Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Appearance of old age young earth creationism

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 3:46:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Young earth creationists often say God just created the earth with the appearance of old age but I don't quite get why he would.

I'm just curious. Why do you think God would want to do that?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:00:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm kind of undecided on the issue, but I think a young earth creation would say things like it could show God's power. Old earth creationist would say it makes God look like a deceiver which obviously is inconsistent with Gods character.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:01:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 4:00:42 PM, stubs wrote:
I'm kind of undecided on the issue, but I think a young earth creation would say things like it could show God's power. Old earth creationist would say it makes God look like a deceiver which obviously is inconsistent with Gods character.

Why is that inconsistent with Gods character?
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:04:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 3:46:43 PM, phantom wrote:
Young earth creationists often say God just created the earth with the appearance of old age but I don't quite get why he would.

I'm just curious. Why do you think God would want to do that?


I think Adam is a good point. He wasn't created a baby then grow into a man..(at least we have no reason to believe so), he was created a grown mature man.

So in the same sense, the universe was created in maturity.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:09:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 4:04:38 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:46:43 PM, phantom wrote:
Young earth creationists often say God just created the earth with the appearance of old age but I don't quite get why he would.

I'm just curious. Why do you think God would want to do that?


I think Adam is a good point. He wasn't created a baby then grow into a man..(at least we have no reason to believe so), he was created a grown mature man.

So in the same sense, the universe was created in maturity.

Where do you get that because one man was created in maturity, the universe must have been created in maturity? I think you are missing a link there..
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:10:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The age of the earth can be shown to be billions of years using the speed of light, radioactive decay and gravity(multiple methods). Why would God put such an effort to make the earth look old?

Maybe God does not want us to follow him. Maybe he realized he fucked up writing the Bible, and started creating contradictory evedence so people would not follow the crzy stuff in the Bible.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:11:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 4:10:03 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
The age of the earth can be shown to be billions of years using the speed of light, radioactive decay and gravity(multiple methods). Why would God put such an effort to make the earth look old?


A christian would say, "God is omnipotent so it really was not that much effort"

Maybe God does not want us to follow him. Maybe he realized he fucked up writing the Bible, and started creating contradictory evedence so people would not follow the crzy stuff in the Bible.

Evidence? Instead of just assertions?
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:13:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 4:04:38 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:


I think Adam is a good point. He wasn't created a baby then grow into a man..(at least we have no reason to believe so), he was created a grown mature man.

So in the same sense, the universe was created in maturity.

Doesn't that make God look like a deceiver?
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:15:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 4:13:18 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/7/2012 4:04:38 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:


I think Adam is a good point. He wasn't created a baby then grow into a man..(at least we have no reason to believe so), he was created a grown mature man.

So in the same sense, the universe was created in maturity.

Doesn't that make God look like a deceiver?

Exactly what is wrong with God being a deceiver?
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:17:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 4:15:01 PM, THEBOMB wrote:

Exactly what is wrong with God being a deceiver?

From a Christian world view? He wouldn't be all good then which is inconsistent with Gods character
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:19:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 4:17:30 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/7/2012 4:15:01 PM, THEBOMB wrote:

Exactly what is wrong with God being a deceiver?

From a Christian world view? He wouldn't be all good then which is inconsistent with Gods character

Why is deception bad?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:20:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 4:11:27 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/7/2012 4:10:03 PM, twocupcakes wrote:


A christian would say, "God is omnipotent so it really was not that much effort"

Evidence? Instead of just assertions?

Well, it shows clear intent that God altered the world to make it look older. He altered the radioactive decay of all the objects on Earth, and the light of all the stars/planets and probably other evidence too. So God clearly wants us to think that the Earth is Old because he altered it right? Or does God want us to listen to what is read in the bible.

My best guess is that God did this do discredit the Bible so people would stop taking it so literaly. For example, maybe God changed his mind about it being wrong to eat fish on fridays, work on the sabbath, have rapists marry rape victims, and he created contradictory evidence to contradict the Bible.

