So the time it takes for light to travel from a distant star seems to falsify the young earth view. This might be an old topic, but it seems to be one that serves as a proverbial stake in the heart for young earth views. Does anyone have a scientific hypothesis that would explain the seemingly contradictory principles of starlight and a 6000 year old universe?
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.
Obviously, the best choice would be the one that PaulK just offered in Message 3: the Omphalos argument ("ομφαλος" = "belly button" as in that millennia-old brain teaser, "Did Adam have a navel?"). After all, any god worthy of the label, "Omnipotent", could do anything he/she/it wants to do, right?
The Omphalos argument has led to Last Thursdayism which argues that the universe was created last Thursday complete with all the false evidence of a long past (including our own personal memories). Last Thursdayists strongly oppose a splinter faith, Last Wednesdayism, denouncing them as heretics. Denouncing both are the Omphalos Fundamentalists who maintain that the Universe was created five minutes ago (this interpretation of Omphalos having been put forth by Bertrand Russell). Just try to prove any of them wrong; you cannot.
Philip Henry Gosse wrote his 1857 book, Omphalos, to protect his literalist beliefs from the inexorable advances of science showing the earth to be ancient and with a very long complex geological history lacking any evidence for Noah's Flood. He was not prepared for the negative reaction against God being depicted as a liar whose Creation is a massive fraud. Despite that, modern young-earth creationists have repeatedly resorted to various forms of Omphalos in their desperate attempts to explain away the mountains of evidence for an ancient earth, a very long and complex geological history, and evolution being true. To quote from the introduction section of the Wikipedia page, Omphalos hypothesis (same link as above):
quote:Various supporters of Young Earth creationism have given different explanations for their belief that the universe is filled with false evidence of the universe's age, including a belief that some things needed to be created at a certain age for the ecosystems to function, or their belief that the creator was deliberately planting deceptive evidence.
The idea was widely rejected in the 19th century, when Gosse published his aforementioned book. It saw some revival in the 20th century by some Young Earth creationists, who extended the argument to include visible light that appears to originate from far-off stars and galaxies (addressing the "starlight problem").
And there you have your answer from YECs themselves: that light was created in transit from those distant sources (assuming that they even exist, since the End Times are almost upon us, the actual light of any celestial object more distant than about 10,000 light years would never have any chance of arriving here).
Though that begs the basic question: why do creationists work so hard to explain away God's undeniable ability to perform any miracles He would want to? Why try to "prove" those miracles "scientifically" (instead distorting science) instead of just accepting them as miracles?
There are many things about what and how creationists think which we need to learn about. Because so far none of it makes any sense.
The age of the earth/universe has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. I know that the e/u is more than 6000 years old. I know this because the Bible clearly states this.
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.
When examining the creation account one must place himself on earth, looking up/out, instead of from space looking down.
The Genesis account is about God readying earth for the creation of man.
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.
The light would be translucent, and not transparent, because of the thick water vapor in the atmosphere-much like Venus.
Later, God would remove the water vapor and the sun and moon would be clearly discernable.
Also, on day one God would have adjusted earth's rotation, which would have given us both evening and morning.
I can clearly show that the Bible proves my assertion.
The Bible is also clear in that 6000 years ago man; all animals; and, all plant life were created.
Even though the universe is much older than 6000 years, scientists can only make guesstimates of its size.
Scientists calculate stars up to 400 light years away by triangulation. For example, they view a star from the earth and six months later, when the earth is on the far side of the sun, they triangulate the distance.
Triangulating a star from just 100 light years ( 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles distant) is equivalent to triangulating a point in Chicago from two points in Miami, with the two points in Miami being just eighteen inches apart.
There is overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs existed alongside man.
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.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Yeah, dinosaurs and man is a good one. Delusion, winning new hearts and minds all the time.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
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.
It's part of a series of videos by Erika (Gutsick Gibbon), Dapper Dinosaur, and Dr. Dan critiquing a YEC "movie", Dismantled (as in it being a hatchet job supposedly intent on dismantling "evolution").
