Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Incoherence of Creationism

Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 4:57:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Sometimes creationists try to argue we can't calculate the age of the universe from the CMB because we don't know the speed of light was always constant.

But for the universe to make the impression it was actually 13.8 Gyr old (instead of the actual 6000 yr) the speed of light would have had an average velocity of c*2,300,000 = 6.9*10^14 m/s (because Hubble's law is a linear relation and 13.8*10^9/6000 = 2,300,000). Of course not even they believe it has that speed atm, so in the past it must have been even greater than what I just calculated, but I'll stick with my conservative assumption.

The energy of a photon is given by E = hf = hc / w (where f is frequency and w wavelenght). Visible light has wavelenghts between 380 nm and 780 nm.
So for a photon with w = 580 nm the energy is

E = 6.62*10^-34 Js * 3*10^8*2,300,000 m/s * 1/580*10^-9 m = 7.9*10^-13 J

Alpha particles have energies between 3-7 Mev that is 4.8 - 11.2*10^-13 J

Basically, your ordinary photon was as damaging as an above average alpha particle (the suns UV light would probably be more energetic than the strongest alpha radiation).

So, if creationism is true, why don't we all have cancer?

Further, claims like this directly contradict any argument from fine tuning, which makes me wonder how they fail to notice their usage of mutually exclusive arguments.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 5:30:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Actually, we simply deny your assume that the speed of light is a constant, and by so doing, we make your argument in support of your claim fall apart.

We also deny your assumption that the light we see is only from the star rather than from God make some of the light in flight, if you will.

As these assumptions are not scientific, we are simply forcing you to be scientific in your claims rather than atheist mystics. If you can do real science, sit down and shut up.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 5:37:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 5:30:15 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Actually, we simply deny your assume that the speed of light is a constant, and by so doing, we make your argument in support of your claim fall apart.

I haven't assumed that. That is precisely what my argument requires: a value for c that is not 3*10^8 m/s

We also deny your assumption that the light we see is only from the star rather than from God make some of the light in flight, if you will.

As evidenced by...?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 5:38:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
God just creating new light mid flight is an unscientific assumption, indeed. Thanks for acknowledging that.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 5:59:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Creationism isn't a science. It admits no transparency of mechanism, offers no significant, specific, predictive, falsifiable modeling, and is not an alternative scientific account for the origin of Earth, life, or the cosmos.

This thread seems an attempt to scientifically model a vague religious myth that itself offers neither evidence nor data, and admits neither prediction nor falsification.

It belongs in Religion.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 8:25:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 5:59:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Creationism isn't a science. It admits no transparency of mechanism, offers no significant, specific, predictive, falsifiable modeling, and is not an alternative scientific account for the origin of Earth, life, or the cosmos.

This thread seems an attempt to scientifically model a vague religious myth that itself offers neither evidence nor data, and admits neither prediction nor falsification.

It belongs in Religion.

lol. Some day you're going to lose your grip on this schtick have a giant mental fart and you're going to look back on this pompous crappola with embarrassment. "Good grief, did I really take the position that there is absolutely no way life could have been formed deliberately?"
This space for rent.
Peepette
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 9:49:47 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Personally speaking, I think any discussion for creationism should remain in the religion forum. There are no scientific principles that can rationally be applied therefore not suitable for this forum.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 10:05:41 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 8:25:08 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/21/2016 5:59:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Creationism isn't a science. It admits no transparency of mechanism, offers no significant, specific, predictive, falsifiable modeling, and is not an alternative scientific account for the origin of Earth, life, or the cosmos.

This thread seems an attempt to scientifically model a vague religious myth that itself offers neither evidence nor data, and admits neither prediction nor falsification.

It belongs in Religion.

lol. Some day you're going to lose your grip on this schtick have a giant mental fart and you're going to look back on this pompous crappola with embarrassment. "Good grief, did I really take the position that there is absolutely no way life could have been formed deliberately?"

V, I think it a marvel that not only can you tell with certainty the absolute truth of one ancient, unauthenticated, inconsistent and error-ridden doctrine, but can also see with absolute certainty my future.

Do you feel all humans can do this, or just yourself? Is this the same insight that sends all non-believers to Hell, and in your view does egregious self-satisfaction help the accuracy of ad-hominem prophecy, or hinder it?
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 11:20:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 5:37:52 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/21/2016 5:30:15 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Actually, we simply deny your assume that the speed of light is a constant, and by so doing, we make your argument in support of your claim fall apart.

