See other Religion Articles
Title: Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?
Source:
Answers In Genesis
URL Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove
Published: Feb 5, 2009
Author: Jason Lisle
Post Date: 2009-02-05 15:38:06 by Old Friend
Keywords: None
Views: 4003
Comments: 305
Critics of biblical creation sometimes use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. The argument goes something like this: (1) there are galaxies that are so far away, it would take light from their stars billions of years to get from there to here; (2) we can see these galaxies, so their starlight has already arrived here; and (3) the universe must be at least billions of years old—much older than the 6,000 or so years indicated in the Bible. Many big bang supporters consider this to be an excellent argument against the biblical timescale. But when we examine this argument carefully, we will see that it does not work. The universe is very big and contains galaxies that are very far away, but that does not mean that the universe must be billions of years old. The distant starlight question has caused some people to question cosmic distances. “Do we really know that galaxies are so far away? Perhaps they are much closer, so the light really doesn’t travel very far.”1 However, the techniques that astronomers use to measure cosmic distances are generally logical and scientifically sound. They do not rely on evolutionary assumptions about the past. Moreover, they are a part of observational science (as opposed to historical/origins science); they are testable and repeatable in the present. You could repeat the experiment to determine the distance to a star or galaxy, and you would get approximately the same answer. So we have good reason to believe that space really is very big. In fact, the amazing size of the universe brings glory to God (Psalm 19:1). Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us. But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument. Let me suggest that the answer to distant starlight lies in some of the unstated assumptions that secular astronomers make. The Assumptions of Light Travel-time Arguments Any attempt to scientifically estimate the age of something will necessarily involve a number of assumptions. These can be assumptions about the starting conditions, constancy of rates, contamination of the system, and many others. If even one of these assumptions is wrong, so is the age estimate. Sometimes an incorrect worldview is to blame when people make faulty assumptions. The distant starlight argument involves several assumptions that are questionable—any one of which makes the argument unsound. Let’s examine a few of these assumptions. The Constancy of the Speed of Light It is usually assumed that the speed of light is constant with time.2 At today’s rate, it takes light (in a vacuum) about one year to cover a distance of 6 trillion miles. But has this always been so? If we incorrectly assume that the rate has always been today’s rate, we would end up estimating an age that is much older than the true age. But some people have proposed that light was much quicker in the past. If so, light could traverse the universe in only a fraction of the time it would take today. Some creation scientists believe that this is the answer to the problem of distant starlight in a young universe. However, the speed of light is not an “arbitrary” parameter. In other words, changing the speed of light would cause other things to change as well, such as the ratio of energy to mass in any system.3 Some people have argued that the speed of light can never have been much different than it is today because it is so connected to other constants of nature. In other words, life may not be possible if the speed of light were any different. This is a legitimate concern. The way in which the universal constants are connected is only partially understood. So, the impact of a changing speed of light on the universe and life on earth is not fully known. Some creation scientists are actively researching questions relating to the speed of light. Other creation scientists feel that the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light is probably reasonable and that the solution to distant starlight lies elsewhere. The Assumption of Rigidity of Time Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But, in fact, this assumption is false. And there are a few different ways in which the nonrigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale. Albert Einstein discovered that the rate at which time passes is affected by motion and by gravity. For example, when an object moves very fast, close to the speed of light, its time is slowed down. This is called “time-dilation.” So, if we were able to accelerate a clock to nearly the speed of light, that clock would tick very slowly. If we could somehow reach the speed of light, the clock would stop completely. This isn’t a problem with the clock; the effect would happen regardless of the clock’s particular construction because it is time itself that is slowed. Likewise, gravity slows the passage of time. A clock at sea-level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock at sea-level is closer to the source of gravity. It seems hard to believe that velocity or gravity would affect the passage of time since our everyday experience cannot detect this. After all, when we are traveling in a vehicle, time appears to flow at the same rate as when we are standing still. But that’s because we move so slowly compared to the speed of light, and the earth’s gravity is so weak that the effects of time-dilation are correspondingly tiny. However, the effects of time-dilation have been measured with atomic clocks. Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well, which we will discuss below. Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. So, it is a leap of “blind” faith on their part. However, if we make a different assumption instead, it leads to a very different conclusion. Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility. In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea. Assumptions of Synchronization Another way in which the relativity of time is important concerns the topic of synchronization: how clocks are set so that they read the same time at the same time.4 Relativity has shown that synchronization is not absolute. In other words, if one person measures two clocks to be synchronized, another person (moving at a different speed) would not necessarily measure those two clocks to be synchronized. As with time-dilation, this effect is counterintuitive because it is too small to measure in most of our everyday experience. Since there is no method by which two clocks (separated by a distance) can be synchronized in an absolute sense, such that all observers would agree regardless of motion, it follows that there is some flexibility in how we choose what constitutes synchronized clocks. The following analogy may be helpful. Imagine that a plane leaves a certain city at 4:00 p.m. for a two-hour flight. However, when the plane lands, the time is still 4:00. Since the plane arrived at the same time it left, we might call this an instantaneous trip. How is this possible? The answer has to do with time zones. If the plane left Kentucky at 4:00 p.m. local time, it would arrive in Colorado at 4:00 p.m. local time. Of course, an observer on the plane would experience two hours of travel. So, the trip takes two hours as measured by universal time. However, as long as the plane is traveling west (and providing it travels fast enough), it will always naturally arrive at the same time it left as measured in local time. There is a cosmic equivalent to local and universal time. Light traveling toward earth is like the plane traveling west; it always remains at the same cosmic local time. Although most astronomers today primarily use cosmic universal time (in which it takes light 100 years to travel 100 light-years), historically cosmic local time has been the standard. And so it may be that the Bible also uses cosmic local time when reporting events. Since God created the stars on Day 4, their light would leave the star on Day 4 and reach earth on Day 4 cosmic local time. Light from all galaxies would reach earth on Day 4 if we measure it according to cosmic local time. Someone might object that the light itself would experience billions of years (as the passenger on the plane experiences the two hour trip). However, according to Einstein’s relativity, light does not experience the passage of time, so the trip would be instantaneous. Now, this idea may or may not be the reason that distant starlight is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale, but so far no one has been able to prove that the Bible does not use cosmic local time. So, it is an intriguing possibility.5 The Assumption of Naturalism One of the most overlooked assumptions in most arguments against the Bible is the assumption of naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that nature is “all that there is.” Proponents of naturalism assume that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural laws. This is not only a blind assumption, but it is also clearly antibiblical. The Bible makes it clear that God is not bound by natural laws (they are, after all, His laws). Of course God can use laws of nature to accomplish His will; and He usually does so. In fact, natural laws could be considered a description of the way in which God normally upholds the universe. But God is supernatural and is capable of acting outside natural law. This would certainly have been the case during Creation Week. God created the universe supernaturally. He created it from nothing, not from previous material (Hebrews 11:3). Today, we do not see God speaking into existence new stars or new kinds of creatures. This is because God ended His work of creation by the seventh day. Today, God sustains the universe in a different way than how He created it. However, the naturalist erroneously assumes that the universe was created by the same processes by which it operates today. Of course it would be absurd to apply this assumption to most other things. A flashlight, for example, operates by converting electricity into light, but the flashlight was not created by this process. Since the stars were created during Creation Week and since God made them to give light upon the earth, the way in which distant starlight arrived on earth may have been supernatural. We cannot assume that past acts of God are necessarily understandable in terms of a current scientific mechanism, because science can only probe the way in which God sustains the universe today. It is irrational to argue that a supernatural act cannot be true on the basis that it cannot be explained by natural processes observed today. It is perfectly acceptable for us to ask, “Did God use natural processes to get the starlight to earth in the biblical timescale? And if so, what is the mechanism?” But if no natural mechanism is apparent, this cannot be used as evidence against supernatural creation. So, the unbeliever is engaged in a subtle form of circular reasoning when he uses the assumption of naturalism to argue that distant starlight disproves the biblical timescale. Light Travel-Time: A Self-Refuting Argument Many big bang supporters use the above assumptions to argue that the biblical timescale cannot be correct because of the light travel-time issue. But such an argument is self-refuting. It is fatally flawed because the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. In the big bang model, light is required to travel a distance much greater than should be possible within the big bang’s own timeframe of about 14 billion years. This serious difficulty for the big bang is called the “horizon problem.” 