The YECs' Dilemma

[Sheldon]

And?

I don't understand the question?

You are basing on what we currently know as if we know all things.

No I am not, at all. that's a straw man.

So, my point is simply that our perspective may be different from what is presented in Genesis.

My question didn't mention Genesis, or even reference it, and you have ignored it again. So again, if as YEC's claim, the universe is merely thousands of (earth) years old, then how is light visible from stars that are billions of light years away? We know how long a year on earth is, and that is what YEC's are using, and we know what the speed of light is, and it does not change, as it is a constant.

The more you obfuscate with red herrings, the more suspicious your evasion becomes.

 

[Kenny]

No I am not, at all. that's a straw man.

I don't agree

My question didn't mention Genesis, or even reference it, and you have ignored it again. So again, if as YEC's claim, the universe is merely thousands of (earth) years old, then how is light visible from stars that are billions of light years away? We know how long a year on earth is, and that is what YEC's are using, and we know what the speed of light is, and it does not change, as it is a constant.

The more you obfuscate with red herrings, the more suspicious your evasion becomes.

Argumentative.

In that you are talking about YEC, you are automatically referencing their position which is based on Genesis.

AND.... as I said before,

There isn't enough information for a concise determination. At this point, my argument with YEC is that the sun and the moon were created AFTER He formed the world so, how do they determine that it is a human based day?

Since time diminishes at the speed of light:

Why Does Time Slow Down as You Approach the Speed of Light?

And, in our view, God abides in light,

the earth may well be billions of human-based years old.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
No I am not, at all. that's a straw man.

I don't agree

You're wrong I did not make the claim you assigned me, as anyone can see if they go back and look.

Sheldon said: ↑
My question didn't mention Genesis, or even reference it, and you have ignored it again. So again, if as YEC's claim, the universe is merely thousands of (earth) years old, then how is light visible from stars that are billions of light years away? We know how long a year on earth is, and that is what YEC's are using, and we know what the speed of light is, and it does not change, as it is a constant.

The more you obfuscate with red herrings, the more suspicious your evasion becomes.

Argumentative. In that you are talking about YEC, you are automatically referencing their position which is based on Genesis.

No I'm not, I asked a specific question, that does not reference nor needs to reference Genesis at all, and you responded but don't seem to have any intention of offering an honest answer to that specific question. Incidentally this is a debate forum, so accusing someone of being argumentative is pretty ironic.

AND.... as I said before,

There isn't enough information for a concise determination.

Of course there is, it was a very simple and very specific question relating to YEC's who claim the universe is a few thousand years old. If the universe were, as YEC's claim, only a few thousand years old (earth years) then how is light visible to us from starts that are billions of light years away? Since the speed of light is a constant, and measured specifically against their claim using a year on earth. The rest is straw men you have invented, that had nothing to do with my question at all. Though as you said, the genesis myth is filled with obviously errant claims, but I did not ask about those here.

the earth may well be billions of human-based years old.

Well if it is not then we would not be able to see light from stars that are billions of light years away, obviously. A big clue to the correct answer there, one would think.

 

[Kenny]

You're wrong I did not make the claim you assigned me, as anyone can see if they go back and look.





No I'm not, I asked a specific question, that does not reference nor needs to reference Genesis at all, and you responded but don't seem to have any intention of offering an honest answer to that specific question. Incidentally this is a debate forum, so accusing someone of being argumentative is pretty ironic.



Of course there is, it was a very simple and very specific question relating to YEC's who claim the universe is a few thousand years old. If the universe were, as YEC's claim, only a few thousand years old (earth years) then how is light visible to us from starts that are billions of light years away? Since the speed of light is a constant, and measured specifically against their claim using a year on earth. The rest is straw men you have invented, that had nothing to do with my question at all. Though as you said, the genesis myth is filled with obviously errant claims, but I did not ask about those here.



Well if it is not then we would not be able to see light from stars that are billions of light years away, obviously. A big clue to the correct answer there, one would think.

Quite argumentative. You might try discussing.

 

[Sheldon]

Quite argumentative. You might try discussing.

I do hope that evasive one line dismissal was meant as irony, if so then kudos.

Now one more time, if as YEC's claim, the universe if just a few thousand years old, how is light visible to us from stars that are billions of light years away?

