Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[iouae]

That's because you rejected it without considering it. You miss the forest for the trees, so to speak.

Here it is again:

LIQUEFACTION.

https://youtu.be/lThoaW3EVaE



Here you go:

http://kgov.com/creationist-answer-to-the-starlight-and-time-problem



There are plenty of problems with billions of years.

See http://kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang.



It is FAR from incontrovertible. See my third link in this post.



God speaks out against an old universe, by saying He created man at the beginning of Creation.



I can't speak to how you think, but there IS a cognitive dissonance between what the Bible says and what Big Bang supporters say.



I agree.



Has nothing to do with theology. This is a non-sequitur.

A sure sign of toddler Christianity is having to give out tracts and booklets because one cannot explain a doctrine for oneself. I refuse to look at those links/tracts, because of sheer disappointment with past links I have followed.

But I would like to address the following...

Pretty sure studies have shown that if you teach Genesis as figurative, or as representing billions of years and not what it says ("six days"), and not literal history, a person is far more likely to reject Christianity later on in life, whereas if you teach Genesis as literal, then a person has a stronger faith...
[MENTION=15431]6days[/MENTION] could probably provide you with the links to the studies.

I doubt you can find a reputable scientific survey which proves that YEC believers have "stronger faith" than OEC Christians. I will look at that link if it is not to a site like Creation.com or some homeschooling site with Mom and Pop as statisticians in chief.

There are many scientists who also are Christians who also believe in an old cosmos, and we have no problem with our faith being shaken. Your arguments could not shake a leaf, except that at times they do make me shake from laughter.

 

[Stripe]

I refuse to look at those links.

Which renders your opinion on what we believe useless.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

A sure sign of toddler Christianity is having to give out tracts and booklets because one cannot explain a doctrine for oneself. I refuse to look at those links/tracts, because of sheer disappointment with past links I have followed.

Refusal to consider evidence does not mean the evidence is non-existent.

But I would like to address the following...


I doubt you can find a reputable scientific survey which proves that YEC believers have "stronger faith" than OEC Christians. I will look at that link if it is not to a site like Creation.com or some homeschooling site with Mom and Pop as statisticians in chief.

There are many scientists who also are Christians who also believe in an old cosmos, and we have no problem with our faith being shaken. Your arguments could not shake a leaf, except that at times they do make me shake from laughter.

Not sure how you can say that when you won't even consider the arguments I and others make.

 

[iouae]

Refusal to consider evidence does not mean the evidence is non-existent.



Not sure how you can say that when you won't even consider the arguments I and others make.

And I am not sure there is a reputable scientific investigation to the effect that YRC have more reliable faith. I said find the link and I will look. But don't bother with sites run by your friends.

I don't bother going to links because if you can't explain it yourself, your understanding of the concept is lacking.

 

[Stripe]

And I am not sure there is a reputable scientific investigation to the effect that YRC have more reliable faith. I said find the link and I will look. But don't bother with sites run by your friends.

I don't bother going to links because if you can't explain it yourself, your understanding of the concept is lacking.

How about you just admit that you're a troll. :up:

:troll:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Remember you stormed in here spouting platitudes about boiling things down to fundamentals and not holding fast to ideas. Now what? You had no intention of doing any of that.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Derf]

I mentioned two aspects, viz. old light and the geologic column. I have never heard a YEC explain how different ecosystems of animals (biomes) are buried successively, to any level of credibility.

Neither have I ever heard a YEC explain old light, light from distant galaxies which took 13 billion years to reach us, and can only be seen through telescopes like Hubble. Instead they repeat stupid mantras like, "Do you know that a light year is a measure of distance, not time?" - like it still did not take more than 6000 years for light travelling at c to reach us - duh!

Science has no problem explaining the geologic column or old light. The science is incontrovertible.

I believe in OEC and God, with no cognitive dissonance. Teaching children faulty science and faulty theology does them no favours, because like Santa Claus they will eventually come to reject the lies their parents taught them. And they may end up throwing the baby (Jesus) out with the bathwater (YEC).

