Astronomic events that never happened?

[Tristen]

20 hours ago, one.opinion said:

What you have demonstrated is that you will choose to use a "model", regardless if it is supported by anything but conjecture, to explain away anything inconsistent with your view of creation.

Do you even realize the inconsistency of your argument? "Links are sufficient to support my point, but not yours."

But reading your link did reveal some interesting information.

"Gravitational lensing has also helped astronomers see many distant galaxies that would otherwise be too faint to spot. Because light takes time to zip through space, the farther away a galaxy is, the farther back in time it essentially is; therefore, observing these galaxies reveals details about the early universe. For instance, gravitational lensing caused by a galaxy cluster about 2,000 times the mass of the Milky Way revealed a galaxy that existed when the universe was about 500 million years old (2)"

I'm not certain this article is the best evidence supporting your model. I didn't read anything about how gravitational lensing supports the model of a 6,000 year old universe.

“What you have demonstrated is that you will choose to use a "model", regardless if it is supported by anything but conjecture, to explain away anything inconsistent with your view of creation. ”

Well, setting aside the fact that you have completely ignored my argument, the reality is, your preferred model is no more better “supported” than mine, and no less “conjecture” than mine. The models are all formulated by the same logical process (i.e. trying to explain the facts in light of our existing presuppositions), and subsequently supported by the same standards (i.e. consistency between the facts and the model). So you can continue flogging that dead “conjecture” horse all you like, but until you can provide a fact that can only be interpreted to be consistent with your preferred model, such accusations exclusively against my position are little more than Special Pleading.

I think your rationale suffers from logical inconsistencies. You believe in the God of the Bible – i.e. a God who clearly interacts with His creation; including overriding the natural order. But you then obligate yourself to naturalistic interpretations of the available facts (i.e. interpretations which assume that God has had no involvement in the progression of the natural universe). In your eyes, the “evidence” only “suggests” what the naturalistic philosophy permits. Anyone who dares deviate from the naturalistic philosophy must therefore be engaging in pure "conjecture".

 

“Do you even realize the inconsistency of your argument? "Links are sufficient to support my point, but not yours."”

Right – so the link you provided was to a site by some, no doubt, well meaning person trying to educate lay people on how vast distances are measured (which you believed over the facts evident in the research paper you yourself brought to the discussion). The link I provided was to a referenced article in the respected (secular) peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

You, yet again, pointed me to someone else's argument rather than make a case for yourself. I pointed you to a source of evidence you requested for a claim I made.

 

“I'm not certain this article is the best evidence supporting your model. I didn't read anything about how gravitational lensing supports the model of a 6,000 year old universe. ”

So this appears to be your latest 'gotcha' strategy – ignore the actual point being discussed, then point out that the secular resource I provided is operating under secular, rather than creationist assumptions.

You implied that we could be confident about the historical path of energy detected on earth. I claimed that in order for that to be true, we have to make stupendous assumptions about what could have happened to that energy over unimaginable time and distance. I used gravitational lensing as an example of a factor that can affect the path of light on its journey through space. You asked for evidence. I provided a secular source (since I know it is unlikely you would trust creationist sources). You then proceeded to ignore the point, instead pointing out that the secular source clearly operates under the secular presupposition.

So then, to avoid any future confusion, I would like to acknowledge the likelihood that any secular resource I provide is, at least, as addicted to the secular story as you – and will tend to defer to the same, obligatory, secular interpretation of the facts as you. However, I don't consider that to mean that their provided rationale and reported facts are exempt from scrutiny or use by creationists such as myself.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

“I'm not certain this article is the best evidence supporting your model. I didn't read anything about how gravitational lensing supports the model of a 6,000 year old universe. ”

So this appears to be your latest 'gotcha' strategy

Instead of suggesting an unfair "strategy", I would suggest using literature that supports your claim instead of contradicting it.

My preferred interpretation is that light in space is doing what scientists can observe it doing in a lab - namely traveling at approximately 300,000,000 meters per second. If you claim that it isn't, then you should support that claim with evidence. What evidence do you have that the speed of light is altered, particularly by a factor of up to 2,500,000? Such claims require evidence to be taken seriously.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

You, yet again, pointed me to someone else's argument rather than make a case for yourself. I pointed you to a source of evidence you requested for a claim I made.

