Me: I point out that I don't see why it's unreasonable to think God created the light beams as well as the stars. What possible evidence could prove their criticism wrong OR right?
Tommykey:
Events like Supernova 1987A? It occurred 168,000 light years from Earth but was not observed until 1987, hence the name.
With your approximate 6,000 year time frame, the progenitor star Sanduleak 69 should have been created in a state of supernova, with the light beams manifesting a state of supernova reaching the Earth at the moment of creation. However, since that did not happen, you will need to identify for us at exactly what point in the last 6,000 or so years the star went supernova and then the light of the supernova traveled at a greater than light speed in order for us to observe it in the year 1987.
But to take the matter further, with the more powerful telescopes at our disposal, such as Hubble, we are able to see the birth of stars in places such as the Carina Nebula. The story you're advocating is one of a creator poofing things into existence, whereas what we observe all around us are processes and objects at different stages in those processes, such as stars being formed, mature stars, and stars that have died. If God created the stars some 6,000 years ago to provide us with light in the night sky, then why do new stars continue to form?
Events like Supernova 1987A? It occurred 168,000 light years from Earth but was not observed until 1987, hence the name.
I am literally shaking my head here. Why would this be a difficulty?
Let's pretend the creation occurred at 7000 BC, a nice round number. And then the light was observed on Earth in 1987. 7000+1987=8987. So the supernova exists out there and was created in the course of supernova, as well as the light beams from the supernova up to 8987 light years from Earth. That's a little exercise called "addition", and I learned it in kindeygarten. I commend it to you.
In fact, you go on to describe it pretty close to that in your comment. So where's the problem?
Your facile objection continues:
However, since that did not happen, you will need to identify for us at exactly what point in the last 6,000 or so years the star went supernova and then the light of the supernova traveled at a greater than light speed in order for us to observe it in the year 1987.
1) Correct, it did not happen. There was never a time at which the star was not supernova. Probably (It's not as if we can know for sure - we're not there. We're looking a VAST distance away, and you're assuming w/o evidence that the laws of physics hold the same way at that distance).
2) The light having traveled faster than what we know as "the speed of light" is possible. I'd ask you to prove a negative, but you'd demur and throw out another argumentum ad incredulum. Suffice it to say, you don't know how fast light goes outside of, say, the solar system. You just think you do, and it's a de fide tenet of your religion, so you hold fiercely to it.
3) What part of "give me a reason to think it's implausible that the light was ALSO created, in transit, at creation" don't you understand? Where's the power of your argument?
we are able to see the birth of stars in places such as the Carina Nebula.
"Birth" is a specious term here. You mean coalescence of material into a galaxy. So what? Where did the matter come from?
The story you're advocating is one of a creator poofing things into existence, whereas what we observe all around us are processes and objects at different stages in those processes, such as stars being formed
No argument as to why I should think God didn't create things "in process". Just an assumption.
If God created the stars some 6,000 years ago to provide us with light in the night sky, then why do new stars continue to form?
B/c He did create SOME stars at creation. Then, see, there are OTHER stars ALSO.
17 comments:
The light having traveled faster than what we know as "the speed of light" is possible.
It is indeed possible - but you have no evidence that a) light can travel faster than the speed of light or that b) light did travel faster than the speed of light in this particular instance.
"Aha!" you might exclaim, "but you atheist Darwinists don't have any evidence that it didn't!" This is trivially true; but all the available evidence shows us that light travels at the speed of light and no faster.
Are you asking people to ignore a hypothesis based on empirical measurements that we actually have in hand, in favour of your hypothesis that has no empirical evidence in its favour?
all the available evidence shows us that light travels at the speed of light and no faster.
Yes, you have no evidence that the light in question did indeed travel only what's called the speed of light.
You don't have any idea of the conditions present between the solar system and the supernova. That's pretty relevant and we have no access to it.
I'm just pointing out the assumptions present. The evidence you have is insufficient to establish the contention.
"On starlight and stupid arguments"
A little poisoning of the well from the fallacy-shunner extraordinaire?
Rho:
Let's pretend the creation occurred at 7000 BC, a nice round number.
It doesn't matter whether the number is round or not, you still have to pretend. You have no alternative but your imagination as a means of awareness of your "cosmology."
You don't have any idea of the conditions present between the solar system and the supernova.
Actually, we do, as long as we make the assumption of universality. Since the assumption of universality is basic to the practice of science, you don't really need to point it out - but can you give a good reason why we shouldn't make that assumption?
The evidence you have is insufficient to establish the contention.
The evidence we have is that the speed of light is a physical constant. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, why should we not proceed on this basis?