6 The following are the details. Figure 1 & 2 The Horizon Problem In the big bang model, the universe begins in an infinitely small state called a singularity, which then rapidly expands. According to the big bang model, when the universe is still very small, it would develop different temperatures in different locations (Figure 1). Let’s suppose that point A is hot and point B is cold. Today, the universe has expanded (Figure 2), and points A and B are now widely separated. However, the universe has an extremely uniform temperature at great distance— beyond the farthest known galaxies. In other words, points A and B have almost exactly the same temperature today. We know this because we see electromagnetic radiation coming from all directions in space in the form of microwaves. This is called the “cosmic microwave background” (CMB). The frequencies of radiation have a characteristic temperature of 2.7 K (-455°F) and are extremely uniform in all directions. The temperature deviates by only one part in 105. The problem is this: How did points A and B come to be the same temperature? They can do this only by exchanging energy. This happens in many systems: consider an ice cube placed in hot coffee. The ice heats up and the coffee cools down by exchanging energy. Likewise, point A can give energy to point B in the form of electromagnetic radiation (light), which is the fastest way to transfer energy since nothing can travel faster than light. However, using the big bang supporters’ own assumptions, including uniformitarianism and naturalism, there has not been enough time in 14 billion years to get light from A to B; they are too far apart. This is a light travel-time problem—and a very serious one. After all, A and B have almost exactly the same temperature today, and so must have exchanged light multiple times. Big bang supporters have proposed a number of conjectures which attempt to solve the big bang’s light travel-time problem. One of the most popular is called “inflation.” In “inflationary” models, the universe has two expansion rates: a normal rate and a fast inflation rate. The universe begins with the normal rate, which is actually quite rapid, but is slow by comparison to the next phase. Then it briefly enters the inflation phase, where the universe expands much more rapidly. At a later time, the universe goes back to the normal rate. This all happens early on, long before stars and galaxies form. The inflation model allows points A and B to exchange energy (during the first normal expansion) and to then be pushed apart during the inflation phase to the enormous distances at which they are located today. But the inflation model amounts to nothing more than storytelling with no supporting evidence at all. It is merely speculation designed to align the big bang to conflicting observations. Moreover, inflation adds an additional set of problems and difficulties to the big bang model, such as the cause of such inflation and a graceful way to turn it off. An increasing number of secular astrophysicists are rejecting inflation for these reasons and others. Clearly, the horizon problem remains a serious light travel-time problem for the big bang. The critic may suggest that the big bang is a better explanation of origins than the Bible since biblical creation has a light travel-time problem—distant starlight. But such an argument is not rational since the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. If both models have the same problem in essence7, then that problem cannot be used to support one model over the other. Therefore, distant starlight cannot be used to dismiss the Bible in favor of the big bang. Conclusions So, we’ve seen that the critics of creation must use a number of assumptions in order to use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. And many of these assumptions are questionable. Do we know that light has always propagated at today’s speed? Perhaps this is reasonable, but can we be absolutely certain, particularly during Creation Week when God was acting in a supernatural way? Can we be certain that the Bible is using “cosmic universal time,” rather than the more common “cosmic local time” in which light reaches earth instantly? We know that the rate at which time flows is not rigid. And although secular astronomers are well aware that time is relative, they assume that this effect is (and has always been) negligible, but can we be certain that this is so? And since stars were made during Creation Week when God was supernaturally creating, how do we know for certain that distant starlight has arrived on earth by entirely natural means? Furthermore, when big bang supporters use distant starlight to argue against biblical creation, they are using a self-refuting argument since the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. When we consider all of the above, we see that distant starlight has never been a legitimate argument against the biblical timescale of a few thousand years. As creation scientists research possible solutions to the distant starlight problem, we should also remember the body of evidence that is consistent with the youth of the universe. We see rotating spiral galaxies that cannot last multiple billions of years because they would be twisted-up beyond recognition. We see multitudes of hot blue stars, which even secular astronomers would agree cannot last billions of years.8 In our own solar system we see disintegrating comets and decaying magnetic fields that cannot last billions of years; and there is evidence that other solar systems have these things as well. Of course, such arguments also involve assumptions about the past. That is why, ultimately, the only way to know about the past for certain is to have a reliable historic record written by an eyewitness. That is exactly what we have in the Bible.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-45) not displayed.
