N
niceatheist
Guest
That’s like suggesting the World Weekly Star for journalism. AiG is nonsense, lies and gibberish.
- Status
H
Hope1960
Guest
You obviously didn’t watch the presentation.
D
Delphinus
Guest
Agreed…that should tell you how bad the other ones were. The second most popular I heard was “Because God allowed Satan to mislead us with science to test our faithfulness.” >.>
H
Hope1960
Guest
I kind of expected Buffalo to jump in here.
H
Hope1960
Guest
Has anyone watched it yet?
L
leonhardprintz
Guest
No, and I don’t plan to. I don’t do argument by weblink or video. You can offer it for people’s but you can also summarise for the benefit of the viewers the arguments presented.
I’m not at all swayed by colorful high production value presentations, @Hope1960.
It being Answers in Genesis, I’m assuming the arguments being made revolve either around the speed of light having been faster in the past (and the video purports to show some evidence of this), or that what’s called the two-way the speed of light is constant, but the one-way speed of light is different in such a way as to allow starlight to reach Earth extremely fast, so that we view stars with almost simultanity?
Of course there’s always the old argument that God created Adam and Eve as adults, so why couldn’t He simply create the universe already fully matured.
Am I wrong in my guesses? I’m already very familiar with all the arguments that Answers in Genesis have put forward. All you’d have to do is summarise the video.
I’m not at all swayed by colorful high production value presentations, @Hope1960.
It being Answers in Genesis, I’m assuming the arguments being made revolve either around the speed of light having been faster in the past (and the video purports to show some evidence of this), or that what’s called the two-way the speed of light is constant, but the one-way speed of light is different in such a way as to allow starlight to reach Earth extremely fast, so that we view stars with almost simultanity?
Of course there’s always the old argument that God created Adam and Eve as adults, so why couldn’t He simply create the universe already fully matured.
Am I wrong in my guesses? I’m already very familiar with all the arguments that Answers in Genesis have put forward. All you’d have to do is summarise the video.
H
Hope1960
Guest
I was trying to type out notes to his presentation so I probably missed some important points but basically he gave possible solutions to the time problem, as well as their objections.
First of all, he said Bible used actual 24 hour days.
He said creation was a one time, supernatural event that can’t be repeated.
He said that it pleases God for us to try to understand
He said travel time is equation time of 670,000,000 light years away
He said he doesn’t recommend argument the distances of galaxies but that the distances are correct or close.
He said he doesn’t recommend theory that light was created on its way. That we see supernovas blowing themselves to bits.
He said cdk light speed didn’t (or maybe did) stay same the whole time, it doesn’t violate Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Is it testable? Nothing has shown speed of light decreased.
He talked about gravitational time dilation and how clocks tick more slowly in deeper gravitational wells and the problem with that theory.
Continued below:
L
leonhardprintz
Guest
I’ve got a little bit of time before my job starts, but unfortunately I won’t be able to answer you for quite a few hours. I will just deal with one aspect.
If young earth creationists were content to stick entirely to a claim of obedience towards a particular interpretation of the Church Fathers, and hold this despite modern science and even in the face of it, I’d find that to something I could respect.
Its when young earth creationists try to make the claim that the findings of science support their beliefs that I disagree.
So sorry, I won’t deal with anything Bible related, but I’ll commend on the science.
Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis in general, will always go for a Scripture first approach. I think that’s commendable, even if I disagree with it ultimately. I won’t deal with exegesis of the Bible, that’s above my paygrade. Suffice it to say that the Church has always taken a great latitude in regards to the interpretation of Genesis.
If young earth creationists were content to stick entirely to a claim of obedience towards a particular interpretation of the Church Fathers, and hold this despite modern science and even in the face of it, I’d find that to something I could respect.
Its when young earth creationists try to make the claim that the findings of science support their beliefs that I disagree.
So sorry, I won’t deal with anything Bible related, but I’ll commend on the science.
I’m not sure I understand this sentence.
Neither would I. So that’s good.
I agree, the idea that starlight was created en-route, doesn’t make sense either.
I think you’ll have to unpack this a bit more. “cdk light speed”?
H
Hope1960
Guest
Continued:
He talked about local time vs universal time. Said bible uses local time. And talked about cosmic local time and cosmic universal time and how it relates to both the bible and distances of galaxies.
He said that since this was a supernatural event, a God could’ve sped up time in universe or slowed time on earth
He emphasized that distant starlight doesn’t prove universe is old.
Dr.Jason Lisle Ph.D. Is a creationist astrophysicist
who graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double majored in physics and astronomy, minored in mathematics. Grad. work a University of a Colorado where he earned a Masters and PhD in astrophysics.
