See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

Talk:Starlight problem

From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Starlight/Horizon problems?

I am wondering, should the Starlight Problem and the Horizon Problem share an article, or should we just cross-reference them?BradleyF (LowKey) 11:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I acually don't know too much about the horizon problem, but I say make an article of it's own. AddisonDM 03:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes they absolutely should be separate articles. Just my opinion though :) Netharian 06:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What starlight problem?

Surely God can do whatever the blazes He wants. If he wants to create a world where the light from distant stars is already present and twinkling down on us then who is going to stop Him?

There is no starlight problem.

Oh, ye of little faith. --Horace 05:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is a theory similar to this. Mention of it has been added to the article. Augustine 06:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and the problem with that theory is that when we see something distant in space (like a supernova explosion) that light is many light years away, meaning that the explosion happened millions of years ago. If creation is only 6,000 years old, then these images are false, making God a deceiver. AddisonDM 01:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
With the greatest of respect, that would seem to be overstating it a bit. We know that God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform. Who knows why He might choose to create a universe that has the appearance of being older than it actually is? Trying to second guess God is a pursuit that is heavily laden with hubris. Only the disasterously overconfident would embark on such a task. And as for calling God a deceiver, well, I think we know who will have the last laugh as between you and God on that one. --Horace 02:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
My point is simple: God is NOT a deceiver. That suggests to me that your theory is wrong. The time dilation or the Humphrey model are much more viable theories. AddisonDM 03:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I dont have the article to hand , but I was reading one where the biblical account was compared to the big bang expansion theory, where God creates the universe very small, and then stretches it out big. That leaves starlight in transition , and solves sort of , the conflict. Hamster 03:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
That's what the article refers to with the reference to time dilation. It has some similarities with the big bang but is also quite different in other ways. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 23:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Although historic measurements appeared to show such a change"

Oh come on, you know that's extremely tricky wording, Philip. ;)

Yes, the historic data appeared to show such a change, but more modern measurements showed that this was a mistaken conclusion. And while I'm completely working from memory right now, I seem to recall that the presentation of those measurements also had a few problems, such as cherry-picking.

But I won't revert because it'd be silly to edit-war tweak and re-tweak a tiny sentence, especially since this will be properly expanded soon.

(Though a question that will be relevant later on: What's the policy on linking to sites like TalkOrigins? I recall some aspects of this being slightly downplayed on AiG/etc., so it would help to be able to link to sites critical of Creationism for some details. It's not vital - most of the pro/con material comes from AiG/etc. - but it would help with the fleshing out. I vaguely recall the linking question being discussed on a proper page, but I can't recall the outcome right now.) --Sid 01:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "more modern measurements"? The proposal, which did appear to be supported by the data, was that the decay curve levelled out around 1960, which means that any measurement since then would not be expected to show any decay. There were accusations of cherry-picking, but I'm not convinced that this was actually the case. Setterfield did exclude a few data points, but the reasons given for exclusion seemed reasonable and I don't think anyone ever claimed that there were more than a few data point excluded. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I seemed to recall something about something measured from distant stars, but I'm quite honestly not sure right now if this was about c-decay or something else. Ponder, ponder... Ah, I think I might have thought of this sentence from AiG (if I remember correctly): "If c has declined the way Setterfield proposed, these consequences should still be discernible in the light from distant galaxies but they are apparently not." That's what I get for working from years-old memory.
And the 1960 cutoff is quite convenient, and from what little I just looked up, it seems that he went the route of "Well, the more accurate measurements now show practically no change, but that doesn't mean that earlier measurements were less precise - it means that the speed of light stopped slowing down for no apparent reason!"
Plus the other level-out event right after Creation Day to avoid infinite c at Creation time ("One problem with this model may be the massive blueshifts resulting from a change of infinite to finite speed of light.").
I'll have to look into the arguments and counter-arguments about Setterfield's data interpretation later on - and then we should see if it's actually worth the back-and-forth trouble. A dedicated article about c-decay can afford full details, but one about the starlight problem should focus on the key points, I guess. If there are more solid arguments for why it was rejected even by Creationists, we should give them more weight instead of giving counterclaims to the counterclaims without end.
Maybe a good starting point (using Creationist sources, even) would be Talk:Speed of light on CP, where I had to slap Conservative around about exactly this topic. That also covers the "from c-decay to time distortion" angle. But good God, it's late here, so I'll leave it at that for the time being. --Sid 02:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It may have been "convenient", but that doesn't mean that it was not real. I've written an article about it: c-decay, and included a couple of graphs showing the proposed decay. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The edge of space

interesting considering the starlight problem. Ace McWicked 23:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Inside the star

