RE: There where more than two creations (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

drj11 -> RE: There where more than two creations (5/7/2008 3:35:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

What are these faith-based assumptions? I bet you can't name one.
You state: "The observational data of light originating from galaxies billions of light years away is fact." This "fact" requires the unprovable assumption (thus faith-based) that the velocity of light has remained constant for "billions of years". Please PM me your banking info for electronic funds transfer.



This video does a good job of explaining why this position is ridiculous: http://youtube.com/watch?v=nRmJbP25m-Y

Even if the speed of light did decay over time, or is variable it still refutes your young earth position. There's no way to re-factor the speed of light to point to a 6k universe (or even a young universe).

Constant speed of light isnt exactly 'faith based', and its a criminal over simplification to be so dismissive about without bothering to learn any reasons why we believe it to be the case before making silly claims that it is 'faith based'. Please. If you want to see some things that will really make you mad, you should watch some youtube videos from cdk007 ;) http://youtube.com/results?search_query=cdk007&search_type=

PS: I'm still not convinced drmark isnt an atheist evolutionist troll having some fun with everyone by fueling the flames.



Method -> RE: There where more than two creations (5/7/2008 3:42:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
You state: "The observational data of light originating from galaxies billions of light years away is fact." This "fact" requires the unprovable assumption (thus faith-based) that the velocity of light has remained constant for "billions of years". Please PM me your banking info for electronic funds transfer.


Faith is a belief in the absence of evidence. The constant speed of light is evidenced. Ergo, the constant speed of light is not based on faith, it is based on evidence.

One such piece of evidence is Supernova 1987a:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/supernova_distance.html


There is also the relationship between mass, energy, and the speed of light (E=mc^2). If the speed of light were different then it would show up in the SN1A data, but it doesn't. We would also observe stars burning much hotter than they should. We don't observe that either.

I will forward an electronic deposit form to your mailbox.;)



drmark -> RE: There where more than two creations (5/7/2008 4:22:16 PM)

quote:

PS: I'm still not convinced drmark isnt an atheist evolutionist troll having some fun with everyone by fueling the flames.
Yes, much more likely than any of you fanatic naturalists actually being closet Pentecostals ashamed to admit the infallibility of Scripture for fear of academic censure.



Method -> RE: There where more than two creations (5/7/2008 4:51:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Yes, much more likely than any of you fanatic naturalists actually being closet Pentecostals ashamed to admit the infallibility of Scripture for fear of academic censure.


That's exactly what a creationist poser would say . . . hmm, I'm starting to buy into this idea as well.[;)]



Jhud -> RE: There where more than two creations (5/7/2008 4:59:41 PM)

quote:

That's exactly what a creationist poser would say . . . hmm, I'm starting to buy into this idea as well.


Way too much wisdom and good ol' common sense comming from drmark over the years for that to be the case.

I'm not one to typically stick my nose into such things, but if the question is whether the speed of light has always been constant since the inception of the universe, how would we know that with certainty through current observations?



Method -> RE: There where more than two creations (5/7/2008 5:05:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Way too much wisdom and good ol' common sense comming from drmark over the years for that to be the case.


I will add some emoticons. It was meant in jest.

quote:

I'm not one to typically stick my nose into such things, but if the question is whether the speed of light has always been constant since the inception of the universe, how would we know that with certainty through current observations?


In order to evidence a multi-billion year old Universe we don't need to know the speed of light since it's inception. We only need to know the speed of light since it left distant objects, and there is very, very solid evidence that the speed of light leaving these objects is the same as that measured on Earth.

And I wouldn't be surprised at all if the speed of light were different at "bang" of the big bang. Many have hypothesized that all four of the fundamental forces were in symmetry during that era, so I would almost expect the speed of light to be different.



drmark -> RE: There where more than two creations (5/7/2008 5:05:47 PM)

quote:

Faith is a belief in the absence of evidence. The constant speed of light is evidenced. Ergo, the constant speed of light is not based on faith, it is based on evidence.
The constant speed of light has been evidenced for 14 billion years?! Why just in the last decade there have been numerous reports of changing light and decay constants. Like I said, Method, anyone who thinks we "know" facts from billions of years ago is a fool or psychotic. Please, take the last word - I have no more time to waste.



Method -> RE: There where more than two creations (5/7/2008 5:11:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Faith is a belief in the absence of evidence. The constant speed of light is evidenced. Ergo, the constant speed of light is not based on faith, it is based on evidence.
The constant speed of light has been evidenced for 14 billion years?! Why just in the last decade there have been numerous reports of changing light and decay constants. Like I said, Method, anyone who thinks we "know" facts from billions of years ago is a fool or psychotic. Please, take the last word - I have no more time to waste.


In the case of Supernova 1987a, for 168,000 years which falsifies a young earth as defined by Usher math. Supernova type Ia data from distant galaxies would be very different if the speed of light were different (using E=mc^2). There are dozens and dozens of ways to test for the constancy of the speed of light, and all of these tests show a constant speed of light.



essentialsaltes -> RE: There where more than two creations (5/7/2008 5:47:27 PM)

quote:

I'm not one to typically stick my nose into such things, but if the question is whether the speed of light has always been constant since the inception of the universe, how would we know that with certainty through current observations?


As Method has mentioned, current observations are of 'old' light. People have looked for variations in the fine-structure constant, "alpha", which indicates the strength of electromagnetism and involves the speed of light. Looking at distant quasars, it looks like the constant has changed no more than 0.001% over the last 10-12 billion years.

If you keep alpha fixed by changing the speed of light but vary the other constants that make up alpha to offset that change, things get even worse. The spectral lines of the elements would change, but since we can do spectroscopy on distant objects just fine, that isn't the case.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI