Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why would the LORD not be able to manipulate the speed of light in the same way he made an ax float on water, made the sun and the moon stand still, made water gush from a rock, and birthed Jesus from a virgin?
Thanks for the replies. My only concern in saying, "Well, science rests on many theories that aren't yet proven and many scientific theories are proved false," while technically true, that is simply not how we usually live our day to day lives. We use a lot of scientific stuff and presuppose not only that it works, but that the theory behind it is sound, whether or not is has fully mature epistemic status.
I'm just a school teacher, not a scientist. But, I always wondered if we know for sure that the speed of light is consistent in space. Do we know for sure that the speed of light is consistent and not something that exponentially increases in velocity? This isn't something we can scientifically test, since we can only really test light from the sun or on earth.
I just watched this and read the CMI line by line response lol, it was soooo long. P.S. all of the debates I've seen on creationism on the Ankerberg show so far have been very unfairly moderated.As if there aren't enough posts answering this already, and because I don't presume to be able to answer it all in one post, here is a link that is extraordinarily helpful in the old earth/young earth debate, the old earth fellow being a Reformed, "Progressive Creationist". (Yes, I know that the young earth side is not well represented.)
Hugh Ross vs Kent Hovind - How Old Is The Earth? - YouTube
Hugh ross in that debate (or another one) spoke about how light waves change when traveling a far distance, I think he said they turn redder the further they go and the ways spread out? Can anyone speak to this? is that true? and he said that this is what we do infact observe from distant stars, in making his argument for OEC, can anyone speak to this if it is true from a YEC perspective? Thanks.I'm just a school teacher, not a scientist. But, I always wondered if we know for sure that the speed of light is consistent in space. Do we know for sure that the speed of light is consistent and not something that exponentially increases in velocity? This isn't something we can scientifically test, since we can only really test light from the sun or on earth.
Hugh ross in that debate (or another one) spoke about how light waves change when traveling a far distance, I think he said they turn redder the further they go and the ways spread out? Can anyone speak to this? is that true? and he said that this is what we do infact observe from distant stars, in making his argument for OEC, can anyone speak to this if it is true from a YEC perspective? Thanks.
I'm not very good at science, so I might phrase this poorly, but the light from stars contains information of a sorts. Yet the light from stars takes a really long time to get here (light years or something). yet the world was only created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. So, was the starlight at the original moment stars were created "real" information or "apparent" information?
Sarah (good to hear from you, BTW), one form of information Jacob is likely to be referring to are astronomical events such as supernovas & etc. that come to us from distances ascertained through current models to be more light-years away when they occurred than scripture describes as the age of creation. If we rely on current models of the speed of light, those events would tend to stand as a refutation of the biblical account.I'm not very good at science, so I might phrase this poorly, but the light from stars contains information of a sorts. Yet the light from stars takes a really long time to get here (light years or something). yet the world was only created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. So, was the starlight at the original moment stars were created "real" information or "apparent" information?
I feel I am missing something from your question since others seem to not be missing the "information" of which you speak. What "information" are you referring?
Sarah (good to hear from you, BTW), one form of information Jacob is likely to be referring to are astronomical events such as supernovas & etc. that come to us from distances ascertained through current models to be more light-years away when they occurred than scripture describes as the age of creation. If we rely on current models of the speed of light, those events would tend to stand as a refutation of the biblical account.I'm not very good at science, so I might phrase this poorly, but the light from stars contains information of a sorts. Yet the light from stars takes a really long time to get here (light years or something). yet the world was only created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. So, was the starlight at the original moment stars were created "real" information or "apparent" information?
I feel I am missing something from your question since others seem to not be missing the "information" of which you speak. What "information" are you referring?
If the light from a street light is bright as you stand under it but begins to dim the further you move away from it, is that a culmination of the human eye's inability for long distant vision plus outward obstacles which blocks the light from our sight? And/or does light fade into nothingness within the element of darkness? If all three of these disadvantages hinder us from perpetually seeing the light from a street lamp no matter how far away you stand from the street light, could it be that the three obstacles I mentioned above are within the universe to some degree (perhaps something along the lines of gravity, meteors, planets, etc) which could disadvantage starlight's approach to us?
But does red shift change to a point that it is measurable in a way that the red shift increases as the distance increases? As far as I know our measurements of stars is fairly accurate and we know the universe is expanding, I'm still curious about the YEC perspective on the increase of "stretchedness" of waves as distance increases (red shift) in a young universe.