Another aspect of this that most anti-evolutionists are ignorant of is how the light is actually made. I'm not sure if anti-evolutionists also deny that photons are emitted from fusing atoms in the core of a star, but if they don't, I wonder if they understand the journey that photon must make to reach the surface of the star. It must take some spectacular ad hoc hypotheses to reconcile the thousands of years it takes a photon to reach the star's surface (let alone the time it takes to reach us) with a young universe. If anti-evolutionists don't believe that the photons in the sun were created in situ, how do they think light was emitted from the sun considering the thousands of years it takes for light to reach the surface? Like everything else, anything more than a cursory look shows how anti-evolutionism is based on ignorance and falls flat on its face. SallyM 15:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Lord save us from all these unevidenced assertions.--CPalmer 16:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Ignore at your own risk. SallyM 16:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
At the very least, Caius that is your name, right?, they're the same unevidenced assertions that are consensus among astronomers and astrophysicists everywhere. The way I see it, Sally, there are three options: (1) Nuclear reactions were different sometime in the past. I don't know enough to comment on this. (2) Fall back on the Omphalos theory and say the stars were created to look as if the photons had worked their way up from the core. (3) Based on Humphrey's theory or an equivalent, say that millions or billions of years actually did pass in the outer universe while six days passed on Earth. --EvanW 16:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Caius Palmer? Interesting name! Evan, I'm posing this problem to anti-evolutionists subscribing to the Biblical Worldview, as defined by ASK/CMI/PJR/etc. #2 has been rejected by this lot. #1 is just an ad hoc hypothesis created only out of need to save the idea. I don't know how it would affect the problem anyway...are you saying that the photons didn't use to collide? #3 seems equally ridiculous, but as of now, the citation is nothing more than elephant hurling. If an anti-evolutionist would be so kind as to increase the specificity of that citation, I would like to check it out. SallyM 16:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
D. Russell Humphreys' Starlight and Time, also published somewhere in the Journal of Creation. It's the core of his theory: start by postulating the universe is three-dimensional (as opposed to a three-dimensional surface of a four-dimensional manifold), so there would be a massive gravitational well, so time would move much more slowly at the bottom of the well - so only a couple days would pass on Earth while billions of years pass in outer space. He brought forth this theory to solve the starlight travel time problem, but it would also explain how the stars (except, maybe, for the Sun - I don't know how much time dilation there'd be 1 AU from Earth) would have time to form. --EvanW 16:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand that much. Proposing that the earth (and solar system?) is inside the event horizon of a white hole is a fantastic claim, but so far all I have been provided are summary arguments about complex issues. Furthermore, if the sun was within this event horizon, it would also be subject to gravitational time dilation, which would still pose a problem for light escaping from the sun. So I really need more information about this proposed white hole. SallyM 16:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
And the evidence of the time-gravitational dilation field? And which is it: nuclear reactions were different in the past OR the time-gravitational dilation field that doesn't require nuclear reactions in the past or sun made in situ? How do you propose to solve your dilemma? Sterile 02:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Another aspect of this that most anti-evolutionists are ignorant of is how the light is actually made. I'm not sure if anti-evolutionists also deny... Like everything else, anything more than a cursory look shows how anti-evolutionism is based on ignorance and falls flat on its face. How ironic. Accuse creationists of being ignorant and in the same breath admit your own ignorance! As I've said so often, anti-creationists should learn about the view that they so readily criticise.
Regarding EvanW's option 2, although it is true that creationists reject the Omphalos hypothesis, that doesn't mean that we reject everything might be (incorrectly?) labelled as that. Clearly, God created humans fully grown, the sun fully functioning, plants rather than seeds, and so on. Light created in transit is rejected because of unacceptable implications, such as that light carrying images of stars which never existed going nova. Does the same apply to the travel of photons within stars? I don't know why it should.
why is a photon within a sun different from a photon travelling through space ? if they were created in situ then neither exists naturally, but only as a supernatural act of God. That extends well past a few photons to everything physical. If God created then there IS no natural world. Even Eves children were unnatural because a woman is born with all the egg cells she will have in life. Eve was created , so her eggs were created therefore unnatural. We can never investigate and get correct answers because there IS no natural world that obeyed fixed laws from the beginning. So we just quit science and learn the phrase "as God wills" Hamster 20:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The photon within the sun is different for the reasons given in my post that you replied to, and which Bradley has also mentioned below. The "natural world" being created rather that occurring naturalistically not only does not mean that it can't be investigated, it's that very aspect of it being created by God who also create the fixed laws that makes it easier to investigate. (Please don't continue to respond here within my earlier post; start a new post outside an existing post.) Philip J. Rayment 02:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
#3 seems equally ridiculous... Because...? Frankly, it sounds no more ridiculous than some of the ideas put up by secular scientists.
... the citation is nothing more than elephant hurling. Huh? The citation in the article (EvanW didn't supply one) is to a specific book. That's the opposite of elephant-hurling.
...so far all I have been provided are summary arguments about complex issues. Incorrect. Humphrey's book has very detailed and technical arguments.
And the evidence of the time-gravitational dilation field? It explains the facts at least as well as the Big Bang.
And which is it: Could be all three.
How do you propose to solve your dilemma? Well, some research grants wouldn't go astray.
Philip J. Rayment 13:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Does the same apply to the travel of photons within stars? I don't know why it should. Do you have anything to propose? Or just more argument from ignorance?
Because...? because it's an ad hoc hypothesis fabricated out of desperation to save another hypothesis. Humphreys didn't propose this because he's found evidence of a white hole, he proposed the white hole because he lacked evidence. Furthermore, you've ignored my point about the sun being within this white hole, which would mean it was subject to the same time dilation.
Huh? The citation in the article (EvanW didn't supply one) is to a specific book. That's the opposite of elephant-hurling. Huh? Are you feigning ignorance? Read the Elephant hurling article that you wrote! According to you, "A common example is to refer questioners to an entire large web-site rather than to specific pages.". That's exactly what you've done, merely cite the book instead of the specific pages relevant to the points you tried to make in this article. So please, stop feigning ignorance (unless you really are that forgetful or blinded), stop hurling elephants and give me the relevant page numbers for the claim.
Stop mixing my comments in with other editors, it's ridiculous, distracting, insulting and confusing. SallyM 14:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


(OD) This (light transit time within the star) is an intriguing issue which I personally have not considered. A couple of things occur to me. I can see differences between the rejected idea of light being created in-transit (in space) and the idea of the star being created fully functional (already emitting light). Likewise I can see similarities between the creation of fully functional Adam, and animals, and Earth and even stars. I also am curious about some of the specifics of the internal transit time, such as whether a truly "random walk" is in fact the case. I am just brainstorming here, and need to read more on this. Does anybody know of a more technical article that is available?

On Humphreys' model, the description above (EvanW's?) is not quite right. The dominant assumes a boundless universe (the full 3D surface of a 4D hypersphere), which input assumption results in the Big Bang and black holes. Humphreys' model assumes a bounded universe (a partial 3D surface of a 4D hypersphere), which input assumption results in a white hole. Humphreys' model places the entire universe initially inside the event horizon, and currently outside it.

