1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Wandering Monk, Jul 4, 2019.

  1. Wandering Monk

    Wandering Monk Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2019
    Messages:
    941
    Ratings:
    +528
    Religion:
    agnostic
    Young earth creationists believe that the earth is between 6000 and 12,000 year old typically, but we can observe the light from stars that are more than 6000 to 12,000 light years away. That means these stars existed before God created the universe.

    One YEC attempt at resolving this issue is to suggest that the speed of light was dramatically faster in the past than it is today. There is a problem with this though as I posted in another thread:

    If the speed of light was significantly higher in the past than today, there would have been a corresponding increase in energy released by matter (E=M*C squared.) All stars require the reaction of matter in order for there to be the fusion that makes them work. If the universe was as young as they suggest and we apply Einstein's equation to our sun, then 6000 years ago our sun would have put out about 800 billion times the energy it does today. Too toasty for life.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,756
    Ratings:
    +11,292
    Religion:
    Non-theist

    If the speed of light were higher in the past, the time dilation effect would be closer to 1, eliminating any way of getting down to 6-10,000 years. You need a time dilation factor of around a million to bring YEC and Science together. But such a time dilation effect only happens at incredibly large gravitational fields (crushing any life), or at speeds that are within .0001% of the speed of light. Even if you play with the speed of light, you have problems with that.

    But, of course, the speed of light isn't independent of anything else. If you change it, you have to change the fine structure constant, and thereby the strength of the electric force, which then changes the stability of atoms. Such changes would be clearly visible in the spectra of distant stars.
     
    • Informative Informative x 5
    • Like Like x 2
  3. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,533
    Ratings:
    +2,810
    YEC is a symtom of not a statement about. It doesnt exist just in religion. It merely is at times easier to see is all.

    What is it a symptom of?

    I might say knowing its wrong and understanding its a symtom of is radically different.
     
  4. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,782
    Ratings:
    +1,288
    Religion:
    Christian
    Would not the rate of expansion of the universe effect time dilation as well ? At the BB the expansion was incredibly fast at the point of the BB, doubling, tripling etc. in Planck time increments. Would this not effect time measurement from the outer edge of the universe back to itś beginning point , or virtually anywhere else ? What took ten seconds then, could be measured now as a million years, correct ?
     
  5. whirlingmerc

    whirlingmerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,837
    Ratings:
    +701
    Religion:
    Christian
    The speed of light has more issues than that.
    Distance per sec might even be constant but time can vary
    on theory has the earth at the center of a gravity well and time would slow near the center

    see Starlight and Time by Ross Humphreys
     
  6. icehorse

    icehorse Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    8,734
    Ratings:
    +4,414
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    You cannot really debate with a YEC because sooner or later they will fall back to unfalsifiable claims, e.g. "god made that fossil evidence to test your faith.".
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  7. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,782
    Ratings:
    +1,288
    Religion:
    Christian
    Baloney. More putting labels on people and judging their thinking. Sorta like atheists who make unfalsifiable claims like the water runoff from rocks and chemicals in the early atmosphere created life, huh ?
     
  8. Wandering Monk

    Wandering Monk Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2019
    Messages:
    941
    Ratings:
    +528
    Religion:
    agnostic
    1. You mischaracterize the hypothesis.

    2. There is a difference between a hypothesis (suggestion that needs falsifying) and a 'claim' (presumably you are using the word in the sense of 'claim of fact.') There is no claim of fact about the origins of life on earth (despite your mischaracterization) only hypotheses of how it might have started given what we have learned about early earth. Experimentation is underway to falsify the hypothesis.

    3. How do you falsify 'Goddidit?'
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. icehorse

    icehorse Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    8,734
    Ratings:
    +4,414
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    Your example is (ultimately), falsifiable (or provable).
     
  10. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,782
    Ratings:
    +1,288
    Religion:
    Christian
    Ah, the atheist interlocutory decree on abiogenesis. Science does not know how it happened, but will, therefore it is proven to be true.