Then again, like most people, I just warp my image of God to shape my worldview.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:21:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Creationism is possible. But I believe in a old age(maybe not as long as scientist say but longer than 6k.) I have Biblical reasons. Gen 1:2 the earth was formless and void, disturbes me. Because God creates everything perfect and functioning from the beginning. This leads to it sounding as a judgement on the earth instead of a whole new creation. I think Gen1:1 is literally hinting to God created all in the beginning and it was good and then became bad and was judged and God remade and made US.
TheAsylum
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:28:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 4:09:03 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/7/2012 4:04:38 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/7/2012 3:46:43 PM, phantom wrote:
Young earth creationists often say God just created the earth with the appearance of old age but I don't quite get why he would.

I'm just curious. Why do you think God would want to do that?


I think Adam is a good point. He wasn't created a baby then grow into a man..(at least we have no reason to believe so), he was created a grown mature man.

So in the same sense, the universe was created in maturity.

Where do you get that because one man was created in maturity, the universe must have been created in maturity? I think you are missing a link there..


No.. that's not the sole reason. I was just submitting my 2 cents; I think it's something symbolic of how the universe was created.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:29:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 4:13:18 PM, stubs wrote:
At 6/7/2012 4:04:38 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:


I think Adam is a good point. He wasn't created a baby then grow into a man..(at least we have no reason to believe so), he was created a grown mature man.

So in the same sense, the universe was created in maturity.

Doesn't that make God look like a deceiver?


Nope. Just because we haven't figured it out doesn't mean God made it so that we couldn't..

or maybe he did..

who knows.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:44:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 4:20:30 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/7/2012 4:11:27 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/7/2012 4:10:03 PM, twocupcakes wrote:


A christian would say, "God is omnipotent so it really was not that much effort"

Evidence? Instead of just assertions?

Well, it shows clear intent that God altered the world to make it look older. He altered the radioactive decay of all the objects on Earth, and the light of all the stars/planets and probably other evidence too. So God clearly wants us to think that the Earth is Old because he altered it right? Or does God want us to listen to what is read in the bible.

My best guess is that God did this do discredit the Bible so people would stop taking it so literaly. For example, maybe God changed his mind about it being wrong to eat fish on fridays, work on the sabbath, have rapists marry rape victims, and he created contradictory evidence to contradict the Bible.

Then again, like most people, I just warp my image of God to shape my worldview.

This all must assert that man can and has ever had the possibilities to know anythings age that are multiple thousands of years old. Its iffy......
TheAsylum
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:50:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 4:44:34 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 4:20:30 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/7/2012 4:11:27 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/7/2012 4:10:03 PM, twocupcakes wrote:


A christian would say, "God is omnipotent so it really was not that much effort"

Evidence? Instead of just assertions?

Well, it shows clear intent that God altered the world to make it look older. He altered the radioactive decay of all the objects on Earth, and the light of all the stars/planets and probably other evidence too. So God clearly wants us to think that the Earth is Old because he altered it right? Or does God want us to listen to what is read in the bible.

My best guess is that God did this do discredit the Bible so people would stop taking it so literaly. For example, maybe God changed his mind about it being wrong to eat fish on fridays, work on the sabbath, have rapists marry rape victims, and he created contradictory evidence to contradict the Bible.

Then again, like most people, I just warp my image of God to shape my worldview.

This all must assert that man can and has ever had the possibilities to know anythings age that are multiple thousands of years old. Its iffy......

Yes. We can tell the ages of things. The speed of light method is quite simple. We can see stars that are so far away that it would take billions of years for the light to reach us. Since we can see them, billions of years must have passed.

