24 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you keep saying, but you seem, as usual, to be very reluctant to clarify. I would think you would know by now that merely repeating something over and over does not make it true.
You are being very dishonest putting words and intent in my mouth on things
I have not said.
Kelly
24 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsFor rocks, the best method for very old rocks is based on the known decay rates of radio active substances. Radiocarbon dating is one such method, and there are others that work better for longer time scales. The important thing to note however is there are sometimes multiple ways to date something, and if they agree, then any argument that the laws of physics have changed etc would not explain the agreement.
What I was trying to get twhitehead to do is to use his own experience to explain to you how
he knows he is correct when he tells the age of something, then I could learn something too.
For ages as young as 8000 years however there are many other methods including tree rings, ice cores, sedimentation patterns etc. When they all agree then it is really, really hard to explain away.
For stars, the distance to the nearest stars can be found through triangulation. We can also work out approximate distances and sizes for the galaxy as a whole using the known laws of physics and what we know about the number of stars in the galaxy etc. We can work out the age of the light reaching us using these distances and the known speed of light. But all that really matters for this discussion is that it would be impossible to fit the known billions of galaxies into a sphere a mere 8000 light years in radius. Not only would the sky be blindingly bright, but the gravity would be tearing us apart. So either:
1. The universe is older than 8000 years.
2. The light traveled much faster to get here than the laws of physics allow (and we should be able to detect this).
3. The light was created 'in transit' and the galaxies we think we see are an illusion and do not exist.
My understanding was that Kelly was arguing 3. but he seems to want to retract it now.
24 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are the one making claims about things I supposedly said, I deny I said
So you keep saying, but you seem, as usual, to be very reluctant to clarify. I would think you would know by now that merely repeating something over and over does not make it true.
them. If you want to show yourself NOT to be lying I suggest you quote me.
Kelly
24 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayAs I thought, you will not clarify. How can I support my case if you will not even tell me what I have got wrong?
You are the one making claims about things I supposedly said, I deny I said
them. If you want to show yourself NOT to be lying I suggest you quote me.
Kelly
Do you deny that you stated that you believed God created star light 'in transit'?
Do you deny that you stated that looking at said starlight is not a good reason to believe stars exist?
What else have I attributed to you that you deny saying?
24 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe Holy Bible does not limit the universe to 8000 years from anything
For rocks, the best method for very old rocks is based on the known decay rates of radio active substances. Radiocarbon dating is one such method, and there are others that work better for longer time scales. The important thing to note however is there are sometimes multiple ways to date something, and if they agree, then any argument that the laws of ph ...[text shortened]... exist.
My understanding was that Kelly was arguing 3. but he seems to want to retract it now.
that I see. It appears to me that the Heavens and the earth were
created during an unspecified period before day one when he cause light
to appear. I don't think God is restricted by the laws of physics anyway.
After all, He put them in place. So I don't think we can eliminate 1. or 2.
However, 3. seems improbable because God said He created them and
if God exist, then His creation exists.
So I must agree, we have to eliminate point 3.
24 Apr 11
To Twhitehead:
2. The light traveled much faster to get here than the laws of physics allow (and we should be able to detect this).
There is another possiblity, since the Holy Bible says God streached out the
heavens, the stars could have been made closer together in the beginning
and as he streached out the heavens they moved further away from each
other as well as further away from the earth. He could also have made
the laws of physics a little different during the creation process rather than
suspend them.
Do you think this might be possible or do you see something wrong with
this idea?
24 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI know that, but Kelly suggested that he believed the creation to be about 8000 years ago (although he did say he could not be certain). However, all I am saying is that such a date does not agree with observation, whereas Kelly claims my observations cannot possibly tell me for sure that such a date is not possible. Without a written record, he claims I am just guessing.
The Holy Bible does not limit the universe to 8000 years from anything
that I see.
I don't think God is restricted by the laws of physics anyway.
Agreed. But then we are left with:
1. The laws of physics were changed in some way and we should be able to detect this.
2. God made his changes undetectable deliberately in order to fool us into thinking otherwise.
However, 3. seems improbable because God said He created them and
if God exist, then His creation exists.
God said he created stars and galaxies? When did he say that? How do you know what he was talking about if we can not tell by looking at the light where it is coming from?
