Light and Stars

[Yekcidmij]

I need a creationist or 6 day creation believer to explain to me how light from stars billions of light years away reach us within a young earth timeframe.

 

[pgp_protector]

I need a creationist or 6 day creation believer to explain to me how light from stars billions of light years away reach us within a young earth timeframe.

I'm guessing created with the illusion of age (I.E. Light in Flight)

 

[philadiddle]

I heard a web broadcast from AiG saying that God was deceptive. The example they gave is Jesus turning water into wine. Everyone there who didn't know He performed that miracle tasted the wine and thought it was old, when it was actually just made.

 

[busterdog]

I need a creationist or 6 day creation believer to explain to me how light from stars billions of light years away reach us within a young earth timeframe.

One portion of the explanation has to do with the relative speed of light. People readily accept that light changes velocity in different media or in the laboratory, but for some reason it is assumed to be constant in a vacuum.

Two simplistic references are the 1. very considerable decline in the speed of light since creation; and 2. the apparent stretching of the fabric of space itself, which has created the appearance of age.

http://www.setterfield.org/

The experimental basis for the decay of C was analyzed by statistician Alan Montgomery. The dismissive criticisms are generally very motherly, (ie, because "I'm the mommy(or tenured Phd), that's why.")

Just pointing you to some stuff to look at. The argument has raged here before and it gets to be very unpleasant. Not anxious to do it again.

There is ample evidence of the variability of so-called constants. The relationships between the constants seem to be more or less constant, but the constants themselves do seem to change. Once you accept that any of them vary, you obviously have a problem in great confidence about a constant C.

There is also this white hole cosmology of Russ Humphries, I think, which essentially seems to take the concept of the singularity and apply its rules to a wider field so to speak. Since singularities seem to be so far beyond our ordinary rules, it is not difficult to theorize ways to make singularities do want you want them to do, theoretically. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4389starlight10-10-2000.asp

The other argument has to do with relativity. There is another thread with some comment. http://www.christianforums.com/t580...ng-and-there-was-morning%97the-first-day.html. See the comments by Gerald Schroeder.

 

[KerrMetric]

One portion of the explanation has to do with the relative speed of light. People readily accept that light changes velocity in different media or in the laboratory, but for some reason it is assumed to be constant in a vacuum.

It is not assumption.

Two simplistic references are the 1. very considerable decline in the speed of light since creation; and 2. the apparent stretching of the fabric of space itself, which has created the appearance of age.

http://www.setterfield.org/

The experimental basis for the decay of C was analyzed by statistician Alan Montgomery. The dismissive criticisms are generally very motherly, (ie, because "I'm the mommy(or tenured Phd), that's why.")

No it's dismissed because Setterfield initially committed fraud with his data and Montgomery carries on the nonsense. Oh and even more importantly - IT'S CRAP.

There is ample evidence of the variability of so-called constants.

No there isn't.

The relationships between the constants seem to be more or less constant,

How convenient. This by the way is nothing more than a 'get out of intellectual jail' postulate.

Once you accept that any of them vary, you obviously have a problem in great confidence about a constant C.

However, the fact it isn't observed doesn't stop you does it?

There is also this white hole cosmology of Russ Humphries, I think, which essentially seems to take the concept of the singularity and apply its rules to a wider field so to speak.

Mathematically in error garbage of the first magnitude. Pure silliness from a man out of his depth and to be honest he probably knows this but is doing it anyway.

 

[Macca]

I need a creationist or 6 day creation believer to explain to me how light from stars billions of light years away reach us within a young earth timeframe.

When God said "Let there be light" there was no-one around to experience light.
When you are in a light proof room does it mean that light no longer exists?
When God created light, light existed, it did not have to travel for light years to be, it was.
From the fact that when man was created, light from the stars was visible, God has created light visible on earth from stars mega-distance from earth.

 

[crawfish]

In 1987, we witnessed a supernova on earth - SN 1987A. It occurred 168,000 light-years away; meaning, that the light had been traveling for that many years before becoming visible from earth. What does this mean for the YEC standpoint? Either a) God created the light of the supernova, in transit, so it would reach us in the year 1987, or b) God is creating events today that seem to be much older than they are.

 

[Assyrian]

And created light in transit of the destruction of this star showing decay before the fall, and giving us 6,000 years of light from a star that never existed in the entire history of the YEC universe.