I haven't assumed that. That is precisely what my argument requires: a value for c that is not 3*10^8 m/s

We also deny your assumption that the light we see is only from the star rather than from God make some of the light in flight, if you will.

As evidenced by...?

Apodictic truth from the Creator Himself.
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 11:21:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 9:49:47 PM, Peepette wrote:
Personally speaking, I think any discussion for creationism should remain in the religion forum. There are no scientific principles that can rationally be applied therefore not suitable for this forum.

Why not?
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 7:16:19 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 4:57:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
So, if creationism is true, why don't we all have cancer?

Because we're not living 6000 years ago.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 8:17:47 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 7:16:19 AM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:57:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
So, if creationism is true, why don't we all have cancer?

Because we're not living 6000 years ago.

Have there been, according to you, people around back then?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 12:45:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 10:05:41 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2016 8:25:08 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/21/2016 5:59:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Creationism isn't a science. It admits no transparency of mechanism, offers no significant, specific, predictive, falsifiable modeling, and is not an alternative scientific account for the origin of Earth, life, or the cosmos.

This thread seems an attempt to scientifically model a vague religious myth that itself offers neither evidence nor data, and admits neither prediction nor falsification.

It belongs in Religion.

lol. Some day you're going to lose your grip on this schtick have a giant mental fart and you're going to look back on this pompous crappola with embarrassment. "Good grief, did I really take the position that there is absolutely no way life could have been formed deliberately?"

V, I think it a marvel that not only can you tell with certainty the absolute truth of one ancient, unauthenticated, inconsistent and error-ridden doctrine,

But I don't "tell with certainty". I think so, that's all. "I think so" is a novel concept for adherents of scientism, but it actually serves the average person pretty durn well.

but can also see with absolute certainty my future.


Yeah, it's more a joke than anything. I had a gas bubble at that moment, suggested a metaphor for your pomposity, and reminded me of how a facade may sometimes come crashing down, often in a time of crisis.

Do you feel all humans can do this, or just yourself? Is this the same insight that sends all non-believers to Hell, and in your view does egregious self-satisfaction help the accuracy of ad-hominem prophecy, or hinder it?

It's not ad-hominem, just an insult. I don't ad-hominem you because I have no idea why you think the way you do. But fwiw, I simply do not respect the intellectual integrity of anyone who cannot acknowledge the possibility of life having been created. I honestly cannot understand the mental effort required to live with that level of denial, when it's a matter of one's own history. I mean, just to sit and watch a bird feeder for 10 minutes and not marvel at the genius of it all, I can't understand. I'm just a simple guy, I guess, I don't have the chops to create alternate realities.
This space for rent.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:29:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 8:17:47 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Have there been, according to you, people around back then?

Given the presumption of slowing light, if people survived 6000 years ago, they must have had some kind of protection.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 8:54:34 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 12:45:20 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/21/2016 10:05:41 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2016 8:25:08 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/21/2016 5:59:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
This thread seems an attempt to scientifically model a vague religious myth that itself offers neither evidence nor data, and admits neither prediction nor falsification.

It belongs in Religion.

lol. Some day you're going to lose your grip on this schtick have a giant mental fart and you're going to look back on this pompous crappola with embarrassment. "Good grief, did I really take the position that there is absolutely no way life could have been formed deliberately?"

V, I think it a marvel that not only can you tell with certainty the absolute truth of one ancient, unauthenticated, inconsistent and error-ridden doctrine,

But I don't "tell with certainty". I think so, that's all.
This site isn't dedicated to being satisfied about what you think. It's dedicated to being accountable for why you think it.

but can also see with absolute certainty my future.
Yeah, it's more a joke than anything.
You were being contemptuous, self-satisfied and unconstructive in a series of exchanges where you are never anything else.

Do you feel all humans can do this, or just yourself? Is this the same insight that sends all non-believers to Hell, and in your view does egregious self-satisfaction help the accuracy of ad-hominem prophecy, or hinder it?

I don't ad-hominem you because I have no idea why you think the way you do. But fwiw, I simply do not respect the intellectual integrity of anyone who cannot acknowledge the possibility of life having been created.
When have I ever said it's impossible that terrestrial life could have been constructed? Please quote it if you've got it.

What I have said is that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience, and the implication from a constructed universe to the worship of supernatural entities is nonexistent.

So the question you must ask yourself is why it's so hard to accurately state my position, given how many adverse opinions you have about it.

Such reflection may also help illuminate why all your exchanges with me are invariably self-satisfied, contemptuous and unconstructive.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 9:33:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:29:48 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 6/22/2016 8:17:47 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Have there been, according to you, people around back then?

Given the presumption of slowing light, if people survived 6000 years ago, they must have had some kind of protection.

Sure, if people had a lead skin that regrew on a daily basis, then sure you might survive. That's the minimum because this amount of energy easily splits the C-C and C-H bonds in your body. You'd evaporate in seconds to minutes.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 9:50:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 4:57:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Sometimes creationists try to argue we can't calculate the age of the universe from the CMB because we don't know the speed of light was always constant.

But for the universe to make the impression it was actually 13.8 Gyr old (instead of the actual 6000 yr) the speed of light would have had an average velocity of c*2,300,000 = 6.9*10^14 m/s (because Hubble's law is a linear relation and 13.8*10^9/6000 = 2,300,000). Of course not even they believe it has that speed atm, so in the past it must have been even greater than what I just calculated, but I'll stick with my conservative assumption.

The energy of a photon is given by E = hf = hc / w (where f is frequency and w wavelenght). Visible light has wavelenghts between 380 nm and 780 nm.
So for a photon with w = 580 nm the energy is

E = 6.62*10^-34 Js * 3*10^8*2,300,000 m/s * 1/580*10^-9 m = 7.9*10^-13 J

Alpha particles have energies between 3-7 Mev that is 4.8 - 11.2*10^-13 J

Basically, your ordinary photon was as damaging as an above average alpha particle (the suns UV light would probably be more energetic than the strongest alpha radiation).

So, if creationism is true, why don't we all have cancer?

Further, claims like this directly contradict any argument from fine tuning, which makes me wonder how they fail to notice their usage of mutually exclusive arguments.

The biblical creationist position is not that thes constancy speed of light has changed. While some misinformed creationists may claim such, AiG, ICR, CMI and all other leading young-Earth creationist organizations do not agree that changing the speed of light is necessary. The issue with the light-travel problem is time and it is likely that relativity and gravitational time-dilation has something to do with the answer.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 9:54:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
We know God changed the nature of light and its interaction with matter after the flood, because God caused the first rainbow to appear shortly afterwards.

Genesis 9:12-15:
12 Then God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations. 13 I have set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14 When I bring a cloud over the earth, the rainbow will be seen in the cloud; 15 then I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh, and the waters will never again become a flood to destroy all flesh."
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 4:51:55 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 9:50:48 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:57:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Sometimes creationists try to argue we can't calculate the age of the universe from the CMB because we don't know the speed of light was always constant.

But for the universe to make the impression it was actually 13.8 Gyr old (instead of the actual 6000 yr) the speed of light would have had an average velocity of c*2,300,000 = 6.9*10^14 m/s (because Hubble's law is a linear relation and 13.8*10^9/6000 = 2,300,000). Of course not even they believe it has that speed atm, so in the past it must have been even greater than what I just calculated, but I'll stick with my conservative assumption.

The energy of a photon is given by E = hf = hc / w (where f is frequency and w wavelenght). Visible light has wavelenghts between 380 nm and 780 nm.
So for a photon with w = 580 nm the energy is

E = 6.62*10^-34 Js * 3*10^8*2,300,000 m/s * 1/580*10^-9 m = 7.9*10^-13 J

Alpha particles have energies between 3-7 Mev that is 4.8 - 11.2*10^-13 J

Basically, your ordinary photon was as damaging as an above average alpha particle (the suns UV light would probably be more energetic than the strongest alpha radiation).

So, if creationism is true, why don't we all have cancer?

Further, claims like this directly contradict any argument from fine tuning, which makes me wonder how they fail to notice their usage of mutually exclusive arguments.

The biblical creationist position is not that thes constancy speed of light has changed. While some misinformed creationists may claim such, AiG, ICR, CMI and all other leading young-Earth creationist organizations do not agree that changing the speed of light is necessary. The issue with the light-travel problem is time and it is likely that relativity and gravitational time-dilation has something to do with the answer.

Now those are some calculations I'd like to see.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 4:58:14 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 4:51:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/22/2016 9:50:48 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:57:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Sometimes creationists try to argue we can't calculate the age of the universe from the CMB because we don't know the speed of light was always constant.