Debate
verb

1. argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.

Debate and discussion are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Kenny]

I do hope that evasive one line dismissal was meant as irony, if so then kudos.

Now one more time, if as YEC's claim, the universe if just a few thousand years old, how is light visible to us from stars that are billions of light years away?

Debate
verb

1. argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.

Debate and discussion are not mutually exclusive.

haven't asked them...

Maybe they are talking about the world as we see it today?
Maybe light has an elasticity effect?


You will have to ask one of those who subscribe to that position.

 

[Sheldon]

You will have to ask one of those who subscribe to that position.

That's who it was aimed at obviously. I assumed when you responded you had an opinion on the matter.

 

[Kenny]

That's who it was aimed at obviously. I assumed when you responded you had an opinion on the matter.

Could be just earth as we know it today.

 

[rational experiences]

Teaching says it's by human thinking telling stories of self experience in a self addressed observation.

So most humans by being human own a natural conscious understanding of the human inferred story.

Why we don't argue as it's pretty basic human advice.

Their life and consciousness the observer is human.

Twenty four hours owns a human total life cell body change condition every day. All day night.

Stated to be natural.

Was theoried advice versus life attacked after as a summation to argue against evil machine scientists.

As the thesis from nothing gained nothing sin K holes.

K the ground constant only a machine reaction controlled by men of science.

Said you are not allowed to cause fall out burning lucifer gases as natural light owned supported life living as life renewing itself by cell death loss and it's return healing. Depended on holy light holy water above.

Without natural life the cell body won't renew in blood cell biochemistry a teaching. Genesis.

After life sacrifice not before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And?



You are basing on what we currently know as if we know all things. You may be right but, like the discovery of quantum mechanics, information can change. (Not that it matters to me - time-frame is irrelevant as there is not enough information in Genesis.)

We do know that if you tavel into space you don't age as fast as a person on the earth:
Say you have a twin, and you go off into space, traveling near the speed of light, when you return, will your twin have aged more?

So, my point is simply that our perspective may be different from what is presented in Genesis.

Time dilation does not help the YEC cause. The time measured on Earth would be a minimum age of time that passed. In other words the 4.55 billion year age of the Earth would be a minimum age even with time dilation.

And we do not need to know all things to be able to date the Earth since there are many independent sources for dating the Earth and surrounding bodies. There also various minimum age clocks. For example certain strata alone are millions of years in age. One example where even amateurs can confirm this is the Green River Formation. It has on the order of 6 million years of deposition in the form of annual varves. Those dates can also be checked by radiometric dating There were local volcanoes that erupted a few times over those millions of years leaving ash deposits.

 

[Kenny]

Time dilation does not help the YEC cause. The time measured on Earth would be a minimum age of time that passed. In other words the 4.55 billion year age of the Earth would be a minimum age even with time dilation.

And we do not need to know all things to be able to date the Earth since there are many independent sources for dating the Earth and surrounding bodies. There also various minimum age clocks. For example certain strata alone are millions of years in age. One example where even amateurs can confirm this is the Green River Formation. It has on the order of 6 million years of deposition in the form of annual varves. Those dates can also be checked by radiometric dating There were local volcanoes that erupted a few times over those millions of years leaving ash deposits.

I tend to believe that "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth" (no time frame).

Just trying to understand the YEC position, I decided to look at their website:

Have you researched that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I tend to believe that "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth" (no time frame).

Just trying to understand the YEC position, I decided to look at their website:

View attachment 60732

Have you researched that?

Why don't you ask questions instead of referring to websites where one has to swear not to use the scientific method. I can tell you where the sediment is. Most of it is in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is regularly recycled. It is formed into rock, uplifted and eroded. Also creationists tend to cherry pick data whenever they can. They will use the highest erosion rates that they can find.

If their beliefs are true why can't they properly support their claims with scientific evidence? This should be a major worry on the part of people that want to believe in creationism. Creationists cannot seem to follow the scientific method properly at all. There are almost zero real creationist peer reviewed papers. This is not due to some huge conspiracy. It is because they appear to be afraid to properly test their beliefs.

 

[Sheldon]

Could be just earth as we know it today.

What could?