JUNK SCIENCE - CRITICAL DEBATE

[Ray12614]

12 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

This opens a whole array of things to discuss, well above my pay grade. Using the six-day creation account and Ussher Genealogy, everything was created in 4,004 B.C. Light would have to be made already en route. Or, the speed of light traveled much faster in the past. Or, my best answer, I don’t know. 😊

I read on an science web site (don't remember where now) that experiments with the speed of light has proven that light is much faster as it moves away from gravity. Since deep space has little gravity away from celestial objects could this possibly could have something to do with this?

But . . . if God created the universes on day 4 (and He did) then why would not light in transit coming from those celestial entities also have been created at the same time? Especially if the purpose was for times and seasons . . . . Hummmmmm . . . .  interesting . . . . 

[Dennis1209]

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

Hi Dennis,

Regardless of who answers, or which model one prefers, “I don’t know” is the only intellectually honest conclusion. That includes the secular models – whose proponents like to falsely express their positions as truisms.

Nevertheless, it is permitted (and interesting) to discuss and debate the various proposed models. Young-earth creationists have several models available to us – some simple, and some more complex.

You alluded to some of the simple models – such as God creating a mature universe (with light “made already en route”), in the same manner that humans and vegetation were created in a mature state. Similarly, God could have made an immature universe and essentially ‘wound it forward’ during the creation event on the first day.

A more complex model (for example) might integrate Time Dilation, Einstein’s Relativity, and the Biblical claim that God “stretched out the heavens” (e.g. Isaiah 42:5, 45:12, Psalms 104:2, Jeremiah 10:12). Since both time and space are dimensions of the same substance (according to Relativity), when God stretch out the universe away from the earth, time increased (dilated) where the space increased. As stretched space increases size, stretched time increases age – such that the further away something has been stretched from the earth, the older it actually is - even though it was all created together.

As a matter of logic, all models about the origins of the universe require a significant amount of presupposition. Only once that fact is recognized, does it become possible rationally (and respectfully) consider the vast range of possibilities.

 

Howdy Tristen,

That is sort of what I lean toward, the Lord stretched out the heavens, and it seems there will be a contraction of that stretching out if I interpret correctly.

Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. [emphasis mine]

The four Bible verses about God stretching out the heavens are all in the plural. The "host," all the stars, planets, etc., in the 2^nd heaven (universe). I conclude it might combine stretching out our atmosphere (1^st heaven) and the universe (2^nd heaven).

Revelation 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. [emphasis added – it is singular here, is it the 1^st or 2^nd heaven?]

All my resources are almost silent on Rev. 6:14; a few debate whether this is literal or symbolic. Some think the 1st heaven (our atmosphere) creates that illusion caused by smoke, debris, and stuff, which is very plausible.

However, I do not exclude the thought that this could be a reversal of Isaiah 45:12.

Luke 21:26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

Revelation 16:9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory. [emphasis again mine]

The slow rewinding of a rolled-up scroll that was stretched out:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? [emphasis again]

One other thing I find interesting about our laws of physics. We seem to know to the degree how cold it can get, and not any colder, absolute zero. What temperature is absolute heat where nothing can get hotter? Ever heard that question asked?  😊

[Dennis1209]

6 hours ago, Ray12614 said:

I read on an science web site (don't remember where now) that experiments with the speed of light has proven that light is much faster as it moves away from gravity. Since deep space has little gravity away from celestial objects could this possibly could have something to do with this?

But . . . if God created the universes on day 4 (and He did) then why would not light in transit coming from those celestial entities also have been created at the same time? Especially if the purpose was for times and seasons . . . . Hummmmmm . . . .  interesting . . . . 

I am only an enthusiast, but light is a fascinating subject to study, both biblically and physically.

Science has yet to determine if light is a particle, a wave, or both. Its properties and action seem to be determined if it is being observed or not.

It amazes me that our technology can slow a beam of laser light to almost motionless. Depending on the “science” one believes, there have been experiments over the decades showing that the speed of light has slowed down.

I have also heard that if the speed of light were much faster or slower, we would have vision problems and effect refraction. All of creation is in sync to support human life. The coincidence of millions and billions of years? I think not. It takes much more faith to believe nonsense than a true living God that created everything.

I think they made a movie about evolution. Dumb & Dumber. 😊

[Dave-regenerated]

22 hours ago, Space_Karen said:

 

If I remember correctly the nearest star is millions of light years distance.

The starlight we see in the night sky. Took millions of years of travel to reach us.

We do not see the current appearance or position of stars. We see their appearance and position millions of years ago.

Efficiency defines the longevity of a function. The orbit of atoms and planets have an extremely high efficiency. They have no way to lose momentum energy, leaving energy to be conserved almost indefinitely. Suns and stars are also high efficiency processes as there is no way for them to lose heat energy. Gravity keeps everything contained.

There is no way to measure space in terms of its relative status really.  Since the light coming from a star could potentially go anywhere in 3 dimensional space and keep on travelling indefinitely, with no way to check which direction it is coming and going from, it is almost impossible to say with any definiteness how far away the star actually is or was, compared to our reference point of Earth, which could we transport through space instantly about 500 million light years from here, we would see the light star of the Earth in the past when the Earth according to present time here has ceased to exist to us from that vantage point.

[Dave-regenerated]

21 hours ago, teddyv said:

As I recall, protostars have been observed in nebula. Whether we've seen one ignite? Not that I am aware of. But it's a big galaxy, let alone universe.