That's actually exactly what I was thinking thanks! I would like to read some technical papers on this if anyone has come across any links would be great!Just going off the cuff and speculating but there could very well have been an exponential decay of expansion rate, which would account for a red shift from distant stars without requiring a very, very long time to get here.
My first thought is space dust, I think there is 1000 particles per square mile (don't quote me on it), They have done studies already on how this effects light travel and how this fits into the young earth timescale.could it be that the three obstacles I mentioned above are within the universe to some degree (perhaps something along the lines of gravity, meteors, planets, etc) which could disadvantage starlight's approach to us?
I think the problem comes if you were to carbon date Adam's teeth you'd find they are only a day old (when he was created) and though he appeared to be about 30 yrs old he still appeared brand new, i.e. his cholesterol was perfect, no chipped teeth, no wrinkles, etc. And rocks when dated are young. Maybe tree rings might make a better case but the bible doesn't say whether the trees God created ex nihlio already had rings in them or not, plus they were all wiped out at the flood.I appreciate the concern with starlight containing fictitious data; but is that really different than the data contained in rocks or Adam's bones and teeth.
Tree rings are a good example of why YEC is troubling to so many, including myself. We have learned how to read tree rings for specific climate data, allowing us to reconstruct conditions in many places regions of the world. These reconstructions are extremely accurate in every place where we can cross-check them with recorded data.
Now, there are some very old plants out there. Several have tree rings going back 5,000+ years, right through when usual estimates of the flood would have occurred. But trees rarely live more than 5,000 years. However, one can actually establish sequences of tree rings to extend back farther than any one tree. That is, if you have 3 or 4 trees that each partially overlapped in their lifespans, you can find the points of intersection between them and then add them together to create a continuous sequence. These sequences have been extended back over 10,000 years.
So, the YEC position requires a magic wall. All the years back to the creation year, the tree rings give us real data about climate and its effect on the the tree. But then suddenly and without any indication of change, the tree rings stop referring to real events and simply evidence whatever fake history God inscribed in them. And since we don't know the exact year of creation, we can never tell where the line between real history and random creation-data is.
Tree rings are just one example. Others include ice cores, coral reefs, geographical strata, etc. What's so spectacular about these methods is that when one cross-checks one dating mechanism (say tree rings) against others (carbon dating, strata), they almost always yield consistent information. It's almost as if they contained data about real historical events...
Tree rings are a good example of why YEC is troubling to so many, including myself. We have learned how to read tree rings for specific climate data, allowing us to reconstruct conditions in many places regions of the world. These reconstructions are extremely accurate in every place where we can cross-check them with recorded data.
Now, there are some very old plants out there. Several have tree rings going back 5,000+ years, right through when usual estimates of the flood would have occurred. But trees rarely live more than 5,000 years. However, one can actually establish sequences of tree rings to extend back farther than any one tree. That is, if you have 3 or 4 trees that each partially overlapped in their lifespans, you can find the points of intersection between them and then add them together to create a continuous sequence. These sequences have been extended back over 10,000 years.
So, the YEC position requires a magic wall. All the years back to the creation year, the tree rings give us real data about climate and its effect on the the tree. But then suddenly and without any indication of change, the tree rings stop referring to real events and simply evidence whatever fake history God inscribed in them. And since we don't know the exact year of creation, we can never tell where the line between real history and random creation-data is.
Tree rings are just one example. Others include ice cores, coral reefs, geographical strata, etc. What's so spectacular about these methods is that when one cross-checks one dating mechanism (say tree rings) against others (carbon dating, strata), they almost always yield consistent information. It's almost as if they contained data about real historical events...
But this assumes uniformitarianism, that these life cycles were all uniform, that isn't observable data, it is historic science.So, the YEC position requires a magic wall. All the years back to the creation year, the tree rings give us real data about climate and its effect on the the tree. But then suddenly and without any indication of change, the tree rings stop referring to real events
Which they most certainly would be because they all experienced the same catastrophic event (like the flood) or other event, that changed the Constants, for instance the flood changing the atmosphere etc and its connection to the fossil record being created (mostly) and life span of humans changing.What's so spectacular about these methods is that when one cross-checks one dating mechanism (say tree rings) against others (carbon dating, strata), they almost always yield consistent information. It's almost as if they contained data about real historical events...
How Long Does a Coral Reef Take to Grow? - Answers in GenesisOthers include ice cores, coral reefs, geographical strata,