But for the universe to make the impression it was actually 13.8 Gyr old (instead of the actual 6000 yr) the speed of light would have had an average velocity of c*2,300,000 = 6.9*10^14 m/s (because Hubble's law is a linear relation and 13.8*10^9/6000 = 2,300,000). Of course not even they believe it has that speed atm, so in the past it must have been even greater than what I just calculated, but I'll stick with my conservative assumption.

The energy of a photon is given by E = hf = hc / w (where f is frequency and w wavelenght). Visible light has wavelenghts between 380 nm and 780 nm.
So for a photon with w = 580 nm the energy is

E = 6.62*10^-34 Js * 3*10^8*2,300,000 m/s * 1/580*10^-9 m = 7.9*10^-13 J

Alpha particles have energies between 3-7 Mev that is 4.8 - 11.2*10^-13 J

Basically, your ordinary photon was as damaging as an above average alpha particle (the suns UV light would probably be more energetic than the strongest alpha radiation).

So, if creationism is true, why don't we all have cancer?

Further, claims like this directly contradict any argument from fine tuning, which makes me wonder how they fail to notice their usage of mutually exclusive arguments.

The biblical creationist position is not that thes constancy speed of light has changed. While some misinformed creationists may claim such, AiG, ICR, CMI and all other leading young-Earth creationist organizations do not agree that changing the speed of light is necessary. The issue with the light-travel problem is time and it is likely that relativity and gravitational time-dilation has something to do with the answer.

Now those are some calculations I'd like to see.

http://creation.com...
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 12:52:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 5:30:15 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Actually, we simply deny your assume that the speed of light is a constant, and by so doing, we make your argument in support of your claim fall apart.

We also deny your assumption that the light we see is only from the star rather than from God make some of the light in flight, if you will.

As these assumptions are not scientific, we are simply forcing you to be scientific in your claims rather than atheist mystics. If you can do real science, sit down and shut up.

Insulting others is against the sites rules, vice
Meh!
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 11:56:34 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 5:30:15 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Actually, we simply deny your assume that the speed of light is a constant, and by so doing, we make your argument in support of your claim fall apart.

We also deny your assumption that the light we see is only from the star rather than from God make some of the light in flight, if you will.

As these assumptions are not scientific, we are simply forcing you to be scientific in your claims rather than atheist mystics. If you can do real science, sit down and shut up.

So what science degree do you have?
Meh!
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 12:04:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 11:56:34 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/21/2016 5:30:15 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Actually, we simply deny your assume that the speed of light is a constant, and by so doing, we make your argument in support of your claim fall apart.

We also deny your assumption that the light we see is only from the star rather than from God make some of the light in flight, if you will.

As these assumptions are not scientific, we are simply forcing you to be scientific in your claims rather than atheist mystics. If you can do real science, sit down and shut up.

So what science degree do you have?

Atheists are so irrational that they can never stay on topic. The red herring is their best friend.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 12:09:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 12:04:50 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 6/27/2016 11:56:34 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/21/2016 5:30:15 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Actually, we simply deny your assume that the speed of light is a constant, and by so doing, we make your argument in support of your claim fall apart.

We also deny your assumption that the light we see is only from the star rather than from God make some of the light in flight, if you will.

As these assumptions are not scientific, we are simply forcing you to be scientific in your claims rather than atheist mystics. If you can do real science, sit down and shut up.

So what science degree do you have?

Atheists are so irrational that they can never stay on topic. The red herring is their best friend.

You don't have one do you.
Meh!
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 12:44:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
What these atheists prove is not only that they are irrational, but that they have no desire to comport themselves with the rules of logic. Now, can one of you at least pretend to deal with the OP?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 9:13:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 4:58:14 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/23/2016 4:51:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/22/2016 9:50:48 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:57:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Sometimes creationists try to argue we can't calculate the age of the universe from the CMB because we don't know the speed of light was always constant.

But for the universe to make the impression it was actually 13.8 Gyr old (instead of the actual 6000 yr) the speed of light would have had an average velocity of c*2,300,000 = 6.9*10^14 m/s (because Hubble's law is a linear relation and 13.8*10^9/6000 = 2,300,000). Of course not even they believe it has that speed atm, so in the past it must have been even greater than what I just calculated, but I'll stick with my conservative assumption.

