Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Young Earth Creationists

1001 replies

PedroPonyLikesCrisps · 28/03/2013 18:57

I know Young Earth Creationists exist, I've seen them on telly, but never met one in real life, so I'm just wondering if anyone here is one or knows one or whether they are actually just incredibly rare and reserved for extreme tv debating!

OP posts:
BestValue · 11/04/2013 12:14

"Well first off, the speed of light is neither a distance or a time, it's a speed. I think you're confusing it with a light-year."

Yes, I'm sorry, NDT, you are correct. I misspoke. My bad.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps · 11/04/2013 12:22

*"Your claim that the speed of light has slowed down over time. This is not just an error it's a lie. A famous lie invented by creationists."

Pedro, please stop believing lies perpetuated by atheists to discredit creationists. Watch this recently banned TED talk by anti-creationist Rupert Sheldrake (before it gets removed again) about the varying speed of light and how the universal constants may not actually be constant.*

So when you made this comment, you did so having no real understanding of light speed or even any kind of interest in the topic? It certainly didn't sound like you mentioned it casually.

So it became an issue when it was pointed out that you were wrong?

What other points have you made casually?

PedroYoniLikesCrisps · 11/04/2013 12:26

best can I ask how old you think the Earth is and how old you think the Universe is?

infamouspoo · 11/04/2013 15:56

Best, you're startig with the premise that the bible, the hebrew Torah, is the written word of God.

So that has to be your first point of proof. The vast majority of biblical historians, using historical techniques, think the Torah has multiple human authors and was written down and revised repeatedly over hundreds of years. Hence the numerous contradictions, difficulties with the hebrew translation (as you know, it was written without any vowel markers) and varying styles.
Once you realise that none of it is 'the written word of od, given to Moshe' blah de blah, then the rest of your stuff just falls apart.

Januarymadness · 11/04/2013 19:27

let me break this down.

As most people understand it.

If we call Earth E and random, light emiting stella object A.

It is currently assessed that object A is so far away that it would take light traveling at constant C (the speed that we know light to travel at) 13 billion years to travel the distance.

so light travelling at C would take 13 billion years to travel distance D.

The argument I would give that if we can see A, via the light it has emitted, that light would have been emitted 13 billion years ago thus the universe is far older than 6000 years.

do we all agree that this is a reasonable layman (non yec) conclusion given the info provided?

Januarymadness · 11/04/2013 19:33

Best is not arguing, as most people would, that actually A must be closer than we think.

Best is arguing that the point of emission the light travelled millions of times faster than C and that spacial interactions coincidentally slowed it as it approached us meaning that the light could have been emitted much later than we think but still have travvelled the same distance. is that right?

Januarymadness · 11/04/2013 19:43

so by that theory a star 6.5 billion light years away must have emmitted light that travelled at half the speed of the light emitted by A and slowed down at the same rate?

also both of these would be faster than light out of our own sun. But modern science has not witnessed any evidence of this phenomina yet?

o kaaaayyyy

PedroYoniLikesCrisps · 11/04/2013 19:48

Yes, I think that we can all agree that the slowing light speed theory is flawed at best.

It's also interesting to note that those who assert the theory believe that the speed of light happened to stabilise at almost exactly the same time that we developed the instruments to measure it accurately. Pretty big coincidence that.....

Januarymadness · 11/04/2013 19:57

oh oh I forgot a bit.

And, despite stellar objects not being uniformly spread to induce these light inteactions, the effects are exactly the same no matter what direction we look in......

PedroYoniLikesCrisps · 11/04/2013 20:06

Once you accept them, you must look for internal consistency and errors in my chain of reasoning. No one has, as of yet, pointed out a flaw in my logic or to any violations of the law of non-contradiction.

You keep saying this even though several people have pointed out flaws in your logic. Most notably that you are clueless about the speed of light, asserted truth in the theory that it has slowed (quite aggressively and rudely) with yet another dodgy youtube video, then got challenged with some actual reasoning which you couldn't refute, backtracked on what you said, claimed you didn't really understand it anyway and weren't that interested and went back to telling us that the evidence for the existence of god and the truth of the bible are solid but you're not prepared to discuss it.

It sounds like a) you're not actually listening, b) you're deluded about not ever having a single person ever demonstrate you are wrong despite the plethora of evidence on this thread alone, c) you were not prepared for people here to actually know what they are talking about or realise that you are spouting complete and utter bollocks.

Januarymadness · 11/04/2013 20:38

As I have said I am a Theist. I love Shakesperes quote.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are deamt of in your philosophy"

I respect people and faith. But it is not really on to present things as fact that can be proven to be incorrect.

BestValue · 12/04/2013 10:41

Oops! Time to revise the human evolutionary tree of life - AGAIN! Looks like Lucy's out. (Of course creationists always knew that.)
"Lucy . . . you got some 'splaining to do."

www.theverge.com/2013/4/11/4212390/au-sediba-prehuman-fossils-could-rewrite-human-evolution

BestValue · 12/04/2013 10:52

"Best, you're starting with the premise that the bible, the hebrew Torah, is the written word of God. So that has to be your first point of proof."