As to hurling elephants; the citation is not an example of such. The article says that a certain theory exists, and the citation is a book which is wholly about the theory. The article statement is not making an argument about the validity of the theory and claiming the book as support for that argument (though even that is too specific to be elephant hurling). LowKey 02:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This (light transit time within the star) is an intriguing issue which I personally have not considered. I hadn't considered it either. It hit me while I was watching a Discovery Channel show about stars :)
I can see differences between the rejected idea of light being created in-transit (in space) and the idea of the star being created fully functional (already emitting light). What you need to realize is that the light would still have to be created in transit for the star to be created already emitting light.
Likewise I can see similarities between the creation of fully functional Adam, and animals, and Earth and even stars. This brings to mind an interesting point. Personally, I don't think rejecting the "God made light in transit" argument on the grounds of "deceptiveness" is a good argument. According to the interpretation you subscribe to, Adam's blood was made in transit.
I also am curious about some of the specifics of the internal transit time, such as whether a truly "random walk" is in fact the case. I am just brainstorming here, and need to read more on this. Does anybody know of a more technical article that is available? A random walk makes sense considering the density of the star and what's known about the nature of light's interaction with matter. I'll try to find a more technical article for you.
Humphreys' model places the entire universe initially inside the event horizon, and currently outside it. So the sun would still be in the gravity well?
As to hurling elephants; the citation is not an example of such. The article says that a certain theory exists, and the citation is a book which is wholly about the theory. The article statement is not making an argument about the validity of the theory and claiming the book as support for that argument (though even that is too specific to be elephant hurling). Does it give the impression of evidence? SallyM 13:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
In-transit creation of light is rejected as a solution to the starlight problem because of the theological issue involved if the light we a seeing never came from a star. I don't reject the idea that "in-transit" light was created (after all, light was created first, and we know that photons don't sit still) and I had the exact same thought about Adam's blood that you articulated above. As I understand it, any light created in-transit would have to have "arrived" before Adam was around to observe it. According to the Bible, the stars were created as light sources, so thus to be "functioning" would not just mean that photons were being created in the core, but that photons were being emitted. This is alls till my own opinion, but I don't think core to surface transit-time really presents much of a problem if we accept the star as being created fully functioning (i.e. a source of light). Also, we keep finding out just how much we don't know about how our own star works. Also, I initially wondered about a truly random walk, and the more I think on it the more convinced I am that the "walk" would be preferential rather than truly random. There would always be a higher probability of collission towards the core than towards the surface. The technical paper you linked seemed to have the intent of considering this, but still applied a simple mean step length. Also that paper seems to be dissenting from the majority calculations, which come up with emission times 1 or 2 orders of magnitude shorter. Not that this is a problem in itself, but it leaves us with a range of magnitudes from 103 to 105; the lower end of such range provides no problem for YECs to solve. LowKey 02:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
That you have convinced yourself that the walk is not random is irrelevant. Please convey evidence. Same goes for your "majority calculations". Please disclose them. SallyM 17:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I havent read the paper , but a mean step length properly calculated accounts for the probability of a step toward or away from the core. That step length would vary according to the distance from the core as well. A preferred direction would be very hard to form a mechanism for, given we are not talking an actual bounce but an absorb and reemit as I understand it. You would of course see an infra-red spectra from a new star as the gas heats from gravitational compression Hamster 19:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Brad probably might not understand the transfer on the quantum level. Of course, he may reject the quantum model outright. Otherwise, the emission is spontaneous, and the direction is, for all intents and purposes random. However, the bit about gravity's affect on spacetime is interesting. This could affect the distance traveled per step, but not in his favor. Still, I await his presentation of the majority of calculations. SallyM 21:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Sallyuse, did you actually read the technical paper that you linked? That is a single paper (1) and within that paper are referenced multiple papers (>1) with which the single paper disagrees over the transit time. Hence the >1 are in the majority, and the 1 is dissenting. The paper also agrees with my reasoning for a non-random walk, which conclusion you dismissed out of hand without even considering the reasoning. Also, it would be simpler for you to disagree with my position on the matter at hand as stated instead of indulging in uneducated conjecture about my position on another matter.
Hamster, yes the step direction is entirely random. I see the directional preference arising from the fact that the step direction affects the step length. Inwards steps will be shorter than outwards steps resulting in a tendency for the walk to trend outwards. It appears that the correct calculation of mean step length is the area of disagreement. The results so far are emission times of 3,000 years to 170,000 years. The lower end of the range presents no problem for YEC’s to solve; and I have already proposed an alternate solution even for the upper end of the range. LowKey 00:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Bradley, did you read the paper? The Mitlas and Sills paper I linked to (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1992ApJ...401..759M/0000759.000.html) Argues for why a random walk should be used. It uses a random walk. It comes up with 1.7x10^5 years. It explains why the walk length of the other papers is wrong. SallyM 12:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I notice you "disappeared" your earlier sugestions that I was lying, along with your claim that you didn't link a technical paper. I will take that as being as close to a retraction and apology as you are likely to produce. Accepted.
It explains why the walk length of the other papers is wrong. Yes, dissenting papers generally do that, so I figuure you are acknowledging that I was right about that, too. Thanks.
SallyM, try - try very hard - to disagree without all the belligerance. I have warned you about this several times before, and you are on thin ice. LowKey 23:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the paper uses a mean step length, certainly other calculations divide the sun radius by material zone , and use a mean step length to simplify the calculations for each zone. Since the step length will depend on the density the difference between an inward and outward step will be almost identical unless there is a discontinuity in the density, like solid to liquid or liquid to gas. The lowest figure for time that I could find was 10,000 years in a range 10,000 to 170,000 years for edge of core to center of core calculations. Hamster 03:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I was basing my comments solely on the technical paper that SallyM had linked. The introduction referred to a number of other papers and said that they had results of 3 x 103 to 3 x 104. I haven't actually seen those other papers, but I expect that the linked paper is accurate in its description. As I said, I don't think the 1.7 x 105 is a problem anyway. I would probably enjoy discussing this further, but for now SallyM's belligerance has soured the topic for me. I'll check in on the topic in a while and see how the discussion is going. LowKey 23:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you have anything to propose? Or just more argument from ignorance? It's not an argument from ignorance, as I wasn't making an argument.
because it's an ad hoc hypothesis fabricated out of desperation to save another hypothesis. You mean like many hypotheses put up by scientists. Guth's inflation theory could be described the same way.
Humphreys didn't propose this because he's found evidence of a white hole, he proposed the white hole because he lacked evidence. Just like Guth proposed inflation because he lacked evidence rather than having evidence of inflation.
Furthermore, you've ignored my point about the sun being within this white hole, which would mean it was subject to the same time dilation. No, I didn't ignore it. My comment about EvanW's option 2 addresses that.
That's exactly what you've done, merely cite the book instead of the specific pages relevant to the points you tried to make in this article. A large web-site is not in the same league as a book (and in this case, a smaller-than-average book). Also, there are no "relevant pages": the whole book is on the topic, as I see Bradley has also pointed out.
Stop mixing my comments in with other editors, it's ridiculous, distracting, insulting and confusing. I don't consider it ridiculous nor insulting. I generally respond to the posts in order, so yours are only "mixed in" if you have made several posts and other have posted in between.
Philip J. Rayment 02:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not an argument from ignorance, as I wasn't making an argument. To answer my question, you have nothing to propose.
You mean like many hypotheses put up by scientists. Guth's inflation theory could be described the same way. Meaningless, fallacious tu quoque trying to divert attention from your failure to mount an argument?
Just like Guth proposed inflation because he lacked evidence rather than having evidence of inflation. Just like a fallacious tu quoque?
No, I didn't ignore it. My comment about EvanW's option 2 addresses that. You failed to make a compelling argument or provide any evidence whatsoever, so if you want to do that, it'd be great.