Forgive me if some of what I wrote seems incomplete as I was typing notes to his lecture on my phone while watching the video on my iPad. If you’d watch it yourself you’ll get a better idea of the whole lecture.
He talked about local time vs universal time. Said bible uses local time. And talked about cosmic local time and cosmic universal time and how it relates to both the bible and distances of galaxies.
He said that since this was a supernatural event, a God could’ve sped up time in universe or slowed time on earth
He emphasized that distant starlight doesn’t prove universe is old.
Dr.Jason Lisle Ph.D. Is a creationist astrophysicist
who graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double majored in physics and astronomy, minored in mathematics. Grad. work a University of a Colorado where he earned a Masters and PhD in astrophysics.
Forgive me if some of what I wrote seems incomplete as I was typing notes to his lecture on my phone while watching the video on my iPad. If you’d watch it yourself you’ll get a better idea of the whole lecture.
L
leonhardprintz
Guest
I agree, young earth creationists can always (and have) invoked countless extra miracles to explain and harmonise the incongruencies we find in science compared to what we read in Bible. If you add enough of them you can explain anything.
If all that’s being claimed is that God miraculously did things in such a thing, then I have little to object with other than question why He would do that.
Its only when scientific arguments are attempted by young earth creationists that I’ll argue anything.
D
Dovekin
Guest
This is the most problematic point. He is replacing a universal scientific constant, c=speed of light. A “cosmic universal time” usually gives way to the constancy of c, but this has to be overturned to make God the absolute constant. This is a rejection of relativity, and with it, modern science.
Once he has introduced a constant like God or universal time, anything makes about as much sense. God can reorder things so that c decreases exponentially. Or so that unicorns are our principal transport. It may sound reasonable, or not.
God of course is constant, but only as pure act. God cannot replace the constant c, or any other constant in a mathematic formula.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
This.Hope1960:
You won’t find it.
Young earth is not scientifically defensible.
You can’t find a sound scientific defense of something that is flatly unscientific.
It’s like demanding a sound scientific defense of the theory that the earth is a series of turtles stacked on one another to infinity. It’s just not in any way grounded on science, and is in fact an explicit repudiation of science.
H
Hope1960
Guest
So then are you saying that everybody at the Lutheran LCMS is wrong, including the pastor who studied a lot to become a pastor?
N
niceatheist
Guest
The “tired light” claim was debunked many years ago. So far as I can tell, AiG hasn’t had an original claim in about 20 years. Observation tells us that the speed of light has been constant for at least most of the Universe’s history, and the value of c is wrapped up in all manner of other constants like the fine structure constant. You can’t just alter c without altering all manner of physical phenomenon.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Truth isn’t determined by democracy, so yes, both this organization and this pastor are just plain wrong.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Physicists studied a lot to become physicists, too.
Your Catholic priest studied a lot to become a priest.
Just because someone studied a lot doesn’t mean they’re right.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
When it comes to measuring the speed of light, both current, and throughout the history of the Universe, I’d be more likely to look at what physicists say and how they arrive at their numbers than an organization that has a vested interest in trying to forcefit a literal interpretation of Genesis, and actual observation and theory be ignored or misinterpreted simply for that purpose.Hope1960:
Physicists studied a lot to become physicists, too.
Your Catholic priest studied a lot to become a priest.
Just because someone studied a lot doesn’t mean they’re right.
We know as much as we know anything that the speed of light has been constant for most of the universe’s history. We know the value of c is wrapped in all other manner of physical phenomenon. The “tired light” claim is not a scientific one, it’s just gibberish for the purposes of raising an objection. If indeed the speed of light had changed by any significant amount at any point in the evolution of the Universe, this would be big news indeed, and while I’m sure some researchers would be unhappy, science isn’t there to make people happy. Believe me, I’m following what appears to be the slow death of super-symmetry (and with it string theory), and while a lot of physicists are pretty freaked out about it, because it did represent a very significant means of finding a “theory of everything”, but the Universe doesn’t care about the elegance of any model, if it doesn’t fit observation and experiment, then aesthetics ceases to be a strong argument.
Tired light is a gibberish claim invented by people who desperately want a Young Earth to be true.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
To be clear, my point was simply that the fact that the Lutheran pastor studied a bunch doesn’t lend him any authority above the many people who have studied just as much or more and disagree with his conclusions.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
It’s a pretty standard fallacious appeal to authority. It’s one thing if you can find some physicists that claim tired light is true (and to be clear, all physicists will state that they can only be certain that C was constant only so far back, but no one thinks it was as slow as “tired light” needs to be to explain away red shift). A Lutheran Pastor is not an authority on physics, any more than a cosmologist is likely to be an authority on Lutheran theology.
- Status