 

[busterdog]

I'm guessing created with the illusion of age (I.E. Light in Flight)

Why should that be? That is an enormous leap from the appearance argument. The problem is with the ability to visualize the process of light from a supernova reaching here. All these theories tend to deal with some measure of space being stretched, bent or otherwise represent something other than a static emptiness with definite dimensions. If space can "change", why must light be created in flight?

Matter was also created "in flight" (or might as well have been) according to the Big Bang theory. If you can theorize matter being created from nothing or the tiny planet Whoville (ie, Horton-hears-a-Who) or whatever, why is light being created "in flight" less satisfactory?

We have also argued the enormous improbability of the Big Bang accounting for what we observe. Again, the odds are statistically absurd, if not comparable to searching the entire universe for a single pebble, or perhaps particle. So why not other absurd scenarios?

The funny thing about the whole process is that it is so obviosly dependent upon the abilty to visualize the answer. Its as if the standard is whether or not you could do a mock up for show and tell or by dropping a few million on George Lucas and Industrial Light and Magic. If a Nobel prize laureate says the odds are so very long, what is the barrier other than simple human inability to visualize the problem?

 

[philadiddle]

In 1987, we witnessed a supernova on earth - SN 1987A. It occurred 168,000 light-years away; meaning, that the light had been traveling for that many years before becoming visible from earth.

This means God would have made 168,000 years of light for the star that you mentioned, since the light from it wouldn't reach us for 168,000 years. This means we are only seeing a fraction of a percentage of reality when it comes to astronomy.

 

[philadiddle]

Matter was also created "in flight" (or might as well have been) according to the Big Bang theory. If you can theorize matter being created from nothing or the tiny planet Whoville (ie, Horton-hears-a-Who) or whatever, why is light being created "in flight" less satisfactory?

How was matter created in flight by the big bang? Do you understand what the big bang is? Do you understand observed facts like vacuum fluctuation where matter appears from nowhere?

We have also argued the enormous improbability of the Big Bang accounting for what we observe. Again, the odds are statistically absurd, if not comparable to searching the entire universe for a single pebble, or perhaps particle. So why not other absurd scenarios?

If particles of matter follow laws that govern them, then the odds are not statistically absurd. When space expanded hydrogen would be the first element to be made. As it gathered together it would heat up when the mass became too much, and fusion would happen, which would make more elements. Then when the star explodes (supernova) even more heavier elements would form. I don't really understand how you can think the odds of what we observe are so small. With the laws God made, what we observe in the universe would inevitably follow the big bang, it's not a statictical anomoly.

The funny thing about the whole process is that it is so obviosly dependent upon the abilty to visualize the answer. Its as if the standard is whether or not you could do a mock up for show and tell or by dropping a few million on George Lucas and Industrial Light and Magic. If a Nobel prize laureate says the odds are so very long, what is the barrier other than simple human inability to visualize the problem?

Is this what needs to be done with evolution for some ppl to get it?

 

[Assyrian]

Shernren spent a long time showing busterdog how his statistical argument simply does not work.

What is interesting is the way he compares light being created 'in flight' with the Big Bang. The Big Bang was always based on hard evidence, distant galaxies all expanding away from each other and finding the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation that the theory predicted. Light created in transit is based on no more more evidence than wishful thinking.

 

[busterdog]

Shernren spent a long time showing busterdog how his statistical argument simply does not work.

What is interesting is the way he compares light being created 'in flight' with the Big Bang. The Big Bang was always based on hard evidence, distant galaxies all expanding away from each other and finding the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation that the theory predicted. Light created in transit is based on no more more evidence than wishful thinking.

I don't remember that thread. I do however remember a couple showing him they do work.

I suppose we won't rehash the whole thing.

 

[busterdog]

How was matter created in flight by the big bang? Do you understand what the big bang is? Do you understand observed facts like vacuum fluctuation where matter appears from nowhere?

Obviously given the concept of the curvature of space there is little practical distinction between "in flight" and vacuum fluctuations. Or needn't be. My point is the visualization of light being created "in flight" is a red herring.

If particles of matter follow laws that govern them, then the odds are not statistically absurd. When space expanded hydrogen would be the first element to be made. As it gathered together it would heat up when the mass became too much, and fusion would happen, which would make more elements. Then when the star explodes (supernova) even more heavier elements would form. I don't really understand how you can think the odds of what we observe are so small. With the laws God made, what we observe in the universe would inevitably follow the big bang, it's not a statictical anomoly.