So what do you believe considering that physicists and astronomers believe they are seeing galaxies 4 billion light years away:
1. The said galaxies existed 4 billion years ago.
2. The light somehow got here faster than that.
3. The light was created 'in transit' and we are seeing an illusion.
4. The physicists are wrong about the distance.
24 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhitehead"I did ask that, and Kelly has actually essentially answered it by saying that you are making assumptions when you think you see stars exploding, and there is no valid reason to think the star or the subsequent explosion are stars and explosions, they are merely information in light that we cannot interpret what it means without making assumptions.
As I thought, you will not clarify. How can I support my case if you will not even tell me what I have got wrong?
Do you deny that you stated that you believed God created star light 'in transit'?
Do you deny that you stated that looking at said starlight is not a good reason to believe stars exist?
What else have I attributed to you that you deny saying?
He does not believe supernovas happen, and does not believe that God deliberately made the light in such a way as to make us think that they happen. He believes it is all misinterpretation on our part."
24 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJaySo which part is wrong?
"I did ask that, and Kelly has actually essentially answered it by saying that you are making assumptions when you think you see stars exploding, and there is no valid reason to think the star or the subsequent explosion are stars and explosions, they are merely information in light that we cannot interpret what it means without making assumptions.
He doe ...[text shortened]... ay as to make us think that they happen. He believes it is all misinterpretation on our part."
1. Do you deny saying something equivalent to "you are making assumptions when you think you see stars exploding"?
2. Do you deny saying something equivalent to "they are merely information in light that we cannot interpret what it means without making assumptions."
3. Do you deny saying something equivalent to "[you do] not believe that God deliberately made the light in such a way as to make us think that [events prior to creation] happen".
Or some other part I have missed?
If you tell me which of the above you deny saying, I will find the relevant quotes for you.
24 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadSomething equivalent?
So which part is wrong?
1. Do you deny saying something equivalent to "you are making assumptions when you think you see stars exploding"?
2. Do you deny saying something equivalent to "they are merely information in light that we cannot interpret what it means without making assumptions."
3. Do you deny saying something equivalent to "[you do] not be f you tell me which of the above you deny saying, I will find the relevant quotes for you.
Kelly
24 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayYet again; the usual totally pointless rude non-answers.
"hypothetical scenario" it can be whatever you want, it was a hypothetical scenario.
You either saw it or you didn't, can you see one explode that far away well
hypothetically it appears so by your question you can, what do you need me
for?
Kelly
24 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds“...I haven't had enough experience with star to know the
You guys are still just arguing and getting nowhere. I've never
seen a star explode, but I don't spend much time looking at
stars. I haven't had enough experience with star to know the
difference between a young star and an old star. But I have
had experience with people and I can easily tell a young
person from an old person. But when it comes dow is there any
proof? Maybe you could ask him in a way that it all makes sense to
everyone.
difference between a young star and an old star. ...”
that's because you don't know or understand much about astronomy.
There are people that know a lot more than me or you that can determine the approximate age of a star.
“...I have heard of carbon-dating
which is good I understand. But I have never heard of any method
of dating that claims to give exact age other than from a written source
like a birth certificate or drivers license. ...”
nobody claims that carbon-dating is infinitely accurate.
If a carbon-dating measurement tells us that something is definitely somewhere between, say, 50,000 and 60,000 yeas old, then we can say that thing is at least 50,000 yeas old and that being the lower end of an estimate makes no difference to that fact.
For dating rocks more than 100,000 years old, you cannot use carbon-dating but must use something like potassium-argon dating instead, but the same argument above applies to potassium-argon dating.
“...it is possible that we are both missing
something that he knows to be true from his own experience in dating
things and how accurate he knows his method to be. ...”
he doesn't need to know from his “own experience in dating things” (as you said above) to know how reliable or accurate the method is; he just has to lookup this info from scientists that have done the vast mountain of research that has proved whatever its level of accuracy is.
“...That is, is there any
proof? ..”
yes; it is called science.
24 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs an after thought, as if he forgot to mention it, the writer of Genesis
I know that, but Kelly suggested that he believed the creation to be about 8000 years ago (although he did say he could not be certain). However, all I am saying is that such a date does not agree with observation, whereas Kelly claims my observations cannot possibly tell me for sure that such a date is not possible. Without a written record, he claims I ...[text shortened]... 'in transit' and we are seeing an illusion.
4. The physicists are wrong about the distance.
says, "He made the star also." (Genesis 1:16)