The energy of a photon is given by E = hf = hc / w (where f is frequency and w wavelenght). Visible light has wavelenghts between 380 nm and 780 nm.
So for a photon with w = 580 nm the energy is

E = 6.62*10^-34 Js * 3*10^8*2,300,000 m/s * 1/580*10^-9 m = 7.9*10^-13 J

Alpha particles have energies between 3-7 Mev that is 4.8 - 11.2*10^-13 J

Basically, your ordinary photon was as damaging as an above average alpha particle (the suns UV light would probably be more energetic than the strongest alpha radiation).

So, if creationism is true, why don't we all have cancer?

Further, claims like this directly contradict any argument from fine tuning, which makes me wonder how they fail to notice their usage of mutually exclusive arguments.

The biblical creationist position is not that thes constancy speed of light has changed. While some misinformed creationists may claim such, AiG, ICR, CMI and all other leading young-Earth creationist organizations do not agree that changing the speed of light is necessary. The issue with the light-travel problem is time and it is likely that relativity and gravitational time-dilation has something to do with the answer.

Now those are some calculations I'd like to see.

http://creation.com...

"The magnitude of the Pioneer effect, interpreted according to this paper, would mean the depth of the cosmic potential well is not far above the critical potential at which there are large time dilation effects."

Such effects would be easily detectable. We know from e.g. orbital rates of binary stars that these effects are minor. What evidence is there for this potential well?

"Now imagine that during the fourth day, God creates"
"As soon as God creates the galaxy masses"
"as God stretches out the fabric of space"
"let"s say that God designs or adjusts these three factors"
"suppose that God now increases the tension"

None of these is backed by evidence. None of these can be tested, even in principle. That wouldn't be as bad if they could at least be justified by novel predictions, retrospectively vindicating their acceptance. But there are none either.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
creationtruth
Posts: 101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 6:04:39 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 9:13:39 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/23/2016 4:58:14 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/23/2016 4:51:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/22/2016 9:50:48 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:57:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Sometimes creationists try to argue we can't calculate the age of the universe from the CMB because we don't know the speed of light was always constant.

But for the universe to make the impression it was actually 13.8 Gyr old (instead of the actual 6000 yr) the speed of light would have had an average velocity of c*2,300,000 = 6.9*10^14 m/s (because Hubble's law is a linear relation and 13.8*10^9/6000 = 2,300,000). Of course not even they believe it has that speed atm, so in the past it must have been even greater than what I just calculated, but I'll stick with my conservative assumption.

The energy of a photon is given by E = hf = hc / w (where f is frequency and w wavelenght). Visible light has wavelenghts between 380 nm and 780 nm.
So for a photon with w = 580 nm the energy is

E = 6.62*10^-34 Js * 3*10^8*2,300,000 m/s * 1/580*10^-9 m = 7.9*10^-13 J

Alpha particles have energies between 3-7 Mev that is 4.8 - 11.2*10^-13 J

Basically, your ordinary photon was as damaging as an above average alpha particle (the suns UV light would probably be more energetic than the strongest alpha radiation).

So, if creationism is true, why don't we all have cancer?

Further, claims like this directly contradict any argument from fine tuning, which makes me wonder how they fail to notice their usage of mutually exclusive arguments.

The biblical creationist position is not that thes constancy speed of light has changed. While some misinformed creationists may claim such, AiG, ICR, CMI and all other leading young-Earth creationist organizations do not agree that changing the speed of light is necessary. The issue with the light-travel problem is time and it is likely that relativity and gravitational time-dilation has something to do with the answer.

Now those are some calculations I'd like to see.

http://creation.com...

"The magnitude of the Pioneer effect, interpreted according to this paper, would mean the depth of the cosmic potential well is not far above the critical potential at which there are large time dilation effects."

Such effects would be easily detectable. We know from e.g. orbital rates of binary stars that these effects are minor. What evidence is there for this potential well?

"Now imagine that during the fourth day, God creates"
"As soon as God creates the galaxy masses"
"as God stretches out the fabric of space"
"let"s say that God designs or adjusts these three factors"
"suppose that God now increases the tension"

None of these is backed by evidence. None of these can be tested, even in principle. That wouldn't be as bad if they could at least be justified by novel predictions, retrospectively vindicating their acceptance. But there are none either.

Here is the paper you refer to: http://creation.com...

Certainly evidence exists which is consistent with Humphreys model:
http://creation.com...
http://creation.com...

