I believed that science was a ship without a rudder floating around trying to prove evolution and the big bang by feeding that Darwinian paradigm and I thought that scientists were hopelessly lost. Recently though, I thought things were complicating my beliefs about scientists with this latest endeavor at CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) because the search may reveal unknown subatomic particles. They are on a quest not to prove the big bang, they hope that to be a byproduct of the experiments, what the real primer of all these experiments, all these resources, and great minds hope to find is something called, ironically dubbed 'The God Particle.'
The Higgs particle that can explain many things. They believe, it's a particle, or set of particles, that might give others mass. It would put many pieces into place and help complete the puzzle. It's no wonder they named it the God particle. God could certainly accomplish that.
What is puzzling is that scientists will go through these great lengths to search for the God particle but not God Himself. Only time will tell if God will allow them to succeed or not. I suspect they will never achieve the solutions for the 'theory of everything'(TOE) because they are missing the most important primer/rudder, and that is God. Still without a rudder, they will float endlessly.
I would hope they all would be honest with themselves, and after 10 years of searching for truth they conclude, that God is the truth and there could be no other explanation. What a glorious day that will be for mankind when Science finds that rudder and comes into port safe and intact. I would welcome them with a hero's welcome. I wish them well to accomplish the humbling task of finding God.
Dan, why do you assume that the scientists who are looking for the Higgs haven't already found God?
ReplyDeleteDave,
ReplyDeleteSome may have but to search for Darwinian naturalism is the opposite of God so there would be a true conundrum. I suppose there are some that squelch the Bible to be able to do research for a system they don't believe in, that must be hard.
I would hope they all would be honest with themselves and after 10 years of searching for truth they conclude that God is the truth and there could be no other explanation.
ReplyDeleteMan, religious people LOVE round numbers, don't they? Why 10 years? Is that the prescribed limit of time for scientific research? Good thing that wasn't applied to earlier scientific pursuits like the quest for flight, or the study of human anatomy.
Although I do suppose we've been searching for a cancer cure for too long now. We might as well be honest with ourselves and admit that god wants us to have cancer. At least we'll be given a hero's welcome. By Dan.
p.s. Still waiting for a post where you debunk atheists, Dan.
ReplyDeleteWow, there's something Darwinian about the LHC? There's something contrary to God about the LHC?
ReplyDeleteHow tiny and powerless a god you worship, Dan, that you won't allow him to create whatever physics he wants for this universe. Just because you cannot imagine something, you think your god couldn't have done it that way. If God created nature, then naturalism is what God intends.
It's clear (and not just from this post and your reply to my question) that you can't possibly imagine that the creation of the LHC is something that god would be happy about. "Hey, look! My creations have used the brains I gave them and have figured out a whole bunch of my physical laws really, really fast!" No, according to you, science itself is the antithesis of God. Whatever scientists learn, it must be against God.
If God created this universe, Dan, He created it looking exactly like we would expect it to look if He didn't exist (which, of course, doesn't say anything about whether He exists or not). The things we've discovered aren't a matter of interpretation. Anyone can do the experiments and get the same results. And if the universe was created, then learning about the creation is an act of worship (the idea that it's hubris is contradicted by your ideas).
The only way for the faithful to get away from the conclusion that God created the same universe that scientists measure is to delve into either paranoia (but God created Satan) or solipsism (but that would mean that your God-given senses were wrong). Simple denial doesn't serve as a basis for the statements you're putting forth.
So which would you prefer, Dan? Would you rather people see you as afraid of shadows, or simply insane?
(As mentioned in the previous thread, I really can't see this post or its comments doing anything but scaring people away from God, Dan. Besides, if you're the solipsistic sort, then you must realize that this blog may not even exist.)
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote,
"What is puzzling is that scientists will go through these great lengths to search for the God particle but not God Himself."
And what experiment would you propose that they do to try and prove the existence of God?
Dave,
ReplyDelete"If God created nature, then naturalism is what God intends."