A large web-site is not in the same league as a book (and in this case, a smaller-than-average book). Also, there are no "relevant pages": the whole book is on the topic, as I see Bradley has also pointed out. What you've done here is "refer to a large body of evidence which supposedly supports the debater's arguments, but without demonstrating that all the evidence does indeed support the argument". You've given a "summary [argument] about [a] complex [issue] to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true." I'm afraid you are knowingly hurling elephants and dishonestly denying it.
I don't consider it ridiculous nor insulting. I generally respond to the posts in order, so yours are only "mixed in" if you have made several posts and other have posted in between. So, basically, you won't stop, even though I've asked. You're a very rude man, Mr. Rayment. SallyM 13:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
To answer my question, you have nothing to propose. To propose regarding what? There is no onus on me to propose anything.
Meaningless, fallacious tu quoque trying to divert attention from your failure to mount an argument? No, it's not meaningless; it's to point out that you are making a claim about my views that I can just as legitimately make about yours.
You failed to make a compelling argument or provide any evidence whatsoever... That you didn't find it compelling is beside the point. My argument provided reason and logic, which is sufficient.
As for elephant-hurling, I've not done what you said. Specifically, I have not given a "summary [argument] about [a] complex [issue] to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true. (your brackets, my italics). I have given a summary argument, and referred to specific argument in support of that.
I'm afraid you are knowingly hurling elephants and dishonestly denying it. So now you know what my thought processes are? It couldn't possibly be that I understand elephant hurling differently to you, and honestly believe that I'm not doing it?
So, basically, you won't stop, even though I've asked. You're a very rude man, Mr. Rayment. So I'm a rude man because I decline your demand to do things your way (and on my site to boot!)?
Philip J. Rayment 02:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
So, if you had the research grant, what experiment would you propose? After all, your answer doesn't address how to distinguish between the options. Sterile 03:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Given that I'm not a scientist, I couldn't say what would be suitable experiments. The RATE project has investigated nuclear decay, and I expect that if they had a grant they could have done more research. I seem to recall reading comments about what further investigation could be done. Humphreys has made predictions about planetary magnetic fields, although I don't know if they are linked to his white hole cosmology, but testing those predictions is one possible test. I mention that as an example, but in fact satellites have measured the magnetic fields of a couple of the planets he made predictions about (and his predictions were much closer than those of secular scientists), and another satellite is already en route to measure the field of Mercury. This is just to give an idea of what tests could be done if the money was available, but as I said, I'm not the person to ask. Philip J. Rayment 03:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Refuting the evidence about radiometric decay that supports an old earth does not support a young earth. How do magnetic fields link to the age of the universe and God's role in creating it? (PS You haven't addressed the three proposals above.) You proclaim yourself as a expert in the controversy and you complain about a conspiracy of no research funds, but it also seems you have no tests for your proposals. So why would anyone want to fund a creationist? It isn't a give-away. Legitamite ideas are what give you grant money, not grandstanding.Sterile
Refuting the evidence about radiometric decay that supports an old earth does not support a young earth. Of course it does. It may not prove a young Earth, but it certainly supports the idea, by showing that claimed evidence against it is no such thing.
How do magnetic fields link to the age of the universe and God's role in creating it? As I indicated, I'm not sure. However, Humphreys made his predictions on the basis if his ideas about how the solar system formed. Those ideas are ones that are consistent with Divine creation and the biblical account.
PS You haven't addressed the three proposals above. What about them needs addressing? (I have already made some comments on them.)
...you complain about a conspiracy of no research funds... I have on numerous occasions specifically denied a conspiracy.
...it also seems you have no tests for your proposals. What proposals? I have merely pointed out that creationary scientists could do a lot more research into their ideas if they had even a fraction of the funds available to evolutionists.
So why would anyone want to fund a creationist? To do scientific research!
Legitamite ideas are what give you grant money, not grandstanding. Legitimate ideas that don't stray too far from the party line.
Philip J. Rayment 11:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
the Design Institute fully finds research and they fully fund a biological research facility. Interestingly the publications they offer do not seem to address evidence for creation specifically. The money is certainly there for research, in fact it may well be that creationists can get funding with less paperwork than a secular scientists, because they have to show progress for funding to continue Hamster 05:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
First, I never said that there are absolutely no funds available for creationist research; just that it was an insignificant amount compared to that available for evolutionary research. Second, the DI is an ID group, not a biblical creationist group, so they are irrelevant in this case. Third, your implication that creationists don't need to meet the same requirements as evolutionists is pure insult. Philip J. Rayment 02:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so here is a technical paper which Bradley asked for: [1], which concludes that the average diffusion time is 1.7 x 105 of your earth years. SallyM 13:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, according to Humphreys and observation, the sun is not currently at the bottom of a white hole. However, since the universe is still three-dimensional, it still creates a lesser gravity well (though not an event horizon) around whatever used to be at the center of the white hole. Humphreys has used this to explain the Pioneer Anomaly (which we really need to have a page on, by the way).
Unless I'm misunderstanding the theories, the magnetic fields don't depend on this white-hole cosmology. Instead, they were testing a theory about the formation of planetary magnetic fields... which says they'd decay in several thousand years, so, absent outside influences, the planets couldn't be more than several thousand years old. I'd suppose the best way to test the white-hole cosmology would be lobbing spacecraft into the outer solar system to test the Pioneer Anomaly. Alternatively, I wonder if anyone could create a white hole in the lab? --EvanW 14:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm still asking for an experiment or evidence to distinguish between these three "hypotheses":
  1. Nuclear reactions were different sometime in the past.
  2. Fall back on the Omphalos theory and say the stars were created to look as if the photons had worked their way up from the core.
  3. Based on Humphrey's theory or an equivalent, say that millions or billions of years actually did pass in the outer universe while six days passed on Earth.
There seems to be some sentiment for wanting research funds to test these ideas. OK, then: What experiment do you want to do? That is part of the science: Proposing an experiment and actually doing it.
As for the "refutation" of decay rates, it is not evidence for a young earth. You would require some sort of evidence for the age of the universe. Saying that the earth isn't 14.5 billion years old is not the same as saying that it is 6000 years old. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Sterile 14:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Was the sun within the event horizon or not? Are there any specifics on this white hole? Where was it? How big was it? How much radiation did it give off? When did we escape the horizon? As of now, all we have is this 'white hole hypothesis' "with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true". SallyM 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the sun was within the event horizon. The difficulty is that, for most of the time it was, Earth was as well - and I don't know enough physics to quantify the time differential. The white hole was throughout the universe, gradually contracting on some point within Earth's solar system. I don't know enough physics to work the radiation. We escaped the horizon on Day IV. To escape the elephant hurdling through the air, I'm going to state outright that I'm presuming, for the moment, all of Humphreys' statements, which he says are backed up by math and the dual assumptions that the Bible is true and that our universe is three-dimensional. I suppose I need to go back over Humphreys' book this weekend and actually work through the math, and it would be nice if the math extension were installed here so I could post the calculations. --EvanW 17:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Update: I reread Humphreys' book. The math is much harder than I thought. He's working with the general relativity equations; to get a flavor of them, read Kate Sorenson's "introduction" to the subject on CP. Even to work out precise values for the math requires you to assume a certain point as the center of the universe. Humphreys' only evidence for any certain point comes from the Pioneer anomaly, but I think I caught an error in his description of it: since the Pioneer probes are inside the sphere of the "waters above the heavens", wouldn't their gravitational forces cancel out? So, I need to try to work through his calculations in that article. I'll let you know what results I get. --EvanW 16:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
the effect of gravity inside a sphere is generally accepted as None because the vectots cancel each other out. That assumes zero falloff with distance. Hamster 00:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Saying that the earth isn't 14.5 billion years old is not the same as saying that it is 6000 years old. Nobody claims otherwise. Much creationist argument is refuting the evolutionist claim that they have evidence. With little or no scientific evidence supporting the evolutionary view, biblical creationists, however, still have the eye witness evidence in their support. Philip J. Rayment 03:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Eye witness evidence? What rubbish. Ace McWicked 03:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Full marks