.
.
.
#46. To: LACUMO (#45)
No! Damn boy. You have some sense after all. Starlight doesn't prove a young or an old universe. They don't get that it isn't proveable.
Well you should. Since some of your beliefs ahem evolution are partially based on that junk science. Maybe you should take another look at some of those beliefs.
That is absolute horse manure. The person who wrote this apparently doesn't realize that just because light travels at the speed it does doesn't mean it takes less time to reach it's destination, it means a PARTICLE traveling at the speed of light would not experience time. However, light STILL takes as long as it does to reach its destination. If such weren't true, we wouldn't be able to bounce a laser off a distant object and measure it's distance by the amount of time it takes for it to be reflected, as it would take no time at all for the light to travel. In fact, it'd be instananeous. Einstein's theories state that time dilation occurs as an OBJECT consisting of matter approaches the speed of light, NOT light itself.
I think you got me wrong. I was asking WHO the eyewitness was...
Read it more carefully next time. He is saying that it takes longer for pluto to orbit the sun then say Earth. So it would be more years on earth to equal one year on pluto.
God himself.
You take it on faith. It isn't faith if you know the math that allows you to follow the argument. Regardless of the true age of the Universe the distance/time problem is one which is amenable to a mathematical solution. One does not have to perform the calculation from scratch to follow the mathematics and attendant reasoning. The age of the known universe has been produced and honed on multiple occasions. One does not have to reinvent the wheel to know that wheels roll. Corollary: One does not have to recreate in every minute detail an argument which has been demonstrated in mathematics. One is free to examine it and confirm for one's self that the argument is sound, but there is no need to do it again from scratch. However, that is not what the "Young Earth" crowd does. No, they declare it invalid by authority and then assert their own unproved belief as dictated by their misinterpretations as the only valid conclusion. (Excuse me a moment while I let my stomach muscles relax.) Oh, by the way, how many Angels can fit on the head of a pin? As FL pointed out the argument is not was there a creation moment but when and how? The "Young Earth" Hypothesis (to digify it as a hypothesis) is sorely lacking in evidence. It is all built on supposition, faith (belief in the face of contradictory evidence), and an obstinate unwillingness to allow the known and verifiable facts tell their own story. The only way the "Young Earth Hypothesis" can be sustained is by denying all contradictory evidence and then asserting an argument based solely upon supposition and authority.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Where does the Old Testament explain how the Sumerian civilization come about? Why doesn't Sumerian history mention anything about Adam and Eve? Oh BTW, how do you explain that the English version of Genesis is wrong, where Adam is not a single man in the original text of the Old Testament, the word means MANKIND (plural of HUMAN).
That's the problem with fanatics, they aren't satisfied with the fact science may very well agree with the idea of Creation, they insist that it has to agree with what they THINK the Old Testament says, where it doesn't even say what they THINK it does.. As I pointed out to OF several times, A-dam in Hebrew means HUMAN(s), and is not the name of a person.
In binary math, 1 + 1 = 10
Not true. It is evolution that is sorely lacking in evicence. It is built on supposition such as how long starlight takes to get to the earth. You have to take it on faith that God didn't create a working world. It is built on supposition, faith (belief in the face of contradictory evidence such as the helium problem mentioned earlier or what comes first the fuck or the kid.) and an obstinate unwillingness to allow the known and verifiable facts to tell their own story (for example the circular reasoning used to date the earth at billions of years) The only way Evilutionists cultists can be sustained is by denying all contradictory evidence. Such as no intermediary transitional fossils of any kind. Then asserting an argument based solely upon supposition and authority such as "I'll believe the physicists who study and research these things rather than .... It is ridiculous
Why must it explain that to be Gods word?
In hexadecimal math, 8 + 8 = 10
I know that I serve a very big God. ;-)
4um Traitor Because they didn't hand the story down I suppose. How does that invalidate the Bible though?
Because apparently they didn't descend from Adam and Eve, as they aren't mentioned. So then, who made THEM???
Lots of people don't know where they came from. Big deal. Your grasping as straws to try to disprove the Bible. Why do you hate Gods word?
