The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[Minimalist]

Indeed, everytime when you think you've seen the most idiotic moron that christianity has produced, christainity outdoes itself and produce another more idiotic still.

Yep. They have that in common with the republicans.

[Cinjin]

@Voltair

You must be a real popular kid in that christian school of yours.

Do you keep these thoughts to yourself or do you share them with the class?




...oh to be 18 and know then what I know now ............. if only.

[Statler Waldorf]

First off let me admit something that many of you may find shameful. I have never studied out evolution and for the most part in school (Florida) I did not receive an education in it. That didn't really change much in college either because I am currently still attending that private Christian school as a senior.

That’s really a shame, the more you learn about Darwinism the more absurd you realize it really is.

One thing I am curious to know though is if you have a star that is 5 million light years away and we are seeing the light from it now how in the world can people say the earth was made 6,000 - 15,000 years ago? I have heard that people believe God created the light inbetween so we could see them or the idea that 6,000 - 15,000 years ago the speed of light wasn't the constant that it is now.

God creating the light en route is actually not proposed much anymore, mainly for the reasons that Deist pointed out earlier. Most creationists won’t ascribe to C decay either. I believe currently there are five competing Cosmological models right now that can easily ge the light to Earth in 6,000 years or less, so it really is not much of an issue for Creationists anymore. The more important thing to realize is that the Big Bang cosmological model has the same issue; the universe is not nearly old enough to account for the uniformity of radiation we observe today. So anyone who points to this as a problem for creationism is actually pointing out a huge problem with their own cosmological model.

Is this seriously the best arguments that YEC has to offer? The other baffling thing to me is why people get so worked up with evolution anyway. It has nothing to do with the existence/non-existence of a higher power. The only thing is really shoots in the face is a literal interpretation of Genesis which even some Christians think wasn't intended to be literal in the first place.

My problems with evolution are scientific in nature, not merely Theological.

I am not sure if the speed of light is one of the main arguments against YEC or not but it seems like that elephant in the room itself is enough to make the idea look pretty absurd.

No, it was an issue before the development of our current cosmological models, but it really is not much of an issue anymore. I liken it to the Evolutionist’s version of the old silly “If Evolution were true then why are there still Monkeys?” argument.

Hope this helps!

SW

[Minimalist]

My problems with evolution are scientific in nature, not merely Theological.

Shame since you don't think there is a difference.

[Anomalocaris]

My problems with evolution are scientific in nature, not merely Theological.

Shame since you don't think there is a difference.

The problem of scientific nature is what neurological malfunction could it be for there to still be "theology" after the bronze age.

[stephensalias]

These religion and science debates are fascinating to me. A poster above mentioned that our physical laws show no evidence of changing. Given that, and the law of entropy, how does any model of cosmology make sense? The chain of events that produced life is infinitely ordered. It is so ordered, in fact, that it produced a self ordering human race. Not only that, but the order can be seen even at microscopic levels. How does one account for this scientifically?

[Voltair]

Oh I do share my ideas here don't worry I am 22 and a senior here as well. Funny enough I don't have fights with people just peaceful discussions. In fact before long who knows? Maybe I'll get a few de-converts I don't want to be lonely in Hell. Deconverts are my goal anyway and this winter break I am writing a document that explains my entire position to make my life easier :p

Stalter, what exactly is your position on the earth then? Do you not believe in YEC? I am not trying to attack you just trying to understand what your exact position is.

I will say this though just as evolution doesn't prove that there isn't a God even if the idea did fall apart it wouldn't necessitate God either which is again why I am face-palming in a lot of the discussions about it.

Again Stalter I don't want to make false assumptions but you clearly do not believe evolution represents good science. Are you a proponent of Intelligent Design Science? If I am not mistaken one of the criticisms of evolution is the idea that you can't design an experiment to prove evolution per say.

Assuming that is true though you can definitely not design an experiment to prove intelligent design either. Wouldn't that also necessitate you criticizing intelligent design scientifically? I have never understood why Intelligent Design, which cannot experimentally test for anything, contributes much to the discussion. I am not heavily invested in either of the ideas yet so for me there is a third alternative namely that we don't know yet.

Again haven't researched evolution out enough to defend it but creationism/intelligent design has nothing to do with experimentation either so I just don't get how people can throw out evolution without logically being forced to throw out the other.

[AnunZi]

You’re trying to apply logic to creationists?! I see where you went wrong there….

As to evolution, there is metric fucktons of evidence out there. Many experiments to prove it is in fact possible.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ <--- good place to start!

Now I’m not saying evolution is a fact or 100% defiantly the way it happened. That would be foolish, nobody apart from religious loons claim absolute knowledge.

What I think is that given the available evidence, evolution is by far the mostly likely option.
But don’t take my word for, go forth and read! Come to your own conclusion, that’s the point of science. It doesn’t need to try and “convert” people, science is just there, the information and experimental results are there. Read them, think about it, then make your own mind up based on what you have found.

[Zen Badger]

That’s really a shame, the more you learn about Darwinism the more absurd you realize it really is.

Only if you get your "information" from AIG

God creating the light en route is actually not proposed much anymore, mainly for the reasons that Deist pointed out earlier. Most creationists won’t ascribe to C decay either. I believe currently there are five competing Cosmological models right now that can easily ge the light to Earth in 6,000 years or less, so it really is not much of an issue for Creationists anymore.

And not one of them worth pissing on

BTW, how's your ASC holding up? I have a refutation for that, in the very discovery that revealed that lightspeed was not infinite as previously thought.

My problems with evolution are scientific in nature, not merely Theological.

No, they are theological only, we have yet to see any scientific basis for your bullshit.

Hope this helps!

SW

No.

[tackattack]

---

Is this seriously the best arguments that YEC has to offer?

What else CAN they offer? Try to claim that Andromeda is only 6,000 light years away?

The biggest problem with their apology is it effectively makes Yahweh-Jesus a liar. If the light only appears to indicate the universe is 2 million+ years old, then Yahweh has tricked me. How then can we be certain of anything that comes from his scripture?

The other baffling thing to me is why people get so worked up with evolution anyway. It has nothing to do with the existence/non-existence of a higher power. The only thing is really shoots in the face is a literal interpretation of Genesis which even some Christians think wasn't intended to be literal in the first place.

If Genesis isn't literal, there was no literal fall from grace. No fall from grace means no need for Jesus to redeem us on the cross. No Jesus on the cross means no Christianity. Game. Set. Match.

---

"If Genesis isn't literal, there was no literal fall from grace. No [something is missing here] fall from grace means no need for Jesus to redeem us on the cross. No Jesus on the cross means no Christianity. Game. Set. Match. " Bolding by me

Just because the fall from grace isn't literally as represented from the Bible does not negate it from happening, as an event, in it's entirety. You can see where your argument fell apart I presume?