Originally posted by no1marauder This is a non sequitur; no the logical conclusion in my prior post wouldn't "follow from a created universe" but it would follow from your version of one.
Think of it this way: Adam opens his eyes and sees the light from a star 100,000 light years away. To you, that light was created at the same time as a the star so the light never actually t ...[text shortened]... nformation coursing through it of things that never happened. Is this God obfuscatory or not?
Fair enough. I now move on to argumentum ad obfuscatium (TM). Can you conclusively prove that the speed of light has been a constant through all of space/time? It has been stopped dead in a laboratory and then sped up, hasn't it?*
* Past googled link to peer-reviewed scientific article citing the speed of light having been changed.
Originally posted by no1marauder So here we are 6,000 years from Adam and the Garden; the light we are seeing was created 6,000 light years away from Earth. It has information coursing through it of things that never happened. Is this God obfuscatory or not?
From the perspective of such a god, does any of this REALLY exist?
Is it not all just relative? If God thought of a universe with a consistent history It surely conceived this universe's progress in Its thoughts. For the world to have been "created" 6000 years ago with a history is really irrelevent. If God brought forth a universe that is billions of years old, then it is billions of years old. Does it really matter if from some specific point of view it reaches some threshold to be considered "real" only 6000 years ago.
Originally posted by no1marauder This is a non sequitur; no the logical conclusion in my prior post wouldn't "follow from a created universe" but it would follow from your version of one.
Think of it this way: Adam opens his eyes and sees the light from a star 100,000 light years away. To you, that light was created at the same time as a the star so the light never actually t ...[text shortened]... nformation coursing through it of things that never happened. Is this God obfuscatory or not?
There are probaly many varibles that change the speed of light that we dont know about, such as gravity etc. (there are theorys stating some of them) This discussion is like people arguing a 1000 years ago about whether the earth was round or flat
Originally posted by Halitose Fair enough. I now move on to argumentum ad obfuscatium (TM). Can you conclusively prove that the speed of light has been a constant through all of space/time? It has been stopped dead in a laboratory and then sped up, hasn't it?*
* Past googled link to peer-reviewed scientific article citing the speed of light having been changed.
Nope, I can't conclusively prove that there is any such thing as light, nevermind what speed it goes. The observed data says that light (or anything else) cannot possibly go FASTER than its observed speed in space (remember your claim is that it can go faster, not that it can be slowed). The paradox remains; it is the claim of YECs that God just randomly jumbles up the speed of every piece of light (and other speed of light data that comes from stars)? That he is certainly obfuscatory. Can you or flyunity point to any other observed phenomena in the universe that acts in such a willynilly manner?
Originally posted by Halitose Clearly you are missing the point that a created universe is not mutually exclusive to the possibility of it being created in a mature state, i.e. the light from the star/planet already present.
My point was that if you are correct then the whole field of astronomy is fundamentally flawed and is either the study of things that never happened or is based on incorrect science. (If for example the speed of light has changed over time then any possible observations we make about the stars are wrong from the begining. However it is fairly trivial to show that a change in the speed of light would not be sufficient to fit the observations. Some other fundamental scientific laws such as gravity would also be wrong.
Originally posted by twhitehead My point was that if you are correct then the whole field of astronomy is fundamentally flawed and is either the study of things that never happened or is based on incorrect science. (If for example the speed of light has changed over time then any possible observations we make about the stars are wrong from the begining. However it is fairly trivial to s ...[text shortened]... it the observations. Some other fundamental scientific laws such as gravity would also be wrong.
I'm slightly perplexed. Help me out here: so you are basically saying that if the science is not right then it must be wrong. Uhuh?
Originally posted by Halitose I'm slightly perplexed. Help me out here: so you are basically saying that if the science is not right then it must be wrong. Uhuh?
You're isolating the speed of light as something science could be wrong about. Whitehead points out that if you are correct, science is wrong not only about the speed of light but also the data it has used to reach that conclusion, including fundamentals such as gravity. So, it must be way off the mark about a lot of things.
Your "village idiot" stance can be confusing to the uninitiated.
Originally posted by Halitose I'm slightly perplexed. Help me out here: so you are basically saying that if the science is not right then it must be wrong. Uhuh?
I am saying that astronomy is not just about light, it includes studying the observed motions of stars the observation of other electromagnetic waves such as infra-red and radio waves, effects such as the doppler effect etc etc. All these different things confirm each other. If our understanding of the speed of light is wrong then so is our understanding of gravity and almost all other laws of physics that we know.We can see a planet revolving around a star and it is following the laws of physics as we know it. However according to you the star is not where we think it is, the light coming from it took a very different path than what we think etc etc Even things like the mass of the star based on its brightness and assumed distance is totally wrong !
Originally posted by twhitehead I am saying that astronomy is not just about light, it includes studying the observed motions of stars the observation of other electromagnetic waves such as infra-red and radio waves, effects such as the doppler effect etc etc. All these different things confirm each other. If our understanding of the speed of light is wrong then so is our understanding ...[text shortened]... things like the mass of the star based on its brightness and assumed distance is totally wrong !
Argumentum ad consequentiam. Your line of argument is merely an appeal to emotion, rather than a discussion of science. Are you implying that science may never be wrong?
Is gravity affected by the speed of light? Uhm? I don't think so (admittedly I may be wrong, so please correct). What we do know (Einstein's theory of relativity) is that light is affected by gravity. Since gravity cannot really be measured in outer space, how can you say with any form of confidence that the light isn't being affected?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage You're isolating the speed of light as something science could be wrong about. Whitehead points out that if you are correct, science is wrong not only about the speed of light but also the data it has used to reach that conclusion, including fundamentals such as gravity. So, it must be way off the mark about a lot of things.
Your "village idiot" stance can be confusing to the uninitiated.
Your "village idiot" stance can be confusing to the uninitiated.
Originally posted by no1marauder Nope, I can't conclusively prove that there is any such thing as light, nevermind what speed it goes. The observed data says that light (or anything else) cannot possibly go FASTER than its observed speed in space (remember your claim is that it can go faster, not that it can be slowed). The paradox remains; it is the claim of YECs that God just randomly ...[text shortened]... ty point to any other observed phenomena in the universe that acts in such a willynilly manner?
This is such a painful part of dealing with YECs. You guys always ask, "Well, were you there 500 million years ago, when you say this or that happened? Then how can you prove it? And since you weren't there, you don't know, do you?" There's got to be a word for arguing like that - I don't know what it is, but there has to be.
Scientist ...[text shortened]... y is offered, you say, "Were you there? No? Ours coulda happened..." Come on man.
I'm wearing my dunce cap for this thread -- call it an exercise in reminiscence.
Astronomy
29 Jan '06 11:59
Back to Top