• 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!

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

shmogie

Well-Known Member
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.
Of course a creationist says God did it. Yet the creation event, I believe to be the BB, is defined by science to have been caused by (?). An unknown singularity that there is no way to prove existed is no more plausible than God did it.

Nevertheless, from the point of creation science can operate, I have no problem with that.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Of course a creationist says God did it. Yet the creation event, I believe to be the BB, is defined by science to have been caused by (?). An unknown singularity that there is no way to prove existed is no more plausible than God did it.

Nevertheless, from the point of creation science can operate, I have no problem with that.
There is no such thing as creation science. It is either religion or science. You can believe, as I do, that God was the primary source of existence, but you cannot use science to demonstrate that or include anything based on belief as a scientific explanation.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
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.

In the days of Jesus, the Greeks believed by faith that all things were created from atoms, which they believed was the smallest indivisible particle. Even Paul said that it was by faith that they believed that the visible universe was created from ‘THINGS’ that could not be seen.

The first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. If energy cannot be created, then it always was, and If it can never be destroyed, it always will be. Therefore, according to this law, energy must be eternal, having neither beginning or end. Energy can be and is converted to that which we perceive as matter. In fact, this material universe at the time of the Big Bang was pure electromagnetic energy, which has been converted to that which we perceive as matter only to be reconverted to its original form as electromagnetic energy during the phase of the Big Crunch.

If you believe that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, [in Kantian terminology, an end-in-itself] --------- self- replication capabilities, and “coded chemistry”? Then you must accept that it is the eternal energy which has neither beginning or end, that has become this seemingly material universe and has developed a mind that is the compilation of all the information gathered by all the diverse life-forms that it [The Eternal Energy] or God has become, who is the collective consciousness of all life..

In fact, it has now been revealed that matter is no more than an illusion. Quantum physicists discovered that so called physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature.

If you observed the composition of an atom with a microscope you would see a small, invisible tornado-like vortex, with a number of infinitely small energy vortices called quarks and photons. These are what make up the structure of the atom. As you focused in closer and closer on the structure of the atom, you would see nothing, you would observe a physical void. The atom has no physical structure, we have no physical structure, physical things really don’t have any physical structure! Atoms are made out of invisible energy, not tangible matter.

“Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual” (1) – Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University (quote taken from “the mental universe)

A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. (R. C. Henry, “The Mental Universe”; Nature 436:29, 2005)

Extracts from the link supplied.

Nothing Is Solid & Everything Is Energy – Scientists Explain The World of Quantum Physics
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
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 ?
No. Remarkably, it doesnt because it is a general relativistic effect, not a special relativistic one.

Also, velocity time dilations go both ways: each sees the other clock going slower.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
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 ?

Also, there is no 'outer edge' to the universe in the Big Bang model.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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.

I once heared a YEC come up with the excuse that God just created the light beams "on their way" , so that it would "look" as if that light had been traveling all that time.


To be perfectly honest, I consider such to be the most sensible excuse. It's an exercise in futility to try and make creationistic nonsense match science, because it's simply not going to happen.

So the easiest way out, is to simply invoke magic. Some type of "last thursdayism", which is the idea that the universe and everything it contains, including our memories of having lived our entire lives, was created just last thursday. But then instead of last thursday, it was 6000 years ago.

If I were a YEC, i'ld invest heavily in such invoking of magic. It's the only real way you can marry such nonsense with observable reality. Take Noah's ark. I don't get why YECs insist on trying to match that with scientific evidence. It's a lost cause. It's not going to happen. Geology will never agree - the evidence just isn't there. Even only boat-wise, it's obvious bs... wooden boats that big just aren't sea worthy. Then there's all the logistic problems of 8 people having to take care of that many animals. It's just not realistic.