Science can't tell how old light is. It doesn't come with a "use by" date stamped on it. The assumption of the age of light is made because of where we think the source was when the photons left it. That assumption might be ok, or it might not be, because we don't really know everything that has happened to the light in the meantime. Even if we knew the age of the light in terms of the light's source, that doesn't directly compute with the ages the earth has passed through between the time the photon left the source and when it arrived here. Such would depend on a number of factors we don't really know about.

We can go through a similar discussion about the geologic column. Its interpretation changes. Times are often reassigned. How much incontrovertible stock do you want to put in something that changes fairly often?

If all the scientific theories are correct, then perhaps we could be sure. Since scientific theories are often tweaked, they can't be considered to always be correct. Thus, you have a conundrum of using a tweakable theory to compare with the word of God. Which one should be considered incontrovertible? That doesn't mean we always interpret the bible correctly. I wish we always did, but we don't.

I don't discount all of the science, but neither should we accept it without question. One of the things we Christians can use to test science is the word of God--if we can interpret it correctly. Sometime we can use science to help us interpret God's word more correctly. But not always.

 

[George Affleck]

Neither have I ever heard a YEC explain old light, light from distant galaxies which took 13 billion years to reach us...

Try this.
Light travels instantaneously in the absence of gravity.
When it encounters a gravitational force field it is forced to adapt and become relative to it.
This is why, within the gravity of our solar system, light and gravitational waves travel at identical speeds.

 

[Stripe]

Light travels instantaneously in the absence of gravity.

I think the effects of gravity on light are intriguing. What basis do you have to say that lightspeed is infinite in the absence of gravity? I've read something somewhere about this and would love more sources (or to find the ones I vaguely remember).

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[iouae]

Science can't tell how old light is. It doesn't come with a "use by" date stamped on it. The assumption of the age of light is made because of where we think the source was when the photons left it. That assumption might be ok, or it might not be, because we don't really know everything that has happened to the light in the meantime. Even if we knew the age of the light in terms of the light's source, that doesn't directly compute with the ages the earth has passed through between the time the photon left the source and when it arrived here. Such would depend on a number of factors we don't really know about.

That's the thing Derf, there are no other factors that I know of which can affect the speed of light coming from distant galaxies, thus in the absence of any good science suggesting the opposite, we have to take as FACT that the light HAS come straight from distant galaxies, at c, the speed of light, which has no good science suggesting that it varies in a vacuum, even when there is or is no gravity.

We cannot use the argument "it's still open for debate" when all science is on the side of "It's already decided".

We can go through a similar discussion about the geologic column. Its interpretation changes. Times are often reassigned. How much incontrovertible stock do you want to put in something that changes fairly often?

Fundamentally it stays the same. We have past civilisation built upon past civilisation just like we find in ancient cities like Jericho or Jerusalem, with the oldest at the bottom.

If all the scientific theories are correct, then perhaps we could be sure. Since scientific theories are often tweaked, they can't be considered to always be correct. Thus, you have a conundrum of using a tweakable theory to compare with the word of God. Which one should be considered incontrovertible? That doesn't mean we always interpret the bible correctly. I wish we always did, but we don't.

Our theology is more often than not wrong. There is a greater chance of our theology being wrong than the science being wrong. In this case its definitely the YEC theology which needs tweaking.

I don't discount all of the science, but neither should we accept it without question. One of the things we Christians can use to test science is the word of God--if we can interpret it correctly. Sometime we can use science to help us interpret God's word more correctly. But not always.

"If we can interpret it correctly" are the operative words.

But at least you sound reasonable, so nice to discuss the issue with you.

 

[iouae]

Try this.
Light travels instantaneously in the absence of gravity.
When it encounters a gravitational force field it is forced to adapt and become relative to it.
This is why, within the gravity of our solar system, light and gravitational waves travel at identical speeds.

