It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simple, yet Damning Proof Young Creationism is False!-?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Without a doubt, this most simple and yet most damning argument i've ever heard.

If the earth and universe were only 10,000 years old, then the light from stars and galaxies millions of light years away wouldn't even have reached us yet, and we wouldn't be able to see them.

how simple is that? is there some sort of argument against this? Has this been proven wrong or something... if not, then how can people still believe in a young earth?

I remember back in middle school (protestant private school), my science teachers were always trying to push how ridiculous evolution and the big bang was. I remember my science teacher getting all worked up saying that since dust on the moon was barely 1 foot deep, then the moon can't be BILLIONS of years old... or something like that.

If only I could see HER now...



Mod Edit: CAP title

[edit on 13-11-2006 by kinglizard]




posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
makes sense to me but if i told my mom about this (she's a devout christian), she would just say, well god must of made light speed up so it could reach us or some other nonsense like that.
the point is, people will blindly believe what they want to believe. and nothing will change their mind.
i wonder just what they think science is anyway? just someone's opinion?
so just let them live in there little fantasy world.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
If space is curved then those objects that are millions of light years away may not in fact be that far away. I think that some Christians confuse the modern period with the entire history of the world. You have not made an argument re: creationism being invalid here.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
One reason I don't think this is a 100% fact is because we don't know 100% that light does indeed take that time to travel through space. Sure we have scientists that tell us this, but until we can actually go back in time and to the point of discussion it can't be 100% proven. This is also assuming that the speed of light was calculated in a vacuum and that space is indeed a vacuum, and that light doesn't act differently in space than it would a vacuum that we created here on earth. Just to clarify, no I don't think that everything is only 10,000 years old, I am stating that the argument about the light not reaching us isn't a 100% proven undeniable fact so it can't be used here.

What about Carbon Dating?


Carbon-14 dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts of a biological origin up to about 50,000 years old. It is used in dating things such as bone, cloth, wood and plant fibers that were created in the relatively recent past by human activities


How Stuff Works.com



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Yeah, all these scientific points pretty much proves that a young earth/universe is just... impossible.

What is the Vaticans official belief on how old the earth / universe is?



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by k4rupt
Yeah, all these scientific points pretty much proves that a young earth/universe is just... impossible.

What is the Vaticans official belief on how old the earth / universe is?


the vatican looks towards scientific evidence to find proof of the age of the universe and earth

the current pope (no matter how much i disagree with him on all other matters) even thinks that ID andcreationism is bunk



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   
The easy answer is the universe was created with the light waves from distant stars already well on their way to us.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Creationist apologetics has dealt with this topic in some detail.

One of the more prominent ideas is that c isn't a constant value and has in fact decreased over time.

Another idea, I believe popularized by Russell Humphreys, is that a more dense universe affects time. He backs the ideas up with certain observations from relativity etc.

In any case, you're not the first person to think of this, and the 'Young Earth' Ministries have addressed it quite extensively.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
The following books attempt to deal with this issue

  • 1191 Richard Niessen. Starlight and the Age of the Universe. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1983.
  • Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield. The Atomic Constants, Light and Time. Australia: Flinders University, 1987.
  • 1488 Barry Setterfield. The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe. Australia: Creation Science Association, 1983.


Personally I don't believe that the Earth is young, but that human life is new to the earth instead. I guess you would call this theory "The great pause". In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.......(Billions of years go by).....and the earth was void.....(Creation of life as we know it occurs)

One small think I think you shouldn't overlook is that the Universe is expanding. The stars you're seeing were right across the street at one time. Unless you don't believe in the singularity of the Big Bang you have to admit that things were very close to each other at one time. We know that the universe is not expanding at the speed of light or you would never see light from other stars. Of course the stars were not in existance as we know them right after the bang, but there's an in-between ground where the stars were not as distant. Who knows how this all works.






[edit on 13-11-2006 by dbates]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
One small think I think you shouldn't overlook is that the Universe is expanding. The stars you're seeing were right across the street at one time. Unless you don't believe in the singularity of the Big Bang you have to admit that things were very close to each other at one time. We know that the universe is not expanding at the speed of light or you would never see light from other stars. Of course the stars were not in existance as we know them right after the bang, but there's an in-between ground where the stars were not as distant. Who knows how this all works.

Yes, I believe this is the point that Humprey's was trying to make. Indeed the universe was much more 'compact' than it is now. Humphrey's (and others) have postulated that this compaction, which affects gravity, also affected time.

[edit on 13-11-2006 by kallikak]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

k4rupt
What is the Vaticans official belief on how old the earth / universe is?

The vatican, nowadays at least, generally concedes to the scientific position on scientific matters.

If the earth and universe were only 10,000 years old, then the light from stars and galaxies millions of light years away wouldn't even have reached us yet, and we wouldn't be able to see them

This has actually been addressed in creationism.
arxiv.org...
I won't claim to actually understand the arguement. I think that gentry is saying that there's a core of the universe which is surrounded by a thin shell of hydrogen gas, that shell is respnsible for the CMBR, and that shell is producing the actual-redshifts that are out there, and thus givng the perception that things are further away than they really are.
And its been addressed by non-creationists.
www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
All interesting indeed and I'm sure alot of you will figure out pretty quickly how I feel about evolution. I steadfastly believe in intelligent design and the basis that I shoot evolution down with is this:

Where did the DNA in the first cells come from in the first place?