In binary math, 1 + 1 = 10 Axiom: Absolutes are unobtainable in the real world. Science does not deal in absolutes which is what drives authoritarian thinkers (more) wacky. This applies to Theologians and to Academicians who treat science as an absolute (it also includes the Septical Inquirer crowd who are neither skeptics nor enquirers). Science says: "Based on the currently available evidence, subject to revision or rewrite upon the presentation of additional evidence, we believe that "X" is the way it is. To the mind that thinks in absolutes that is not an acceptable answer though it be an honest answer. Fanatics think and act upon "absolutes".
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Science says: "Based on the currently available evidence, subject to revision or rewrite upon the presentation of additional evidence, we believe that "X" is the way it is. Now here is what the dictionary says and it aint what you said. Science Definition The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge. How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."
You are the master of hypocricy. You rely on religious superstition and junk "science" to make your case, then label people who study science as superstitious. A) The speed of light can easily be measured. It can also be determined simply using various calculations. But it CAN be measured. B) You concede that there are stars that are BILLIONS of light years away. C) If they are BILLIONS of light years away, then it took BILLIONS of years for the light to get from there to here. The site I linked had a LOT of information that I doubt you'd bother yourself with, as you are a fanatic that doesn't wish to learn anything, you just want to get on a soapbox and thump your Bible.
Then 1 "day" could represent our solar system revolving around the core of the galaxy. Or some such. But, I'm done
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Wrong. Are you saying it would be IMPOSSIBLE for God to make the starlight already visible on earth at the moment of creation since he wanted us to use them for the seasons?
no it couldn't. It was written to us here on earth.
In your own limited way, what you are trying to grasp is the idea of physical evidence. Proof is a result of mathematical logic, not physics or forensic sciences. Physics and forensic sciences are demonstratably superior in sorting facts over fiction versus a bunch of shamanists reading old jewish comic books. You should be thankful that US courts generally use forensic science versus shamanism to determine truth, or else you would already be resident in the county lock-up for the bad karma you ooze around normal people. In regard to demonstratable evidence, there is virtually no archeological evidence for any OT biblical myths, especially any biblical claims that involve supernatural phenomena. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....so pony it up or shaddup. The evidence of a young earth is completly refuted by radiometric dating. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rad iometric_dating I know this information is a complete waste of time with you, but it may stimulate normal people that don't suffer from a pathological case of cranial- rectal inversion.
Science Definition Scientific truth is open to change as determined by new discoveries. Fundamentalists have already decided what the "truth" is, so do NOT accept any new discovery unless shoved down their throats hard enough they can't spit it back out, such as the fact the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around...
There probably still are some Bible thumpers who think the sun goes around the Earth, but they know it's a losing issue. So they focus on their other pet peeves of science contradicting Middle Eastern fairy tales. In fact it seems that all but the craziest fundamentalists have dropped "young Earth creationism" as a lost cause for pretty much the same reason (creationists now talk about "intelligent design" in the context of an old Earth and universe). Almost every creationist I've talked to admits that the Earth and the Universe are billions of years old - they've dropped the young Earth as a lost cause and now focus only on evolution as their pet peeve. People like Old Friend will soon seem just as strange and quaint as anti- Copernicans.
There are people who actually believe in the "big bang" despite the fact that the "big bang" theory leads to disorder, not order. Macro evolution required progressive order, not disorder. Yet there are people who say they believe in both. This is similar to a person saying they believe the Earth is round then worrying about walking off the edge of it. Total insanity.
God is always good!
For the seasons???? Anyways, for that to be possible, then light from a galaxy 12 billion light years away would have needed to have reached us instantly, thus light would not travel at 186,000 miles per second, it would travel instantly EVERYWHERE. So then, what happens after the first day, when light begins to travel at its normal speed? ANSWER: It GOES AWAY because the light coming from that distant object no longer reaches us. Thus we would not see anything from that far away today, as the light will not have reached us yet. If the universe was created 6000 years ago, another 11,999,4000 years would have to go by before we'd ever see that distant galaxy. In fact, the furthest stars we would see would only be 6000 light years away, as anything further than that would not have reached us yet. The Milky Way galaxy (the one we live in) is in fact 100,000 light years in diameter. That we can see this means that the universe is at least that old. But we can see much more than just the Milky Way galaxy. We can see OTHER galaxies that are MILLIONS and BILLIONS of light years away. That is how we can know that the universe is at least that old.