At 1:00:55 Dapper Dinosaur discusses Dr. Jason Lisle, PhD Astrophysics (the University of Colorado in Boulder) and YEC who has worked at Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research (a couple red flags right there). As described here, Lisle's idea about light is that its speed changes drastically depending on which direction it's traveling in. The special pleading upshot of Lisle's argument is that the light travelling towards earth from the stars travels/traveled at near infinite speed or whatever, you know, because. At around 1:05:13 Dapper summarizes Lisle as basically saying: "Hey, Science. What if we make the math really really complicated and extremely inconvenient for everything except for my idea that the universe isn't really that old?" And Science replies, "Na, that's dumb, let's not do that."
They finish with Jason Lisle's stuff around 1:07:45 after discussing that creationists are just making everything so much harder for themselves by trying to build all these flaky (my adjective for it) models instead of just saying, "Creation was a miracle" and be done with it. I mean, stupid is stupid, but creationists just get ridiculous about making up stupid stuff.
Dr. Mary Schweitzer placed tissue from an ostrich into an iron rich solution and stored it at a steady temperature for 730 days.
She says that the tissue showed very little degradation At the end of two years.
This experiment, she asserts, proves that iron mixed with hemoglobin at death would allow soft tissue to be present in 75,000,000 year old fossils.
Is she stupid?
A 730 days controlled environment (when scientists want to preserve a specimen they always employ a controlled environment) vs. 27,375,000,000 days of extreme tempature conditions and with fossils oftentimes in and out of water.
Also, C-14 has a half-life of roughly 5700 years. And, being generous to a fault, there should be no detectable C-14 in a fossils after 100,000 years. (actually 50,000 years, but remember, I am being generous to a fault).
Science allows for only one possibility.
It is misguided scientists who grasp at straws in order to preserve their paradigm.
It is not creationists vs. Science. It is scientists vs. science.
You demonstrate a primary problem with creationism and creationists, especially those of the "creation science" variety (ie, those who insist on having "scientific evidences" [sic] for creation whereas all they ever do is to attack science and their contrived strawman "evolution" boogeyman): You have to twist and distort all sources, including your own Bible, as well as make up all kinds of nonsense, including unsupported misinterpretations of your own Bible.
And what about the unfinished business of your past false claims? Eg:
This is why I stated that after 100,000 years (probably closer to 50,000) no C-14 is detectable in fossils. The soil has nothing to do with this. It is ludicrous to believe that significant amounts of C-14 is still present in 75,000,000 year old fossils, regardless of the soil or the presence of iron in the soil.
SO WHATEVER DOES C-14 IN FOSSILS HAVE TO DO WITH RADIOCARBON DATING METHODS?????Stop evading the question!
Any C-14 incorporated into the organisms through the means that radiocarbon dating is based on would indeed all be gone after 50,000 years. In addition, in most fossils all the organic material has been replaced by minerals (including any C-14 that had been incorporated in that organic material through the means that radiocarbon dating is based on). You are familiar with what fossilization is, aren't you?
Rather, the C-14 to be found in those fossils (as well as in all kinds of non-fossils) has not decayed away yet because it is of recent origin. And that recently formed C-14 has nothing to do with radiocarbon dating.
Now, answer my question/request!What possible significance can teh presence of that recently formed C-14 have on radiocarbon dating?
In order to answer that, you need to understand what radiocarbon dating is based on and what it depends on. You claim to know that, so demonstrate your knowledge!
If you have no clue, then simply admit it and allow yourself to learn something for a change.
Otherwise, you are lying not only to us, but also to yourself. Do you really believe that lying is the Christian thing to do?
Have you since learned how radiocarbon dating does actually work, or are you still making your false claims based solely on willfully ignorance?