Nice try George, but I know that is not so because if it were, then the images from distant galaxies would be scrambled because as light passed dense and less dense bodies (suns) the light would be slowed and speeded up, such that ancient galaxies would be scrambled. There is not a drop of science to back what you wrote. But at least you have a theory.

 

[iouae]

How about you just admit that you're a troll. :up:

:troll:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

You are so used to YEC nonsense that a sensible, logical scientific argument comes across as trolling to you.

 

[George Affleck]

I think the effects of gravity on light are intriguing. What basis do you have to say that lightspeed is infinite in the absence of gravity? I've read something somewhere about this and would love more sources (or to find the ones I vaguely remember).

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Einstein showed that gravity and light are relational. There's lots of information on this but opinions differ. I don't have what you are looking for at my fingertips but I have found this article of interest and it may lead you to other info.

https://answersingenesis.org/astron...nchrony-convention-distant-starlight-problem/

:e4e:

 

[Stripe]

Einstein showed that gravity and light are relational. There's lots of information on this but opinions differ. I don't have what you are looking for at my fingertips but I have found this article of interest and it may lead you to other info.

https://answersingenesis.org/astron...nchrony-convention-distant-starlight-problem/

:e4e:

Hmm.

Wouldn't Einstein insist that lightspeed remains constant regardless of the gravity environment?

What you say seems reasonable; the evidence certainly shows that gravity affects light, warping it on its travel from distant stars. However, that is about bending light, not necessarily speeding it up.

If the Earth is near the center of the universe — which the evidence seems to indicate — and environments of lesser gravity allow for faster speeds of light, then perhaps light at great distances is near-infinite in velocity.

It's an intriguing idea, but I don't know of any feasible means to test it.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[George Affleck]

Nice try George, but I know that is not so because if it were, then the images from distant galaxies would be scrambled because as light passed dense and less dense bodies (suns) the light would be slowed and speeded up, such that ancient galaxies would be scrambled. There is not a drop of science to back what you wrote. But at least you have a theory.

http://www.newsweek.com/new-star-images-captured-hubble-telescope-help-gravity-look-fireworks-633754

Distortion. It happens.

What you are missing is that, light paths from stars that look from our vantage point to be close enough to interfere with each other are not close at all. The paths that are, do experience distortion as this article reports.

 

[George Affleck]

Hmm.

Wouldn't Einstein insist that lightspeed remains constant regardless of the gravity environment?

What you say seems reasonable; the evidence certainly shows that gravity affects light, warping it on its travel from distant stars. However, that is about bending light, not necessarily speeding it up.

If the Earth is near the center of the universe — which the evidence seems to indicate — and environments of lesser gravity allow for faster speeds of light, then perhaps light at great distances is near-infinite in velocity.

It's an intriguing idea, but I don't know of any feasible means to test it.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Well,

Black holes exert a gravitational pull such that the light from objects beyond its event horizon has slowed to the point where it has a negative speed and is pulled into the hole. This should tell us something about the influence of gravity on light.

I'm no Barney Fife but it seems reasonable to suggest that, if there is no (or minimal) gravitational influence, there would be nothing to hinder (regulate) the speed of light.

That's my theory and I'm stickin' to it!

 

[iouae]

Well,

Black holes exert a gravitational pull such that the light from objects beyond its event horizon has slowed to the point where it has a negative speed and is pulled into the hole. This should tell us something about the influence of gravity on light.

I'm no Barney Fife but it seems reasonable to suggest that, if there is no (or minimal) gravitational influence, there would be nothing to hinder (regulate) the speed of light.

That's my theory and I'm stickin' to it!

This is what you originally wrote..

Try this.
Light travels instantaneously in the absence of gravity.
When it encounters a gravitational force field it is forced to adapt and become relative to it.
This is why, within the gravity of our solar system, light and gravitational waves travel at identical speeds.