Actually, we do, as long as we make the assumption of universality
Which is one of those presuppositions that isn't accessible by the scientific method. It may be basic and correct, but it's still an assumption, and I think that this ridicule that YEC receives is wrong. It's all about what you start out with as your presuppositions; and why I am on the fence in the issue.
True, bossmanham.
Also,
Actually, we do, as long as we make the assumption of universality
Hahaha. Yeah, there's the rub.
but can you give a good reason why we shouldn't make that assumption?
1) If I were to ask the opposite question, you'd make an argument from unsavory consequences - "but then science would be eviscerated!" So...
2) God is a better standard of evidence and knowledge than human assumptions, especially ones that are blind faith, resting on nothing. You've just admitted it's blind faith, which I find entertaining.
Also, please note that I prefer the explanation that God created the light in transit, just so we're clear.
Which is one of those presuppositions that isn't accessible by the scientific method.
No, because it's foundational to the scientific method. The "evidence" that the assumption of universality is a reasonable assumption is that it delivers consistent results.
It's all about what you start out with as your presuppositions; and why I am on the fence in the issue.
You are in no way on the fence about the issue. You make the assumption of universality every single day, otherwise you wouldn't be able to function. So why do you accept it everywhere except in this particular instance?
If I were to ask the opposite question, you'd make an argument from unsavory consequences - "but then science would be eviscerated!" So...
It's not that science would be eviscerated, it's that science as an enterprise wouldn't exist – indeed, couldn't exist. That's not an argument from unsavory consequences, that's simply a statement of fact.
You've just admitted it's blind faith, which I find entertaining.
Your use of the phrase “blind faith” is yet another of your blindingly obvious and numbingly tedious rhetorical ploys. “Blind faith” suggests that there is no evidence for the belief that the speed of light is a constant, but every piece of evidence that we have confirms that the speed of light is a constant.
Also, please note that I prefer the explanation that God created the light in transit, just so we're clear.
I prefer the explanation that God created you, me and the entire universe two seconds ago. What's your evidence against that explanation?
Oh Paul, we've been over this many times.
2 things:
You make the assumption of universality every single day, otherwise you wouldn't be able to function.
God told me He holds the universe together, and He is focused on Earth in many special redemptive ways. No such promise for outer space. Here's an idea - you focus on justifying your assumption and let me worry about my own worldview, K? Especially when you've proven so adept at strawmaning it?
I prefer the explanation that God created you, me and the entire universe two seconds ago
Been over that.
Rho:
God is a better standard of evidence and knowledge than human assumptions, ...
Rho:
Yes, I presuppose the reality and speech of the God of the Bible.
So, your assumption is a better standard than human assumptions. Got it.
A quick read of that blog post reveals that you have no evidence against my explanation, so I must ask again: what's your evidence against that explanation?
It's a simple question.
This is an example of why I find myself wondering sometimes why I bother to defend Rhology when other commenters on atheist blogs that he frequently visits (like Lui, or most of the gang at ERV) hurl insults and vulgarities at him.
He wrote on Jolly's blog that how do we know that God didn't create the stars in a YEC scenario (apologies for not having the exact quote at this moment) with the light beams stretching to Earth at the moment of creation.
I raised the example of Supernova 1987A as something that at least on the surface to me did not fit into his YEC timeline. I had never asked that of YECer below and was genuinely interested in what he had to say about it.
So, what did I get in return? Argument from incredulity! Stupid argument! Facile objection!
How about "Thank you for your questions Tommykey. The way I would answer that in a YEC framework would be..." You know, like people actually talking to each other. But hey, that's just the way I roll.
As for the substance of your post, Rho, I will have to deal with it later as I have to get back to my job now. But I just wanted to acknowledge that I read it.
Thank you for stopping by, Tommykey.
And just for the record,
(like Lui, or most of the gang at ERV) hurl insults and vulgarities at him.
There's been no insult here, and you'll search in vain for vulgarities. If you think the two are equivalent, well... it's hard to know what to say to that.
It's not that you were vulgar, but that I felt your tone was unnecessary, which was basically to take what I believe are legitimate questions on my part and to couch it like "Hey, look what this idiot said!"
Maybe Jolly set you off because he claimed that my objection was irrefutable, when I never claimed that it was.
I'll chalk it up to a difference in our personalities. I'm more of a conversationalist. "Hey what do you think of this?"
That's probably part of it, as well as my irritation at why so many ppl seem to think this kind of objection is a slam-dunk. It amazes me, but maybe you can show me why after Thanksgiving.
Please accept my apologies for the unnecessary stridency.
Alan admits to stridency. I thought I'd never see the day.
Something to be thankful for. Happy Thanksgiving!
cheers from also thankful Vienna, zilch
Post a Comment