That is a false statement because God said He Created the universe and to say the contrary (naturalism) is not true. Either God is lying or man is tremendously misinformed and I have concluded to the latter. Everything I believe starts with that premise.
"And if the universe was created, then learning about the creation is an act of worship"
Now we are starting to agree on things. Yes, if used properly science, I believe, will prove a Creator. It's the bias and the suppression of evidence that is tragic to seek the truth. We should be fully willing to consider all things instead of saying this universe must exist without a Creator. Go where the evidence goes not squeeze things into the Darwinian model or worse the current paradigm. It's a sad state we are in now because of it.
"I really can't see this post or its comments doing anything but scaring people away from God, Dan."
Really Dave? really? The atheists that come here were just about to believe in God until I came along? I have that much power? You give me far too much credit. Plus, God is the one that must choose you for Himself. So are you claiming that I am more powerful the God? People will fall away or be led to God not by me or any man on earth, but by God.
The Bible is quite clear who are the lost ones.
Without someone continuing in faith you cannot be saved by God.
Dale,
"And what experiment would you propose that they do to try and prove the existence of God?"
Great question but that isn't the point. Right now the paradigm is neo-Darwinism every single research and experiment is set up to feed that mindset.
Johnson said "Thus, zoologists, botanists, geneticists, molecular biologists, and paleontologists all see their research as aimed at filling out the details of the Darwinian paradigm."
If we change the goal to God instead of neo-Darwinism we would be far better and closer to the solutions we strive for.
Dan said: What is puzzling is that scientists will go through these great lengths to search for the God particle but not God Himself.
ReplyDeleteAs soon as deists and theists come up with a few testable hypotheses, then science will jump at the chance.
The reality of the situation, is that very few agree enough, even within a single (splinter) religion, to establish such things. To date, almost every physical location the Christian God was hypothesized to have existed, science has found zero evidence of.
This is the fault of religion, not science (or God).
In the interest of science, further reading and just plain old information, I really got quite a bit out of this link (regarding the LHC). Be sure to check out the videos as well:
LHC: Best and Worst Case Scenarios
Dan:
ReplyDelete"That is a false statement because God said He Created the universe and to say the contrary (naturalism) is not true. Either God is lying or man is tremendously misinformed and I have concluded to the latter. Everything I believe starts with that premise."
Personally, I never received any message out of the clouds. All I have is a bunch of people claiming that their god said such-and-such. Naturalism does not require that any god be lying. It only implies that the spokesment are lying. For that matter, only the instigators need to have lied. Everyone else may simply have parrotted something he believed.
Dan said: "That is a false statement because God said He Created the universe and to say the contrary (naturalism) is not true. Either God is lying or man is tremendously misinformed
ReplyDeleteI understand that your faith asserts otherwise - but you were honest enough to suggest the possibility of God lying, so I'm going to (seriously) suggest a third alternative:
... the Bible was written by fallible humans.
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"That is a false statement because God said He Created the universe and to say the contrary (naturalism) is not true."
Only philosophical naturalism insists that there are no gods, and I know of few people who are philosophical naturalists (Richard Dawkins, for a famous example, is not). The methodological naturalism of science makes no such claim. Its only claim is that those things which aren't a part of the natural world (those things which fail to conform to regular laws and logic) cannot be tested scientifically. God demands that nobody can or should test Him, so God exempts Himself from scientific inquiry, even if He created the universe.
"Either God is lying or man is tremendously misinformed and I have concluded to the latter. Everything I believe starts with that premise."
Except that you've set yourself up with a false dichotomy. If everything that science learns is the result of a creator God, then God isn't lying and man is still tremendously misinformed (unless you think that science has "peaked," in which case you are misinformed). If God created man through evolutionary processes, what do you care? God is still omnipotent, man is still special (God says so) and we descended from apes. Why would you, or anyone else, have a problem with that?
"Now we are starting to agree on things. Yes, if used properly science, I believe, will prove a Creator."
Except that God forbids such things, because proof denies faith, and without faith man is doomed. Why is it, Dan, that you wish to go to Hell?