You have no clue as to what you're talking about.
That is NOT what he's saying. Are you blind? I even copied the part I was commenting on, do you want me to copy it, bold it out, and mark it up in red? He was refering to light coming from distant stars, saying that time dilates at the speed of light so it takes a shorter time for light to travel than the speed of light, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Prove it. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.
You have no clue as to what you're talking about. Yes you are one of those people. You believe that order came from disorder because "enough" time passed. Which is similar to believing Santa Clause flies around the world every Christmas and goes down people's chimney's giving them presents.
God is always good!
But wait a minute. You and your pals "calculate" the age of the universe by adding up the number of years descendents of Adam and Eve lived, ignoring the possibility of some serious gaps in the lineage. Hebrews were Egyptian slaves, we know that much. But where did they come from before that? Being that Egypt came to be after the Sumerian age, whereas Assyria and Babylon existed between the end of the Sumerian Era up through the Egyptian Era, where do you think those Hebrews came from? They had to have come from Sumer, as Sumer IS the first KNOWN civilization. In fact, Abraham of the Old Testament is said to have lived in the Sumerian city of Ur. Now where's all that history? And how do you tie Adam and Eve to Sumer? I want you to tell me this since you appear to consider yourself quite the expert.
Explain to me what you think happened during the Big Bang (as stated by theory) . I want you to explain your concept of "disorder"...
Oh, so you think if a system is disturbed, such as a pool of water when a large object is thrown into it, it will never return back to order?
Ironic, because it's the Bible thumpers whose idea of a scientific explanation is "big Daddy in the sky waved a magic wand, and it was all here." Which is a lot like believing in the Easter Bunny, as far as I can see.
Don't you love it when Fundies who probably never made it past elementary school science classes start arguing points like "Entropy increases, so evolution is impossible!" The concept of open vs. closed systems is completely lost on them - local decrease in entropy is possible as long as it increases globally. Nothing deep there - just 10th grade chemistry class stuff. They may as well say "Entropy increases, therefore crystals can't grow, and fertilized eggs can't possible develop into adult people!" Reading religious nuts talk science is embarassing. I wish they'd open up a grade school text on physical or life science before they posted comments.
And there you go. It's all about being willing to kneel before "authority". If you are willing to kneel before their chosen "authority", then you are peachy keen in their book. If you are not willing to kneel before their chosen "authority", then you are going to suffer infinite torment forever, according to them. Someday the human race will truly be free. It will happen about five minutes after the last "authority" is strangled with the guts of the last priest...
Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?
#47. To: LACUMO (#45)
Who gives a shit anyway.
#48. To: Old Friend (#0)
Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well, which we will discuss below.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#49. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#44)
I what way is the Book of Genesis any more an eye witness account than Homer's Odyssey or the Thousand and One Nights?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#50. To: FormerLurker (#48)
That is absolute horse manure
#51. To: FormerLurker (#49)
I think you got me wrong. I was asking WHO the eyewitness was...
#52. To: Old Friend, FormerLurker, all (#21)
You also just admitted that you don't know what you are talking about and just believe it because he is a "physicist who study and research these things"
#53. To: Old Friend (#43)
(Edited)
Various people carried it orally and possibly written too.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#54. To: Original_Intent (#52)
As FL pointed out the argument is not was there a creation moment but when and how?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#55. To: Old Friend (#31)
Proof would be certainty. Like 1 + 1 = 2.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#56. To: Original_Intent (#52)
The "Young Earth" Hypothesis (to digify it as a hypothesis) is sorely lacking in evidence. It is all built on supposition, faith (belief in the face of contradictory evidence), and an obstinate unwillingness to allow the known and verifiable facts tell their own story. The only way the "Young Earth Hypothesis" can be sustained is by denying all contradictory evidence and then asserting an argument based solely upon supposition and authority.
#57. To: FormerLurker (#53)
Where does the Old Testament explain how the Sumerian civilization come about?
#58. To: Old Friend (#31)
Proof would be certainty. Like 1 + 1 = 2.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#59. To: Old Friend (#56)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#60. To: FormerLurker (#53)
Why doesn't Sumerian history mention anything about Adam and Eve?
