The number one bugger for creationists: C

Dragar · Sep 20, 2004

More interestingly, if we see light from a complex event, such as supernova SN1987A, that can be measured at 168,000 light years away, then it would seem pretty obvious that the universe is older than that light. Either that or we are seeing light from an event that never took place. Some theists find that notion untenable.

I suppose they could appeal to the 'Unknown Reason Defence'.

Ptolemy's epicycles, all over again...

Dragar

JohnC · Sep 20, 2004

Ondoher said:
No, if the universe was created 10,000 years ago, and there is a star 3 million light years away, then its light would not yet have reached us.

More interestingly, if we see light from a complex event, such as supernova SN1987A, that can be measured at 168,000 light years away, then it would seem pretty obvious that the universe is older than that light. Either that or we are seeing light from an event that never took place. Some theists find that notion untenable.

But see I do not believe the universe was created 10,000 years ago. I believe it is very old actually. I am talking about the earth and the earth only possibly being 6000 years old.

Freodin · Sep 20, 2004

JohnC said:
But see I do not believe the universe was created 10,000 years ago. I believe it is very old actually. I am talking about the earth and the earth only possibly being 6000 years old.

Now that´s interesting.

On what basis would you hold such a position?

JohnC · Sep 20, 2004

It's rather obvious that the universe is old. eh?

Ondoher · Sep 20, 2004

JohnC said:
But see I do not believe the universe was created 10,000 years ago. I believe it is very old actually. I am talking about the earth and the earth only possibly being 6000 years old.

That's a different position than the one taken by most young earth creationists. It has a whole host of other problems, like:

Where did the heat from the vast amounts of radioactive decay that has taken place go
We have evidence of quite a few very large impact craters, that's an awful lot of energy expended in 6,000 years
There is not enough room for all the species of life indicated in the fossil record to have lived in such a short span of time
Multiple radiometric and isochronic dates of various pieces of evidence point to the same ancient age of the earth
There is not enough time for all the errosion indicated in the geologic record to have taken place

I'm curious why you accept the age of the universe as ancient, but not the age of the earth.

Freodin · Sep 20, 2004

JohnC said:
It's rather obvious that the universe is old. eh?

Yes, but on what basis would you hold the position that the earth is only 6000 years old?

JohnC · Sep 20, 2004

lol I know this is rather lame but I simply don't have time nor the knowledge to really explain it. I've read a books and watched videos and debates. It's quite complex actually. But I don't remember enough of it to support the idea. So I'd better not try.

But there are things that point to the "young earth" theory. There is not anything that that points to a "young" universe that I have found. Therefore I have absolutely no reason to believe the universe is young. To the contrary The evidence points out that it is very old.

Freodin · Sep 20, 2004

JohnC said:
lol I know this is rather lame but I simply don't have time nor the knowledge to really explain it. I've read a books and watched videos and debates. It's quite complex actually. But I don't remember enough of it to support the idea. So I'd better not try.

But there are things that point to the "young earth" theory. There is not anything that that points to a "young" universe that I have found. Therefore I have absolutely no reason to believe the universe is young. To the contrary The evidence points out that it is very old.

Well, if you find the time, I would be interested to hear just what books/videos/debates these were.

JohnC · Sep 20, 2004

Sorry I am actually pretty busy.... The videos aren't even all mine and I don't even know what the names are or anything. The debate was actually on video also. And it wasn't biased either. Neither side really got anywhere. lol

Ondoher · Sep 20, 2004

JohnC said:
Sorry I am actually pretty busy.... The videos aren't even all mine and I don't even know what the names are or anything. The debate was actually on video also. And it wasn't biased either. Neither side really got anywhere. lol

Well, debates are mostly about charisma and rhetoric anyway. If you want to get any where, then you have to do it in the real forum of scientific debate: the peer reviewed literature. The consensus amongst scientists, and this covers pretty much all scientists here, is that the earth is about 4.55 billion years old. Nobody really takes a young earth seriously, nor have they for a few hundred years.

BigBen · Sep 20, 2004

The Bellman said:
Except that there's nothing in the area you indicated thta anyone found any of your quotes offensive.

excuse me, but all i did was quote two verse from the bible and the guy immediately accused me of assumption.

BigBen · Sep 20, 2004

Tomk80 said:
But if we think we know at least a little bit about it, shouldn't we act on that. If a christian thinks people are judged after they die on the way they lived, shouldn't they try to steer us in the right direction. If I think global warming is caused by man and can be solved or at least reduced in seriousness by man, shouldn't I try to persuade people to act on this information?

good point

BigBen · Sep 20, 2004

Dragar said:
But if a star was created 6000 years ago, a million light years away, and the light is still reaching us, God has also created light en-route, to make it appear as if the universe is actually older than it is. Along with vast numbers of other things (Hubble Constant, fossil record, dating via decay) which he has placed simply (it seems) to decieve us.

but the fossil record shows that in a short amount of time, all of the 40 or so phylum appeared and since then there has been little or no evolution. where are the missing links, eh?

Arikay · Sep 20, 2004

I didn't know 5 - 12 million years was a short time, if you are talking about the cambrian explosion that is.
Its often boasted by creationist groups, but an understand of just what appear and how fossils are formed make it much less spectacular. A large amount of phylums appeared, but not all of them, and since then there has been a large amount of evolution. The cambrian explosion was when many animals first evolved hard shells and body parts, a far cry from the animals we have today.