Besides, science doesn't "prove" anything.
"It's the bias and the suppression of evidence that is tragic to seek the truth. We should be fully willing to consider all things instead of saying this universe must exist without a Creator. Go where the evidence goes not squeeze things into the Darwinian model or worse the current paradigm. It's a sad state we are in now because of it."
And yet, you haven't provided any evidence that's been suppressed (not that I've seen, at least). And if it were suppressed, how would you know about it, anyway? What gives you an inside line to unspecified evidence allegedly suppressed in an unmentioned way by some unnamed scientist(s), whereas I, an info junkie, don't know anything about it?
"Really Dave? really? The atheists that come here were just about to believe in God until I came along? I have that much power?"
Why did you think I was talking about atheists?
"You give me far too much credit."
No, apparently it is you who is giving yourself far too much credit.
"Plus, God is the one that must choose you for Himself. So are you claiming that I am more powerful the God? People will fall away or be led to God not by me or any man on earth, but by God."
Thank you, Dan. Sincerely, thank you. Now I can blame God for my atheism, and if He sends me to Hell because He pushed me away, it will prove that He is the biggest bully ever.
And you're also saying that proselytizing won't save a single soul. Or is that too Calvanistic? (I'm actually a big fan of Ecclesiastes.)
Whateverman,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link about the LHC it appears to be thorough, I saw a whole show on History channel also about it. It's interesting in a scary way.
Did you hear that the LHC computer was HACKED!!!
The end may be closer then we could ever imagine. Psst, time to choose.
"the Bible was written by fallible humans."
Correction: It was penned by man but written by God.
Dave,
"because proof denies faith,"
Valid.
"Besides, science doesn't "prove" anything."
I stand corrected, I keep doing that, oops.
"Now I can blame God for my atheism, and if He sends me to Hell because He pushed me away, it will prove that He is the biggest bully ever."
Tisk, tisk Dave it was you who pushed God away. IF I were you I would do everything the Bible says to do. Yes, God may have a strong delusions sent your way so you believe in a lie but if you humble yourself before God ( because you still have free will) and honor Him. He is a Holy and Just God.
Remember: God's Word simply declares that this is God's plan of salvation; 1. Hear the WORD of God. 2. Believe that Jesus is the Messiah. 3. Repent of your ways that are contrary to God's will. 4. Be Baptized INTO Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 5. Remain faithful to the Covenant you have made with God.
Keep them and you will be able to face God on Judgment Day. Why? Because, I believe, you wouldn't be rejected by God. IMHO
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"Valid."
Well, if it's true that proof denies faith, then why would you EVER want science to engage the "God question" in any way?
I've only been a tiny bit disappointed that you haven't responded to many of my other, more-substantive questions or points, because I really didn't expect you to. What I've seen from you so far suggests that you don't want to think about the "deep" issues, you're more a superficial kinda guy who would prefer to believe comfortable lies than face uncomfortable truths. So when you've blown off my substantial points so far (God creating evil, for example), I figured it was par for the course.
But if there were ever a question that demands an answer, it's the one I posed above: why would you want science to look for God when what science reveals is the antithesis of faith?
Here's the thing, Dan: I would agree with you if your beef were with scientists who claim that what they've found is evidence against the existence of God. Science cannot speak about God (either pro or con) so long as God denies science that ability. To suggest anything else is to either deny God's power or to deny the limitations of science.
But that's not what your problem is, your antiscience attitude stems from a belief that science should include God, but because it does not, it's somehow evil. Science simply ignores God because it cannot test God (and God says so), but in your mind, that ignorance is a blasphemy.
Yes, there are some scientists who think that there is no God. But they are not the majority. Nor do they behave any different when doing science than scientists who are faithful, Dan.
Because even the most-devout scientist cannot test for God. Those who claim to be able to are lying to you, Dan. Is lying for Jesus okay, Dan?
