Adam and the Scientist

[Citanul]

Lots of stars more than 10,000 light years away in our own galaxy

Thanks for that. I wasn't quite sure, and the brief search I did didn't help.

 

[Scotishfury09]

I don't have the knowledge to argue whether carbon or radiometric dating (I guess this makes up part of the evidence you're talking about) is open to interpretation or not, but there are other processes which require time.

For example, if I look at person I can make a reasonable guess at how old they are. This means that unless they were "poofed" into being, they had to have been alive for at least a certain amount of years.

Similarly, I can look at a tree's growth rings and determine it's age. Neither of these estimations of age leave much room for interpretation except within a reasonable margin for error.

Of course, we don't have 10,000 year old people or trees (at least I don't think we have trees, but we definitely don't have the people). However, what about stars?

We can measure the distance that a star is away from Earth, and as far as I know the measuring techniques are not disputed by any creationists. This means that if a star is more than 10,000 light years away then the light we're seeing from it has taken more than 10,000 years to get to us (I don't know if there is any star that far away - if not, then substitute galaxy for star).

In other words, the light we see from such a star is more than 10,000 years old. And as far as I know every reputable scientist who has measured the speed of light has come up with the same figure (notwithstanding the fact that it has changed a bit as the accuracy of that measurement has improved). So that's something which doesn't depend on interpretation.

What's even more important is supernova remnants that are much older than 10,000 years old. A supernova occurs when a star begins to cool and collapse on itself to a certain point where it rebounds and then explodes its outer layer out into space in the form of a planetary nebula in most situations. We see many of these in the universe that are much farther than 10,000 light years away and therefore older than 10,000 years. If the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago these stars would have been created already blown up and dead. It seem strange to think that God would deceive us into thinking the universe was much older when it really isn't.

 

[Jig]

I don't have the knowledge to argue whether carbon or radiometric dating (I guess this makes up part of the evidence you're talking about) is open to interpretation or not, but there are other processes which require time.

For example, if I look at person I can make a reasonable guess at how old they are. This means that unless they were "poofed" into being, they had to have been alive for at least a certain amount of years.

Similarly, I can look at a tree's growth rings and determine it's age. Neither of these estimations of age leave much room for interpretation except within a reasonable margin for error.

Of course, we don't have 10,000 year old people or trees (at least I don't think we have trees, but we definitely don't have the people). However, what about stars?

We can measure the distance that a star is away from Earth, and as far as I know the measuring techniques are not disputed by any creationists. This means that if a star is more than 10,000 light years away then the light we're seeing from it has taken more than 10,000 years to get to us (I don't know if there is any star that far away - if not, then substitute galaxy for star).

In other words, the light we see from such a star is more than 10,000 years old. And as far as I know every reputable scientist who has measured the speed of light has come up with the same figure (notwithstanding the fact that it has changed a bit as the accuracy of that measurement has improved). So that's something which doesn't depend on interpretation.

Why is the star issue always brought up? This is to assume that the speed of light has always been a constant.

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters"

If we can control the rate of speed light can travel in a lab, surely then it is possible to assume light may have been faster or slower.

Regardless, even if that wasn't true, creating with maturity could mean providing Adam with instant starlight. This would have helped him see at night.

God can do anything, lets not limit this universe to natural explainations. For since a supernatural being created it, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that supernatural things occured in the process.

 

[Citanul]

Why is the star issue always brought up? This is to assume that the speed of light has always been a constant.

OK, so maybe the speed of light hasn't always been constant. But then who's to say that other things haven't always been constant? How do we know that a year has always been 365 24-hour days? For that matter, how do we know a day has always been 24 hours?

If we can control the rate of speed light can travel in a lab, surely then it is possible to assume light may have been faster or slower.

That would mean that every star more than 6,000 light years away would have to be emitting light at different speeds. I think Ockham and his razor might have something to say here.

Regardless, even if that wasn't true, creating with maturity could mean providing Adam with instant starlight. This would have helped him see at night.

What's wrong with moonlight? Besides, there's no scriptural or scientific evidence that mature starlight was created.

God can do anything, lets not limit this universe to natural explainations. For since a supernatural being created it, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that supernatural things occured in the process.

No one's saying God can't do anything, but based on the evidence, we're saying that there are certain things he didn't do.

 

[notto]

If we can control the rate of speed light can travel in a lab, surely then it is possible to assume light may have been faster or slower.

Light has a constant speed in a vacuum. The speed of light changes in a medium. This is nothing new and does not lead us to the conclusion you make. Controlling the speed of light in different mediums is not the same as changing the speed of light in a vacuum.

Your conclusion does not follow from the evidence you have provided.

 

[shernren]

Why is the star issue always brought up? This is to assume that the speed of light has always been a constant.

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters"

If we can control the rate of speed light can travel in a lab, surely then it is possible to assume light may have been faster or slower.

But those changes in the speed of light are always found in exotic substances. Not the vacuum of space.

Regardless, even if that wasn't true, creating with maturity could mean providing Adam with instant starlight. This would have helped him see at night.

Have you ever tried finding your way around on a moonless night?

 

[artybloke]

could

An awful lot of "coulds" here. "Could" usually means that someone is flailing around looking for any arguement, other than having to change their interpretation of a portion of scripture that was never intended to be factual in the first place.