If you think the math has not been done I would find that rather odd. I don't have the calculations handy or anything but burn rates and energy output can be calculated.

The reason we don't see stars being born is because of the laws of thermodynamics and entropy.  Everything in the universe is running down, running out of energy.  It stands to reason that when we look at space and everything we see is in the past, that there cannot be any way to observe the birth of a new star.

[Dave-regenerated]

19 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

Hi Dennis,

Regardless of who answers, or which model one prefers, “I don’t know” is the only intellectually honest conclusion. That includes the secular models – whose proponents like to falsely express their positions as truisms.

Nevertheless, it is permitted (and interesting) to discuss and debate the various proposed models. Young-earth creationists have several models available to us – some simple, and some more complex.

You alluded to some of the simple models – such as God creating a mature universe (with light “made already en route”), in the same manner that humans and vegetation were created in a mature state. Similarly, God could have made an immature universe and essentially ‘wound it forward’ during the creation event on the first day.

A more complex model (for example) might integrate Time Dilation, Einstein’s Relativity, and the Biblical claim that God “stretched out the heavens” (e.g. Isaiah 42:5, 45:12, Psalms 104:2, Jeremiah 10:12). Since both time and space are dimensions of the same substance (according to Relativity), when God stretch out the universe away from the earth, time increased (dilated) where the space increased. As stretched space increases size, stretched time increases age – such that the further away something has been stretched from the earth, the older it actually is - even though it was all created together.

As a matter of logic, all models about the origins of the universe require a significant amount of presupposition. Only once that fact is recognized, does it become possible rationally (and respectfully) consider the vast range of possibilities.

 

That was well said!

Everything collapses into a oneness state in physics ultimately via human perception or observation.  If it was possible to separate the human brain and mind and its perceptive cognition from its locality perspective in space and time in order to view it from another place or angle or position somewhere else, we might have a possibility of getting outside of ourselves objectively speaking.  But this is obviously not possible to us.  Light is not an intuitive reality because it plays around with human perception, as it seems to be omnipresent.  But that's okay.  I would rather some force, call it God or not, exists than my own massively flawed tiny little brain.  I don't want to be in control of the universe!

[Space_Karen]

40 minutes ago, Dave-regenerated said:

There is no way to measure space in terms of its relative status really.  Since the light coming from a star could potentially go anywhere in 3 dimensional space and keep on travelling indefinitely, with no way to check which direction it is coming and going from, it is almost impossible to say with any definiteness how far away the star actually is or was, compared to our reference point of Earth, which could we transport through space instantly about 500 million light years from here, we would see the light star of the Earth in the past when the Earth according to present time here has ceased to exist to us from that vantage point.

 

All angles of a triangle = 180 degrees.

By measuring the angle light hits the earth, a known distance apart, simultaneously.

We have enough angle and distance stats to deduce the other numbers.

There is a cool story about how these experiments were used to deduce the size of the earth.

Its the type of thing I wish I had learned in school.

[Dennis1209]

51 minutes ago, Dave-regenerated said:

The reason we don't see stars being born is because of the laws of thermodynamics and entropy.  Everything in the universe is running down, running out of energy.  It stands to reason that when we look at space and everything we see is in the past, that there cannot be any way to observe the birth of a new star.

Yes, that is a law of physics, order to chaos, everything wears down. Atheist, secular science is based on the evolutionary model and what is taught; everything must fit that model, that everything evolved over millions and billions of years—no debate or exceptions.

There is plenty of photographic pictures and evidence that some stars have become supernovas and exploded. Including images of stars that were once there but are now gone suddenly. Under our laws of physics, one day, they all should go out like popcorn in a microwave.

Using that same thought and principle, if existing stars could reproduce, they too should be lighting off like microwave popcorn, keeping balance, given the vast quantity of them. Secular science cannot even define what gravity is and how it works. Singularities, dark matter, and dark energy, are all bogus words for “don’t have a clue.”

Basically, it all boils down to our belief system and the creation account and the old earth vs. the new earth debates.

The ancients, through today, have always had their eyes on the cosmos. They all knew (as we) astronomy and astrology, the constellations, and the visible heavens. I would think that over the millennia, someone would have witnessed something born that was not there the night before and mentioned it.  

[Dennis1209]

9 minutes ago, Space_Karen said:

 

All angles of a triangle = 180 degrees.

By measuring the angle light hits the earth, a known distance apart, simultaneously.

We have enough angle and distance stats to deduce the other numbers.

There is a cool story about how these experiments were used to deduce the size of the earth.

Its the type of thing I wish I had learned in school.

My teachers could not stand two consecutive years of me in the same classroom, so they passed me to get rid of me. Some thought they had the grit for 2-3 years of me in grade school. Ever see multiple 30-year-old women turn completely gray in a single year? 

I only mention this because I am highly educated. I have 14 years alone in grade school. With that education I didn't think high school was necessary and a waste of a good mind. The teachers appeared to get aggravated when I knew more than them, as my parents did. 

So, rest assured, when I talk about science stuff, eyes know what Ima talking bout.  

[teddyv]

3 hours ago, Dave-regenerated said:

The reason we don't see stars being born is because of the laws of thermodynamics and entropy.  Everything in the universe is running down, running out of energy.  It stands to reason that when we look at space and everything we see is in the past, that there cannot be any way to observe the birth of a new star.

There are plenty of localized increases in order happening right now. If I grow a crystal from a solution, that is an increase in order.