Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
98 online now:
Michael MD, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 94 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 893,978 Year: 5,090/6,534 Month: 510/794 Week: 1/135 Day: 1/19 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Light Time Problem
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 3 of 254 (892452)
03-07-2022 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by God_Save_the_Scene
02-28-2022 5:42 PM


The simple answer is “no”.

Of the main answers I have heard there are:

Light created in transit - a form of omphalism. It has the same flaws as the wider reaching argument in that it requires God to create light showing events that never occurred. This is widely agreed to be a deception, and is therefore not even theologically acceptable. There is no scientific disproof but the idea lacks any scientific merit.

Light is slowing down - superficially scientific in that calls on old measurements of the speed of light. However those measurements are very inaccurate, and it seems rather implausible that light stopped slowing down just when we became capable of making accurate measurements. Worse, the effects of light slowing down are not observed requiring ad hoc assumptions to deal with the evidence. This manoeuvre renders the idea scientifically meritless. Observations of the supernova SN1987A pretty much killed it.

The other idea involved, if I remember correctly a White Hole. A creationist, Russell Humphreys wrote a book called Starlight and Time laying out his ideas. The Old Earth Creationist astronomer, Hugh Ross is credited with having demolished the argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by God_Save_the_Scene, posted 02-28-2022 5:42 PM God_Save_the_Scene has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 9 of 254 (893470)
04-14-2022 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by candle2
04-14-2022 10:29 AM


quote:
The age of the earth/universe has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.

Of course. It’s only people foolish enough to believe that Genesis is literally true who believe otherwise.

quote:
I know that the e/u is more than 6000 years old.
I know this because the Bible clearly states this.

Perhaps you’d like to cite where it actually says so.

quote:
Genesis describes a renewing of earth which, along
with the rest of the solar system, had been severely
damaged, as a result of Satan's rebellion.

That’s not in the Bible, though, is it?

quote:
When examining the creation account one must place
himself on earth, looking up/out, instead of from space
looking down.

There’s no need to “place oneself” anywhere. Unless you want to try to blame the inaccuracies on the author. Certainly the Bible never says that Genesis is describing how the Creation looked from such a perspective.

quote:
The Genesis account is about God readying earth for
the creation of man.

That’s hardly consistent with Genesis 2 where man is created only because God wants someone to look after his garden.

quote:
For example, when God said "Let there be light" a person
on the surface of the earth would have seen light from
the sun, which had been shrouded in debris from the war.

According to Genesis 1 the Sun had not yet been placed in the sky, so how would it have been seen by anyone? And there is no mention of any wreckage being cleared away.

quote:
The light would be translucent, and not transparent, because
of the thick water vapor in the atmosphere-much like Venus.

That isn’t mentioned in Genesis.

quote:
Later, God would remove the water vapor and the sun and
moon would be clearly discernable.

Genesis says nothing about “removing water vapour” nor dos I say that the Sun and moon merely became visible,

quote:
Also, on day one God would have adjusted earth's rotation,
which would have given us both evening and morning.

If the Earth was rotating then evening and morning would already be there. And, of course, the Bible never mentions that the Earth is rotating.

quote:
I can clearly show that the Bible proves my assertion.

No you can’t.

quote:
The Bible is also clear in that 6000 years ago man;
all animals; and, all plant life were created.

And it is clearly wrong.

quote:
There is overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs existed alongside man.

Only if you count birds.

quote:
This evidence includes recorded sightings by reputable
persons; by cave drawings; by pottery reliefs/paintings;
by soft tissue in dinosaur fossils; by Job's description
of them; etc.

Excepting birds there are no verifiable sightings, the alleged cave drawings and other artistic representations are all misinterpreted (or fake like the Ica stones). There is no soft tissue in dinosaur fossil d the zoom of Job is not describing dinosaurs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by candle2, posted 04-14-2022 10:29 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by candle2, posted 04-15-2022 7:46 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 37 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 8:01 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 22 of 254 (893533)
04-16-2022 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by candle2
04-15-2022 7:46 PM


quote:
Paulk, let's see if you are capable of understanding
Genesis 1;2.

Oh, I am, and I do Too bad you don’t understand it.

quote:
It is so simple that a seven year old,
near the end of the second grade, should have no
difficulty with it.

You’re already wrong. It needs to be read in the context of the cultures of the time it was written.

quote:
Here it is:

"And the earth was without form, and void; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep..."

The verb "was" is from hayah (#1961 Strong's
Concordance). Hayah means to be, or become
to pass.


Or in short “was” is a perfectly adequate translation - at least so far as you go (which is not far enough - you cannot do a correct translation by looking up words in a Concordance and picking the meaning you like without regard for context or grammar).

quote:
The word "form" is from Tohuw (#8414 Strong's).
Tohow means to lie waste or desolate.

"Void" is from Bohuw (#922). Bohuw translates
to "an undistinguishable ruin."

By no stretch of the imagination do these words
describe an originally creation.


Of course not. They describe the state BEFORE creation, the chaotic waste of the Primordial Ocean (“the deep”). Of course if you stick with the understanding of a seven year old you’ll probably miss that. Good job there’s an adult here to point out these things. You really do need to understand the cultural context.

quote:
How is it even possible to have an evening and
morning, light and dark, on the very first day if
the sun is not already in the sky?

Since the Sun is not made or set in the sky until the fourth day (verses 14-19) you should be asking that of the author of Genesis. We’re discussing what it says, not whether what it says makes sense to you.

Edited by PaulK, : Removed stray word


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by candle2, posted 04-15-2022 7:46 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 27 of 254 (893554)
04-16-2022 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by candle2
04-16-2022 1:08 PM


Creationists are more dishonest
quote:
Jar, you accuse me of being ignorant and dishonest.
However, evolutionary scientists are among the most
dishonest professionals of all disciplines.

