Stunning victory of Creation

Because you have no means of validating your measuring system by direct observation.

You can assume things constant so long as you acknowledge that they may not be and that the results could vary radically if they are not.

All I am really asking for is basic honesty and integrity. </font>[/QUOTE]In 1987 astronomers in Australia observed a supernova in the clouds of Magellen. Over the years since that time they prepared pictures of the light spreading out from that supernova and illuminating dust in the neighborhood. The light spreading out from the supernova takes up space in the sky and shows us how far away they are merely by how much room in the sky a light year or so actually turns out to be in the neighborhood of the clouds of magellan. The distance turns out to be 170,000 light years.

Check out the cool pictures here . . .

http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/AAO/images/captions/aat066.html

Now I know I'm slow and dim and such, but these seem to be honest folks, with integrety, and I begin to form an alternate opinion of people who say these observations aren't observations and that seeing and measuring these things isn't seeing and measuring things.

 

For those concerned about the long times indicated by measurement of light from stars I recommend the book Starlight and Time by D. Russell Humphreys. Humphreys, using Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, shows that these long indicated times are consistent with the six day creation period of Genesis.

 

Except that Humphreys does not follow Relativity accurately.

I'll give two examples.

First, Humphreys says that time is slower here on earth than in the rest of the universe because the earth is in a gravitional well. Light falling into such a well should be blue shifted. Instead the light we observe is redshifted.

Second, if his ideas were true, the effect of the time dilation should be noticable in our observations of the cosmos. Instead, things that change with time, such as supernova light curves and Cepheid variables are observed to change with time just as they should in the absence of time dilation.

Read this article from a Christian website to get a more in depth look at the book.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main

 

Because you have no means of validating your measuring system by direct observation.

You can assume things constant so long as you acknowledge that they may not be and that the results could vary radically if they are not.

All I am really asking for is basic honesty and integrity. </font>[/QUOTE]In 1987 astronomers in Australia observed a supernova in the clouds of Magellen. Over the years since that time they prepared pictures of the light spreading out from that supernova and illuminating dust in the neighborhood. The light spreading out from the supernova takes up space in the sky and shows us how far away they are merely by how much room in the sky a light year or so actually turns out to be in the neighborhood of the clouds of magellan. The distance turns out to be 170,000 light years.</font>[/QUOTE] You have just illustrated my point very well. Thank you.

If the speed of light is not constant or if there is an unknown inhibitor of light travel between us and this body then it is closer than you think. If it is closer than you think then the expansion will appear larger than it actually is... like those warnings on rear view mirrors.

It isn't necessarily a matter of intergrity though it might be. People who thought the moon would be covered with hundreds of feet of dust weren't dishonest... just mistaken about their assumptions- and this without regard to whichever explanation is adopted to explain why there wasn't a thick layer of dust.

As of a year ago, Voyager 1 was 12.5 light hours from earth. That's .00143 light years. We have observed .000000841% of the space between here and this supernova assuming you are right about 170,000 light years and a somewhat better but not significant percentage if I am right.

We simply have not gather enough information about space to make rigid assumptions about it. Anyone who claims otherwise is mistaken or dishonest.

 

No. They are not.

Simply measuring from a single point of reference the degree of displacement between two distant bodies does not provide enough information. You must make other assumptions or draw on other conclusions which had their own assumptions.

The only truly accurate way of measuring these things is to go there.

You could also make a reasonable estimate by taking random samples of conditions in various parts of the universe to determine whether the uniformitarian model is valid. Short of these two things, your distances are tied to assumptions that you won't even honestly acknowledge.... that is not scientific nor credible.

 

Oh, and by the way. I contacted Setterfield about your objections to the probe evidence and claim that a solution had been accepted.

He said that the solution had been rejected and that possible missions were being planned to investigate the anomaly in our probes' acceleration measurements.

 

"If the speed of light is not constant or if there is an unknown inhibitor of light travel between us and this body then it is closer than you think. If it is closer than you think then the expansion will appear larger than it actually is... like those warnings on rear view mirrors."

Think about this logically. Completely made up numbers will follow.

Let's say that the ring was 3 million kms from the star. So it would take 10 light seconds for for photons to travel the distance. While the light was travelling 3 miilion kms to the ring and being reflected, the original light had traveled 3 million kms towards earth. The two sets of photons will arive at earth 3 million kms apart and 10 second in time.

