or "evolutionist" proclaiming that creationism is just another science, or that it requires too much logic, reason, and evidence.

Message 12 of 111 (710478) 11-05-2013 3:48 PM

Reply to: Message 9 by shalamabobbi 11-05-2013 1:04 PM

When you refer to 'they', who in particular do you mean. I doubt that one young earth creationist in ten knows enough science such that anyone debating him would take his explanations seriously.

Message 15 of 111 (710531) 11-06-2013 11:23 AM

That all the assumptions they think science is propping itself up with don't apply here save one, the assumption of naturalism.

And finally if supernaturalism is required to explain your world view to begin with, why even bother dabbling in naturalistic explanations to support your beliefs? If 'God did it' is your explanation, doesn't coming up with naturalistic explanations really mean 'God didn't do it'?