Answer this, too, Dan: If no man can lead another to God, Dan, and scientific evidence for God denies faith, then a person saying they have scientific evidence in favor of God (or that evidence in His favor has been suppressed) in order to help spread God's Word is itself an evil act, is it not?
Those are the important parts, Dan. Everything below is fluff.
"Tisk, tisk Dave it was you who pushed God away."
But you said, "People will fall away or be led to God not by me or any man on earth, but by God." I am a man on Earth. I cannot, according to you, lead myself to God nor cause myself to fall away from God. Which is it, me or Him?
"IF I were you I would do everything the Bible says to do."
If that statement were true, then I wouldn't be me.
"Yes, God may have a strong delusions sent your way so you believe in a lie..."
Now you are the one who is calling God a liar.
"He is a Holy and Just God."
Not if He's a liar, He isn't. If he lies to me (sends me delusions) so that I fail to have faith, and then he punishes me, he's a thug and deserving of nothing but scorn.
"Remember: God's Word simply declares that this is God's plan of salvation; 1. Hear the WORD of God. 2. Believe that Jesus is the Messiah. 3. Repent of your ways that are contrary to God's will. 4. Be Baptized INTO Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 5. Remain faithful to the Covenant you have made with God."
And if I know that God might be sending me strong delusions, then I have no way of telling if what you say is in fact God's Word, Dan. You've shot the Bible in its foot!
If God can send me delusions such that I believe in a lie, then the Bible itself might be a God-sent delusion leading me away from the Truth (with a capital T). Surely I have no way of piercing God's intellect to determine whether He is deluding me or not.
Clearly, the verse about God sending delusions should never have been included in the Bible if people were supposed to take the Bible seriously. The idea that God never lies nor ever causes lies should have been an overarching theme, but it was demolished by the "delusions" verse, and by the fact that God created Satan.
"Keep them and you will be able to face God on Judgment Day. Why? Because, I believe, you wouldn't be rejected by God. IMHO"
How do I know that you aren't an agent of evil, Dan?
Just in case anyone is worried: HAS THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER DESTROYED THE WORLD YET?
ReplyDeleteTen billion dollars to smash things into each other at (relatively) almost twice the speed of light, and a chance to destroy the world in the process? Bargain!
The Bible doesn't say anything about a large hadron collider destroying mankind, so we're safe...
ReplyDeleteTen billion dollars to smash things into each other at (relatively) almost twice the speed of light...?
ReplyDeleteNot exactly -- the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames, so the particles in question are instead approaching one another at speeds approaching the speed of light, likely at or slightly above 0.99c.
--
Stan
Ah well, relativity doesn't translate well into normal talk.
ReplyDeleteI understand (to a certain small extent) the way physics like this works, but I've never been able to put it into words... so I don't bother.
Besides which, it sounds way cooler to say "Twice the speed of light".
It's all good. Besides, in order for Dan's creation hypothesis to be correct, the speed of light has to vary over time -- it's the only way he can "explain" distant starlight in any reasonably meaningful way. So according to him, it is entirely possible for particles to approach one another at speeds approaching twice the speed of light.
ReplyDelete--
Stan
That is probably the best refutation of young earth creationism I've ever seen - and I've been reading these debates for over a decade.
ReplyDeleteWhateverman,
ReplyDeleteNo that is an old argument refuted earlier here
There are a great deal of assumptions with distant stars.
Aw, I dunno, whateverman. Distant starlight is good, but I've always prefered the fact that more than 300 major meteorite impacts have occured in earths history.
ReplyDeleteOver 6000 years, that's one every two decades... and if they all happened at once, (during the flood?) the earth would still be a molten ball of lava today...
As for Dan's starlight article, it is offers a few 'possibilities' for how the light could get here in a shorter amount of time.
The Constancy of the Speed of Light
The first is that the speed of light may not always have been constant. There is no evidence that it has ever changed, and a simple knowledge of relativity makes you realise that if it had, there would be. The effects would be massive. The article acknowledges this, in a weird roundabout way which makes you still think it's a possibility. It's not.
The Assumption of Rigidity of Time
The next option is that the earth sits in the middle of a gravitational well caused by the entire universe ("a finite distribution of galaxies") being centered on (or near) it (an unevidenced assumption). But there exists a problem which is even mentioned in the article. It is this: the effects would be tiny, barely noticable. The article gets away with hand waving: "the effect may have been stronger in the past". They then have the absolute gall to claim that physics even provides evidence for this: if the universe is expanding, the gravity well would have been stronger in the past. Not unless we assume it expanded a heck of a lot faster than it currently is, and the evidence for that would be even more apparent than for a changing speed of light!
Assumptions of Synchronization
A complex explanation involving "synchronisation" and "universal time", which essentially boils down to this: God created the stars billions of years before the earth, in an ever shrinking speed of light sphere of creation, timed so that they would all appear from earths perspective at once. Of course, this sounds rediculous, which is why the article hides it in complex language. They're essentially saying that since light doesn't experience time, the day it was emitted by the star is the same day to it that it hit earth (cosmic local time), which is why the bible says that the stars were created day 4.
The Assumption of Naturalism
Do I even need to respond to this? Science doesn't comment on the supernatural. If anyone wants to use ZeusDidIt to explain away the fact of distant starlight, that's fine... but don't confuse that with an actual explanation.
If the above OdinDidIt explanation is correct, then the universe is still scientifically 13 billion years old, no matter how old it actually is. And until Allah provides evidence for His existence, I'm going to stick to science.
Those are the only explanations given. The next heading (Light Travel-Time: A Self-Refuting Argument) is an attack on Big Bang theory, to which I'll simply say that inflation theory is a lot more widely accepted than the article would have you believe, explains in one hit far more than just the horison problem (including the flatness problem, and the monopole problem), and is a very quick (10^−32 seconds) event that occured within the first minute of the BB.
Back on track, the only three explanations offered are lacking in evidence, require very severe supernatural intervention to work, and two of them would leave physical evidence in the universe, which hasn't been found. The third is YHWHDidIt.
Which is why the Distant Starlight problem remains a very good argument against YECism.
Yup. I had begun seriously reading through this and trying to parse out the assumptions. The gravity well bit is particularly falsifiable.
ReplyDeleteBut, apparently I've just been living under a log; these arguments have already been made, critiqued, and the critiques debunked.
Whateverman wrote:
ReplyDelete"Yup. I had begun seriously reading through this and trying to parse out the assumptions. The gravity well bit is particularly falsifiable.
Which is kind of sad, because it is by far the most plausible (or at least most plausible sounding) of the explanations.
Unless you throw science out the window and say RamaDidIt, of course.
Heh. I love it when creationists pretend they're also scientists. I wonder if the money Lisle gets from AiG is worth the price of his soul for his wanton deception...
ReplyDeleteThe Constancy of the Speed of Light
Look at my right hand! Look at it! Don't worry about my left hand, look at my right hand!
Note that Lisle makes this "argument" with a literary straight face, while tacitly admitting at its end that "the constancy of the speed of light is probably reasonable and that the solution to distant starlight lies elsewhere". Although he doesn't say it directly, it is clear from the context that Lisle lists himself amongst the creation "scientists" who agree with the constancy of the speed of light.
It makes one wonder -- if he doesn't accept this argument, then why offer it? If he rejects this argument, then why not explain why?
Quasar is correct -- if the speed of light were variant, we would be able to detect its change, and we would be able to see effects of its change over time. We don't. As Lisle notes, changing the speed of light also changes the amount of energy in a system, which means that energy would no longer be conserved -- a law we have never observed to fail.
The Assumption of Rigidity of Time
This is a straw man. Note that he immediately gives himself up -- he begins explaining how relativity affects time, and how science (specifically, Einstein) has discovered this truth, such that no one who has completed a first-year physics course would argue that time is rigid.