There are other methods also (radioactive decay for one). So, without supernatural intervention we can tell the date of the earth.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 4:58:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 4:50:08 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/7/2012 4:44:34 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 4:20:30 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/7/2012 4:11:27 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/7/2012 4:10:03 PM, twocupcakes wrote:


A christian would say, "God is omnipotent so it really was not that much effort"

Evidence? Instead of just assertions?

Well, it shows clear intent that God altered the world to make it look older. He altered the radioactive decay of all the objects on Earth, and the light of all the stars/planets and probably other evidence too. So God clearly wants us to think that the Earth is Old because he altered it right? Or does God want us to listen to what is read in the bible.

My best guess is that God did this do discredit the Bible so people would stop taking it so literaly. For example, maybe God changed his mind about it being wrong to eat fish on fridays, work on the sabbath, have rapists marry rape victims, and he created contradictory evidence to contradict the Bible.

Then again, like most people, I just warp my image of God to shape my worldview.

This all must assert that man can and has ever had the possibilities to know anythings age that are multiple thousands of years old. Its iffy......

Yes. We can tell the ages of things. The speed of light method is quite simple. We can see stars that are so far away that it would take billions of years for the light to reach us. Since we can see them, billions of years must have passed.

There are other methods also (radioactive decay for one). So, without supernatural intervention we can tell the date of the earth.

^You do not see the assumption there? You see that thats what you think and thereofre thats how it is. When anyone knows you sure wasnt around to know if it took that long for the stars to appear to earth. Also you can disprove a God would just created everything functional when He clearly discribes that. You refuse to obknowledge that your dating techniques aould be worng all along and that is quite possible. But its refused. why? Man wants to assume like he knows the answers when his little time has come close to finding it. In fact if people had not believed in God and had not passed all those triditions laong we aould not be were we are today. We would no Law - No order. Point is man dont know everything and dont things billions of years ago unless a invisable God told them.
TheAsylum
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 5:24:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

Yes. We can tell the ages of things. The speed of light method is quite simple. We can see stars that are so far away that it would take billions of years for the light to reach us. Since we can see them, billions of years must have passed.

There are other methods also (radioactive decay for one). So, without supernatural intervention we can tell the date of the earth.

^You do not see the assumption there? You see that thats what you think and thereofre thats how it is. When anyone knows you sure wasnt around to know if it took that long for the stars to appear to earth. Also you can disprove a God would just created everything functional when He clearly discribes that. You refuse to obknowledge that your dating techniques aould be worng all along and that is quite possible. But its refused. why? Man wants to assume like he knows the answers when his little time has come close to finding it. In fact if people had not believed in God and had not passed all those triditions laong we aould not be were we are today. We would no Law - No order. Point is man dont know everything and dont things billions of years ago unless a invisable God told them.

It is a simple math problem. We observe that light travels at a certain speed. We observe that stars are a certain distance away. To travel this distance at the speed of light, it would take billions of years.

Given, the speed of light is c, the distance from the stars is x, we can compute the time it would take ti travel this distance. We know that the distance is traveled, because we observe lights from these stars. This computation is entirely based on observation.

The only assumption I made is that supernatural forces did not intervene. Without this assumption, we literally cannot know anything.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 5:28:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is a simple math problem. We observe that light travels at a certain speed. We observe that stars are a certain distance away. To travel this distance at the speed of light, it would take billions of years.

Given, the speed of light is c, the distance from the stars is x, we can compute the time it would take ti travel this distance. We know that the distance is traveled, because we observe lights from these stars. This computation is entirely based on observation.

The only assumption I made is that supernatural forces did not intervene. Without this assumption, we literally cannot know anything.

I agree it is math. The problem is is that math is never wrong but someone using math can be. That tugs at the question, do the ones calculating the math problem use all need calculations. So ill ask you, do you know you(anybody) are adding in all elements needed for the problem to properly solve it?
TheAsylum
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 6:38:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

I agree it is math. The problem is is that math is never wrong but someone using math can be. That tugs at the question, do the ones calculating the math problem use all need calculations. So ill ask you, do you know you(anybody) are adding in all elements needed for the problem to properly solve it?