Can I just say, this whole light-taking-time-to-get-out-of-the-star concept is brilliant - a really intriguing idea that I had never considered. Someone should add a section about it to the article, or maybe to a different article.--CPalmer 10:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is fascinating. I don't know if it has ever been proposed as another starlight problem, though (outside of aSK). If it has, then we should certainly give it a section, as it is a completely different consideration to the main one. Likewise I have proposed 2 solutions, but that's just me on aSK. LowKey 11:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
it is discussed as a part of stellar formation , from the collapse of the gas cloud to operational star. It gets interesting trying to estimate light emissions during the initial years. Its not often discussed with the starlight problem because you have other things to solve and this just adds another small chunk of time to reconcile. Hamster 13:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I've often heard it said that light takes eight and a half minutes to get to Earth from the sun - about the time it takes me to walk to the shops. It's amazing to think that before those few minutes, the light has already been bouncing around inside the sun for years and years and years before I was born.--CPalmer 13:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess it's "Blow CPalmer's Mind Day" because it's not just years and years but hundreds of thousands or millions of years that light might be bouncing around inside the sun before it exits the pressure and density of the star. Just imagine, light bouncing around in a star that wasn't even created yet. Amazing. Teh Terrible Asp 14:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Well I did say years and years and years. And we all already knew that light was created before the stars - three days before is the biblical view.--CPalmer 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The article at the other end of the link at the very top of this discussion mentions that "millions" is incorrect. Yes, light was created before today's sources. This is why I think it is a incorrect to say that God didn't create light in-transit. He created light first, and it is by definition in transit. What YEC's don't say is that this solves the Starlight Problem. LowKey 01:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I must say I'm slightly disappointed to see that this has already been discussed elsewhere - I thought we were producing new insights into this otherwise well-trodden topic. I should have listened to Solomon I suppose - there is truly nothing new under the sun (or in this case, inside it).--CPalmer 13:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
most of the stuff here is very old and hardly worth bothering with in physics. It has little practical application. It is interesting though because it shows a mechanism that explains why light from the core of the star is not instantaneous. There is a table used in astronomy that categorises stars by the emission spectrums. I believe it can show stars undergoing birth, and those which have burnt all available fuel. Hamster 04:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is an article which thoroughly debunks YEC rationalizations with regards to this issue: http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/sarfati_inconsistent_henke.htm It does no such thing. See here. Henke not only misunderstands the creationist explanation, but is contradicted by one of his own sources! Philip J. Rayment 03:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Teh Terrible Asp reverted my reversion of an edit in the introduction with the edit comment "sentence read just fine - your edit deceptively makes it out as if the universe was created 6000 years ago". As the universe was created 6000 years ago, there was nothing deceptive about it at all. The Asp's basis for his accusation is his belief that the universe it older. That is, he is basing his accusation on his belief, whereas "deception" would require me to say something that I didn't believe.