Time is not rigid, and, as Lisle notes, a pair of events measured to have a time difference T in one frame may be measured to have a much smaller time difference t in a different frame. It's too bad Lisle doesn't complete his lecture on relativity, especially the part where it is explained that the measured time in a given frame is no less valid than the measured time in any other frame.
If a hypothetical spacecraft heads away from earth at .9c for a year, turns around, and returns a year later (ignoring acceleration), an observer on the earth will have experienced roughly 4.5 years (assuming I did the math correctly...). Which time measurement is correct? Both of them.
If Lisle wants to argue that in some hypothetical frame the time from the initial formation of the universe to now is measured as ~6,000 years, that's fine. We're not in that frame. In our frame, the initial formation of the universe was ~14B years ago. If Lisle was interested in telling the truth about time dilation, and if he was interested in actually informing the ["relatively" ignorant] layperson, he'd have explained this fact.
Furthermore, Lisle compounds his errors by making counter-factual statements and constructing additional straw-men:
Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies.
No, they don't. The universe is infinitely big, but this is a meaningless statement. It's akin to asking "into what does the universe expand?"
Not only that, but I've never heard of an astronomer claiming the universe contains an infinite number of galaxies. Considering the fact that the number of atomic particles in the universe is generally accepted to be a finite number on the order of 10^80...
No, not infinite galaxies, just a finite but extremely large number -- effectively infinite.
After all this, Lisle makes the very mistake he's trying to show, when he "[makes] a different assumption instead" -- one which fits with his presupposed description of events, as opposed to the Standard Model, which merely explains the data in the most consistent, simplest, testable fashion.
Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies.
News flash, Lisle -- it is. It is no secret that the universe is generally uniformly populated with matter, and that our position is not remarkably different than any other. What does this mean? That if the earth is in this hypothetical gravity well, then so is the rest of the universe we can measure -- and as shown in the refutation of Lisle's "time rigidity" "argument", it wouldn't affect the accuracy of our measurements. Saying that everything is in a gravity well that we can't measure is like saying that our galaxy is a marble in some extremely large kid's bag (as in Men in Black) -- it's meaningless.
As to the distortion of time due to intense gravity (relativity, especially in the initial formation of the universe), Lisle seems to think he has said something profound, that astrophysicists haven't considered. In reality, the ~14B year age of the universe takes into account relativistic effects. If it didn't, the claimed age of the universe would be much, much older. I guess it suffices to impress the layperson, though -- especially if they're predisposed to agreeing with anything which promotes the bible in the first place...
Assumptions of Synchronization
More hand-waving regarding the "rigidity of time". Clocks can be, and are, synchronized, based on the expected effects of relativity due to their relative velocities. If Lisle had written this a hundred years ago, before Einstein had released his Theory, he may have had more of an educated audience. Instead, he is exposing his fraud, by making claims that fail in the face of current scientific knowledge.
The Assumption of Naturalism
This is the best argument Lisle can offer -- because it has nothing to do with science. "Goddidit". Sure, Jason, you accept the scientific method ("the techniques that astronomers use to measure cosmic distances are generally logical and scientifically sound"), but when that method necessarily draws conclusions which challenge your biblical paradigm, you play the "goddidit" card. Way to stay rational, logical, and generally scientific.
Light Travel-Time: A Self-Refuting Argument
This whole section is a hodge-podge of lies, misinformation, and technical-sounding explanations. Don't believe me? Try this:
According to the big bang model, when the universe is still very small, it would develop different temperatures in different locations. Let’s suppose that point A is hot and point B is cold.
So the universe is "small" (note this has no meaning), and A and B are close, with different temperatures.
However, the universe has an extremely uniform temperature at great distance— beyond the farthest known galaxies.
So now, A and B are far apart, with roughly equal temperatures. What's the problem?
Lisle is implying that A and B cannot exchange temperature until they are so far away that they cannot exchange temperature -- he is refuting his own "self-refuting" argument (oh, the irony). Since A and B -- according to the Standard Model and Lisle -- were close and at different temperatures, they would necessarily have begun exchanging temperature (per Thermodynamics) immediately. Not only this, but exchanging temperature is not the only way to achieve equilibrium -- since both A and B will tend toward the state of least total energy; they can exchange energy through rotational energy, gravitational energy, etc. -- all of which occur at the speed of light.
