The not so distant star light problem

Now that that's cleared up let's return to the tangential argument we were having because, it's fun.

No, no. I proposed that the light came from the core. By side effect I mean something produced but not necessarily intended. In this case, according to the narrative, human beings and other life were going to show up on earth in a few days. So God would want the light to arrive ASAP and it would be understandable that he chose a method that would make light appear quickly. If instead there were no reason for light to appear instantly, then it is possible that the quick appearance of light was a mere side effect of whatever method God used.

Thanks for the clarification.

We are left with a side effect from the core. So by the operation of some other laws that existed during creation the core was the source of light but not the way it is at present. When we look at the sun, the light we see came from the core but not in the manner it does at present.

Before answering this let me state that now the goal posts are shifting in the sense that God is no longer operating supernaturally. Supernaturalism would be God operating by the sheer power of his will where he is not bound by any law but is rather the source of all law.

So now we have a scenario where God is more like us and exists within some framework of laws different from our own by which he is bound and in accordance with which he has to act but those actions are not limited by our laws which offer no constraints upon what he may choose to do in our realm.

So I would lay the supernatural argument to rest at this point with the following argument:

quote:

---

The only constraint is the boundary condition that the sun is in its present SS condition 6,000 years ago. Let this boundary condition be represented by the origin of a 2 axis coordinate system.

Arriving at the boundary condition through naturalism is represented by moving along the axis of the reals towards the origin. Arriving at the boundary condition through supernaturalism is represented appropriately by moving along the imaginary axis towards the origin.

Any explanation that involves some combination of the natural and the supernatural lies on a trajectory towards the origin other than along either the real or imaginary axis. But any such path will always have a component that lies along the imaginary axis.

And so the core is at least partially superfluous. QED

God made something that couldn't quite do the job w/o special assistance.

---

If I get to hold onto the short length of time within which this creation took place:

Suppose there are two realms and two sets of laws of physics. There is our realm and that for God. In Gods realm the evolution of the sun can take place very quickly but in ours the process runs slower. How do you transition from one realm to the other? Our only constraint is the boundary condition that the sun be in its current steady state condition about 6,000 years ago.

It happens faster in that realm where God operates and then it is transitioned here into our slower realm. This could be a smooth transition (the trajectory to the origin is tangent to the axis of the reals at the origin.)
Faster and fewer photons TO slower and more photons keeping the power output the same. Where did the more come from? (assuming the same spectrum here as necessary for plant life)
Or keep the photon count the same during the transition. Faster means more energy and the earth is toast.
There is no way to make this work without removing cause and effect and state that we are living in the matrix where nothing can be inferred from the evidence and everything is unexplainable which would return us back to supernaturalism.

Supernaturalism. YECs need to end it there. Trying to mix it with reasonable sounding explanations adds nothing to the argument and only weakens it. There is an inherent incompatibility between mixing supernaturalism with naturalism unless one accepts the premise that God sustains everything. Then there is no conflict since false evidence that contradicts the narrative is a possibility. Then nothing can be inferred from the evidence and nothing is explainable. It is the rabbit hole down which fundies are forced to retreat.

I'm more than aware that YECs are capable of relying upon supernaturalism to avoid abandoning the narrative. I had a discussion with one where I used the fact that the brain being a neural net requires time and experiences to learn. I thought this a good argument against a *poofed* Adam. Instead the YEC accepted it as proof that Adam was created with false memories. With respect to whether the sun argument has merit in persuading a YEC to reconsider their stance, my feeling is that if it helps just one person it has some value. YECs aren't moved by the solid arguments of radioisotope dating methods because they don't understand them. What are more helpful are examples that are basic and easy to comprehend, tree rings, the slow conveyor belt of photons from the core to the suns surface, the existence of ice sheets with their ice core samples that didn't have time to form since the 'global flood', etc.

I wish I could come up with a solid argument to disprove last thursdayism. But maybe this one is good enough:
Consider the individual who is the only one to understand the bible correctly. God wrote it just for him. This seems a sufficient proof that he is wrong.
How similar this is to the view that God provided all this contradictory evidence as some sort of test of our faith, as it is only such a test at this point in the history of the world and only for those who have taken the time to study and weigh the evidence, and most of those aren't even theists to begin with. But for the very small number who are, God fabricated the Greenland ice sheet(after the 'flood'), the false record of ERV events within DNA, the nucleosynthesis of the elements within stars, the removal of vocal cords from snakes, etc. All this to provide a test of faith for a rather insignificant percentage of the human family.
Perhaps this enough of a proof against last thursdayism.

Before answering this let me state that now the goal posts are shifting in the sense that God is no longer operating supernaturally. Supernaturalism would be God operating by the sheer power of his will where he is not bound by any law but is rather the source of all law.

I'd have to call that a rather unconventional requirement. If God used an earthquake to cause the Red Sea to back up at exactly the proper time, then according to your definition, God's use of an earthquake would render the saving of the Hebrews from Pharoah's army non-supernatural.

I don't accept your requirement, and I suspect that few on either side of the debate would.

I think the rest of your post is based on your definition. I won't comment further.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If God used an earthquake to cause the Red Sea to back up at exactly the proper time, then according to your definition, God's use of an earthquake would render the saving of the Hebrews from Pharoah's army non-supernatural.

Come on NoNukes, you know this wouldn't change a thing. How did he cause the earthquake? Did you never play the board game mousetrap as a child?
Feel free to reject the definition and offer one or two of your own. Just so long as we can nail down the woo before declaring victory in an argument where it is being casually sloshed about.

I don't really care if I'm proven wrong here. This was not what my thread was about. I am not in disagreement with you that fundies can blame it on supernaturalism. What I am interested in is the notion that conclusions about woo can be arrived at at all. It's called woo for a reason.

