Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
The point carries to the whole starlight issue. Neither side here can PROVE anything relating to deep space starlight travel with the current set of tools we have. What we can do is assess the plausibility of each others speculations. Right now I remain a YEC on this issue because the Bible gives me good reason and science no conclusive reason to doubt this. To be honest the Old Universe mainstream look more plausible regarding the science and their models more convincing but unlike with geocentricism or with flat earth it is not an overwhelming case nor do I really believe it can be made so until we are out there exploring the universe for ourselves.
As for fossils - we had that discussion earlier in the year and there are a different set of issues as my own thread on this explored ad nauseum. Again I walked away from that one thinking - this is not an overwhelming case and indeed there are a large number of holes here.
Also atheists really do need to come up with another analogy than the Flying Spaghetti Monster - he appears way to often in discussions I have and I have even heard Christians quoting him. Cannot you think of a new imaginary creature to disbelieve in - this ones gone off!
__________________ Great and small they rise and fall but the Lord, He is God forever!!! Ein Englander in Deutschland.
How do you know the Earth is not the center of the universe? Perhaps the galaxies aren't actually moving. Maybe they're just shrinking or changing the ways they emit light such that it appears they are moving away.
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
How do you know the Earth is not the center of the universe? Perhaps the galaxies aren't actually moving. Maybe they're just shrinking or changing the ways they emit light such that it appears they are moving away.
For me geocentricism means that the sun goes round the earth which is an easily disprovable falsehood as the evidence is overwhelming for heliocentricism in our solar system from spacecraft and telescope observations and a basic understanding of gravitys relationship with the mass of an object. I suppose it is possible to envisage a sun orbiting a supersized planet somewhere else but do not know if this has ever been observed. I really do not know if our solar system is the centre of the physical universe. I believe a thing can be really important to God and even of highest significance in His creation without having to be the mathematically verifiable centre of the universe.
The positioning of the earth in space is an incredible miracle conduicive to life on this planet. In pratice it spins and tilts on an invisible axis which allows for the possibility of viable seasons and which maintans a viable global temperature. The moon exactly blots out the sun at a time of an eclipse. Jupiter acts as a great big comet and asteroid hoover protecting the earth from annihilation. If the crust of the earth were just 10 feet thicker then it would probably be too cold here for life.
__________________ Great and small they rise and fall but the Lord, He is God forever!!! Ein Englander in Deutschland.
basic understanding of gravitys relationship with the mass of an object.
I suppose it is possible to envisage a sun orbiting a supersized planet somewhere else but do not know if this has ever been observed.
I'm just going to leave these here for posterity...
I think they prove the point I am trying to make about your nature of light hypotheses. We cannot reproduce the solar system in the laboratory. We have observations of how light works, we have observations of the distant universe. We have a basic understanding of light's relationship with the physical universe. The same reasons with which you reject geocentrism here directly carries over to your nature of light hypotheses, and shows why their logic is flawed.
That's about all there is to it, really...
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
I'm just going to leave these here for posterity...
I think they prove the point I am trying to make about your nature of light hypotheses. We cannot reproduce the solar system in the laboratory. We have observations of how light works, we have observations of the distant universe. We have a basic understanding of light's relationship with the physical universe. The same reasons with which you reject geocentrism here directly carries over to your nature of light hypotheses, and shows why their logic is flawed.
That's about all there is to it, really...
I disagree of course due to
1) The Solar system is more thoroughly and precisely observed than elsewhere and its observations can be trusted to a greater extent given the distances involved.
2) The visual observations are confirmed by robotic craft which were physically sent to many places in our solar system. So its not just sight and sound
3) All that we observe here is the environs of the same star. So my point about generalising from what we observe here remains.
__________________ Great and small they rise and fall but the Lord, He is God forever!!! Ein Englander in Deutschland.
I disagree of course due to
1) The Solar system is more thoroughly and precisely observed than elsewhere and its observations can be trusted to a greater extent given the distances involved.
That's funny. Astronomers seem to think they can do just fine.
Originally Posted by mindlight
2) The visual observations are confirmed by robotic craft which were physically sent to many places in our solar system. So its not just sight and sound
Sight and sound aren't reliable now? You seem to be forgetting all that emission spectra and radiation and other readings as well. And generally, you don't need to send craft to confirm stuff that is patently obvious from simply observation.