Since the two locations in the cited example are two arbitrary locations from amongst an infinite number of such locations, and since all locations not at equilibrium are simultaneously tending toward equilibrium, this argument is asinine, from a physics standpoint.
Additionally, the needed temperature difference between the "hot" A and "cold" B doesn't need to be extreme -- differences of only a few Kelvin is sufficient to encourage the distribution of mass and energy that would allow for the formation of the universe that we see, and don't fall to this imagined "horizon problem".
How did points A and B come to be the same temperature? They can do this only by exchanging energy. This happens in many systems: consider an ice cube placed in hot coffee. The ice heats up and the coffee cools down by exchanging energy.
As I said, A and B do become the same temperature by exchanging energy, but not necessarily with one another. This false dichotomy is prevalent in the coffee / ice cube analogy: the porcelain mug heats up due to the coffee, cooling the coffee in the process, the ice cube cools the air, heating up the ice cube in the process, the coffee heats the air, cooling the ice cube in the process... ad nauseum. The coffee and ice are by no means the only affected objects, and, contrary to the point Lisle is trying to make, they are in direct contact. Lisle's "argument" hinges on A and B being uniquely tethered despite vast distances separating them. It fails.
Conclusions
This section almost demands a line-by-line refutation, as there is so much that is just plain wrong.
So, we’ve seen that the critics of creation must use a number of assumptions in order to use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe.
No, we've seen that in order to promote YEC, we must concoct new hypotheses which have absolutely no scientific value in order to continue to claim YEC is true. The assumptions made regarding the Standard Model are incredibly few, and they are testable. YEC cannot hold a candle to the Standard Model in this facet.
And many of these assumptions are questionable. Do we know that light has always propagated at today’s speed? Perhaps this is reasonable, but can we be absolutely certain, particularly during Creation Week when God was acting in a supernatural way?
I love this part. The assumptions are questionable, because we cannot be absolutely certain they are valid, yet this is the same guy who is accepting the musings of stone-age manuscripts as absolutely true, and manufacturing theories on-the-fly to attempt to fit the constant deluge of countervailing evidence. Can we be absolutely certain the speed of light is constant? Perhaps not. Can we be absolutely certain that the bible is the word of god? Absolutely not.
Can we be certain that the Bible is using “cosmic universal time,” rather than the more common “cosmic local time” in which light reaches earth instantly?
Can we make up more techno-babble, and make assertions as to the meaning and intent of stone-age authors? I just love that the bible's notion of six-day creation must be literal, but the depiction of the moon as a "light" which "[governs] the night", despite the fact that the moon satisfies neither of these conditions, is taken as poetic. Same sentence, different convenient interpretation.
When we consider all of the above, we see that distant starlight has never been a legitimate argument against the biblical timescale of a few thousand years.
Ha! If this is true, then why did he spend so much time waving his hands? Why are his "arguments" so geared toward the impressionable physics-illiterate?
Distant starlight is a problem for YEC, and it is only one of a very, very, many. Although the YECs may cry that evolutionary biology, geology, paleontology, etc., require various allegedly dubious assumptions, they cannot make the same claims regarding astrophysics and cosmology: they make direct observations. For this reason, Lisle has tread lightly in noting that our distance observations are valid, yet he also attempts to undermine the time measurements that result from these distance observations, neglecting (intentionally?) that the two are mutually dependent.
Since Lisle allegedly has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, he cannot argue ignorance here, so we must find him guilty of willful deception. He cannot hold the degree he claims without a fundamental understanding of relativity, and of the fact that distance measurements beget time measurements, and that measurements from within one frame, even if they disagree with measurements from another frame, are nonetheless valid in the frame in which they were taken.