Infamous, we simply can't go into that here. I have tons of books on the subject. Since a starting assumption of science is that only natural explanations are valid, it would be a little like me asking you to prove that naturalism is true or that there is no God. See my point?

If you'd like to put forth some evidence that the Torah is meant to be allegorical (or whatever your claim is) go ahead and I'll read up on it. Can you recommend a book or two about it? I'm not unreasonable and I'm willing to consider that I'm wrong about that but it is just too big a topic to tackle here.

BestValue · 12/04/2013 10:55

The speed of light issue has become a distraction and a red-herring. I am willing to concede that point (since I never use the argument anyway). Can we perhaps move on and go back to evolution or something?

BestValue · 12/04/2013 11:09

"It's also interesting to note that those who assert the theory believe that the speed of light happened to stabilise at almost exactly the same time that we developed the instruments to measure it accurately. Pretty big coincidence that....."

Pedro, for Pete's sake, if you'd watched the Rupert Sheldrake video I posted you would know that his claim is that the speed of light has NOT stabilized but that they fixed it by definition in 1972. (Your argument is a straw man.)

In fact, Sheldrake said in a different video that they publish new values of the constants every so often. Watch the video below between 27:00 and 28:00. I've made it as easy for you as possible. Click a link and watch just one minute. Otherwise, I think you are demonstrating to others your ignorance and unwillingness to learn. Not a good quality for someone supposedly interested in science.

BestValue · 12/04/2013 11:16

"I respect people and faith. But it is not really on to present things as fact that can be proven to be incorrect."

I agree whole-heartedly, January. However, no one has done so thus far. Further, science doesn't PROVE anything so the only was one could do so is to present a logical argument in the form of a syllogism which no one has done yet either.

Can you name even one thing I have presented as fact that can be proven to be incorrect? If I have, I will admit it and stop doing it immediately. (Keep in mind that a fact must be something that is observable and repeatable in the present.)

PedroYoniLikesCrisps · 12/04/2013 12:32

Ok, you've conceded the speed of light (although you did present that as factual so I'm pointing it out again as you keep asking).

So great, let's move on and I'll ask again. How old do you think the earth is and how old do you think the universe is? That would be a good starting point for discussion.

Januarymadness · 12/04/2013 13:21

Science can provide proof! you are miss quoting Karl Pooper. Popper's theory shows an asymmetry. He says that EVIDENCE cannot prove a theory to be correct but it CAN PROOVE a theory wrong.

BestValue · 12/04/2013 13:22

"Ok, you've conceded the speed of light (although you did present that as factual so I'm pointing it out again as you keep asking).

Creationists have used the speed of light argument for years. I never used it because I didn't necessarily believe it. Now Rupert Sheldrake comes out and says the guy who measures the constants says the speed of light is slowing down so I think I'm going to take his word over yours. (I'll probably incorporate it into my live presentations and mention it in passing before I go into the gravitational time dilation theory. This usually only comes up during Q & A time.)

I'd like to do more research on it but I don't really care about the argument and, for now, I'll concede it so we can move forward. (That doesn't mean I'm saying I don't think it's true because I'm persuaded more now than ever that it is - especially since you're fighting so hard against it. It tells me you're either incredibly stubborn or you're hiding something.)

"So great, let's move on and I'll ask again. How old do you think the earth is and how old do you think the universe is? That would be a good starting point for discussion.

I didn't see you ask that before but I think I answered it for a someone else. Creation scientists typically say the earth and the universe is 6-10,000 years. If you add up the genealogies in the Bible you get about 6,000 years. I can't remember why they say up to 10,000. I know I saw an astrophysicist say it in a presentation but I can't remember just now where or why. I am comfortable saying that the earth and the universe are 6-10,000 years old. You would first have to convince me that the Bible doesn't teach that before starting with any scientific evidence. It IS possible because many people teach what is known as the Gap Theory - that there is a gap of billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

BestValue · 12/04/2013 13:24

Perhaps you prefer to read rather than watch a video. See what Sheldrake says here:

The fall in the speed of light from 1928 to 1945

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the speed of light in a vacuum is invariant: it is an absolute constant. Much of modern physics is based on that assumption. There is therefore a strong theoretical prejudice against raising the question of possible changes in the velocity of light. In any case, the question is now officially closed. Since 1972 the speed of light has been fixed by definition. The value is defined as 299,792.458 ± 0.001 # 2 kilometers per second.

As in the case of the universal gravitational constant, early measurements of c differed considerably from the present official value. For example, the determination by Römer in 1676 was about 30 percent lower, and that by Fizeau in 1849 about 5 percent higher.

In 1929, Birge published his review of all the evidence available up to 1927 and came to the conclusion that the best value for velocity of light was 299,796 ± 4 km/s. He pointed out that the probable error was far less than in any of the other constants, and concluded that 'the present value of c is entirely satisfactory, and can be considered as more or less permanently established.' However, even as he was writing, considerably lower values of c were being found, and by 1934 it was suggested by Gheury de Bray that the data pointed to a cyclic variation in the velocity of light.