Didn't think you could answer that.

The chances of 'life' just falling into place are astronomical, almost infinite if I'm not mistaken.

The "instructions" needed had to have came from somewhere and you can rest assured they didn't just 'evolve' into existence.



[edit on 13-11-2006 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Check this out:

www.creationism.org...



Professor Werner Gitt, who works in the field of information science writes: "There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is there any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this."3 This statement, if true, destroys the whole basis of the idea that no intelligent designer was involved in the formation of the first life. Is it true? In our every day experience it takes intelligence to produce not only information, but also to create the alphabets, languages and codes which carry information. Every language or code we have ever come across, and the information spoken or written in it originated in a mind. It did not spontaneously arise from chemicals.


Pretty self obvious and evident to me. Until everyone can get past this, everything else is just spinning wheels. This pretty much nips it all in the bud.

[edit on 13-11-2006 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
"Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:"

My take on the young earth theory is that God Almighty can do whatever he wants.
God created the earth and heavens, and space was fairly compact, folded back onto itself in like a curtain, then God streatched out space AND light.

I know alot of people ridicule him, and I dont believe everything he says, but I do like Kent Hovind.
In that video there he debates the editor of Skeptic Magazine, and IMO whoops him.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
All interesting indeed and I'm sure alot of you will figure out pretty quickly how I feel about evolution. I steadfastly believe in intelligent design and the basis that I shoot evolution down with is this:

Where did the DNA in the first cells come from in the first place?

This doesn't shoot down evolution. At best, it's an anti-abiogenesis argument, but not against evolution per se.

Evolution is concerned with change within and between species over time, not the origins of biological information. Abiogenesis is the research that deals with this, and is an entirely different, but related area of research.

Additionally, ID doesn't stand in opposition to evolution. The major ID theorists all accept the theory of common descent to varying degrees.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
Check this out:

www.creationism.org...



Professor Werner Gitt, who works in the field of information science writes: "There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is there any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this."3 This statement, if true, destroys the whole basis of the idea that no intelligent designer was involved in the formation of the first life. Is it true? In our every day experience it takes intelligence to produce not only information, but also to create the alphabets, languages and codes which carry information. Every language or code we have ever come across, and the information spoken or written in it originated in a mind. It did not spontaneously arise from chemicals.


Pretty self obvious and evident to me. Until everyone can get past this, everything else is just spinning wheels. This pretty much nips it all in the bud.

[edit on 13-11-2006 by ViewFromTheStars]


Strong statements there. What is information? I can gain information from rocks, stars etc, I assume you don't suggest they required a designer?

Can mutations add 'information'?



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Kallikak

This doesn't shoot down evolution.


As far as the 'beginning'? YES it does.





melatonin

Can mutations add 'information'?


I don't know.. can they?!.. The onus is on you my friend.

Can matter in and of itself give rise to 'information' in the form of the first DNA and RNA?


Like I said earlier, until you can get past that you are not going ANY WHERE with evolution.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Melatonin

I can gain information from rocks, stars etc, I assume you don't suggest they required a designer?


I can see 'stuff' in the shapes of clouds and I don't even have to imply that they were Created.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars

melatonin

Can mutations add 'information'?


I don't know.. can they?!.. The onus is on you my friend.


Depends what you mean by information really.


Can matter in and of itself give rise to 'information' in the form of the first DNA and RNA?


Like I said earlier, until you can get past that you are not going ANY WHERE with evolution.


Again, depends what you mean by information.

Why don't you just cut to the chase? All you are really saying is "give me a complete description of how the first replicator formed" - until you define or at least outline what you mean by 'information', we go nowhere.

Gitt is talking tripe, a bit like dembski. His 'theorems' (as they are pure assertions with little evidence/mathematical proof) have already been shown to be rubbish.

ABE:


I can see 'stuff' in the shapes of clouds and I don't even have to imply that they were Created


And that is why meaning is in the eye of the beholder. Clouds do contain information, I'm sure chemical analysis would gain information about impurities and pollutants, and the ice crystals themselves also would possess information. If physical and chemical laws are sufficient for these cases (and rocks, stars etc). Why not for DNA/RNA?

All we need is the first replicator to form by chemical processes. We might not have the answer, but filling it with your omnipotent being of choice may be a bit unwise - science tends to remove these gap dwelling gods with time...



[edit on 13-11-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
As far as the 'beginning'? YES it does.

Nope. Evolution doesn't deal with the 'BEGINNING,' it deals with some point after the 'BEGINNING.'

I did note that you conveniently ignored my point about ID and evolution, that is most prominent ID theorists accept the idea of common descent to some degree.





Can mutations add 'information'?



I don't know.. can they?!.. The onus is on you my friend.

They can certainly change information.


Can matter in and of itself give rise to 'information' in the form of the first DNA and RNA?

Maybe, maybe not, but that's not evolution, it's abiogenesis.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join