Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Creation Science - Are commenters deceptive? Part one.

Comments, we have comments! Let's start with scohen, always glad to hear from him! I don't think scohen means to be deceptive but you will see that he is certainly confused! My remarks will be in blue!

~~~~~~~

scohen said...

Radar,
I LOVED this article. I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. Please, post more like this --you made my day.

Judging by what you will say later on, must be nervous laughter!

Just to show I was paying attention, your argument can be re-stated as: "God is not deceptive, he just went to great lengths to deceive us."

You are missing the point so far, since I was explaining why there was no deception whatsoever....we are not off to a good start here, I am afraid. The primary point was that God created the light first and then the sources of the light so that said light would be continue to shine. Not a tough concept, is it? I mean, either he has raging balls of fire placed millions of miles away to do the job, or he would have had to make a much smaller and less spectacular Universe. Keep in mind that I am quoting from the Book of Genesis, written a few thousand years earlier, not making things up out of whole cloth.

Then you go for the one-two punch of "A secular view of light years/the speed of light" and then the comment about the light the size of Cleveland. That's one hell of a light!

Well, if he was putting in track lights and a drop ceiling instead of stars, the lights bulbs would have to be pretty big, right? Did you not detect just a hint of sarcasm??

Do tell, what's the theistic speed of light? Does that mean if you measure the speed of light, it will be different than if I measure it? Does light have a Jewish speed, a Christian speed and an Atheist speed?

I didn't say there was a theistic speed or even a school zone speed of light. Now you are making things up. Sleight of verbal hand? (Hmmm, or verbal sleight of hand? Or, since it is weak thing to do, maybe slight of hand? Hey, now I get to laugh!)

Unfortunately, your science is flawed (natch).

1. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant.

In a vacuum. Hmmm. So it is a constant only under certain controlled circumstances. That isn't much of a constant, is it? If the value for pi is only true in the Northern Hemisphere, is it really a constant?

2. Moving outwards from a single point doesn't prevent collisions. They happen ALL the time, from things falling into black holes to stars smashing into one another to entire galaxies colliding. Get a telescope and see for yourself, it's quite fascinating.

Moving outward prevents most collisions. If you think things get dicey sometimes now, imagine if everything was moving towards the middle rather than away??? Hmmmm?


We now have observed that the speed of light is not a constant and that the average rate of the speed of light may well be decaying.

No, we have not. This is totally false, and if you can actually show this to be true, you'll win the Nobel prize.

I can point you to scientists who are researching this very idea, actually. Article link:

Speed of light slowing down?

Or how about this one, an entire page full of links on the subject? There are a good number of scientists who wonder if the speed of light is, indeed, slowing down and are looking to see if that speed can be plotted on a standard decay curve. Say what you like, we know that the speed of light can be varied and there are those that suspect that it is not a constant at all.



Light can seem to move faster than it should in certain situations and other times, slower.

Again, this statement is totally incorrect. Light behaves exactly as predicted, every time. It might less rapidly in one medium than in another, but we expect that to happen. For even more fun, particles can exceed the speed of light in the medium in which they travel, which produces cherenkov radiation. However, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, unchanging, and can be thought of as the galactic speed limit. C: It's not just a good idea --it's the law.

This is funny. I say it moves faster or slower in some situations and you say, no, it moves faster or slower in some situations....Huh? It depends on what the meaning of "is" is? Your statement seems to be that, after we find a situation in which the speed of light varies, we note it so it is then expected going forward and therefore having noted it, we can predict the variation? So? My statement remains true and unchallenged.


The study of Quantum physics has thrown the Newtonian view of the Universe into the corner,

Not true at all, quantum physics only applies to very small things. Newtonian motion (with the added corrections of relativity) predicts the movement of the planets, galaxies and galaxy clusters very well.

Hahahahaha! You did it again! We used to call them, "Newtons Laws", but how about now? Newtonian physics is used as a way to estimate such things but cannot be used with complete precision because, as you said, the "added corrections of relativity" come into play. Because quantum physics has displaced newtonian physics, as I said. I am beginning to think that when you say "no", you mean "yes!" (I do hope you explain this personal quirk to the girls you date before you go out with them, you know, to avoid any legal issues down the road?)

there are fuzzy areas between particles and waves and odd relationships between operations and the observation of those operations.

And this affects galaxies, planets and large quantities of light how? Do they change if we observe them? Can a galaxy act like a particle or a wave? Can you perform the two-slit experiment with a galaxy? A human? A mosquito?

No, you can't.

..and you cannot get a cup of coffee for a quarter anymore, either. I have no idea why you want to mention the two-slit experiment (but I heartily approve of trying it on any and all mosquitoes! Especially those in residence locally). Oh, mentioning the double-slit experiment takes the focus off of the real issues. Cool. The point is simply that scientists keep getting surprised by new discoveries about the Universe, while the account of the creation of said Universe, written thousands of years ago, continues to be a logical, albeit supernatural, solution. If Genesis was written by a couple of unschooled, sheep-herding priests back in the day, man, they sure knew an awful lot about science!