Well, let’s see.

quote:
Piltdown man;

It’s a fake and likely created by an evolutionary scientist - but we don’t know.

quote:
Archaeoraptor;

Not created by evolutionary scientists,

quote:
Hackel's embryo illustrations, which was offered as
scientific evidence.

But evidence for Haeckel’s own ideas, which Darwin did not agree with.

quote:
Nebraska man, which turned out to be a pig.

Neither a fake nor a fraud.

quote:
Peppered Moths. Both dark and light specimens
have always existed simultaneously. Neither
rest on tree trunks during daylight, and they only
fly at night.

The spread of the dark form - and the reversal of that spread is fact. They do sometimes rest on tree trunks - and it was never claimed that was their preferred resting place anyway. That they usually rest on branches higher up the tree doesn’t affect the science in the least. And I have no idea what “they only fly at night” is meant to refer to.

So, at best two genuine examples and three substantial falsehoods. And I doubt that there is any major scientific field with only two fakes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by candle2, posted 04-16-2022 1:08 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 38 of 254 (893586)
04-17-2022 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by candle2
04-17-2022 8:01 AM


quote:
Paulk, vs. 3 simply states "Let there be light."
In this verse God is simply removing debris
from earth's atmosphere, which permitted
light to enter. A person on the face of the
earth would have seen translucent light.

Let us note that this is all imaginative interpretation. There is no mention of wreckage being cleared away or the light being translucent or even any indication that it is simply what someone on Earth would see. A plain reading is that there was no light at all prior to verse 3.

quote:
In verse 14 God speaks of specific lights in
the firmament of the heaven to divide day
from night; to be for signs and seasons.
They were to be for days and years.

And they are said to be created and set in the sky on the fourth day.

quote:
Before day four light only permeated the
earth's atmosphere during the day. At night
there was stygian darkness.

And yet the text gives no indication that the stars and planets even existed prior to the fourth day.

quote:
On the fourth days God made visual
observation of the sun, moon, and stars
possible
Again, this is just imaginative “interpretation”.

quote:
Vs. 16-18 are parenthetical statements
that indicate the sun, moon, and stars
had been made sometime in past.

Or so you assume. But where is the basis for this claim?

quote:
Asah, which is translated made in vs 16
is in the verb form that denotes
completed action.

Which would equally apply if the stars and planets had been created on the fourth day.

quote:
Chapter one of Roman's states that the
qualities of God can be seen just by
observing the world's around us.

It is so obvious from what has been
created that we are left without excuse
when we deny Him.


So the first chapter of Romans is wrong.

quote:
Speaking of these misguided professors.
It states that "professing themselves to
be wise, they become fools.

There is nothing about “misguided professors” in the post you were replying to. Nor anything previous in this post of yours.

quote:
I believe this.

I’m sure you think it foolish to disagree with stupid lies. But I hardly think that it is a Christian attitude.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix a quote box.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 8:01 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 9:55 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 42 of 254 (893592)
04-17-2022 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by candle2
04-17-2022 9:55 AM


quote:
Okay Paulk, have it your way. It makes
much more sense to believe that God
created the sun on the first day and
that he created it again on the fourth day.

If you want to believe that go right ahead. I certainly don’t believe anything of the sort.

Has it ever occurred to you that arrogantly spouting stupid falsehoods is a bad idea? Because you don’t seem to get that at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 9:55 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 1:05 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 46 of 254 (893606)
04-17-2022 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by candle2
04-17-2022 1:05 PM


quote:
I'm still waiting Paulk.

Waiting for what ?

quote:
Tell me what you interpret the light
from day one and day 4 to be.

You didn’t ask.
But really I just take the text at face value. The “light” of day 1 is called “day” and therefore represents daylight. Day 4 adds sunlight, moonlight and starlight, but the “light” that is “separated” from “darkness” is still day.

quote:
How can you criticize my viewpoints;
yet, are not willing to offer your own?

Well, I have. But you are the one who said he could prove his claims, and I don’t have to offer any viewpoint of my own to answer that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 1:05 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 1:52 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 50 of 254 (893611)
04-17-2022 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by candle2
04-17-2022 1:52 PM


quote:
What was the daylight on day one?

The daylight. That’s what it says.

quote:
And, without the sun being the determining
factor, what caused the light?

You’re expecting an ancient text that says that the sky is solid, in water above it to be scientifically accurate? What it says is that God created the daylight - it mentions no other source, or even a need for one.

quote:
Furthermore, what then caused the night
(Darkness), if the earth didn't rotate to
face away from the sun?

Since the author obviously didn’t know about the rotation of the Earth, that’s not a very sensible question. If you want to look at Ancient Middle Eastern ideas of day and night I suggest you do your own research,

quote:
These questions have to be answered.

These questions are fundamentally wrong-headed. Trying to fit the text to modern scientific knowledge is no way to understand it. As you have demonstrated.

quote:
God tells us to prove everything.

I believe that would be more in line with current usage if it said “test”. And really you ought to try testing your ideas before posting them here. Maybe we’d see less silly crap.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 1:52 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17169
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 77 of 254 (893814)
04-20-2022 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by candle2
04-20-2022 3:55 PM


quote:
Nothing moves towards the more orderly,
regardless of whether it is in a so-called
open or closed system.

You know this!


We know that refrigerators can’t exist ? (At least if you are talking about thermodynamic order - which you should be!)

Really, the whole Second Law argument is profoundly ignorant as you’d see if you could manage to think it through. Start with the question of what this “order” you are talking about actually is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by candle2, posted 04-20-2022 3:55 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022