There are only two variables in the calculation, the speed of light, and the distance from earth of the star. The distance is calculated using trigonometry http://www.astronomyforbeginners.com...

The speed of light has been observed and calculated many ways. The most accurate is supposedly using laser interferometer techniques.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 9:51:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Scotty, it's quite simple. Suppose Ryan runs at a constant velocity of 3 meters per second. No more no less and no acceleration. Now suppose we know that Ryan started running from point a and he has reached point b. Point B is 300 meters away from point a. All it takes is some simple math to deduce that Ryan has been running for 1 minute and 40 seconds. Apply it to the earth and a young earth creationist would be saying that Ryan has only been running for half a minute even if that cannot correlate with the math.

Not perfectly analogous but you get the point.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 9:59:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 9:51:20 PM, phantom wrote:
Scotty, it's quite simple. Suppose Ryan runs at a constant velocity of 3 meters per second. No more no less and no acceleration. Now suppose we know that Ryan started running from point a and he has reached point b. Point B is 300 meters away from point a. All it takes is some simple math to deduce that Ryan has been running for 1 minute and 40 seconds. Apply it to the earth and a young earth creationist would be saying that Ryan has only been running for half a minute even if that cannot correlate with the math.

Not perfectly analogous but you get the point.
I do get the point! How do you know there is no more or less acceleration? How do we know point A is 300 meters away from point B? Dont we assume these? And another point I would suppose that since man does not live in space yet we mite not know all these things. And we do not know the things to calculate these things. Im just saying. It is true!
TheAsylum
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 10:04:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 6:38:25 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

I agree it is math. The problem is is that math is never wrong but someone using math can be. That tugs at the question, do the ones calculating the math problem use all need calculations. So ill ask you, do you know you(anybody) are adding in all elements needed for the problem to properly solve it?

There are only two variables in the calculation, the speed of light, and the distance from earth of the star. The distance is calculated using trigonometry http://www.astronomyforbeginners.com...

The speed of light has been observed and calculated many ways. The most accurate is supposedly using laser interferometer techniques.

Since we can contain light and a everyday presence in our life, I have no doubt we can calculate its speed. But I do doubt to know and/or assume to know such things as stars billions of miles away. I doubt man's knowledge of complete space conditions and aging processes.
TheAsylum
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 10:19:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 9:59:44 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:51:20 PM, phantom wrote:
Scotty, it's quite simple. Suppose Ryan runs at a constant velocity of 3 meters per second. No more no less and no acceleration. Now suppose we know that Ryan started running from point a and he has reached point b. Point B is 300 meters away from point a. All it takes is some simple math to deduce that Ryan has been running for 1 minute and 40 seconds. Apply it to the earth and a young earth creationist would be saying that Ryan has only been running for half a minute even if that cannot correlate with the math.

Not perfectly analogous but you get the point.
I do get the point! How do you know there is no more or less acceleration?

I've never heard of light accelerating.

How do we know point A is 300 meters away from point B? Dont we assume these?

The earth's revolutions about the sun causes near stars to shift their position against farther stars. This is called the parallax shift. Astronomers can calculate the distance by observing the distance of the shift and the diameter of earths orbit. This only measures stars within 400 light-years away, but distance of further stars can be measured from the colour spectrum. Stars with certain distances have certain colors. This method was proven by comparing the brightness of stars close enough for the first method to be used on.

And another point I would suppose that since man does not live in space yet we mite not know all these things. And we do not know the things to calculate these things. Im just saying. It is true!

We don't have to be in space to learn about it. That's cave-man philosophy.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 10:24:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 10:19:23 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:59:44 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:51:20 PM, phantom wrote:
Scotty, it's quite simple. Suppose Ryan runs at a constant velocity of 3 meters per second. No more no less and no acceleration. Now suppose we know that Ryan started running from point a and he has reached point b. Point B is 300 meters away from point a. All it takes is some simple math to deduce that Ryan has been running for 1 minute and 40 seconds. Apply it to the earth and a young earth creationist would be saying that Ryan has only been running for half a minute even if that cannot correlate with the math.