    More utter baloney. There are about 8 hypotheses for abiogenesis, all different, all with virtually no evidence, all with significant problems.

    You believe it because you are loath to Consider God as a creation agent. You have faith that it is true.

    Faith, with nothing to base it on.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Wandering Monk

    Wandering Monk Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2019
    Messages:
    941
    Ratings:
    +528
    Religion:
    agnostic
    Your argument boils down to this: 'Science doesn't know, so God!'

    This is how primitive minds worked in the ancient days. Lighting was the gods throwing thunderbolts to earth to punish someone for something.

    For 2300 years or so the existence of atoms was only a hypothesis. Finally, we developed the tools to test the hypothesis, ultimately even to see the atom. If we had simple said 'Goddidit' when we were ignorant about atoms, you wouldn't be sitting here today using your electronics to post your arguments.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  12. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    14,852
    Ratings:
    +10,382
    Religion:
    None
    Atheists??? Or scientists.

    An atheist is a person who has no belief in god, nothing more, nothing less.

    A scientist is a person who studies one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

    If an atheist says they know how life started then they are lying because despite life being created several times recently no one knows precisely how life started 3.5 billion years ago. Not atheists, not scientists and not god believers despite them insisting on the unfalsifiable claim that god dun it wiv god magic.

    As far as science is concerned abiogenesis is best guess given known conditions at the time

    As far as creationists are concerned, god magic was best guess in the bronze age and they hate to throw away a good story
     
    • Winner Winner x 5
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. icehorse

    icehorse Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    8,734
    Ratings:
    +4,414
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    I'm not uncomfortable admitting that a theory is just a theory.

    I am QUITE uncomfortable having words put in my mouth, so please stop doing that. It doesn't help your case, in fact it hurts it.
     
  14. SalixIncendium

    SalixIncendium सच्चितानन्द
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2016
    Messages:
    6,570
    Ratings:
    +7,382
    Religion:
    Advaitist Hindu
    You're right. "God did it" is a much more sound explanation than the scientific theories with supporting evidence for abiogenesis.

    As an open minded theist, I'm more than happy to consider God as a creation agent...as soon as you present your evidence. Objective...empirical...experiential...I'll look at what you have (save "Biblical evidence").
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Darkforbid

    Darkforbid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2019
    Messages:
    1,367
    Ratings:
    +447
    Religion:
    Theist
    The first galaxy outside ours was not discovered until 1929 so what would make you think the bible writers meant universe

    Also the personification in later genesis edits, didn't exist in early Mesopotamian mythology creation was by primal forces
     
  16. Wandering Monk

    Wandering Monk Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2019
    Messages:
    941
    Ratings:
    +528
    Religion:
    agnostic
    I don't.

    It is implicit in the creation account the way young earth creationists read it. They believe that God brought everything into existence a few thousand years ago, evidenced by their insistence that the Big Bang is proof of God creating the universe, by their arguments that the age of the stars in apparent but not real (C-decay and White Hole Cosmology) and so on.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,782
    Ratings:
    +1,288
    Religion:
    Christian
    Produce the same for abiogenesis.
     
  18. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    6,864
    Ratings:
    +4,403
    Religion:
    Methodist
    That is not a false claim. It is an untested hypothesis. It might not hold up. Then again, it might. We simply do not know. It is not unfalsifiable. We do not have the evidence to test it.

    Sometimes labels are applicable.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    6,864
    Ratings:
    +4,403
    Religion:
    Methodist
    Yes. The "I win by default" scenario of anti-science. If science has not found an answer, then scientific hypotheses are wrong and ___fill in the blank___ belief is the correct one.

    Don't you have any new tricks in that bag?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    6,864
    Ratings:
    +4,403
    Religion:
    Methodist
    He is correct. Arguments with anti-science, creationists and YEC's most often end with magic being invoked as a response to sound theory and evidence.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...