Now pretend light was travelling ten times as fast. Light arrives at the ring in one second. In the mean time, the original light has still travelled 3 million kms towards earth. When the light arrives here they will still be 3 miilion kms apart. Based on our observed speed of light, we would still see the light arrive 10 seconds apart.

"We simply have not gather enough information about space to make rigid assumptions about it. Anyone who claims otherwise is mistaken or dishonest. "

Did you not read this post where I responded to such claims by showing how we can measure things out far into the universe and find them to be the same? DO oyu have any criticisms of the methods that peer review failed to catch.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2714/3.html#000038

 

"Oh, and by the way. I contacted Setterfield about your objections to the probe evidence and claim that a solution had been accepted.

He said that the solution had been rejected and that possible missions were being planned to investigate the anomaly in our probes' acceleration measurements."

Citation of where it had been rejected?

Besides, a changing speed of light is not the ONLY other solution. And a changing speed of light can also be rule out by other observations. For example, the problem of measured rates of galactic rotation.

 

Sidenote:

There are numerous YEC's here on the BB who make the claim that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate and subjective. Many of them also cite Dr Barry Setterfield numerous times, such as with the claims about changes in the speed of light. Yet, Dr Setterfield himself has said that "...rocks are dated correctly using radiometric dating, but that the decay rates varied with the variance of [the speed of light]...". So which is it? You can't have it both ways. Yet another example of YEC's picking and choosing their claims, which are often incinsistent with each other.

 

No one is limiting God's power at all. He is perfectly capable of doing whatever He wishes. That includes making a universe at once that looks 13.7 billion years old.

If you take an honest look at the Creation, it appears that God used long periods and mostly natural processes to create. The universe gives us a coherent 13.7 billion year history. The earth's geology gives us a coherent 4.6 billion year history. Biology gives us about a 4 billion year history. Everything looks as if God used inflation to make the universe and common descent to give us the current diversity of life.

Now, could He have spoken everything into existance just as we see it? Of course He could have. None of us doubt that.

The question is did He. I don't think so. I, personally, do not think He would speak a mature universe into existance and then take exceeding care to make everything look as if it was made over long periods of time and through mostly natural processes.

I could very easily be wrong. But, again, I don't think so.

Now, my question for you. Do you think that the evidence in the creation is consistent with an old earth and common descent and God made it that way for His own purposes or do you think that what we think means an old earth, an old universe and common descent are wrong and that the data actually shows a young earth with a few exception to make the earth habitable from the beginning?

 

"For example, the non-flood people will complain about how to get rid of waste inside the ark. Don't you think if God can create a flood and save all of the animals in the world in that ark that He can see to it that the ark is kept clean without us having to PROVE a physical law that allows this to be done?"

But therein lies the problem.

Take the Flood. When most YEers go about trying to justify a literal worldwide flood that covers every mountain, they invariably start point to physical things. Fountains and water canopies. Fossils and erosion. Rapid plate techtonics. The Grand Canyon. And so on.

And when they do, they present things that are not physically possible. I would be much happier if they simply said God supernaturally made the animals go where they needed, supernaturally took care of them, supernaturally made the water appear, supernaturally made the water disappear, supernaturally cleaned up from the earth the evidence of the flood so it would be habitable again, and supernaturally dispersed and repopulated the animals, plants, whatever.

We they go into possible mechanisms and what they see as evidence, they invariably mess it up and present things that are not possible. Just make it all supernatural. You'll be ahead of hte game.

 

"Even by your description of making a universe instantly then taking care to make it 13.7 billion (or whatever) years old shows me that even you have completely missed what I said in my post. Please go back, read it carefully again and then if it still misses, I will try another way of explaining it."

Still get the same view. You were talking about making a fully operational factory at once and questioning if God lied if he let us see a supernova that never actually went supernova or maybe how billions of years could have happened in a flash.

"Personally, I cannot tell you WHAT the data says because I know for certain than in 100 years the scientists will tell us everything we observed was wrong; even though it fit so conveniently for us today. The same reason the Sun traveling around the Earth fit so conveniently to scientists years ago. It was what was observed with their limitations. We do NOT EVEN KNOW what our observational limitations are today."

OK, I'll broaden the question. Just based on what we know today, what do you think? FOrget about what may change in the future or any kind or wild speculations about how things might operate under vastly different physical laws at places remote in space and/or time.