From around 1928 to 1945, the velocity of light appeared to be about 20 km/s lower than before and after this period. The 'best' values, found by the leading investigators using a variety of techniques, were in impressively close agreement with each other, and the available data were combined and adjusted by Birge in 1941 and Dorsey in 1945.

In the late 1940s the speed of light went up again. Not surprisingly, there was some turbulence at first as the old value was overthrown. The new value was about 20 km/s higher, close to that prevailing in 1927. A new consensus developed. How long this consensus would have lasted if based on continuing measurements is a matter for speculation. In practice, further disagreement was prevented by fixing the speed of light in 1972 by definition.

How can the lower velocity from 1928 to 1945 be explained? If it was simply a matter of experimental error, why did the results of different investigators and different methods agree so well? And why were the estimated errors so low?

One possibility is that the velocity of light really does fluctuate from time to time. Perhaps it really did drop for nearly twenty years. But this is not a possibility that has been seriously considered by researchers in the field, except for de Bray. So strong is the assumption that it must be fixed that the empirical data have to be explained away. This remarkable episode in the history of the speed of light is now generally attributed to the psychology of metrologists:

The tendency for experiments in a given epoch to agree with one another has been described by the delicate phrase 'intellectual phase locking.' Most metrologists are very conscious of the possible existence of such effects; indeed ever-helpful colleagues delight in pointing them out! . . . .Aside from the discovery of mistakes, the near completion of the experiment brings more frequent and stimulating discussion with interested colleagues and the preliminaries to writing up the work add fresh perspective. All of these circumstances combine to prevent what was intended to be 'the final result' from being so in practice, and consequently the accusation that one is most likely to stop worrying about corrections when the value is closest to other results is easy to make and difficult to refute.

But if changes in the values of constants in the past are attributed to the experimenters' psychology, then, as other eminent metrologists have observed, 'this raises a disconcerting question: How do we know that this psychological factor is not equally important today?' In the case of the velocity of light, however, this question is now academic. Not only is the velocity fixed by definition, but the very units in which velocity is measured, distance and time, are defined in terms of light itself.

The second used to be defined as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day, but it is now defined in terms of the frequency of light emitted by a particular kind of excitation of caesium-133 atoms. A second is 9,192,631,770 times the period of vibration of the light. Meanwhile, since 1983 the meter has been defined in terms of the velocity of light, itself fixed by definition.

As Brian Petley has pointed out, it is conceivable that:

(i) the velocity of light might change with time, or (ii) have a directional dependence in space, or (iii) be affected by the motion of the Earth about the Sun, or motion within our galaxy or some other reference frame.

Nevertheless, if such changes really happened, we would be blind to them. We are now shut up within an artificial system where such changes are not only impossible by definition, but would be undetectable in practice because of the way the units are defined. Any change in the speed of light would change the units themselves in such a way that the velocity in kilometers per second remained exactly the same.

www.sheldrake.org/experiments/constants/

Januarymadness · 12/04/2013 13:37

A non visible change in the speed of light would still not account for the size of descrepancy we are talking about. 6 thousand to 13 Billion!

And if you dont believe it how do you account for being able to see something that was produced billions of years ago when the universe is only 6000 years old.

BestValue · 12/04/2013 13:41

Alan Guth's expansion theory may help to resolve the apparent dilemma. Here is the relevant passage from the link below.:

----------
But how do we know if any of this is true?

"There really are tests," Guth says. Readings from the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, launched in 1989, show that the temperature of the radiation that pervades the universe is astoundingly uniform. Standard Big Bang cosmology theory without inflation offers no explanation. Some mechanism would have to transmit energy and information at about 100 times the speed of light for these vastly distant parts of the background radiation to "know" and reflect one another's temperature. Inflation, expanding at faster-than-light speed, is the only known way such uniformity could be spread so widely. (Incidentally, such expansion does not violate the cosmic speed limit. Einstein correctly asserted that nothing in the universe could exceed light's speed, but even as the cosmos grew at faster-than-light speeds, no particle within it could ever win a race with a beam of light.)"
------------

So perhaps it is the expansion rate of the universe (or stretching out of the heavens as the Bible calls it 14 times) and not the speed of light itself which was faster in the past.

discovermagazine.com/2002/apr/cover#.UWf_IkoYn9U

BestValue · 12/04/2013 13:42

Guth's inflation theory, not expansion theory.

BestValue · 12/04/2013 13:51

Maybe the question is not how did the light get from out there to earth in 6,000 years but how did the galaxies get to where they are in 6,000 years. Suppose for moment that God did not create the universe from a singularity as in big bang cosmology and that the universe started out, say, half the size it is now. Then, through rapid expansion at 100 times the speed of light as in Guth's inflation theory, the universe grew to the size it is today in just 6-10,000 years.

Januarymadness · 12/04/2013 14:29

but god created the universe out of nothing didnt he so how could it have been half the size?

why is it easier to argue against a wealth of evidence that you can see and feel (fossils and rocks and canyons etc) than is is to accept that the bible was written by humans and humans are falible. It doesnt mean you have to abandon faith totally it just means that you have to be open to the possibility that some of the bible may not be 100 percent as God told it.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread