|
QuickSearch
|
| |||||||
Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
WookieeB | |||||||
|
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The not so distant star light problem | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 891 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
From ICR's website:
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. 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!
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12578 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 891 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
Hi NoNukes. Edited by shalamabobbi, : gray matter early morning startup fart.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 148 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
To see the lengths creationists will go to, check out the following: Report on the 2013 International Conference on Creationism Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member Posts: 1591 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
God did it.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 891 days) Posts: 397 Joined:
|
Hi Coyote, 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. 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,
Well worth the click and it's short (well of course it's short). Apparently an alligator's sharp teeth were designed so it could eat coconuts. Oh my gosh! episode 8! what a gem! Here's the caption,
Wow, just wow. More. Humans are unique. We are the only creatures on earth that celebrate holidays!
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."
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 891 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
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.
That was it? "Let there be isochrons" was their explanation??
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 891 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
Enlighten me. Call me back from the brink!
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 7670 Joined: Member Rating: 4.6
|
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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 891 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 891 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
The YECs who attempt to prop up their world view by abusing science, putting the cart before the horse.
Here, you are being too generous.
It is that portion of the population who takes their explanations seriously that concerns me. Not knowing the science themselves they believe that there are 'real' scientists in their camp, that the data can be read another way to tell a different story.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 891 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
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'?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019