Not perfectly analogous but you get the point.
I do get the point! How do you know there is no more or less acceleration?

I've never heard of light accelerating.

I'm pretty sure it can't accelerate. The speed of light is the universal "speed limit" so to speak.


How do we know point A is 300 meters away from point B? Dont we assume these?

The earth's revolutions about the sun causes near stars to shift their position against farther stars. This is called the parallax shift. Astronomers can calculate the distance by observing the distance of the shift and the diameter of earths orbit. This only measures stars within 400 light-years away, but distance of further stars can be measured from the colour spectrum. Stars with certain distances have certain colors. This method was proven by comparing the brightness of stars close enough for the first method to be used on.

And another point I would suppose that since man does not live in space yet we mite not know all these things. And we do not know the things to calculate these things. Im just saying. It is true!

We don't have to be in space to learn about it. That's cave-man philosophy.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 10:28:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 10:24:34 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/7/2012 10:19:23 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:59:44 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:51:20 PM, phantom wrote:
Scotty, it's quite simple. Suppose Ryan runs at a constant velocity of 3 meters per second. No more no less and no acceleration. Now suppose we know that Ryan started running from point a and he has reached point b. Point B is 300 meters away from point a. All it takes is some simple math to deduce that Ryan has been running for 1 minute and 40 seconds. Apply it to the earth and a young earth creationist would be saying that Ryan has only been running for half a minute even if that cannot correlate with the math.

Not perfectly analogous but you get the point.
I do get the point! How do you know there is no more or less acceleration?

I've never heard of light accelerating.

I'm pretty sure it can't accelerate. The speed of light is the universal "speed limit" so to speak.

Yeah it's seems like a pretty specific and unchanging number. Would be very surprised if a scientist claimed it accelerated.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 10:31:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 10:28:05 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/7/2012 10:24:34 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/7/2012 10:19:23 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:59:44 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:51:20 PM, phantom wrote:
Scotty, it's quite simple. Suppose Ryan runs at a constant velocity of 3 meters per second. No more no less and no acceleration. Now suppose we know that Ryan started running from point a and he has reached point b. Point B is 300 meters away from point a. All it takes is some simple math to deduce that Ryan has been running for 1 minute and 40 seconds. Apply it to the earth and a young earth creationist would be saying that Ryan has only been running for half a minute even if that cannot correlate with the math.

Not perfectly analogous but you get the point.
I do get the point! How do you know there is no more or less acceleration?

I've never heard of light accelerating.

Would it not have to accelerate at the Big Bang>? And is slowing down?
TheAsylum
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 10:31:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 10:28:05 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/7/2012 10:24:34 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/7/2012 10:19:23 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:59:44 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:51:20 PM, phantom wrote:
Scotty, it's quite simple. Suppose Ryan runs at a constant velocity of 3 meters per second. No more no less and no acceleration. Now suppose we know that Ryan started running from point a and he has reached point b. Point B is 300 meters away from point a. All it takes is some simple math to deduce that Ryan has been running for 1 minute and 40 seconds. Apply it to the earth and a young earth creationist would be saying that Ryan has only been running for half a minute even if that cannot correlate with the math.

Not perfectly analogous but you get the point.
I do get the point! How do you know there is no more or less acceleration?

I've never heard of light accelerating.

I'm pretty sure it can't accelerate. The speed of light is the universal "speed limit" so to speak.

Yeah it's seems like a pretty specific and unchanging number. Would be very surprised if a scientist claimed it accelerated.

if a scientist claims light accelerates, that would completely destroy all understanding man has of the universe. It's like the group of scientists who "found" a neutrino that went faster than light...