Every place in the universe is the centre of the universe for that place.
Thus gravity at any point in the universe is equally pulling in all directions at every point in the universe (on average).
So there is no place in the universe where we can escape the pull of gravity.
Thus gravity is constant everywhere in the universe (on average) and accordingly, the speed of light would be the same everywhere in the universe. According to your theory, only locally at black holes gravity changes and speed of light changes. Thus, on average, the rest of the light in the universe is still travelling, on average, at c, the speed of light.

So even by your theory, there is no place in the universe where light could travel faster due to no gravity. Gravity permeates the universe.

And knowing you got your theory from the creation site, I have this to say.

Orthodox, reputable science would have discovered that c is not a constant by now.

But creation sites rejoice in pseudoscience, and things like supercritical water to explain stuff because they operate on the principle of trying to sow doubt in conventional science, so that Christians can shrug their shoulders and say "The jury is still out on this". No, the jury is not still out. Only pseudoscience is out there sowing doubt in believers minds, since they want to believe that science is wrong, to excuse their bad theology which is contradiction to reputable findings of science.

 

[iouae]

If light travelled instantly in the absence of gravity, then a probe like Voyager 1 which was sent out of our solar system, would have taken less and less time to broadcast its signal back to earth over time. But, that was not the case. Messages from Voyager 1 travelled at c irrespective of the messages being sent from beyond the gravity of the sun and solar system. The time it took the signal to reach earth took exactly the speed of light time to reach us at all points in its travel.

 

[Stripe]

Every place in the universe is the centre of the universe for that place.

Because you say so?

Thus gravity at any point in the universe is equally pulling in all directions at every point in the universe.

This could only be true if there is an infinite amount of matter.

There is no place in the universe where we can escape the pull of gravity.

That was trivially true without your reasoning. Gravity acts according to an inverse square law. The maths shows that gravity is always a factor, regardless of distance.

Gravity is constant everywhere in the universe.

That's not even true on the Earth's surface.

(on average)

:AMR:

Every average is always the same. Are you making this up as you go?

Accordingly, the speed of light would be the same everywhere in the universe.

Except that averages are a mathematical construct and you made that stuff up about matter being infinite.

Gravity permeates the universe.

Not if matter is finite.

Orthodox, reputable science would have discovered that c is not a constant by now.

:darwinsm:

Your faith is unshakable, isn't it?

But creation sites rejoice in pseudoscience, and things like supercritical water to explain stuff because they operate on the principle of trying to sow doubt in conventional science, so that Christians can shrug their shoulders and say "The jury is still out on this". No, the jury is not still out. Only pseudoscience is out there sowing doubt in believers minds, since they want to believe that science is wrong, to excuse their bad theology which is contradiction to reputable findings of science.

:yawn:

If light travelled instantly in the absence of gravity, then a probe like Voyager 1 which was sent out of our solar system, would have taken less and less time to broadcast its signal back to earth over time.

It's traveled an insignificant distance — in effect, not at all — compared with the size of the universe.
You spend no time thinking things through, do you?

But, that was not the case. Messages from Voyager 1 travelled at c irrespective of the messages being sent from beyond the gravity of the sun and solar system. The time it took the signal to reach earth took exactly the speed of light time to reach us at all points in its travel.

Because you've done the measurements.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[iouae]

Because you've done the measurements.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I had written "
But, that was not the case. Messages from Voyager 1 travelled at c irrespective of the messages being sent from beyond the gravity of the sun and solar system. The time it took the signal to reach earth took exactly the speed of light time to reach us at all points in its travel.
Because you've done the measurements."

https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-for-Voyager-1-to-send-data-back-to-Earth

"At this time in May 2017, Voyager 1 is about 20.612 billion km from Earth and it takes Voyager’s radio signals (traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum) just under 19 hours, 6 minutes to reach the Earth."

If it took shorter or longer than this, someone would be receiving a Nobel prize for discovering that c is not a constant. That someone could be you Stripe, or Affleck or AnswersInGenesis.