Of course, the fossil record has nothing to do with star light.

BigBen said:
but the fossil record shows that in a short amount of time, all of the 40 or so phylum appeared and since then there has been little or no evolution. where are the missing links, eh?

Ondoher · Sep 20, 2004

BigBen said:
but the fossil record shows that in a short amount of time, all of the 40 or so phylum appeared and since then there has been little or no evolution. where are the missing links, eh?

That's not even remotely true. Although the cambrian radiation does mark a very interesting point in time in the evolution of life, it is not the origin of all metazoan phyla.

The following lists the time period and the number of metazoan phyla that are known to have originated in that period.

Recent 12
Oligocene 1
Eocene 1
Jurassic 1
Carboniferous 3
Devonian 1
Ordovician 1
Cambrian 9
Vendian 4

Note that some phyla appear prior to the cambrian, and many have their first appearance after it.

Also interesting is that when discussing the cambrian, we are referring exclusively to metazoan phyla, no mention is made of plant phyla. When plant phyla are added to this list, it yields the following result:

Recent 13
Eocene 2
Cretaceous 2
Jurassic 1
Triassic 3
Carboniferous 5
Devonian 4
Silurian 1
Ordovician 1
Cambrian 9
Vendian 4

Adding it all up, we have 13 new phyla before and during the cambrian and 32 after it.

The cambrian radiation is facinating, and one does wonder the cause for the sudden increase in phyla. The best explanation is the evolution of hard shells which more readily fossilize.

As far as the insistence that life has not evolved since the cambrian, that is clearly false. Most of the life that appeared in the cambrian is very primitive. And there are absolutely no land animals represented.

On the subject of missing links, here is a short list of excellent transitionals:

Archaeopteryx lithographica
Ambulocetus natans
Pederpes finneyae
Homo ergaster

The fossil record is rife with such examples.

Polycarp1 · Sep 20, 2004

It's important, however, to note that the origins of phyla in that table simply refer to the first known fossil example, not necessarily to the date the phylum originated. Sipunculoidea, for example, are a group of worms with absolutely no hard parts -- and I'm confident they're in your Recent list, because there is nothing to fossilize, and they're sufficiently uncommon not to show up in the Lagerstatten (the relatively rare sites where animal soft parts are preserved as impressions in the rock). To add to the discussion a bit, when I was a kid interested in paleontology, the first known chordates were from the Silurian -- by the time I got to college, there were Ordovician fragmentary fossils, and with the recent reclassification of Pikaia from the Burgess Shale, they're now dated to the Lower Cambrian.

anunbeliever · Sep 21, 2004

Maybe the speed of light has not changed here on Earth. But would it be feasible for light to travel at a different speed in other parts of the universe? eg maybe there are aspects of physical reality that we dont yet know about which make equations using c more complex than we know. Perhaps our region of space is unusual and unknown factor 'x' is very small. But just about everywhere else in the universe 'x' is much larger and light travels much faster?

Jet Black · Sep 21, 2004

anunbeliever said:
Maybe the speed of light has not changed here on Earth. But would it be feasible for light to travel at a different speed in other parts of the universe? eg maybe there are aspects of physical reality that we dont yet know about which make equations using c more complex than we know. Perhaps our region of space is unusual and unknown factor 'x' is very small. But just about everywhere else in the universe 'x' is much larger and light travels much faster?

no. The velocity of light is the result of the permittivity and permeability of free space. Were the speed of light to change, these values would also change. these properties are fundamental properties of the universe and altering them would have ramifications far beyond simple light speed. For example spectra would change, atomic properties would change, nuclear decay rates would change, fusion rates would change, stars would change, chemistry would change, and none of these things are observed. all properties of these kinds are what we would epect, regardless of disance to the objects.

Remnant · Dec 18, 2004

Well now Jet, that wouldn't make sense if light that traveled for those many billions of miles are just now reaching us....we are looking that far in the past; we don't know if that particular star even exists any longer. If the fundamental properties were to change billions of light-years from here (and since light is the fastest wave/particle known), how would there be an instantaneous change here in our part of the universe?

So the point is that physical laws could have changed without our even realizing the 'measuring stick' we use is still an absolute in another part of the universe; or even if that part of the universe exists any longer.

FieryBalrog · Dec 18, 2004

bevets said:
Orthodox Christian doctrine maintains that the Bible is Reality and man is fallible.

man, this is almost Orwellian. So we should believe in the Bible before we believe in reality? Give me the stuff I can touch and feel any day. If the Bible said "the sun does not exist" Id rather believe my eyes. If the Bible said "the earth is square" I prefer to believe my own experience rather than the Bible. When the Bible actually says "the mustard seed is the smallest" I prefer to believe my own eyes when I see a smaller seed.

And so on. I think if you are to believe in the Bible, you should do it because it matches up with truth. I dont think people should believe in truth based on whether or not it matches up with the Bible.

The number one bugger for creationists: C

Like the root of -1

Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Member

Veteran

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Member

Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

HI

Veteran

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Veteran

Jet Black

Guest

Humble Servant

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency