Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do creationists explain stars?
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 40 of 297 (292790)
03-06-2006 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Bubs
03-06-2006 3:14 PM


Re: Observed light vs calculated light
Hello Bubs, welcome to EvCforum.
Unless things have changed, which are quit possible, evolutionists have the same issue in the horizon problem ( Light-Travel Time: A Problem for the Big Bang | Answers in Genesis ). All I am familiar with is the inflation argument, but what caused inflation to start/stop, and the more important question is why?
Raising questions about the Big Bang model doesn't help young earth creationism at all.
With or without assuming the Big Bang model, you still have stars that are billions of years old, and we are still receiving light that was radiated billions of years ago. You still have an observed red shift of light from distant galaxies, with the amount of red shift increasing with time.
The distinction you want to make between "observed time" and "calculated time" looks ad hoc. Since the first few days of the creation story occurred before there were humans, then surely "observed time" would have to mean time as observed by God. But God would not be constrained to only observe things billions of years after they were created, especially if God himself was the creator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Bubs, posted 03-06-2006 3:14 PM Bubs has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 128 of 297 (325650)
06-24-2006 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Rob
06-24-2006 11:28 AM


Re: what debate?
I just mean that many of the proponents of evolution have raised this question of star age as though it is indefensible for the creationist.
You don't have to be a proponent of evolution to recognize that the universe is old - far older than Young Earth Creationism allows.
It is not that cut and dry... I just became aware of this 'light slowing down' thing today.
This doesn't alter the fact that the universe is old, and that Young Earth Creationism is badly wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Rob, posted 06-24-2006 11:28 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Rob, posted 06-24-2006 12:09 PM nwr has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 173 of 297 (326252)
06-26-2006 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by PetVet2Be
06-25-2006 11:56 PM


Check it out the evidence is not there.
Yes, sure. Nobody has ever seen a star form.
I guess trees don't grow either. Nobody has ever seen a tree grow. If you look at a tree in the evening, its the same size as it was in the morning. So obviously, trees don't grow. But every now and then God poofs the old tree out of existence, and poofs a new and slightly larger tree into existence.
#end sarcasm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-25-2006 11:56 PM PetVet2Be has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 175 of 297 (326262)
06-26-2006 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 12:40 AM


Of cource you dont see a tree grow but the evidence is there.
And likewise, the evidence is there for star formation.
My point is we have not seen stars form.
We see them in various stages of formation. The evidence is there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 12:40 AM PetVet2Be has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 1:36 AM nwr has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 183 of 297 (326376)
06-26-2006 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 9:31 AM


NASA has still not observed the formation of stars.
Only in the sense that you have not observed growth of trees (as mentioned in Message 173 above.
The laws of physics deny the possibility of stars forming.
Clearly you do not understand the laws of physics. They not only allow the possibility of stars forming, they predict the formation of stars in circumstances that are observed by astronomers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 9:31 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 214 of 297 (328270)
07-02-2006 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Hyroglyphx
07-02-2006 11:45 AM


Re: Q&A
What about stars? Is it like looking off in the horizon and trying to determine if a large island is 100 miles away or a small island 20 miles away?
You can measure the distance of an island by triangulation. You use surveyer's instruments to find the angle to a point on the island from two different locations on the shore. That gives you a triangle, with apex on the island, and the baseline as the straight line between the two observation points. Solve this triangle using the methods of high school trigonometry, and you have the distance to the island.
What I'd discovered was that lightyears are not a measurement of time, but of distance.
I already knew that when I was in elementary school.
The distance to the sun is also measured by triangulation. You do need a larger baseline, so the measurements are made from points on earth that are a large distance from one another.
The nearer stars are measured by triangulation, using the axis of the earth as a baseline. You can measure the angle to that star at two different times, 6 months apart. For more distant stars other methods are needed, but I'll omit the details for now. You can find them described in other threads in this forum.
The long and short of this, is that the great distances to stars are real. Astronomers are not making this up, and are not merely guessing.
Challenging and accomplishing such a feat was the NEC Institute at Princeton University who were able to greatly exceed the standard of 186,171 mps.
Home – Physics World
That report is about group velocity. It is well known that group velocity can exceed the velocity of light, and this does not challenge any of our physics. Nor does it challenge the theory of relativity.
As well, a team at the Rowland Institute at Harvard yielded impressive results when they were able to bring light to a crawl. Imagine seeing a beam of light in midair that has yet to illuminate the other side of the room.
http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000084.html
There is nothing new in the idea that light can travel more slowly, although the particular research did show how to slow it down far more than had previously been achieved. The way a camera lens works already depends on light slowing down as it passes through the lens, and this has been known since well before the theory of relativity was formulated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2006 11:45 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by johnfolton, posted 07-03-2006 2:36 AM nwr has not replied
 Message 225 by johnfolton, posted 07-05-2006 2:09 AM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 226 of 297 (328871)
07-05-2006 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by johnfolton
07-05-2006 2:09 AM


Re: Q&A
I found a web page that illustrates group velocities. Perhaps that will help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by johnfolton, posted 07-05-2006 2:09 AM johnfolton has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024