Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So this guy says that we don't know for a fact that the speed of light has always been constant?
You say it's entirely possible that it DID move faster at one point?
And he says his opinion is that the earth is only something like 7000 years old?
And you agree?
So how do you explain ancient fossils? Ancient rocks? Ancient civilizations? Plate tectonics?
What makes you think it's possible for the speed of light to have changed over time?
Exactly, that would require such a Red Shift that the stars would be invisible.
Here's another point to ponder. If one considers the Creation accounts in Genesis to be accurate, as Ham does, this would require that the stars only be 2 light days away for Adam and Eve to be able to see them when they were created. Then they would've had to have traveled to the point they now exist in less than 10,000 years. This speed of light would need to be so exponentially faster than the current speed of light that , again, the Red Shift would be so dramatic that the light would be invisible to the human eye.
Exactly, that would require such a Red Shift that the stars would be invisible.
Here's another point to ponder. If one considers the Creation accounts in Genesis to be accurate, as Ham does, this would require that the stars only be 2 light days away for Adam and Eve to be able to see them when they were created. Then they would've had to have traveled to the point they now exist in less than 10,000 years. This speed of light would need to be so exponentially faster than the current speed of light that , again, the Red Shift would be so dramatic that the light would be invisible to the human eye.
There are a few scientists that speculate that light was indeed faster in the past. But I think they may be speaking about a few percentages faster. For Ham to be correct I am thinking light must of been like a million times faster 6000 years ago. We should be able to be observing that rate of decelerating in our own lifetime.
There are a few scientists that speculate that light was indeed faster in the past. But I think they may be speaking about a few percentages faster. For Ham to be correct I am thinking light must of been like a million times faster 6000 years ago. We should be able to be observing that rate of decelerating in our own lifetime.
So this guy says that we don't know for a fact that the speed of light has always been constant?
You say it's entirely possible that it DID move faster at one point?
And he says his opinion is that the earth is only something like 7000 years old?
And you agree?
So how do you explain ancient fossils? Ancient rocks? Ancient civilizations? Plate tectonics?
What makes you think it's possible for the speed of light to have changed over time?
My understanding is that there are a whole bunch of dating methods pointing to a younger earth, and much more recent creation event.
Do I base my entire faith off of that? No. It's not going to destroy my faith to find out the earth is 100,000 years old, or frankly, if it's a million years old. I honestly don't care.
My understanding is that there are a whole bunch of dating methods pointing to a younger earth, and much more recent creation event.
Do I base my entire faith off of that? No. It's not going to destroy my faith to find out the earth is 100,000 years old, or frankly, if it's a million years old. I honestly don't care.
Care to link to these dating methods. I admit to being skeptical with YEC as in the past they have used specific dating methods outside their range of use to claim that the methods do not work. An example would be using C14 to date an item that is several millions of years old, it does not work and an appropriate method should be used instead. My biggest beef with Creationists is not their beliefs but their dishonestly. Each method for dating has a range that it is good for and when they deliberately use them outside it's range to show that the method is unrealible. It's is not unrealible it was just used incorrectly. One would not use the odometer of your car to measure pieces of wood to cut for making a shed nor a spark plug gauge to measure the distance between two cities.
Best estimate is the Earth is 4 billion years old, our common ancestor with the chimps was over 4 million years ago, a million years ago the spot I am sitting was under a large ice sheet. All of this Ham ignores or claims is impossible.
I honestly don't care enough to. I'm not going to live or die on that hill and I'm just not all that interested in it. But if you care to find out, check out the AIG site, you'll find some cool articles, I'm sure.
Quote:
I admit to being skeptical with YEC as in the past they have used specific dating methods outside their range of use to claim that the methods do not work. An example would be using C14 to date an item that is several millions of years old, it does not work and an appropriate method should be used instead.
Like what?
Quote:
My biggest beef with Creationists is not their beliefs but their dishonestly. Each method for dating has a range that it is good for and when they deliberately use them outside it's range to show that the method is unrealible. It's is not unrealible it was just used incorrectly. One would not use the odometer of your car to measure pieces of wood to cut for making a shed nor a spark plug gauge to measure the distance between two cities.
Best estimate is the Earth is 4 billion years old, our common ancestor with the chimps was over 4 million years ago, a million years ago the spot I am sitting was under a large ice sheet. All of this Ham ignores or claims is impossible.
On what do you base those measurements? My understanding is that there are assumptions made to come up with those guesstimates.
That's the point. Generally, we do know that the speed of light has been constant. There is some evidence to hypothesize that there might have been some minor fluctuations in its speed from time to time, but nothing to the extent that would be needed for stars that are less than 10,000 years old to look as if they are 13 billion light years away. That would be tantamount to suggesting that the gas mileage in my car fluctuates so I don't know whether or not I can drive from New York to LA on one teaspoon full of gas.
That's the point. Generally, we do know that the speed of light has been constant. There is some evidence to hypothesize that there might have been some minor fluctuations in its speed from time to time, but nothing to the extent that would be needed for stars that are less than 10,000 years old to look as if they are 13 billion light years away. That would be tantamount to suggesting that the gas mileage in my car fluctuates so I don't know whether or not I can drive from New York to LA on one teaspoon full of gas.
Read up on Red Light Shift to learn more.
That is part of the motivation of the fundamentalists of all religions, make it so that the strength 9f science becomes acweakeness, have people know long trust or even understand science or logic and then it becomes easier to have the population simply accept their religious ideas as scientific and logical and an absolute truth. A person who sends another to aig for science cannot care much about science.
Unlike fundamentalist, I am not looking forward to a return to the dark ages. The fundamentalists have more or less succeeded in several of the Islamic countries, parts of Africa and sure seem bent on taking the US on to that path as well. There are already posters on CD who will accept any science as long as it's not from scientists or part of mainstream science. Creationism is religion not science. The Ark Encounter is a Literalists theme park. It's success or failure will not change any of that.
That is part of the motivation of the fundamentalists of all religions, make it so that the strength 9f science becomes acweakeness, have people know long trust or even understand science or logic and then it becomes easier to have the population simply accept their religious ideas as scientific and logical and an absolute truth. A person who sends another to aig for science cannot care much about science.
Unlike fundamentalist, I am not looking forward to a return to the dark ages. The fundamentalists have more or less succeeded in several of the Islamic countries, parts of Africa and sure seem bent on taking the US on to that path as well. There are already posters on CD who will accept any science as long as it's not from scientists or part of mainstream science. Creationism is religion not science. The Ark Encounter is a Literalists theme park. It's success or failure will not change any of that.
Believe it or not, we actually like science. But the fact is, sometimes scientists themselves have disagreements and are not in unison on some things.
Believe it or not, we actually like science. But the fact is, sometimes scientists themselves have disagreements and are not in unison on some things.
What does that prove? All that means is that we haven't figured everything out yet, which is part of the human condition. Creationism, as Badlander said, is not science and shouldn't be promoted as such.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