Just based on what we observe today, what is your answer. Do you think the data supports a young earth or an old earth?

 

"You have admitted God must have had a hand in evolution, so therefore do you admit supernatural creative activity, regardless of what the evidence shows?"

Mine is a tricky admittance.

I think that man was the obvious goal of God's creation. He wanted beings that could be given free will and could then chose to accept Him or reject Him. What good is the praise of beings without such choice? It is all part of the plan.

Now I suppose that God might could have set up things from the beginning such that man was the destined outcome. But I have problems with this. The first is that if the conditions could be set up from the beginning such that the outcome of everything was set from the start, then that seems to remove the whole free will idea.

The second is more scientific. To be able to set things up as such implies that the universe behaves according to classical physics. But, quantum mechanics has shown that because of its probability aspects, that such a thing cannot be done. God has given us laws of physics that says that you cannot actually know the history and future of the universe if you could measure all the properties of all the particles at once. It is the equivilent of asking if God could make a rock so big that He could not lift it. So this implies to me that at least some guiding role was necessary along the way.

I think that natural explanations are capable of giving us everything that we see. However, since a specific outcome seems to have been desired, this implies to me some intervention along the way. Where? Well I cannot point to anything in particular. It just seems necessary.

"Second question, you have failed to give us your background and primary field of study. Can you provide that in more than just generalities?"

I am not sure if this was missed or not detailed enough.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2714/3.html#000033

Just in case, I'll fill a few more details.

First off I have been in Southern Baptist churches all my life. I was saved as a child. My grandmother was the strongest influence in my life as far as such things go. She played the organ in our local, somewhat rural church. She was a wonderful and odd woman.

I went to a fairly large rural / suburban high school. About 200 kids in my class. Went striaght to U. of Alabama and studied chemical engineering. While there I took a job working in a physical chemistry lab. Some for pay some for class credit. I did research into the selective flocculation of minerals and ores.

After graduation I went to work doing research on a novel coal gasifier for electrical power generation. The basics are that you use about 1/3 of the stoicometric air required for combustion. This burns part of the coal and provides energy which can be used to convery that rest of the coal into a fuel gas consisting of hydrogen, methane and carbon monoxide. There are a lot of trace gasses plus nitrogen from the air and carbon dioxide from the combustion. This as is cleaned and then burned in a combustion turbine to make electricity. My title is senior research engineer. I lead various projects, write reports, analyze data, and go present at conferences (including writing papers to be published). I have been at this ten years. Recently our project was awarded a Department of Energy contract to build a commercial facility in Orlando. I have begun working with others on some of the pre-engineering for that.

 

The data collection and collation is correct. The interpretation of the data is wrong because the underlying assumptions are wrong. You imagine a conflict where there is none.

 

How, specifically, is the interpretation wrong?

Remember, we need something that explains why the dating would be wrong when compared against tree rings from all over the world, lake varves from different places, ice cores from diverse places, dating of corals and comparing things that can be both carbon dated and dated with a uranium series. All of these methods give similar results and so a mechanism that seeks to show why carbon dating has been wrongly interpreted should account for why all these different methods give the same answer.

I have seen some YEers say that a large upset in the carbon balance could explain this. There is a case to be made with that for some of these, but that would not work when comparing uranium and carbon dates at all. An upset in the carbon balance would not upset uranium dating.

 

Yes. ALL of these measurements were made from HERE. They require the assumption in every case that there are no unknown factors in between us and the distant light sources and that physical laws operate the same way universally.

If I understand correctly, even evolution believers involved in theoretical physics anticipate violations of accepted laws of physics out in the universe... except you probably think their ideas are OK since they are intended to support rather than undermine evolution.

You are fond of demanding evidence from me but I haven't seen you attempt to toss Sagan et al. out of science for the totally unsubstantiated idea that the universe is eternally oscillating.

Which brings us to a good point. "Science" once declared (not that long ago) emphatically that the universe was static and eternal. All of the interpretations then were wrong because the wrong assumptions were made and accepted. Now, only the truly faithful materialists still argue against the idea that the universe had a beginning... they still seek to deny the necessity of a prime cause- which of course naturalism cannot provide.

You apparently believe we are beyond discovering other factors out in the universe that influence our measurements and interpretations. I am not.