If you begin to support your position with data, then I will begin making the effort to use my own explanations rather than links.

[Enoch2021]

19 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Instead of suggesting an unfair "strategy", I would suggest using literature that supports your claim instead of contradicting it.

Literature doesn't SUPPORT Claims, Experiments (Ya know "Science" !!) and Logic SUPPORT/Refute Claims.  Those then are transmitted via Literature.

Humpty Dumpty is Literature...it's not SUPPORTING too much, save for it's inherent Fairytale-ness, right?

 

Quote

My preferred interpretation is that light in space is doing what scientists can observe it doing in a lab - namely traveling at approximately 300,000,000 meters per second.

Your "Interpretation"?   What on Earth does that mean?  Did you need to translate it ? 

Scientifically Validate: 300,000,000 meters per second...?

 

Quote

If you claim that it isn't, then you should support that claim with evidence.

It was already posted to you quite a number of times at the beginning of this thread; However, you've chosen to 'Whistle Past The Graveyard' over and over and over again.  It's quite the Spectacle.  

 

Here it is again...

According to 'The Narrative', "Light Years" is not a measure of "Time"...it's one of "Distance". 

For you to be able to ascertain the "Time" component, you *MUST KNOW* the..."One-Way" Speed of Light. 

 

Unfortunately, you can never know that because it's a Begging The Question Fallacy... In TOTO, resulting from the inability to Synchronize 2 'clocks' by some distance. 

 

Watch...

 

How do we determine the "SPEED" or "RATE" of something??

 

Distance = Rate x Time, right??  So...

 

R = D/T

 

It's the "T" that's in focus here. You need 2 Clocks, right? Clock A (Terminus a quo) and Clock B (Terminus ad quem).

 

According to Einstein's 'Relativity', the moment you move Clock B... That Clock is DE-SYNCHRONIZED !!!!

 

What do you Need to KNOW to reconcile and SYNCHRONIZE Clock B to Clock A ??  That's Right Folks...

 

 

The "One-Way" Speed of Light !!!

 

So the ENTIRE Exercise is a TEXTBOOK: Begging The Question Fallacy.  Einstein made the very same conclusion...

 

 

“It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle.”
A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), pp. 22–23.

Regarding the "One Way" Speed of Light, Einstein concluded....“That light requires THE SAME TIME to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality NEITHER A SUPPOSITION NOR A HYPOTHESIS about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of *MY OWN FREEWILL* in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.” 
A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), p. 23.

 

Ergo...the Speed of Light (average "Two-Way" Speed) is merely a *'CONVENTION'* that we've agreed upon.

 

More strikingly, according to Quantum Mechanics... Independent of Knowledge/Existence of 'which-path' Information, " LIGHT " (Photons) --  have no defined properties or location. Photons exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, Matter/Photons don't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities. 

 

“It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been REGISTERED. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a RECORD in the present.”
Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68.

Unless you can explicitly identify "A Knower" @ the source of this Light (Photons)....who also "observed" it's entire 'path', AND the "observer" who first identified it here on Earth and RECORDED it (Date and Time stamped) THEN, you're gonna have to provide....
 

 

*The Speed of a Wave of Potentialities !!* 

 

 

Go ahead...I'll get the Popcorn !!! 

 

ps.  As you can determine quite easily above, In Reality..."Light Years" is neither a measure of "Time" or "Distance". It's merely a "Convention", that we've agreed upon.  Voila

 

 

In conclusion, their appeal (and your PARROTING) is quite Nonsensical.

 

 

See it yet? 

 

 

regards

 

 

[Tristen]

On 28/10/2017 at 11:21 AM, one.opinion said:

Instead of suggesting an unfair "strategy", I would suggest using literature that supports your claim instead of contradicting it.

My preferred interpretation is that light in space is doing what scientists can observe it doing in a lab - namely traveling at approximately 300,000,000 meters per second. If you claim that it isn't, then you should support that claim with evidence. What evidence do you have that the speed of light is altered, particularly by a factor of up to 2,500,000? Such claims require evidence to be taken seriously.

If you begin to support your position with data, then I will begin making the effort to use my own explanations rather than links.