As for the sentence reading fine, the article is about the starlight "problem". The sentence explained this problem by pointing out an apparent contradiction. The edit that I reverted failed to point out a problem. Instead, it reduced it to an "if-then" question with a particular answer, with no problem apparent. CPalmer's well-meaning attempt at compromise also falls short on this point, in that although it points out a problem in a particular circumstance, it leaves open that the circumstance applies, and therefore that there actually is a problem.

Philip J. Rayment 13:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You've not proven to anyone's satisfaction but your own that the universe was created 6000 years ago and addressing a significant problem for creationists by simply asserting it's true lacks a certain intellectual ... rigor. I don't just believe that the universe is older, but am prepared to offer concrete evidence. The best you can muster are post hoc rationalizations, often completely incapable of even being tested, to justify claims based on your uniquely minority view of a book written thousands of years ago. In short, without the Bible and Ussher, you wouldn't adhere to the fantasy that the world was created 6000 years ago. The fact that the claim that it was is also deceptive has nothing to do with your intent but the predilection of readers to become confused by objectively false statements of fact, particularly in something masquerading as an encyclopedia. The rest of your post is contentless nonsense. Teh Terrible Asp 14:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a textbook example of fallacious reasoning. I know Mr. Rayment has tried unsuccessfully to throw around the phrase "begging the question", but this is the most clear case of I've seen in a while of someone "assuming the initial point". One might think that as much as Mr. Rayment tries to accuse others of begging the question, he would know very well that he was doing it (although given his track record for inaccuracy in doing so, it could just be his flawed logic). SallyM 14:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The stated worldview of the site is made very clear, so what do you expect this article to say? If you want to contribute to articles (or even maybe just hold forth on talk pages) that take the mainstream-science-naturalistic worldview, there's already Wikipedia and probably other sites as well. Or do you just like arguing?--CPalmer 14:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
@cpalmer, thats part of the issue.Is this an encyclopædia about the Bible or Christianity? No. This is an encyclopædia about the universe we live in. from the front page. Revise this to "Yes , this encyclopedia puts forward a Biblical viewpoint of Young Earth Creation" and I suspect most of the science people will go away. This site seems to be trying to have it both ways, and thats incompatible with modern, mainstream science Hamster 03:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that this very conflation is at the root of much of conflict arising from Rats-at-aSK. aSK has a Biblical POV. It is not about a Biblical POV. LowKey 04:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, I've often seen RWians claim (in a Conservapedia context) that "reality is liberal" (or something to that effect), thereby claiming that their view is the correct one. That's fine as a belief (not as an argument), but is it correct? Your comment, Hampster, assumes that the creationary view does not correspond to reality. We think otherwise. Stating your belief is not an argument against our belief. Philip J. Rayment 03:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
What you really need to ask yourself, CPalmer, is why you would knowingly use a logically fallacious argument. SallyM 14:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I respect the truth. Teh Terrible Asp 14:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Try respecting the rules, too. As per aSK's POV, "Since" is the correct word to use, though I think "6,000 years ago (as measured on earth)" or something similar would qualify it properly.
SallyM, try to stick to the topic without all the personal snipes. Currently (again) almost every one of your talk posts is personally belligerent. LowKey 02:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
To add to others' comments, "begging the question" is assuming the point you are trying to prove. I'm not (here) trying to prove that the world is 6,000 years old. I'm merely stating the POV of this site.
I don't just believe that the universe is older, but am prepared to offer concrete evidence. The best you can muster are post hoc rationalizations, often completely incapable of even being tested... I would consider your "concrete evidence" to also be "post hoc rationalizations, often completely incapable of even being tested".
...to justify claims based on your uniquely minority view of a book written thousands of years ago. That "uniquely minority view" is the traditional view of Christianity for most of the last 2000 years. And dismissing it because the book was "written thousands of years ago" is simply chronological snobbery.
Philip J. Rayment 02:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved per Philips request

So a photon created supernaturally but within the sun up to the suns photosphere limit is one thing , and a photon 1 cm outside the sun is something else entirely? I dont think I understand that reasoning.

If God creates a rock by supernatural processs, and a scientists examines it , and the data point to it being 3.4 billion years old, but he knows from Bible sources that its only 6000 years then what can be concluded? well 1. It is worthless to attempt scientific investigation because the apparent cause and effect system is flawed and/or 2. The creator is deliberately misleading his created people, possibly for the purpose of condemning them to eternal hell for not believeing what he said. If God is continually changing his creation then science as such is a worthless endevor and we should go back to the bible teachings of stoning fornicators to death, and so forth as outlined in Mozaic law, which Jesus incidentally supports Hamster 04:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

On funding. What I am saying Philip is that those creationist scientists can get funding from groups like the Discovery Institute or others , which have millions if not billions in available funding , and they are not expected to show a commercial application in their research. Scientists in University or other research labs may get limited grants after a lot of paperwork, and need to show progress at every renewal cycle. It is a different standard that favors creationists. Of course a creationist is not going to get mainstream science funding if they dont have a recognised scientific research subject DI not creationist ? interesting opinion but not consistant with DI own websites and the Courts of pensylvania