Unless you invoke magic.
"god put the animals in hibernation, so they didn't have eat or poop".
"god zapped the animals unto the boat, so kangaroo's and pinguins didn't have to cross entire oceans"
"the boat was made of magical wood which ignores the rules of physics so that it could float"
"god cleaned the earth of all the damage and sediments, making it look as if the flood hadn't occured"


I mean.... it's religion... you're already dealing with faith based bare claims from the very fundamental core going forwards. So why go through the trouble of trying to marry it with observable reality.

If "faith" is good enough to believe in god, I'ld guess that "faith" is good enough to believe in impossible boats and non-existing floods as well.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Also, there is no 'outer edge' to the universe in the Big Bang model.
Hmmmm. The universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. It has expanded more today than yesterday.

How can be the case if there is no limitation point of expansion ? What would you call it ?
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
There is no such thing as creation science. It is either religion or science. You can believe, as I do, that God was the primary source of existence, but you cannot use science to demonstrate that or include anything based on belief as a scientific explanation.
I disagree. The principles of science can be applied in some circumstances to identify Gods actions in creation

There is a cascade of scientifically identified events in the creation of the universe that make it perfectly suited for life.

The statisticians and mathematicians say that the odds of this occurring naturally are astronomically against that universe. All scientific.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
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.
To play devil's advocate, I would think that a better tactic would be to argue that God created the universe in an old state, thus making it immediately suitable for human benefit. This would line up nicely with Genesis, which states that the stars were created as a means for man to measure the passage of time.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
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.

Ha. God magic.

Forgot that, huh?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
To play devil's advocate, I would think that a better tactic would be to argue that God created the universe in an old state, thus making it immediately suitable for human benefit. This would line up nicely with Genesis, which states that the stars were created as a means for man to measure the passage of time.

Ah, Last Thursdayism! Terrif.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I mean.... it's religion... you're already dealing with faith based bare claims from the very fundamental core going forwards. So why go through the trouble of trying to marry it with observable reality.

If "faith" is good enough to believe in god, I'ld guess that "faith" is good enough to believe in impossible boats and non-existing floods as well.

Why do YECs need to make their beliefs sound scientific? Is it a subconscious realization that faith alone is not enough, that it lacks something they need? Is it a response to that cognitive dissonance?
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
I disagree. The principles of science can be applied in some circumstances to identify Gods actions in creation

There is a cascade of scientifically identified events in the creation of the universe that make it perfectly suited for life.

The statisticians and mathematicians say that the odds of this occurring naturally are astronomically against that universe. All scientific.

I wonder* how it is that fundamentalists are able
with no particular knowledge or training in the art
are able to incisively determine which theories
are true and good, and which are not.

BTW, the odds against your ever being born
are so great that we doubt you actually exist. :D

*just kidding, I do know how it is done.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Of course a creationist says God did it. Yet the creation event, I believe to be the BB, is defined by science to have been caused by (?). An unknown singularity that there is no way to prove existed is no more plausible than God did it.

Nevertheless, from the point of creation science can operate, I have no problem with that.

Could you give us an example of creation science?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Why do YECs need to make their beliefs sound scientific? Is it a subconscious realization that faith alone is not enough, that it doesn't? Is it a response to that cognitive dissonance?

Probably a mixture of things.

One of them is, as we've observed, that a yec
simply cannot ever be wrong, on anything
that seems to touch on their faith.

Another is, that since they are right, well,
real science will be right in line, natch.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I disagree. The principles of science can be applied in some circumstances to identify Gods actions in creation

There is a cascade of scientifically identified events in the creation of the universe that make it perfectly suited for life.

The statisticians and mathematicians say that the odds of this occurring naturally are astronomically against that universe. All scientific.

This presumes the existence of God, an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I disagree. The principles of science can be applied in some circumstances to identify Gods actions in creation

There is a cascade of scientifically identified events in the creation of the universe that make it perfectly suited for life.

The statisticians and mathematicians say that the odds of this occurring naturally are astronomically against that universe. All scientific.

Argument from incredulity.
 
Top