The Speed of Light

[gray wolf]

Weighty words, Joe!  You definitely do your homework.

[Tristen]

I was actually just looking for a verifiable formula to back up the Gravitational Time Dilation anthonyjmcgirr used to refute the currently accepted science of the age of the universe.  I appreciate the time you took to type all that out, but your assumptions and God of the gaps assertions don't hold water.

 

 

 

 

Hi Jerry, you said, “I was actually just looking for a verifiable formula to back up the Gravitational Time Dilation anthonyjmcgirr used to refute the currently accepted science of the age of the universe.” 

 

My point is that understanding how the figures are derived is far more important than what the figures actually are. If you need the specific math, there are creationist physicists, such as Prof. John Hartnett, who have written extensively on creationist cosmology models.

 

Furthermore, the formulas on the linked page don’t apply to the creationist use of time dilation. They don’t address the amount of time that would be dilated when space is stretched (because there is no scientific way of measuring such an outcome for an unobserved past event). So the question was irrelevant.

 

 

“ I appreciate the time you took to type all that out, but your assumptions and God of the gaps assertions don't hold water.”

 

There is no raw (uninterpreted) scientific observation undermining the possibility of the existence of God. Until we can figure out a way to determine what exists beyond the boundaries of the natural universe (i.e. God, nothing, other etc.), then “God did it” is no less valid than “nature did it” or “It did itself” (if one is prone to reducing opponent’s arguments to misrepresentative, oversimplified rhetorical slogans). We have a model of reality that incorporates a supernatural Deity. Therefore we can appeal to the supernatural without compromising logical consistency. Your refusal to consider one unverifiable faith premise in deference to another unverifiable faith premise only speaks to a lack of objectivity.

 

Nevertheless, I did not present any “God of the gaps” argument. God-of-the-gaps arguments propose to replace a gap in the information with an arbitrary, unspecific supernatural cause (which, as discussed above, is not the outrageous deviation of logic you imply). However, my arguments appealed to two sources of information; scientific theory and explicit claims found in the Bible (the foundational source of my preferred model). So your accusation lacks logical legitimacy.

 

 

Where is photosynthesis whithout the sun? There is a scientific error in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, about the nature of plants. Genesis depicts God creating plants on the third day even though the sun, which is responsible for the ability of plants to live, isn't created until the fourth day. You can't have plants without photosynthesis and you can't have photosynthesis without the sun, so the biblical account of creation contradicts what we know from science.”

 

Photosynthetic plants need light (not necessarily the sun). There was light before plants (Genesis 1:3). Saprophytic and parasitic plants get their energy from sources other than light.

 

Furthermore, as others have pointed out, there was sunlight the very next day after plants were created. The vast majority of photosynthetic plants can survive for more than a day without sunlight (which these plants didn’t have to do – they just had to wait overnight).

 

So your claim of “scientific error” in Genesis is therefore logically unsustainable. The inconsistency you claim is easily remedied with only a moderate amount of thought and consideration of the model in its own context.

[gray wolf]

Good overview of the God of the Gaps ideas and how this is different.

[jerryR34]

 

I was actually just looking for a verifiable formula to back up the Gravitational Time Dilation anthonyjmcgirr used to refute the currently accepted science of the age of the universe.  I appreciate the time you took to type all that out, but your assumptions and God of the gaps assertions don't hold water.

 

 

 

 

Hi Jerry, you said, “I was actually just looking for a verifiable formula to back up the Gravitational Time Dilation anthonyjmcgirr used to refute the currently accepted science of the age of the universe.” 

 

My point is that understanding how the figures are derived is far more important than what the figures actually are.

No, that is not how math works.  No matter how well you describe how well you understand  2+2=5, it doesn't.  If one wants to say that the age of the universe is impacted by time dilation, one must provide the math, not just explain how it "could have" worked.  This is a chance for Creationism to stop attacking current physics, sicience and math and provide actual mathmatical proof of our claims.

[gray wolf]

Think of the creation idea as an alternate hypothesis. At least they're coming up with one

[Guest shiloh357]

Think of the creation idea as an alternate hypothesis. At least they're coming up with one

Creation isn't a hypothesis that Christians came up with.  It is straight from the truth of Scripture.

[Tristen]

 

 

I was actually just looking for a verifiable formula to back up the Gravitational Time Dilation anthonyjmcgirr used to refute the currently accepted science of the age of the universe.  I appreciate the time you took to type all that out, but your assumptions and God of the gaps assertions don't hold water.

 

 

 

 

Hi Jerry, you said, “I was actually just looking for a verifiable formula to back up the Gravitational Time Dilation anthonyjmcgirr used to refute the currently accepted science of the age of the universe.” 

 

My point is that understanding how the figures are derived is far more important than what the figures actually are.

No, that is not how math works.  No matter how well you describe how well you understand  2+2=5, it doesn't.  If one wants to say that the age of the universe is impacted by time dilation, one must provide the math, not just explain how it "could have" worked.  This is a chance for Creationism to stop attacking current physics, sicience and math and provide actual mathmatical proof of our claims.

 

 

 

Hey Jerry, you said “No, that is not how math works.  No matter how well you describe how well you understand  2+2=5, it doesn't.”

 

I would suggest that if one concludes that “2+2=5”, they actually don’t “understand” simple addition. But we are not dealing with simple addition. We are solving complex equations for an unknown variable – which is exactly the way the figures for Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Inflation were calculated for the secular cosmology model.

 

 

“If one wants to say that the age of the universe is impacted by time dilation, one must provide the math, not just explain how it "could have" worked.”