I don't understand what you want here. I'm not advocating using supernatural explanations of anything.

Come on NoNukes, you know this wouldn't change a thing. How did he cause the earthquake?

Using supernatural means of course.

I don't see any point to changing the definition of the term supernatural to forbid the use of anything natural.

Why don't you simply ignore all conversations about the supernatural?

I don't understand what you want here. I'm not advocating using supernatural explanations of anything.

I'm aware of that.

Using supernatural means of course. I don't see any point to changing the definition of the term supernatural to forbid the use of anything natural. Why don't you simply ignore all conversations about the supernatural?

What I am saying is that there isn't a workable/useful definition. At least not one that can be used for any "intelligible" discussion. We are not having a debate, we were having the illusion of a debate. This was a side discussion. The OP was about the pseudo-science rather than the supernatural per se.

Come ye and hear the parable of the YECs. Unto what shall I liken them?
They are like unto children playing make believe.

YEC: Pretend you could flap your arms and fly. Then I could go visit my cousin in New Zealand.
ASS: (atheist secular scientist) Your cousin's not in New Zealand. Anyhow you can't do that fast enough to work and even if you could your body can't store enough calories to make it to New Zealand.
YEC: Well pretend it could.
ASS: Then you'd weigh too much to begin with and when your arms flapped fast enough to accomplish lift off, they'd detach from your body.
YEC: Well, pretend your joints are made from Titanium and your ligaments from spiders silk.
ASS: But that's not the case, really.
YEC: Pretend God did that part.
ASS: God? Please define what you mean here?
YEC: Pretend there's an over unity perpetual motion machine. That is God. And if you're good he'll recharge your batteries free for all eternity.
ASS: Why can't you just face reality? Your cousin's dead.

Help me, but I feel I am falling back....

Look at the ancient thread here: Message 262

It went on for eons. One of the best times i've ever had.

Imagine the fun if they added a Neuroscience section to this board.

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/ns02.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Looking at some of these threads I'm seeing this vision in my mind of brains on platters responding to one another in a fashion not unlike frogs on lily pads down at the lake's edge croaking randomly and in response to one another.

You mean like this?

You captured Oni and Straggler

Normal Thread:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOFkUaSSJR8
The Great Debate:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njig-ZU2wL0
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHAKPNaMZm4
Faith and Belief:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHM7AvhK82E
Free for All:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g2JyJNkN70
Creationist Rant:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXNO5Wh2pDs
Lurker:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOFLwOSNueY
Peanut Gallery
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOxMaEW-ou8

Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

I will attempt to take on the role of a Young-Earth Creationist. Excuse me why I get in to character..."Thereisagodthereisagodthereisagodscienceiswrongscienceiswrongscienceiswrong". Phew, ready! Now, where to begin. First of all, I will choose to disregard your science and point you to an ambiguous verse in the Bible.

(sorry if this is offensive)

Ah, a tease.

Another problem for YECs with respect to the sun is its metallization. It is a population I star and has heavy elements (as well as H and He) created and spewed into space from previous population II stars which in turn were preceded by population III stars which contained no heavy elements.

Why did God sprinkle the sun with useless heavy elements if it was designed and built rather than a natural formation? Why did he put so much Helium in it rather than simply use Hydrogen? It's from the amount of Helium in the sun that we infer its age.

This is for the YECs that argue that we haven't found any population III stars yet and with that toss astronomy/cosmology under the bus.

And this will provide the data that will remove another straw clutched by the YECs.

Why did God sprinkle the sun with useless heavy elements if it was designed and built rather than a natural formation?

How do you get a solar system without some heavy elements? Seriously, isn't this question only meaningful when posed to the few YECs who believe in the scientific hypotheses about planet formation? By my count that's about 8 people on earth.

Why did he put so much Helium in it rather than simply use Hydrogen? It's from the amount of Helium in the sun that we infer its age.

I think this is a much better conundrum that the one in the OP for this thread.

I suspect that the YEC answer would be some version of last Thursdayism. Adam was created allegedly created as a fully grown adult, and the sun was created similarly mature because a middle age sun works better than those newly created, barely stable ones.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hey NN,
We've been traveling during quarter break and are back now.

How do you get a solar system without some heavy elements? Seriously, isn't this question only meaningful when posed to the few YECs who believe in the scientific hypotheses about planet formation? By my count that's about 8 people on earth.

Yes, and I am corresponding with one of them now, Kent Hovind. Back and forth about once a week though we are not currently debating anything. Just trying to get him interested in posting on the forum. He may not have much keyboard time allotted each 24hrs. I asked about that in my last email.

I guess the idea is since for a YEC the solar system is not a naturally formed thing the question arises as to why the inclusion of heavier elements in the creation of the sun? We have to think about the creation of elements from a YEC perspective as "Let there be O, N, Fe, etc". Maybe a nit but an interesting one. Creation of a middle aged sun is one thing, but creation of a sun that appears to be the product of the debris of former stars is something else.

Like I stated before every little bit helps, for some at least. One more thing to ponder.

the sun was created similarly mature because a middle age sun works better than those newly created, barely stable ones.

This would likely be a reasonable explanation for a creationist, which returns us to the significance of the metals that tell the tale of natural formation rather than creationism. Why the existence of these different kinds of stars? Population I, like the sun, with the most metallicity, earlier generation population II with less metallicity, and finally population III stars with no metallicity?

So now the YEC theory is not just the creation of things with the appearance of age, but the creation of things with the appearance of natural formation from previous things of even greater age that no longer even exist when 'creation' took place. Quite a convoluted theory it would seem.