There are also your false claims about "kinds" which included the false claim about evolution requiring individuals of one "kind" giving birth to offspring of another "kind". For example, in Message 467:
candle2 writes:
It is observable science (since recorded history) that an animal will have offsprings of the same kind. The same goes for humans. Human mothers will always have human babies.
Professors cannot give an observable example where one animal evolved (macro) into an entirely different kind of animal.
Have you realized your error yet? I would assume not since you run away from it even to the point of using a stupid lame excuse to refuse to even read an explanation (my Message 484 -- stop being an idiot and read it this time!).
Why do you expend so much energy maintaining your ignorance and avoiding learning anything? And for what payoff except for mental and intellectual impoverishment? That's not worth it!
Dr. Mary Schweitzer placed tissue from an ostrich into an iron rich solution and stored it at a steady temperature for 730 days. She says that the tissue showed very little degradation At the end of two years.
This experiment, she asserts, proves that iron mixed with hemoglobin at death would allow soft tissue to be present in 75,000,000 year old fossils.
Is she stupid?
No, she isn't stupid, but I'm sure she thinks that the creationists who routinely lie about her work (as she complains) are.
Please supply the source where she is supposed to have made that assertion (" iron mixed with hemoglobin at death would allow soft tissue to be present in 75,000,000 year old fossils.") so that we (including you) see what she had actually written. Oh, it was a creationist who made that claim? Well what source did that creationist cite? Did he cite Dr. Schweitzer herself? Or did he instead cite yet another creationist? And even if he did "cite" Dr. Schweitzer herself, was he just falsely claiming as his own another creationist's false claim of a primary source? (at least the result of that extremely common creationist practice is a link to an actual primary source, even though none of those creationists had never even tried to read it, except for the Creationist Zero of that particular claim)
Also, C-14 has a half-life of roughly 5700 years. And, being generous to a fault, there should be no detectable C-14 in a fossils after 100,000 years. (actually 50,000 years, but remember, I am being generous to a fault).
Science allows for only one possibility.
...
Dino fossils contain significant amounts of C-14.
And you are indeed still making that flagrantly false claim.
Yet again, what is trace C-14 produced by subterranean radiation sources supposed to have to do with radiocarbon dating methods?
And don't you dare run away yet again. Just answer the damned question this time!
Here is Tony Reed's How Creationism Taught Me Real Science video on Dr. Mary Schweitzer's findings:
You might learn something, unlit-candle.
This video series is very interesting. The standard format is to present a creationist claim and describe how amazing it is, followed by something like "It's so open-and-shut ... " and his standard, " ... I just had to investigate."
But what had caught my eye was its title, since it reflects my own experience. Like Slartibartfast, I have always been a big fan of science. When I started studying "creation science" in 1981, I would take their claims and verify them. From the very start I learned that creationist claims were invalid and even downright false -- in the subsequent four decades I cannot remember a single creationist claim that had ever turned out to be valid, let alone true. Instead I have consistently found them to be misrepresentations or expressions of creationists' abject inability to understand science, with heaping helpings of dishonesty and outright lying.
But in my studies and investigations of creationist claims, I have also learned a lot of science, real science. Like the protagonist in "The Shawshank Redemption", even though I have had to crawl through the raw sewage of creationism, I have come out of it completely clean with actual scientific knowledge.
You should try it some time. Take your claims and research them. If a creationist makes a claim, look into what the actual science is (eg, learn even just the basics of how the radiocarbon dating method works and what it is based on including its source of C-14 (which is not subterranean radioactivity)). If a creationist "quotes" a scientific source, then look up that source and read it yourself just to verify that it actually says what the creationist claims (that dishonest creationist practice is called quote mining).
If you question testing your own claims, then consider what the New Testament itself says:
quote:I Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
I do realize that, being a Bible-believing "true Christian" creationist, you have most likely never ever opened a Bible, let alone ever even tried to read it. And that you don't care one whit what the Bible actually says, only what your handlers tell you. But consider that verse nonetheless and apply it.
™ Version 4.2
(1)