#61. To: Old Friend (#57)
Why must it explain that to be Gods word?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#62. To: FormerLurker (#61)
Because apparently they didn't descend from Adam and Eve,
#63. To: FormerLurker, Old Friend (#55)
Proof would be certainty. Like 1 + 1 = 2.
#64. To: Original_Intent (#63)
Science does not deal in absolutes which is what drives authoritarian thinkers (more) wacky. This applies to Theologians and to Academicians who treat science as an absolute (it also includes the Septical Inquirer crowd who are neither skeptics nor enquirers).
#65. To: Old Friend (#56)
It is built on supposition such as how long starlight takes to get to the earth. You have to take it on faith that God didn't create a working world. It is built on supposition, faith
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#66. To: Old Friend (#50)
Read it more carefully next time. He is saying that it takes longer for pluto to orbit the sun then say Earth. So it would be more years on earth to equal one year on pluto.
#67. To: FormerLurker (#65)
C) If they are BILLIONS of light years away, then it took BILLIONS of years for the light to get from there to here.
#68. To: PSUSA (#66)
Then 1 "day" could represent our solar system revolving around the core of the galaxy. Or some such.
#69. To: Old Friend (#31)
Proof would be certainty. Like 1 + 1 = 2.
#70. To: Old Friend, Original Intent (#64)
Now here is what the dictionary says and it aint what you said.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#71. To: FormerLurker (#70)
(Edited)
Fundamentalists have already decided what the "truth" is, so do NOT accept any new discovery unless shoved down their throats hard enough they can't spit it back out, such as the fact the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around
#72. To: Old Friend (#0)
#73. To: Old Friend (#67)
Are you saying it would be IMPOSSIBLE for God to make the starlight already visible on earth at the moment of creation since he wanted us to use them for the seasons?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#74. To: RickyJ (#72)
There are people who actually believe in the "big bang" despite the fact that the "big bang" theory leads to disorder, not order.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#75. To: Old Friend (#50)
Read it more carefully next time. He is saying that it takes longer for pluto to orbit the sun then say Earth. So it would be more years on earth to equal one year on pluto.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#76. To: Old Friend (#51)
God himself.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#77. To: FormerLurker (#74)
There are people who actually believe in the "big bang" despite the fact that the "big bang" theory leads to disorder, not order.
#78. To: Old Friend (#62)
(Edited)
Lots of people don't know where they came from. Big deal.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#79. To: RickyJ (#77)
You believe that order came from disorder because "enough" time passed.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#80. To: RickyJ (#77)
You believe that order came from disorder because "enough" time passed. Which is similar to believing Santa Clause flies around the world every Christmas and goes down people's chimney's giving them presents.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#81. To: RickyJ (#77)
Which is similar to believing Santa Clause flies around the world every Christmas and goes down people's chimney's giving them presents
#82. To: FormerLurker, RickyJ (#74)
(Edited)
#83. To: Original_Intent (#52)
(Edited)
The only way the "Young Earth Hypothesis" can be sustained is by denying all contradictory evidence and then asserting an argument based solely upon supposition and authority.
 | Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. |
#84. To: Old Friend (#64)
You confuse Science and the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is a means of gaining knowledge. It is trial and error; hypothesis and theory. Science may well be knowledge but Scientific Theories, and there is a distinction between theories and hypotheses and the general term "science", are not absolutes. They are the best explanation of the currently available evidence. The advent of new information can, and often has in the history of science, result in a theory having to be re-written or discarded based upon new evidence. For nearly 2000 years the doctrine of Galen was regarded as the final word - until Harvey, applying the Scientific Method to human physiology, upset the Apple Cart by producing contradictory evidence which resulted in Galen being supplanted. Tell me - do you think if you sail far enough you will fall off the flat Earth? Science is knowledge, but it is only as good as the underlying observations and experience. When that changes everything changes.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
#85. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#81)
And it's not enough to say God DID create the Universe by way of an event similar to the Big Bang theory, oh no. It has to be "He did it in one day" or they reject it... It's like kids watching Barney and telling their science teacher that there really are singing purple dinosaurs alive today, they saw it on TV, so dinosaurs CAN'T be extinct...
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
.
.
.
Comments (86 - 305) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest