Fact for creationists

[TheOutsider]

But the fact is, my dad taught me not to trust anything anyone says, UNLESS you know you have all the facts and can figure it out for yourself.

That may very well be the single most ironic thing I have heard in my life, ever.

 

[LittleNipper]

That may very well be the single most ironic thing I have heard in my life, ever.

You must be very young...

 

[LittleNipper]

In the case of supernovae, God must have created light that looked like it was coming from a star, a star that never existed. Within this light God also made it look like radioactive decay has been constant for at least billions of years, that the Universe has been expanding for 13.7 billion years, and that the speed of light is constant. Sounds like a pretty big deception to me. If I can't trust your God's Creation, then why should I trust his Word?

Or a Super Nova can cause light to be thrown into a hyper speed.

 

[TheOutsider]

Or a Super Nova can cause light to be thrown into a hyper speed.

There is no evidence that anything in the universe can go faster than the speed of light.

 

[Molal]

Or a Super Nova can cause light to be thrown into a hyper speed.

Show me where you got your evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Or a Super Nova can cause light to be thrown into a hyper speed.

Nope. Higher energy causes a decrease in the wavelength and an increase of the frequency. The speed is the same. A good example is Supernova 1987a. In this example, the supernova lit up a ring of debris surrounding the supernova. Astronomers measured the distance from the supernova to the ring of debris, and they also measured the time delay between the light from the supernova and the reflection from the ring of debris. All of those calculations show that the speed of light was constant for both the routes. No shifting of speed.

In that same supernova they also observed the decay of certain cobalt isotopes. As expected, their decay rate and energy were the same there as here on Earth.

BTW, Supernova 1987a is 167,000 light years away.

 

[TheOutsider]

You must be very young...

Yes, I supposed you could consider me young. And there is a fairly high probabilty that I've never met your father. However, he doesn't sound like the kind of man who would say, "Son, it is perfectly acceptable to ignore all evidence that you want to just because it disagree with your literal interpretation of the Bible." You seem to care more about the words that were written by fallible men thousands of years ago than the evidence of God's creation that are being revealed to us even today. You would rather question one of the fundamental laws of the universe (the speed of light) than admitting that your interpretation is wrong. Why would someone hold on to their own beliefs so tightly and never question them?

 

[FishFace]

1. Please learn that YEC is an interpretation of Creationism. Not all Creationists are YEC.

Only if we're being pedantic. In common usage, the two are pretty much the same.

2. The Bible does not state that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

The OP never said it did, but I can see how that conclusion is reached.

3. Genesis does not say that the universe and earth were created at the same time.

Unless you, well, read it. Straightforwardly. If you try and put the Bible through a linguistic mangle - well, then you can get it to say whatever you want.

This means that you do not understand Genesis and you are determining your argument on something you do not know or understand.

No, it means he disagrees with your understanding of Genesis. In fact, it might not even mean that - it mean he just disagrees that a certain understanding of Genesis is compatible with reality. It doesn't matter whether he thinks that understanding is correct or not.

 

[FishFace]

I firmly believe the universe is 13.7 Billion years old and we share a common ancestor with apes.

But this is a silly argument against the Bible. The moon lights up the sky. It looks like a light. God isn't trying to give a scientific analysis

Exactly.

But your creationist cousins here are trying to argue the opposite.

 

[FishFace]

It is always rather fun how parents, particularly dads, love to screw with kid's minds. But the fact is, my dad taught me not to trust anything anyone says, UNLESS you know you have all the facts and can figure it out for yourself.

Ah, I see... so you reckon you have all the facts regarding exactly how the earth was created do you?

Wrong. You have a book, written down thousands of years ago by some superstitious nomads.

 

[Armistead]

There are many tribes that have a more detailed geneology that the Hebrews. The Hmong tribe goes back 15 thousand years.

Saying the earth is 6000 years old is just ignorant. As a Christian, it's offensive that so many believe that.

 

[gamespotter10]

I predict 2 responses from Creationists:

1) God created the universe to look old.
2) the speed of light is not constant and has changed in the last 6000 years.

both of those answers are flawed

the first answer, "apparent age" would make god the great deciever. in other words, satan

the second answer is wrong because if the speed of light is constantly decaying, the sun would have scorched the earth long ago. If we can see objects that are 13.7 billion light years away, the speed of light would have to be over 2.3 million times as fast as it really is. that would mean the sun's energy output is 2.3 million times as much as it already is. that would be enough to make pluto like venus

 

[guzman]

to the person who started this thread, why do you think the speed of light is constant or has a speed limit. Just curious.

 

[Skaloop]

to the person who started this thread, why do you think the speed of light is constant or has a speed limit. Just curious.

Pretty much everything studied since Einstein came up with the whole relativity thing shows it to be both constant (aside from through various media) and to have a limit. Why, do you think it isn't or it doesn't?

 

[guzman]

I evidently don't have enough posts to put a link here, but type in "scientists break speed of light" in the yahoo window and see what comes up.

 

[Skaloop]

I evidently don't have enough posts to put a link here, but type in "scientists break speed of light" in the yahoo window and see what comes up.

Ooh, interesting. I'm sure there will be more study into that; I'm interested in seeing what is found.

Any of our resident experts familiar with this? Some articles state that it's a highly contested finding (of course) but don't really give details on why. Something with the experiment itself? Errors in the analysis?

 

[Krak]

I evidently don't have enough posts to put a link here, but type in "scientists break speed of light" in the yahoo window and see what comes up.

I looked it up and I found this, "For the experiment, the researchers manipulated a vapour of laser-irradiated atoms that boost the speed of light waves causing a pulse that shoots through the vapour about 300 times faster than it would take the pulse to go the same distance in a vacuum. "

According to that, they used an artificial vapor that had the opposite effect glass has on light. When light travels through glass, it is slower. When it traveled through this vapor, it is faster.

Now here is the thing, this is an artificial vapor, highly unlikely to exist out in the middle of space and even if it did, it would have to be everywhere and scientists have never found any evidence of that.

 

[guzman]

I looked it up and I found this, "For the experiment, the researchers manipulated a vapour of laser-irradiated atoms that boost the speed of light waves causing a pulse that shoots through the vapour about 300 times faster than it would take the pulse to go the same distance in a vacuum. "

According to that, they used an artificial vapor that had the opposite effect glass has on light. When light travels through glass, it is slower. When it traveled through this vapor, it is faster.

Now here is the thing, this is an artificial vapor, highly unlikely to exist out in the middle of space and even if it did, it would have to be everywhere and scientists have never found any evidence of that.

well I'm no physicist, but it seems if you start breaking rules or laws, then they no longer remain rules and laws.

 

[ReverendDG]

I evidently don't have enough posts to put a link here, but type in "scientists break speed of light" in the yahoo window and see what comes up.

as skaloop said, its constant outside of various media, which would include water and other things, this includes that link. i don't even need to read it to know its not through the vacuum of space. which is what people are talking about.
i always find it odd that people bring up science distorting the speed of light through means other than what GR says when it comes to the vacuum of space, when its not even talking about normal movement of light

 

[guzman]

as far as light reaching the earth, I think the simple explanation is that when the earth and universe were created, and as the space expanded, the light also expanded with the space. In a way, this allowed the light to travel faster because as it was going its normal speed (whatever that is) it was also being stretched by the expanding universe, thus allowing it to travel "faster."