Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9083 total)
102 online now:
AZPaul3, candle2, dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat, Taq, vimesey, xongsmith (10 members, 92 visitors)
Newest Member: evolujtion_noob
Post Volume: Total: 897,234 Year: 8,346/6,534 Month: 1,415/1,124 Week: 184/430 Day: 60/60 Hour: 2/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The not so distant star light problem
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2211 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 1 of 2 (710179)
11-02-2013 5:29 PM


From ICR's website:
As for its energy production, it is believed that the sunlight we see everyday is made of units of radiant energy called photons which originate in the inferno of the Sun's core. They may take many years slowly wandering up to the surface, then in a little more than eight minutes they speed across the 93,000,000 miles of space to the Earth, if they happen to be headed our way.
The Greater Light to Rule the Day - Ladies and Gentlemen - The Sun!
by J. Timothy Unruh
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.
Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? | Answers in Genesis
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)

Admin
Director
Posts: 12832
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 2 of 2 (710270)
11-04-2013 9:01 AM


Thread Copied to Big Bang and Cosmology Forum
Thread copied to the The not so distant star light problem thread in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022