On Henke , the paper is quite short and not that interesting. What specifically are you referring to Philip ? Hamster 04:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I’m not Philip, but I noticed that Henke cites the same paper that SallyM linked, but misquotes that paper’s calculation, as well as claiming a minimum value above the minimum cited in that paper alone, which is poor scholarship to say the least. Also, Henke either misunderstands or misrepresents Sarfati’s reasoning in both rejecting in-transit creation as a solution to the starlight problem and in not considering the creation-emission delay to be a problem for YEC. I was not aware of Sarfati’s position or reasoning, but it seems to match what I already said above. Philip, your link above seems broken. LowKey 06:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
So a photon created supernaturally but within the sun up to the suns photosphere limit is one thing , and a photon 1 cm outside the sun is something else entirely? I dont think I understand that reasoning. That's obvious (that you don't understand). No, a photon 1 cm outside is not something else entirely. My original statement, which you replied to, and which I pointed out I had already said, was (emphasis added) "Light created in transit is rejected because of unacceptable implications, such as that light carrying images of stars which never existed going nova." Photons 1 cm outside the sun do not carry images of stars that never existed. Admittedly, although that should have been sufficient, added explanation was in the link that I got wrong (see below).
It is worthless to attempt scientific investigation because the apparent cause and effect system is flawed... Yes, that may make investigation of the cause of that particular rock worthless. But not other investigation, such as composition, qualities, etc. are unaffected by that.
The creator is deliberately misleading his created people, possibly for the purpose of condemning them to eternal hell for not believeing what he said. If God created the rock 6,000 years ago, and He told us He created it 6,000 years ago, how is there any deception? He would be telling the truth!
If God is continually changing his creation then science as such is a worthless endevor ... Granted, but this is precisely one of the beliefs that made science possible—the belief that nature was created by a Creator Who did not continually change His creation.
...the Discovery Institute or others , which have millions if not billions in available funding ... I very much doubt that they do have "billions" available for research, and likely not even millions, at least not very many millions.
... they are not expected to show a commercial application in their research. Who's not? Recipients of DI funding? Neither are recipients of government funding always expected to.
Scientists in University or other research labs may get limited grants after a lot of paperwork, and need to show progress at every renewal cycle. So? And "progress" is not the same thing as "commercial application".
It is a different standard that favors creationists. Nonsense. You've not actually demonstrated a different standard, and have failed to show that the DI would fund creationists.
Of course a creationist is not going to get mainstream science funding if they dont have a recognised scientific research subject "Recognised" = "evolutionary"? (Or at least anything-but-creationary.)
DI not creationist ? interesting opinion but not consistant with DI own websites and the Courts of pensylvania (1) DI has consistently denied being creationist; (2) Biblical creationists deny that ID is the same thing; (3) some prominent anti-creationists/anti-IDers (such as Ronald Numbers, from memory) deny that they are the same thing. That a court or two has incorrectly decreed otherwise is irrelevant, because any funding that DI does is going to be made on the basis of what the DI believes, not on what a court might have decreed.
On Henke , the paper is quite short and not that interesting. What specifically are you referring to Philip ? I've now fixed the link, but here it is again.
Philip J. Rayment 11:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
k, but a photon 1 cm from the star at the moment of creation should have had a life of 10,000+ years (its travel time from the core)(I will allow a time much shorter since it may have come from the outer edge of the star ) and since the star was just created , it cant have , so that photon has no actual origin, its purely a fantasy, no atom emitted it, its included in no calculation of change for thermodynamics. It really doesnt matter if its a photon emitted from the edge of the sun, being 1 cm away at the time of creation it is not connected to that star anymore than if it were a billion light years away. The answer to this would be that God created the appearance of age, by ensuring that tracking that photon back gave a viable origin, and every atom in that sun could be traced backward to a collapsing gas cloud, through to the creation of the atoms by naturalistic means. If that isnt the case, then science is impossible because the results are meaningless.
DI was shown to have changed the text from creation to intelligent design. Certainly they claim NOW that ID is not creationist because they lost the creationist battle in court. There is no question that DI was a creationist organisation and although they now have even dropped ID because of the Dover trial they are still considered a creationist organisation. Maybe some other creationist organisations wish they would go away because they seem inept and keep losing but thats a seperate issue. They provide a list of papers done under their sponsorship and perhaps you are not aware of their patrons. They also run a biological research center. Hamster 15:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have read the paper from sallym link, The item I am questioning is your claim but is contradicted by one of his own sources Since his list of sources is 21 items long and quotes Humphys and Sarfati it isnt at all strange that they would disagree with his opinion. If you have a specific link please state which one. Hamster 15:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
If you have a research project that needs funding feel free to post its abstract here and I will do what I can to help with funding applications. Hamster 15:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
"recognised" for mainstream science funding means that your abstract meets the scientific method. That is a stated hypothesis and proposed experiments, and what that is meant to show. For private funding then its anything you can convince a sponsor to throw money at. Hamster 20:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The answer to this would be that God created the appearance of age... No, the age is not something that is visible, but something that you deduce by assuming non-supernatural processes. If God created at all, then it had to include something that you could describe as an "appearance of age", but it would not, in fact, have any appearance of having aged or gone through any processes. To take Adam as the example again, he was an adult in appearance, so would appear to have lived for many years, but he would also be without any evidence of deterioration due to age. It's like comparing a 19th-century piece of furniture with a reproduction of the same piece. The latter piece would be 19th-century in style, but would show no signs of wear and tear, deterioration, etc. That is it would appear to be a modern reproduction. (This assumes, of course, that the modern reproduction hasn't been deliberately made to include such details.)
If that isnt the case, then science is impossible because the results are meaningless. I've already answered this, and you've ignored my answer.
DI was shown to have changed the text from creation to intelligent design. Incorrect. You are no doubt referring to the change in the text of Of Pandas and People, which was published in the 1980s after the changes were made, yet the DI was not formed until 1990. It was not the DI that changed the text.
Certainly they claim NOW that ID is not creationist ... Yet in your previous post you said that the idea that DI<>creationist was not consistant with DI own websites.
...because they lost the creationist battle in court. Which creationist battle? I think that the only one the DI has been involved with at all (and even then not officially, I think) was Kitzmiller vs. Dover, again, well after Of Pandas and People.
There is no question that DI was a creationist organisation ... It never was.
and although they now have even dropped ID because of the Dover trial ... Huh?
they are still considered a creationist organisation. Only by critics who want to conflate the two ideas.
Maybe some other creationist organisations wish they would go away because they seem inept and keep losing but thats a seperate issue. I don't know of any creationist organisations who wish that they would go away, but you're right—that's all a separate issue, because what matters for the discussion in hand is what DI believes, as I have already pointed out, but you have also ignored that too.
They provide a list of papers done under their sponsorship and perhaps you are not aware of their patrons. They also run a biological research center. So? I'm not claiming that they don't do research (it's usually the critics who claim that!); I'm claiming that they don't do creationist research, specifically, stuff that's not to do with ID, such as, ummmm, the issue we are concerned with here: starlight!