 

All of the parameters for the secular model are theoretical conceptualizations. None have been scientifically observed. They are simply ideas that have been formulated to remedy inconsistencies in the secular model. For example, when it was discovered that the current model couldn’t explain the observed structure of galaxies, someone came up with the idea that – maybe there is matter in the universe that we just haven’t discovered yet. Then the equation was solved to give us the amount of “Dark Matter” that would be required to make the model consistent with the observations. Understanding the logical process is more important than memorizing the equation. All models rely heavily on unobserved theoretical aspects; i.e. “how it "could have" worked”.

 

Nevertheless, if you need the math for the creationist models, then you can look up creationist physicists who have been involved in their development. I mentioned John Hartnett in a previous post because the model he proposes is (to my knowledge) the latest and most widely accepted model among informed creationists. You could also look up Russel Humphreys and Danny Faulkner; both highly credentialed physicists who have written extensively on creationist cosmology models.

 

Here are two examples of papers written for a creationist journal;

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_3/j22_3_84-92.pdf

 

 

 

“This is a chance for Creationism to stop attacking current physics, sicience and math and provide actual mathmatical proof of our claims”

 

Like I said, the math is there if you have the time to do the research. But knowing how the figures are derived is more important.

 

According to the scientific method, subjecting current ideas to scrutiny and presenting alternative ideas, is a perfectly legitimate pursuit. From a scientific perspective, questioning is not “attacking”. The suggestion that any idea is immune from such scrutiny stems from faith, not science.

 

So I have not ‘attacked’ anything. Pointing out the inherent weaknesses of an argument is a legitimate, rational strategy.

 

You however, have heavily employed Innuendo (a logical fallacy – and therefore irrational strategy) to undermine the creationist position. You have described our model in terms of being ‘sickening’ and ‘illegitimate science’ and ‘inhibiting science’ and ‘stifling learning’ (so add Unsupported Assertions to the logical fallacy list). You have presented Strawman misrepresentations of our position (another logical fallacy); in describing our arguments as “God of the gaps”. You have made an appeal to peer-review (which is effectively an Appeal to Authority – another logical fallacy); demonstrating an unjustified faith in the objectivity of a process which is (ironically) not supported by peer-review itself. You have employed further unsupported Innuendo in describing our view as a ‘departure from reality’. You have made several Unsupported Assertions about the incompatibility of science and a model which incorporates the supernatural. You have misapplied Occam’s Razor to a premise rather than the argument. You have used a false convergence of historical-claim and experimental-science as another Strawman argument against our position. You have made Unsupported Assertions regarding the nature of the Bible, and it’s original audience. And that’s just in this thread.

 

So whilst I am not offended in the slightest by your strategy, I do think it is a bit precious to describe our position in terms of aggression.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Tristen

[gray wolf]

I chose poor words.  I do not mean creation is actually a hypothesis, but these speculations are a hypothesis of HOW God did it. The details and mechanisms are not revealed in Scripture, we really do not know. It tells us WHAT God did. I do not dispute that.  But the danger lies in taking scientific speculation as absolute truth, then having that idea proved wrong later and looking foolish.  I have seen a prominent apologist doing this very thing with respect to the hypothesis of singularity and the Big Bang.  

[Tristen]

I chose poor words.  I do not mean creation is actually a hypothesis, but these speculations are a hypothesis of HOW God did it. The details and mechanisms are not revealed in Scripture, we really do not know. It tells us WHAT God did. I do not dispute that.  But the danger lies in taking scientific speculation as absolute truth, then having that idea proved wrong later and looking foolish.  I have seen a prominent apologist doing this very thing with respect to the hypothesis of singularity and the Big Bang.  

 

 

Hey gray wolf, you said “The details and mechanisms are not revealed in Scripture, we really do not know. It tells us WHAT God did. I do not dispute that.  But the danger lies in taking scientific speculation as absolute truth, then having that idea proved wrong later and looking foolish.”

 

I agree. And all of the creationist physicists that I have heard who have proposed creationist cosmology models readily acknowledge the speculative nature of the weaker aspects of their models. Creationists in particular understand the error associated with attributing scientific confidence to any claim about the past (and I have never heard any claim that their ideas represent “absolute truth”).

 

But there are three things to consider;

 

1. Opponents of our position constantly claim that their model is the only valid interpretation of the evidence – and apply this unsubstantiated innuendo to undermine the theistic position. They often misrepresent their position as “proof” or “fact”. I once heard a famous secular physicist claim that Bing Bang theory should be scientific law – which is an outrageous misrepresentation of scientific terminology. So pointing out the highly speculative nature of the secular models is necessary to undermine this propensity for secular exaggeration.

 

2. Our critics will attack us if we don’t present a rational, cohesive model – as though if we don’t know everything, that automatically means we are wrong. Our presented models don’t have to ultimately be true; they only have to demonstrate a logically plausible model of reality that is consistent with Biblical theism – providing a rational alternative to the bombardment of secularist indoctrination that the world is constantly exposed to. Having a plausible, rational model also strengthens the faith of Christians – who now don’t need to feel embarrassed by the unjustified mocking of secularists.

 

3. Modern science has its philosophical foundations in Christianity. So a Christian has as much right to engage in the scientific process as a secularist. We simply employ the same scientific method from a theistic faith perspective (in contrast to the popular naturalistic faith perspective). We should be permitted to engage in speculation and hypothesis forming along with all the non-Christian scientists.

[Hall7]

Some Scientists now believe that the Universe is a Hologram, I actually kind of pictured it that way before that theory was mentioned to me. It would make easier to understand how everything is possible to God. I see us and everything as a giant computer program and all God has to do is press keys (in a metaphorical sense), or rather "speak", kind of like a voice recognition program. Can you see it?