Do you need to confirm through touch that your car is really there, and not a holographic trick? Do you trust sight and sound?
Originally Posted by mindlight
3) All that we observe here is the environs of the same star. So my point about generalising from what we observe here remains.
Please don't tell me your arguing for Dad's alternate state creepiness.
There is no reason we can't generalize certain things based on our stellar neighborhood, since all of space operates on the same physical laws and principles; and you'd still be underestimating the capabilities of modern astronomy.
__________________ "There is no struggle too vast, no odds too overwhelming, for ever should we fail- should we fall- we will know that we have lived." --Anomander Rake.
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light." --Plato
"I cried unto the LORD with my voice, and He heard me out of His holy hill." Psalm 3:4
"The virtuous man is never a novice in worldly things." Marcus Valerius Martialis
The positioning of the earth in space is an incredible miracle conduicive to life on this planet. In pratice it spins and tilts on an invisible axis which allows for the possibility of viable seasons and which maintans a viable global temperature.
I'd be interested in your argument that life would be impossible on Earth, if the Earth's tilt was not the way it is now. Show us.
The moon exactly blots out the sun at a time of an eclipse.
Not exactly, but pretty close. It was different in the past, and will be different in the future. How, exactly, would it rule out life here, if it was different?
Jupiter acts as a great big comet and asteroid hoover protecting the earth from annihilation.
And yet periodically, we take a big hit that causes widespread devastation. And life goes on.
If the crust of the earth were just 10 feet thicker then it would probably be too cold here for life.
The crust of the Earth varies from seven to forty kilometers in different places. No differences in warmth are obvious. Show us.
It appears that you've found an arrow sticking in a tree, and drawn a bull's-eye around it.
1) The Solar system is more thoroughly and precisely observed than elsewhere and its observations can be trusted to a greater extent given the distances involved.
How are you quantifying "more thoroughly and precisely observed?" We have sent craft to most of the celestial bodies but that's about it. How is exploring other celestial bodies going to tell us anything about how light travels?
We have many, many observations (keep in mind this does not include only pictures) from other celestial bodies outside our solar system in the form of visible light, radiation, etc.
2) The visual observations are confirmed by robotic craft which were physically sent to many places in our solar system. So its not just sight and sound
If visual observations from robotic craft are not "just sight and sound," then what exactly are they, may I ask?
3) All that we observe here is the environs of the same star. So my point about generalising from what we observe here remains.
And why wouldn't we generalize from there? It's a star. We know things about this star. There are other stars in the universe. We now know things about other stars. Do you assume that every human being's body has a completely different set of organs? Do you assume that water on Mars is different from water on Earth in its chemical structure? Do you assume the core of the Earth is not hot? After all, we have never been directly to the core of the Earth.
Why must we be physically present to test something? When we follow your logic to its inevitable end we must physically test each and every atom on this planet before we can say for certain that things work the way we know they work. All the evidence we have points to light traveling at a constant speed, and distances being large, and the universe being old.
There is no reason to believe otherwise, except to attempt to justify an old, outdated theory that has been superseded by new evidence.
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
But the way things appear is based on observations made by telescopes so imprecise that they cannot even see the Apollo landers on the moon, an object quite close to us.
Deep space remains a mystery and humility about what can be said is the better policy in my view. Too many scientists have spent too long chatting to their colleagues behind locked doors confirming their theories to each other but failing to realise the growing credibility gap between the degree of certainty with which they speak and the relative paucity of real evidence on this.
I accept the universe appears old but the appearance of a thing is not a proof of the thing itself and does not yet remotely challenge a YEC view. The universe we see through a telescope reveals patterns that can be consistently described but could still be misunderstood.
I'm not sure if your viewpoint is coherent. In the first paragraph I've quoted, you say that there is a credibility gap between cosmological theories and observational astronomical evidence. In the second paragraph you "accept that the universe appears old". Which is it?
Is there insufficient evidence for the age of the universe and do you have actual alternative evidence with which you can show that the accepted evidence is wrong?
Or is there actually sufficient evidence for the age of the universe ("it does appear old"), but you disregard the conclusion any way if not on a evidential basis?
In either case, I'm happy to accept that there could be non-scientific reasons to reject what is basically a scientifically ironclad conclusion.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Linear Mode