The nature of the Universe is a continual surprise to those who study it.

That's absolutely true. Gotta love astrophysics and astronomy. That said, it's being open to new ideas, making observations coming up with hypothesis and having them confirmed or discarded that's interesting. These disciplines do not continually hammer a square peg into a round hole and declare that they're correct (all the while discarding evidence that contradicts their hypothesis).

And that's the big problem here, you start out with a hypothesis and discard, question or ignore evidence that disagrees with it, rather than simply realizing that your initial hypothesis is wrong. It's too bad really, the universe is a fascinating, beautiful place, and the fact that it's at least billions of years old is readily apparent.

Well, I certainly hope that you don't think your comments proved how I am wrong and you are right! You claim that the speed of light never changes and then mention ways in which we have observed it to change. You declare that Newtonian physics is still in place even as you admit it has been replaced/augmented because of discoveries related to relativity. You fail to directly address even one of my hypotheses and then claim that you've contradicted them!
No one human living today, not schohen, not radar, can go back in time even a thousand years to make observations of that time. We must depend on historical data. There is very little historical data that can be found beyond that time frame and there is absolutely none beyond maybe 4,000 years. So all dates and times beyond that point are completely speculative. scohen, you have no chance of proving that the Universe is 15 billion years old except perhaps in your own mind.

Perhaps you can go back to my post and actually address my hypotheses and show me where I have gone wrong rather than disagree with me while conceding my points? Or, perhaps my points cannot be disproven? Then we go back to the idea of presupposition and worldview again, don't we? My worldview can beat up your worldview!

I suggest that there was an Observing God at the time of the creation of all things, and He has given an account of creation in the Book of Genesis. The Bible isn't meant to be a scientific textbook, granted, but once scientists knew that if they speculated upon something that was refuted in the Bible, they were on the wrong track. Now, secular scientists almost seem to go to the Bible in order to make sure they are moving in the opposite direction.
Lava
If God just placed immovable objects in the heavens, gravity would begin to work upon them and eventually the stars would begin heading towards the nearest neighbor.

This makes me think of the Homer Simpson quote "could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?"

If God placed immovable objects, would they not be immovable?

But God decided to create things THIS WAY. He invented gravity, for instance, and a Universe full of moving objects. If you are asking me, or telling me, that God could have done it a different way, I agree. How does that make a point, though?

if God was going to make this massive Universe as it is, how else would he deal with the light question? Hmmm?

God could have set forth the events of the big bang.

God could have. He could have created Godzilla and set him loose in Tokyo. But He told us in Genesis how He did it and somehow He seemed to have forgotten that Big Bang thing and all those billions of years....or, more plausibly, they didn't happen.

Mazement

Mazement said...

But God wanted to present to us a massive, incredible, awesome Universe as a way of trying to illustrate how awesome and magnificent the Creator of said Universe really is.

Here's the Wikipedia article on Supernova 1987a.

Basically we got to see a star explode. There were a lot of fancy pyrotechnics, and neutrino bursts and stuff. I didn't get to see it because it was in the Southern hemisphere, sigh.

The star was 168,000 light years away. So if the universe is only 6,000 years old, the star never existed, and the explosion never happened. It was a fake; a mirage. If God had teleported Adam to that location, all he would have seen was a dust cloud that looked to be 162,000 years old. (That's assuming that point in space even exists. If the Universe ends within the next 162,000 years, then nothing that has ever existed in that place can have any effect on Earth.)

Any chance God had a reason to create that light and that image? I'm just asking...because you seem to be unable to discern the reason He'd do it. Perhaps you and I would have to be closer to the Mind of God to even understand why? I mean, an ant cannot fathom why God designed a planet upon which rain falls, while man finds it to be a plausible and necessary occurence.

I dunno. I'd be impressed by a God who wanted to create a vast magnificent Universe that was billions of years old and billions of light-years across.

Good. I am similarly impressed.

And I'd be just as impressed by a God who chose to create a smaller, shorter-lived universe, especially if it were a really intricate one. (Size isn't everything!)

Hmm. Okay, so far you say you are predisposed to be impressed by a Creator God?

But what about a God who chose to create a small universe, and then set up a facade to make it look like it was bigger and older than it really was? Well, I'd still be impressed...I can't create any kind of universe...but I'd be a little suspicious, too. Especially if He started asking for money or favors.

Tell you the truth, if I could completely understand God it would make him way too much like me and not nearly awesome enough to be God. It makes sense that God would do things in ways that were at times incomprehensible to us. If I have to understand God to believe in Him then I am in serious trouble. However, He gave us written Words to help us understand Him to an extent, He didn't want us to be ignorant of Him. I therefore choose to believe those Words and I base my worldview upon them. Hence, I am not only impressed by the Creator God, I am not in the least suspicious of Him!
Creeper/Anon

This post is already too long. I'll start with Creeper's comments next time!