So when Dan glibly states:
No [the problem of distant starlight] is an old argument refuted earlier [at the link to AiG]
He is quite incorrect. The argument was not refuted, even if you accept everything Lisle says. He merely grants that while YEC has this problem, the Standard Model has its own problems. Since the "problems" he describes for the Standard Model have been debunked here and elsewhere, Lisle is obligated to update his "arguments", or admit defeat.
I'm not holding my breath.
--
Stan
Wow, Dan, you're really good at this. I ask you, point-blank, whether lying for Jesus is okay, and you ignore the question, but link to the liars-for-Jesus at AiG in response to something else in this thread. The absolute lack of shame and sheer testicular fortitude required for such an act would be very impressive, if it weren't completely in line with my earlier assessment of your character.
ReplyDelete(You'll note, of course, that this is not an ad hominem argument.)
Tomorrows headlines: Large Hadron Collider destroys God by accident
ReplyDeleteDan
ReplyDeleteReligion has never, not once, proved science wrong. New evidence and better analysis can force the rethinking of a previously excepted theory but simply sitting there saying 'goddidit' does not prove anything, well it does, but not about the topic being discussed but about the person making that claim.
You have to hope that scientists can never proove god one way or the other, if he is proved not to exist then a whole lot of people have wasted so much of their time grovelling to no effect, and if he is proved to exist then a slightly smaller number of people have wasted a lot of time grovelling to no effect, given the number of religions out there you really can't all be right.
Not to mention that if god was prooved to exist i would be right at the front of the queue demanding some answers from the negligent sod.
I have to ask, because it bugs me, why do you think that 2000 year old fables can tell us more about the workings of the world around us than the findings of modern man. are we more stupid, less advanced or less observant than our forefathers? do we know less about the workings of the world? are we less able to use our observations to make testable, verifiable predictions about the out comes of actions? how come we can know so much more in so many ways about so many things and yet a significant chunk of the population still insist that these antidiluvian sky worshippers knew more than we do?
One last thought, if through rigourous experiment it was proved that Zeus created the universe and oversees all things, would you convert?
LogicLad said: I have to ask, because it bugs me, why do you think that 2000 year old fables can tell us more about the workings of the world around us than the findings of modern man.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100%, 'Lad - but I want to pipe in on your question above. I suspect it's a very comforting thought to look at the state of the world today, and believe that we've somehow lost our way.
If you look at fantasy (as a genre), this theme is an archetype - more modern societies are guilty of hubris, and require lost wisdom in order to fix the problems they're dealing with. Lord of the Rings, the Indiana Jones movies, etc (it's too early for me to be able to rattle off a huge list) - they're all examples where the pride of humans is rebuffed by ancient knowledge that had been lost or ignored.
I think Christians in general are (partly) attracted to their religion due to this idea.
Whatever man,
ReplyDeleteI see your point, but at the end of the day, fiction is fiction, it may be nice to want to believe that the good old sky daddy can make it all better but that just don't make it so. I personally would love to believe, i just can't turn off enough of my rational brain to do it. I love my fantasy stories, all the ones you said above are in my list of films i will happily watch again and again, and i love the escapism i get from playing d&d, and before that gets me labelled as a kid i have been playing now for 20 years. But i don't try and disprove solid scientific principals with DM's guide
It's not the hoping for something better or wishful longing after an imaginery past that bothers me, it's the fact that this imaginery past is used as a basis for how people should act and think today, not just those who have bought into the belief but apparently everyone.
Don't get me wrong: I wasn't suggesting mythology (for lack of a better word) is a *good* reason to have faith in the Biblical account of God/Jesus/Creation. Only that it may be part of the reason people are attracted to it.
ReplyDeleteit's the fact that this imaginery past is used as a basis for how people should act and think today, not just those who have bought into the belief but apparently everyone.
That's the rub, aint it.
This is my issue with evangelism & religious (political) activism - beyond simply an issue of personal faith, such people force their faith upon others.
Whatevermsn
ReplyDeleteI can see the appeal just don't understand how people can willingly blind themselves to reality. but to be fair they think the same of us athiests i suppose.