"Instead of suggesting an unfair "strategy", I would suggest using literature that supports your claim instead of contradicting it."

I never used the word "unfair". You have, several times now, employed a deflection strategy. That is, I provide a source of factual support for claims I have made, and rather than consider the facts in the context of our discussion, you try and deflect the conversation to a different issue; namely, that the secular source I provided interprets the facts in accordance with the secular paradigm of reality (which is elf-evident). So either you are being disingenuous, or you still haven't figured out how to distinguish between fact and interpretation.

None of the facts in the sources I provide "contradict" anything I have claimed. The inconsistency only occurs between the interpretations of those facts - which has been my clear position in every conversation we have ever had.

 

"My preferred interpretation is that light in space is doing what scientists can observe it doing in a lab - namely traveling at approximately 300,000,000 meters per second. If you claim that it isn't, then you should support that claim with evidence. What evidence do you have that the speed of light is altered, particularly by a factor of up to 2,500,000? Such claims require evidence to be taken seriously."

So you really haven't given any consideration to my arguments whatsoever. None of the creationist models I provided require any alterations to the speed of light.

Which "lab" was the speed of light measured in and how; and through what medium? How many times was it repeated and where, and under what conditions with what controls? We have gravity on and around earth - so how was the lensing effect accounted for (was it at all)? Were those conditions really sufficient to warrant such massive extrapolations of the magnitude required to cover the stupendously vast distances of space? In all that space, how can you assume to know the conditions through which this light has traveled without any direct observations of those conditions? Even proposals such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy (i.e. enormously influential, but as yet undetectable forces) open up the possibility of other, invisible, forces having, as yet, unknown effects on the passage of the universe (including potentially the path of light). The thing is, my models have no issue with the speed of light, but you have this tendency to oversimplify what is possible to confidently deduce given the scientific method.

Your claim here further demonstrates your allegiance to the naturalistic, uniformitarian faith position; i.e. you cannot deviate from the philosophy that the way we observe things today is the way they must have always been. But that philosophy is inconsistent with every claim of supernatural intervention contained in the Bible.

 

"If you begin to support your position with data, then I will begin making the effort to use my own explanations rather than links."

The actual "data" in the paper you provided supports all of my proposed models. In fact, even the interpretation of distance is consistent with all my models. I can't remember if the paper actually dealt with the issue of time (though I think we can safely assume the secular authors assume the secular paradigm); Nevertheless, the creationist Time Dilation model accounts for time as well.

The challenge of this thread pertains to how one "would explain this [galaxy about 200,000 light years from earth] from a young earth viewpoint". I have demonstrated that the facts/"data" are consistent with, and therefore "support", a variety of possible young-earth explanations. That is, the facts you thought could only be interpreted to be consistent with the old-earth position, actually fit a variety of young-earth models.

You are the one claiming that only your preferred interpretations of the facts can be "taken seriously", so it is up to you to "support" that case. You are the one who thinks that the facts are only legitimate when interpreted to be consistent with your position. I have always maintained that the facts themselves are neutral, and can be variously interpreted to be consistent with (i.e. "support") both positions - and have made my case by demonstrating creationist interpretations of the facts you provided. That is, my part in this conversation is to provide interpretations to demonstrate the validity of the creationist position in light of the provided facts. You are the one claiming that my position is somehow rationally or scientifically inferior. So it is your responsibility to provide a fact you think cannot be interpreted to be consistent with the Genesis account of creation.

[HAZARD]

"IN THE BEGINNING?" When was that? Who knows exactly when or what period of time, "IN THE BEGINNING" was?

 

In Genesis it says, Genesis 1;1, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

 

It does not say, 6'000 years ago God created the heaven and the earth.

 

John 1;1 also states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It does not say, In the beginning, 6,000 years ago was the Word?

 

It does not say, Six thousand years ago was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, about six thousand years ago?

 

The next two verses also do not mention any time period or time when things were created.

 

John 1: 2, The same was in the beginning with God.
   

John 1; 3, All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.

 

God and the Word, before he became flesh and dwelt among us are ETERNAL beings. Sure as God the Word had no beginning but as a Man, He had a beginning.

 

John 1;14; "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

 

It is interesting to note that astronomers have discovered planets about 150,000,000 light years from the Earth. This is about 14,690,062,800,000,000,000 miles from the Earth, or a distance light can travel in 150,000,000 years at a speed of 186,000 miles per second. Astronomers also say there are other universes even beyond this one. They say about 6,000,000,000 stars have been discovered and they are all suns to other planets. If this is true then the universe is beyond human conception.

 

It is hard to conceive that God has existed from all eternity past as a lazy being, not doing anything until a few millennium ago, when He finally decided to do something.

 

It is easier to conceive that God has been making things in all the eternal past. Jesus Himself said;

 

 John 5:17, "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work."

And they will continue to work through eternity future, and we will be included in their work!

 

I ask you, is the universe, many parts of it that are not in rebellion, in sin against God inhabited,? I believe so because of this simple Scripture;

 

Revelation 12:12, "Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them . . . . . . Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time." yes, his time will shortly and positively and securely cut off!

 

The Bible says the heavens cannot be measured and the host of Heaven cannot be counted (Jer. 31:37 ; 33:22-25). It is also clear that the spirit world of angels, seraphims, cherubims, and other spirit beings were created before the Earth, for the "sons of God," (angels), were present and shouting when God laid the foundations of the Earth. It is also clear from this passage that God created the heavens, including the moon, the sun and stars were created before the Earth, for "the morning stars" sang together when God laid the foundations of the Earth. This would be the logical order of creation, to make theplace before creating the inhabitants to live in or on the place.

Since inhabitants were a part of the creation and not part of Creators (Col. 1:15-18), they naturally would have to be created on which they were to live. This is the way it happened on Earth in the six days of the restoration of the Earth from chaos to a second habitable state (Gen. 1:3-2:25).

 

Bearing all this in mind, we either believe our God can and did create everything which included the molecules of the universe, from the basic atomic particles to the subatomic particles, and even particles we know nothing about yet in His creation we see and live in today!

 

In a nutshell and put simply;

“In the beginning" [literally by periods or ages] God created the heaven, [Hebrew, heavens] and the earth, not 6000years ago God created the Heaven and the earth.
When we speak of the six days and the creation of the present life on Earth, we can speak with Bible authority that it was about 6000 years ago. This can be seen by the lengths of the various dispensations since Adam. In no Scripture are we taught to believe that the heavens and the Earth were originally created during the six days and at the time of Adam about 6000 years ago.
Some use Exodus 20:8-11; 31:17 to try and prove that the heavens and the Earth were created in the six days of Gen. 1:3-2:25, and therefore, that they were created about 6000 years ago. However, nothing is said of the original creation of the heavens and the Earth in these passages.

In these Scriptures the Hebrew word 'ASAH,' meaning to make out of already existing material, is used instead of the word 'BARA,' to create. These verses picture the re-creation work of the six days and not the original creation "In the beginning."

'ASAH' never means to create. It is translated 'MADE,' 659 times; 'MAKE,' 449 times; 'MAKETH,' 59 times and 'MAKEST,' sixteen times; 'MAKER,' thirteen times; 'MAKING,' eleven times; and 'MADEST,' three times.

When God said, "In six days, the Lord 'MADE' heaven and Earth," he had in mind the restoration of the heaven (firmament, or clouds) the Earth to a habitable state as it was before the destruction of Lucifer’s kingdom by the flood and Gen. 1:2.

[one.opinion]

9 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

Bearing all this in mind, we either believe our God can and did create everything which included the molecules of the universe, from the basic atomic particles to the subatomic particles, and even particles we know nothing about yet in His creation we see and live in today!

I absolutely agree with this. The scope and majesty of His creation are awe-inspiring! The Psalmist said it beautifully thousands of years ago - The heavens declare the glory of God!

[one.opinion]

40 minutes ago, Tristen said:

The challenge of this thread pertains to how one "would explain this [galaxy about 200,000 light years from earth] from a young earth viewpoint". I have demonstrated that the facts/"data" are consistent with, and therefore "support", a variety of possible young-earth explanations. That is, the facts you thought could only be interpreted to be consistent with the old-earth position, actually fit a variety of young-earth models.

You have brought up alternative hypotheses, but have supplied no data (evidence) to support the hypotheses. Could God have arranged the universe in a miraculous fashion that would make it appear to be 15 billion years old? Absolutely. I cannot say that it is impossible for the earth to be approximately 6,000 years old. But it is erroneous to claim that you have presented data that fits a young earth model just as well as an old earth model.

56 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Which "lab" was the speed of light measured in and how; and through what medium? How many times was it repeated and where, and under what conditions with what controls?

Foucault first used a technique using a laser, a beam splitter, and mirrors to measure the speed of light in 1862. It has been repeated A LOT since then. Similar experiments are performed routinely in college-level physics labs and probably quite a few well-equipped high school labs. I cannot even begin to guess how many times it has been repeated and in all locations that it has been performed. This is typically done without any consideration to the medium, so mostly just atmospheric air. I'm going to assume that it has also been performed in vacuum, but I haven't done any searching. I'm not trying to annoy you with this, but I'm going to post a link, in case you want to know more about it.

http://www.csuohio.edu/sciences/sites/csuohio.edu.sciences/files/media/physics/documents/Speed of Light_0.pdf

This is a pretty good background and explanation to the experiment performed in order to calculate the speed of light.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

You have, several times now, employed a deflection strategy. That is, I provide a source of factual support for claims I have made, and rather than consider the facts in the context of our discussion, you try and deflect the conversation to a different issue; namely, that the secular source I provided interprets the facts in accordance with the secular paradigm of reality (which is elf-evident). So either you are being disingenuous, or you still haven't figured out how to distinguish between fact and interpretation.

You used the PNAS article to support your hypothesis that gravitational lensing could alter the speed of light sufficiently to make energy-emitting events only APPEAR to be as distant as astronomers believe. I read the article you provided and concluded that it does not support your hypothesis. How is this deflection and what else have I deflected?

 

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Your claim here further demonstrates your allegiance to the naturalistic, uniformitarian faith position; i.e. you cannot deviate from the philosophy that the way we observe things today is the way they must have always been. But that philosophy is inconsistent with every claim of supernatural intervention contained in the Bible.

This is a valid point. As I mentioned earlier in this post, I cannot and should not exclude the possibility of divine action. However, this would open up the question of why God would make the universe LOOK ancient, if it isn't?

[HAZARD]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

You have brought up alternative hypotheses, but have supplied no data (evidence) to support the hypotheses. Could God have arranged the universe in a miraculous fashion that would make it appear to be 15 billion years old? Absolutely. I cannot say that it is impossible for the earth to be approximately 6,000 years old. But it is erroneous to claim that you have presented data that fits a young earth model just as well as an old earth model.

Foucault first used a technique using a laser, a beam splitter, and mirrors to measure the speed of light in 1862. It has been repeated A LOT since then. Similar experiments are performed routinely in college-level physics labs and probably quite a few well-equipped high school labs. I cannot even begin to guess how many times it has been repeated and in all locations that it has been performed. This is typically done without any consideration to the medium, so mostly just atmospheric air. I'm going to assume that it has also been performed in vacuum, but I haven't done any searching. I'm not trying to annoy you with this, but I'm going to post a link, in case you want to know more about it.

http://www.csuohio.edu/sciences/sites/csuohio.edu.sciences/files/media/physics/documents/Speed of Light_0.pdf

This is a pretty good background and explanation to the experiment performed in order to calculate the speed of light.

You used the PNAS article to support your hypothesis that gravitational lensing could alter the speed of light sufficiently to make energy-emitting events only APPEAR to be as distant as astronomers believe. I read the article you provided and concluded that it does not support your hypothesis. How is this deflection and what else have I deflected?

 

This is a valid point. As I mentioned earlier in this post, I cannot and should not exclude the possibility of divine action. However, this would open up the question of why God would make the universe LOOK ancient, if it isn't?

I believe God's Word. It is said in His Word that He Himself formed everything He created and made, including the Heavens, (Plural).

Psalms 8:3, When I consider they heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon, and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

[one.opinion]

16 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

I believe God's Word. It is said in His Word that He Himself formed everything He created and made, including the Heavens, (Plural).

This is not a point of disagreement. I am a firm believer that God is creator of all things.

[HAZARD]

16 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

This is not a point of disagreement. I am a firm believer that God is creator of all things.

I know you are.