Sure the biblical model can be tested and it is certainly backed by evidence. We must remember that every scientific model of history relies on an axiomatic framework from which to make sense of the data, develop hypotheses, and make predictions. To deny this would be an exercise of extreme naivety and a demonstration of an utter failure to understand the scientific methods behind historical science.
VelCrow
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 6:30:46 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 5:59:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Creationism isn't a science. It admits no transparency of mechanism, offers no significant, specific, predictive, falsifiable modeling, and is not an alternative scientific account for the origin of Earth, life, or the cosmos.

This thread seems an attempt to scientifically model a vague religious myth that itself offers neither evidence nor data, and admits neither prediction nor falsification.

It belongs in Religion.

^ my thoughts exactly.
"Ah....So when god "Taught you" online, did he have a user name like "Darthmaulrules1337", and did he talk in all caps?" ~ Axonly

http://www.debate.org...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 3:12:35 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/28/2016 6:04:39 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/27/2016 9:13:39 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/23/2016 4:58:14 AM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/23/2016 4:51:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/22/2016 9:50:48 PM, creationtruth wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:57:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Sometimes creationists try to argue we can't calculate the age of the universe from the CMB because we don't know the speed of light was always constant.

But for the universe to make the impression it was actually 13.8 Gyr old (instead of the actual 6000 yr) the speed of light would have had an average velocity of c*2,300,000 = 6.9*10^14 m/s (because Hubble's law is a linear relation and 13.8*10^9/6000 = 2,300,000). Of course not even they believe it has that speed atm, so in the past it must have been even greater than what I just calculated, but I'll stick with my conservative assumption.

The energy of a photon is given by E = hf = hc / w (where f is frequency and w wavelenght). Visible light has wavelenghts between 380 nm and 780 nm.
So for a photon with w = 580 nm the energy is

E = 6.62*10^-34 Js * 3*10^8*2,300,000 m/s * 1/580*10^-9 m = 7.9*10^-13 J

Alpha particles have energies between 3-7 Mev that is 4.8 - 11.2*10^-13 J

Basically, your ordinary photon was as damaging as an above average alpha particle (the suns UV light would probably be more energetic than the strongest alpha radiation).

So, if creationism is true, why don't we all have cancer?

Further, claims like this directly contradict any argument from fine tuning, which makes me wonder how they fail to notice their usage of mutually exclusive arguments.

The biblical creationist position is not that thes constancy speed of light has changed. While some misinformed creationists may claim such, AiG, ICR, CMI and all other leading young-Earth creationist organizations do not agree that changing the speed of light is necessary. The issue with the light-travel problem is time and it is likely that relativity and gravitational time-dilation has something to do with the answer.

Now those are some calculations I'd like to see.

http://creation.com...

"The magnitude of the Pioneer effect, interpreted according to this paper, would mean the depth of the cosmic potential well is not far above the critical potential at which there are large time dilation effects."

Such effects would be easily detectable. We know from e.g. orbital rates of binary stars that these effects are minor. What evidence is there for this potential well?

"Now imagine that during the fourth day, God creates"
"As soon as God creates the galaxy masses"
"as God stretches out the fabric of space"
"let"s say that God designs or adjusts these three factors"
"suppose that God now increases the tension"

None of these is backed by evidence. None of these can be tested, even in principle. That wouldn't be as bad if they could at least be justified by novel predictions, retrospectively vindicating their acceptance. But there are none either.

Here is the paper you refer to: http://creation.com...
The first quote, yes.

Certainly evidence exists which is consistent with Humphreys model:
http://creation.com...
http://creation.com...
Red-shift quantization has been conclusively debunked for at least a decade.

Sure the biblical model can be tested and it is certainly backed by evidence.

Then I would ask you to formulate an experiment that could test any of the last five quotes.

We must remember that every scientific model of history relies on an axiomatic framework from which to make sense of the data, develop hypotheses, and make predictions. To deny this would be an exercise of extreme naivety and a demonstration of an utter failure to understand the scientific methods behind historical science.

I'm not interested in creationist rethoric of "historical science" or anything along those lines.
fact is, you have presented nothing qualifying as evidence or reasonable axiomatic framework. Red shift quantization has been debunked, "imagine God did this and that" is never scientific, because its explanatory power is literally 0 and earth being close to the center of the universe, at the bottom of a gigantic gravity well, not only contradicts the evidence, but also contradicts any argument from redshifts, since light falling into a gravity well increases in energy and as a result would be blueshifted, not redshifted.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic