Evidence For A Young Earth

Originally posted by RJHinds
You say, "when we look outwards we look backwards in time."

This is ridiculous and makes no sense at all.

I can understand how this would work for sound waves, but not for light.

I'm sorry, are you contesting that light travels at a finite speed?

Because we can directly measure the speed of light.

Heck we can even photograph moving light pulses and watch them move.

We can measure the time delay as light travels from the ground to a satellite
and back down again.

We can measure the time delay for light to travel from us to distant space probes
and back again.

We can detect light travel effects in the timings of the orbits of Jovian moons.

We use the time light takes to travel to in radar systems, which wouldn't work if
light travelled instantly.


Light takes time to get from point A to point B.

It has a speed in a vacuum of a fraction less than 300,000km per second.

If you look up at the moon you are seeing light that was reflected off of it appx 1.21 seconds
ago. Because that is how log it takes light to get from the moon to the Earth.


Just like the sound of a thunderclap takes time to reach you, travelling at appx 330m/s
allowing you to tell how far away the strike was by timing the difference between the arrival
of the flash and the arrival of the bang. We can calculate the distance to objects by bouncing
light beams off of them and seeing how long it takes for the light to travel there and back again.
This is how Radar and LiDAR work.

We measure the distance to the moon by bouncing laser light off of reflectors put there by
Apollo astronauts.


Because light takes time to travel everything we see is as it was in the past at the time
the light was emitted or reflected off of it.

The further away it is the farther back in time we see it.


Do you understand this now?

Originally posted by googlefudge
I'm sorry, are you contesting that light travels at a finite speed?

Because we can directly measure the speed of light.

Heck we can even photograph moving light pulses and watch them move.

We can measure the time delay as light travels from the ground to a satellite
and back down again.

We can measure the time delay for light to travel from ...[text shortened]... .

The further away it is the farther back in time we see it.


Do you understand this now?

Yes, I believe I understand the basic idea. However, you guys seem to want to assume the uniformitarian principle on everything to try to prove the universe and the earth are billions of years old.

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates. Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

You guys ignore what the Holy Bible says about the worldwide flood and God stretching out the heavens in your uniformitarianism.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I believe I understand the basic idea. However, you guys seem to want to assume the uniformitarian principle on everything to try to prove the universe and the earth are billions of years old.

[b]Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the p ...[text shortened]... ble says about the worldwide flood and God stretching out the heavens in your uniformitarianism.

Yes because we have huge amounts of evidence for uniformatism and none against it.

We have no evidence for the existence of your god or for your creation story and mountains against it.

It would thus be stupid to pay any attention to what it says in the bible.

Thus we don't.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I believe I understand the basic idea. However, you guys seem to want to assume the uniformitarian principle on everything to try to prove the universe and the earth are billions of years old.

[b]Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the p ...[text shortened]... ble says about the worldwide flood and God stretching out the heavens in your uniformitarianism.

I think there is quite a big philosophical problem with what you are saying. You see, if physical laws are not universal, but only apply within, for example, the local bubble, a 300 light year diameter region which we are in, and God exists then God's laws do not apply elsewhere. Which means that either God is deceiving us (which is a problem if God is perfect) because it appears that they are universal, or God is not God everywhere, which blows omnipotence. So if you are arguing that the laws of physics are not universally applicable then God isn't God.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes because we have huge amounts of evidence for uniformatism and none against it.

We have no evidence for the existence of your god or for your creation story and mountains against it.

It would thus be stupid to pay any attention to what it says in the bible.

Thus we don't.

You must not have ever heard of catastrophism.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/catastrophism.htm

The 1980 volcanic eruption of Mount St Helens is an example. See video reference below:

YouTube

Originally posted by DeepThought
I think there is quite a big philosophical problem with what you are saying. You see, if physical laws are not universal, but only apply within, for example, the local bubble, a 300 light year diameter region which we are in, and God exists then God's laws do not apply elsewhere. Which means that either God is deceiving us (which is a problem if God is ...[text shortened]... o if you are arguing that the laws of physics are not universally applicable then God isn't God.

I did not argue such a thing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You must not have ever heard of catastrophism.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/catastrophism.htm

The 1980 volcanic eruption of Mount St Helens is an example. See video reference below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flrhqjN5BHo

No, I've heard of it. It's a stupid idea that is refuted by the evidence.

The fact that something looks superficially like something else does not mean
it is otherwise similar.

Water cutting through ash deposits might well look superficially similar to
the grand canyon. Because there are similar processes going on.

However, even someone of your pathetically inadequate intellect should be
able to see that water can cut through soft ash many many orders of magnitude
faster than it can cut through solidified rock.

And different strata are laid down by different mechanisms at different rates.

Demonstrating that you can lay down one kind of strata quickly, doesn't prove that
all strata can, or were, also laid down quickly.


