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.
It is physicists who tell me not to trust what I see and who suggest that some of those pinpricks of light may have supernovaed and disappeared in the time that it took for their light to reach me.
On a scale of 1 to 10, what do you think your understanding of astronomy is? (10 being the highest)
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I see stars with my eyes. Common sense says I see them in real time just as I see everything else in my experience in that way. It is physicists who tell me not to trust what I see and who suggest that some of those pinpricks of light may have supernovaed and disappeared in the time that it took for their light to reach me. They would probably have also told the Magi to distrust the star that led them to Jesus.
I don't understand why you think the fact that starlight takes time to travel over long distances implies that we must distrust anything. The connection does not follow. It takes time for light to travel any distance, whether it be 200 light years or 1.0x10^-200 light years. At which point do you draw the line between trust and distrust? Or do you reject the idea that it takes time for light to travel altogether?
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
-- Charles Darwin
Last edited by Mallon; 4th October 2009 at 10:24 PM.
I don't understand why you think the fact that starlight takes time to travel over long distances implies that we must distrust anything. The connection does not follow. It takes time for light to travel any distance, whether it be 200 light years or 1.0x10^-200 light years. At which point do you draw the line between trust and distrust? Or do you reject the idea that it takes time for light to travel altogether?
The big assumption here is that we see stuff cause the light from these things has travelled from these things and reached us.
How can we prove that assumption in relation to distant objects.
How could you prove that we do not see stuff cause God set up the universe with synchronised pairs of protons at billions of years distance from each other. The properties of light from the furthest pair are available to us from the near member of the pair. So we see the light show of the stars because of photons nearby rather than far away.
How could you prove that we are not stuck in same massive time dilation phenomena which in essence means that the stars can be seen in real time.
How could you prove that space was not neatly folded all around our solar system to allow the light from every star to reach us from every part of the cosmos through the folds of space or even from parallel universes in an instant.
__________________ Great and small they rise and fall but the Lord, He is God forever!!! Ein Englander in Deutschland.
The big assumption here is that we see stuff cause the light from these things has travelled from these things and reached us.
Most photons usually have a source, yes.
Originally Posted by mindlight
How can we prove that assumption in relation to distant objects.
It isn't an assumption to say that the photons had a source.
Originally Posted by mindlight
How could you prove that we do not see stuff cause God set up the universe with synchronised pairs of protons at billions of years distance from each other.
You also can't prove that pink unicorns don't exist. We don't bother thinking about it though, because there is no evidence that they do, and that is the more relevant point.
Originally Posted by mindlight
The properties of light from the furthest pair are available to us from the near member of the pair. So we see the light show of the stars because of photons nearby rather than far away.
That doesn't make any sense. I actually have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Originally Posted by mindlight
How could you prove that we are not stuck in same massive time dilation phenomena which in essence means that the stars can be seen in real time.
We can't. But that doesn't mean you should ASSUME something. Can you prove that I am not the Second Coming of Christ? By your logic, you should now bow down and worship me as your God and King.
Originally Posted by mindlight
How could you prove that space was not neatly folded all around our solar system to allow the light from every star to reach us from every part of the cosmos through the folds of space or even from parallel universes in an instant.
Once again, you cannot disprove my claim that I am God. Therefore, you should begin praying to me immediately.
The big assumption here is that we see stuff cause the light from these things has travelled from these things and reached us.
How can we prove that assumption in relation to distant objects.
How could you prove that we do not see stuff cause God set up the universe with synchronised pairs of protons at billions of years distance from each other. The properties of light from the furthest pair are available to us from the near member of the pair. So we see the light show of the stars because of photons nearby rather than far away.
How could you prove that we are not stuck in same massive time dilation phenomena which in essence means that the stars can be seen in real time.
How could you prove that space was not neatly folded all around our solar system to allow the light from every star to reach us from every part of the cosmos through the folds of space or even from parallel universes in an instant.
Scandal of the evangelical mind, folks.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
More specifically, its a textbook classic example of the Creationists favorite logical fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam, or "Argument from Ignorance".
You have never been out of the solar system and have no direct scientific evidences from any one who has. You see lights in the sky and say you understand their movements based on the evidence of what you see through a telescope. You generalise from what you know down here on earth out there to the stars. But fundamentally despite all the arrogance and mocking contempt you know as little as I do about whats really out there. We could be watching a lightshow on the inside of a big closed bowl for all you really know. The scandal is the certainty with which you speak. The Ptolemaics spoke just as confidentally and in time were proven wrong.
__________________ Great and small they rise and fall but the Lord, He is God forever!!! Ein Englander in Deutschland.
The Ptolemaics spoke just as confidentally and in time were proven wrong.
And yet they continue to defend their position using the same arguments that you do. Go figure.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Linear Mode