Well the guys with the nobel prizes say that heavy elements and indeed the components of life were extremely unlikely byproducts. The precise tuning of the vacuum energy was itself enormously unlikely.

As the debate goes, because you have cosmic background radiation you can overlook the other problems with how we get from Big Bang to here. There are lots of other explanation for CBR -- so it doesn't solve your probability issue. Where we part company is on the question of whether looking backward through the improbabilities tells us the likelihood of the supposed origin event. \

As the argument goes, one "probability" is enough so that the looking backward problem (through improbable events) is no problem at all. That's rather circular of course.

One of the funny things about it is that the something from nothing idea (or something from something extremely exotic and barely knowable) works pretty well in a couple of other models. The Russ Humphries white hole thing is not really all that radically different -- particularly if we are working with enormous improbability.

Is this what needs to be done with evolution for some ppl to get it?

Perhaps a theme based cartoon with Princess Ponies might be persuasive. Instead of Rainbow land, you could have evolution land.

There are some noncreationist scientists with respectible jobs who think Big Bang just doesn't work. So its a minority? So what?

 

[gluadys]

As the debate goes, because you have cosmic background radiation you can overlook the other problems with how we get from Big Bang to here.

No you can't and I expect physicists are working on any such problems. But you are overlooking the fact that science advances through falsification. Cosmic background radiation falsified steady state theory which was until its discovery the only other viable explanation of the expansion of the universe.

So big bang theory is the only theory left to work on until someone comes up with a better one. White hole cosmology isn't a better one.

There are some noncreationist scientists with respectible jobs who think Big Bang just doesn't work. So its a minority? So what?

And when they come up with evidence for their theories they will get attention. If their theory wins the day they will get Nobel Prizes.

It is simply not enough to "think it doesn't work". One has to show how it doesn't work and why the evidence shows another theory works better.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't remember that thread. I do however remember a couple showing him they do work.

I suppose we won't rehash the whole thing.

Then again...

Well the guys with the nobel prizes say that heavy elements and indeed the components of life were extremely unlikely byproducts. The precise tuning of the vacuum energy was itself enormously unlikely.

As the debate goes, because you have cosmic background radiation you can overlook the other problems with how we get from Big Bang to here. There are lots of other explanation for CBR -- so it doesn't solve your probability issue. Where we part company is on the question of whether looking backward through the improbabilities tells us the likelihood of the supposed origin event. \

As the argument goes, one "probability" is enough so that the looking backward problem (through improbable events) is no problem at all. That's rather circular of course.

No that is the way probability works, though you seem to want to hand wave and switch the relevant probabilities.

The precise tuning of vacuum energies is amazingly improbable. But seeing as we have that precise tuning what is the probable way it came about? The evidence says Big Bang.

You could wake up one morning naked on a island in pond in an enclosed convent garden with a duck tied discretely around you waist. Highly improbable of course. But if you did, and you traced your route back through the duckery gathering various items of attire all the way back to the hotel with the Star Trek convention and a bedroom with an empty case of Glenfiddich, it does not matter how improbable it was that you would end up where you did with a duck tired around you waist, given that is where you were, the evidence clearly leads in all probability back to that Star Trek convention and the case of scotch.

 

[busterdog]

No you can't and I expect physicists are working on any such problems. But you are overlooking the fact that science advances through falsification. Cosmic background radiation falsified steady state theory which was until its discovery the only other viable explanation of the expansion of the universe.

So big bang theory is the only theory left to work on until someone comes up with a better one. White hole cosmology isn't a better one.

And when they come up with evidence for their theories they will get attention. If their theory wins the day they will get Nobel Prizes.

It is simply not enough to "think it doesn't work". One has to show how it doesn't work and why the evidence shows another theory works better.

Well, then I guess its a good thing I don't need tenure.

Thank God for message boards where you can throw out ideas at will.

 

[busterdog]

have[/i] that precise tuning what is the probable way it came about?

Q.E.D.

We see pretty much the same thing. I see it black and you see it white.

 

[Assyrian]

No we both see white, you just like to claim it is equally probable to be black.

 

[KerrMetric]

Thank God for message boards where you can throw out ideas at will.

You mean "Thank God for message boards where I can say complete crap about a scientific area but I don't even need the ability to understand terminology or solve a quadratic"