If rocks could be eroded quickly enough that your idiotic 'great flood' could carve out the
grand canyon, the worlds land masses would look like a sand castle being hit by waves in
heavy rain. The continents would be washed into the sea, the mountains would collapse
before our eyes.


But again, you believe in magic. You believe in god did it.

Evidence has no meaning for you because of this.

It is dishonest of you to claim to care about evidence when there is none that would make
you change your mind.

If there is no evidence that would convince you, and there isn't, then you are wasting everyone's
time by asking people for evidence, or by parroting supposed 'evidence' from others who agree
with you who. 'evidence' you neither understand nor care about.

None of this is why you believe.

You don't believe in god because of any of this.

So why are you so pathetically insecure in your beliefs that you must bombard us with drivel
attempting to justify your beliefs?

Originally posted by googlefudge
If there is no evidence that would convince you, and there isn't, then you are wasting everyone's time by asking people for evidence, or by parroting supposed 'evidence' from others who agree with you who. 'evidence' you neither understand nor care about.

That's why I never more go into a discussion with mr RJH. It's just a waste of time. I don't know anyone that he has convinced, and he will never listen to anyone else to learn anything.

But it's interesting to see mr RJH in action, because that makes me understand the standpoints of any fundamentalist of any religious or political standpoint.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
That's why I never more go into a discussion with mr RJH. It's just a waste of time. I don't know anyone that he has convinced, and he will never listen to anyone else to learn anything.

But it's interesting to see mr RJH in action, because that makes me understand the standpoints of any fundamentalist of any religious or political standpoint.

Exactly.

He's a bellwether for what the loony creationist fringe is thinking.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did not argue such a thing.

Well what were you arguing then?

However, you guys seem to want to assume the uniformitarian principle on everything to try to prove the universe and the earth are billions of years old.

This page (7) post 2.
This sounds like arguing against universality of physical laws to me. If physical laws do not apply everywhere in this universe then they are not universal. Unless you are claiming you mean something other than universal when you say the word uniformitarian. So either you were arguing that or we need you to clearly define what you mean by uniform.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well what were you arguing then?

However, you guys seem to want to assume the uniformitarian principle on everything to try to prove the universe and the earth are billions of years old.

This page (7) post 2.
This sounds like arguing against universality of physical laws to me. If physical laws do not apply everywhere in this universe then ...[text shortened]... /i]. So either you were arguing that or we need you to clearly define what you mean by uniform.

You seem to be confusing the uniformitarian principle that evolutionist assume about the universe and geology to be a physical law. Anything that has to be assumed is not a law. The uniformitarian princlple has already been proven wrong by the eruption of Mount St Helens in 1980 as I have already pointed out.

YouTube

Originally posted by googlefudge
To you, none.

Because you neither comprehend not accept the principles or findings of science,
And because you accept magic reasoning as being valid by allowing 'god did it' as
a viable explanation. It will mean absolutely nothing to you that the visible universe
appears ~13.77 billion light years across.

The fact that light travels at a cons ...[text shortened]... apart at every opportunity.


You SHOULD find this very relevant... But you are not going to.

...the visible universe appears ~13.77 billion light years across.

It is in fact something like 90 billion light years across. As the universe is expanding while the light from the most distant objects is in flight it has further and further to go to get here.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You seem to be confusing the uniformitarian principle that evolutionist assume about the universe and geology to be a physical law. Anything that has to be assumed is not a law. The uniformitarian princlple has already been proven wrong by the eruption of Mount St Helens in 1980 as I have already pointed out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flrhqjN5BHo

I just quickly checked on Wikipedia. Uniformitarianism is exactly what I thought is was. If physical laws are not universal (I prefer this word) then either, because they appear to be, God is deceiving us for some reason and this is a big problem for you, or God is not the God of the whole universe.

The eruption of Mount St. Helens does not alter any known law of fundamental physics.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I just quickly checked on Wikipedia. Uniformitarianism is exactly what I thought is was. If physical laws are not universal (I prefer this word) then either, because they appear to be, God is deceiving us for some reason and this is a big problem for you, or God is not the God of the whole universe.

The eruption of Mount St. Helens does not alter [b]any known law of fundamental physics.[/b]

The two main theories about the history of Earth are catastrophism and uniformitarianism. Both theories acknowledge that the Earth's landscape was formed and shaped by natural events over geologic time. While catastrophism assumes that these were violent, short-lived, large-scale events, uniformitarianism supports the idea of gradual, long-lived, small-scale events.

What happened after the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens does support the catastrophism theory of how the Grand Canyon could have been formed very quickly rather than over millions of years of uniformitarianism.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What happened after the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens does support the catastrophism theory of how the Grand Canyon could have been formed very quickly rather than over millions of years of uniformitarianism.

So you actually think that the timescale of Mt St Helen and the one of Grand Canyon can be compared? Really?

That's why this thread is placed in Spiritual Forum rather than in the Science Forum.

I'd say - in your religion, RJH, in your religion only.