Since his list of sources is 21 items long and quotes Humphys and Sarfati it isnt at all strange that they would disagree with his opinion. If you have a specific link please state which one. Did you bother to read my link, which specified which one? It seems not.
If you have a research project that needs funding feel free to post its abstract here and I will do what I can to help with funding applications. Given that I am not a scientist, I'm not about to do any research myself, and wouldn't even necessarily know what specifically would be useful research to do.
Philip J. Rayment 07:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
your link was broken when I tried it , thats why I asked the question.
O think I found your link. It seems to be an arguement from adverse consequences rather than anything meaningful Hamster 18:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
my offer of help obtaining funding was quite genuine, you stated that creationists were limited in research by lack of funding. If you know that you must have examples in mind , or was it just a general attitude that they must be limited or they would do more ? Behe has his lab, but has refused many times to actually do research he has suggested claiming he has better things to do.
Dover was 2005, DI had run through I think 6 versions of Pandas (two editions published) and had changed it significantly from creation to intelligent design after Edwards v Aguilar. the second edition was published in 1993. Davis, Kenyon, Dembski and Wells are the stated Authors and at least three are fellows of DI.The 3rd edition by Dembski and Wells was given a name change to 'The design of life'. Dembski withdrew from Dover over issues of testifying under penalty of purgery and not being permitted his own legal counsel as he had been represented by defendants counsel at the time of his deposition. It had also been suggested that his withdrawal from the case prevented the 3rd edition drafts from being subpoenaed. Wikipedia has nice articles on the whole thing.
sorry you dislike the US legal system, but its what we have. DI is now , at least in much of its public lectures, claiming it does not want creationism or intelligent design taught but rather the problems with evolution. That is what I meant, they have stopped pushing ID at least in any venue of public schools. Hamster 16:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
anyway , have a nice winter, I am setting up for summer here , lots to do Hamster 18:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
your link was broken when I tried it , thats why I asked the question. Yes, but I had (a) fixed the link, (b) told you that I'd fixed the link, and (c) given the link again. So sorry, that excuse doesn't wash.
It seems to be an arguement from adverse consequences rather than anything meaningful Throw-away line. Not an argument.
If you know that you must have examples in mind ... Why must I?
...or was it just a general attitude that they must be limited or they would do more ? It was because creationary scientists have said as much, and because it's clear from the attitude towards creationists that it would be true anyway.
Dover was 2005, DI had run through I think 6 versions of Pandas (two editions published) and had changed it significantly from creation to intelligent design after Edwards v Aguilar. So you've completely ignored the point that the DI did not exist when Pandas was changed?
Davis, Kenyon, Dembski and Wells are the stated Authors ... Still not bothering to get your facts right? According to Amazon,http://www.amazon.com/Pandas-People-Central-Question-Biological/dp/0914513400#noop] the authors are Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon, and the only other name mentioned (on the frontispiece) is editor Charles Thaxton.
...and at least three are fellows of DI. I haven't checked you on this one, but none were fellows of DI when the book was published, as the DI didn't exist!
sorry you dislike the US legal system, but its what we have. I didn't say anything about the US legal system.
DI is now , at least in much of its public lectures, claiming it does not want creationism or intelligent design taught but rather the problems with evolution. That is what I meant, they have stopped pushing ID at least in any venue of public schools. Okay, perhaps that narrower claim is correct.
Philip J. Rayment 00:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
well Phillip, since you have just demonstrated that you either cant or wont read statements its a waste of time. I gave a date for Pandas second edition which is after DI formed. Kenyon was a fellow of DI at the time drafts were being altered. Dembski had drafts of Pandas that became the 3rd edition. DI were involved with Pandas as was illustrated in the court findings. Dembski, author of the third edition is Director of the texas publisher of Pandas , and appears to have been from its inception.
I didnt understand you were addressing me with a fixed link, I believe lowkey pointed out the link problem after I had tried it.
Sarfatis arguement is one of adverse consequences in his comparison of photons in the sun compared to photons in transit. His arguememnt is that photons in the sun are not available for a proof that they are faked, where light from a star that can be shown not to exist are not. Thats an argument from adverse consequences by anyones definition.
All of this is freely available information. Perhaps a study of DI and all its changes of mission and Banner pages would be interesting to you.
since you have no specific project in mind that lacks funding , and are simply asserting a bias , my offer to assist is withdrawn, I will allocate the funds to another student. I am now involved in the college summer program , so bye bye till next semester. best wishes as always , your convivial and inedible adjunct Prof Hammy. Hamster 03:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I gave a date for Pandas second edition which is after DI formed. Kenyon was a fellow of DI at the time drafts were being altered. The changes were made before the first edition, when there was no DI. (And I had already mentioned this, so perhaps it is you who has just demonstrated that you either cant or wont read statements.
Dembski, author of the third edition is Director of the texas publisher of Pandas , and appears to have been from its inception. Even if that claim is true, it is not the claim you made. So rather than admit your error, you have tried to justify your claim that Dembski [and others] are the stated Authors by saying that Dembski "appears" to have been a director of the publisher at the time!
I didnt understand you were addressing me with a fixed link, I believe lowkey pointed out the link problem after I had tried it. Initially it was directed to SallyM, but when I said I've now fixed the link, but here it is again. I was clearly addressing you, as that comment was replying a quote of you.
Sarfatis arguement ... is that photons in the sun are not available for a proof that they are faked, where light from a star that can be shown not to exist are not. Thats an argument from adverse consequences by anyones definition. First, no it's not. It's an argument that there is a theological problem with the "mature creation" explanation in the case of distant starlight, but that this problem does not exist for photons from the sun. Second, you're missing the point, that (as you implicitly acknowledge), there is a difference between distant starlight and photons from the sun.
Thats an argument from adverse consequences by anyones definition. Not so. It doesn't fit with this definition, for example: "saying an opponent must be wrong, because if he is right, then bad things would ensue."
since you have no specific project in mind that lacks funding , and are simply asserting a bias , my offer to assist is withdrawn... Since when is relating testimony of creationary scientists simply me asserting a bias? Further, your offer would carry more weight if you actually offered to help someone who could take advantage of it, such as a creationary scientist looking to do some research.
Philip J. Rayment 05:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
the paper you linked seemed to have an argument that light created in transit outside of a star would result in light that had no actual source, and could be shown thus showing God to be deceiving, whereas light in a star , with exactly the same properties, i.e no actual source, cant be shown , and is therefore not able to be used to show Gods deception. That is an arguement from adverse consequenses. On the funding issue you asserted several times that creationists could do research but they lacked funding. I asked for an example and offered to help obtain funding. You didnt have a specific and simply reasserted the claim of lack of funding. I use the term assertion in the same way you insisted that I was merely asserting claims by the SDSS team leader. On the photon issue , from my perspective , there is no difference between a photon in transit between galaxies , and a photon created in transit within the star. Neither had a natural source, the only difference is the ability to observe that fact. That leads to the moral position that its ok to lie, if no one can prove you lied. I am now on vacation till the fall semester starts , have a good day Hamster 17:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
...an argument that light created in transit outside of a star would result in light that had no actual source... That is a misrepresentation of the argument, which was that it would be from a star that didn't exist (in the case of a super nova) and would carry images of things that didn't happen (e.g. going nova). Although it's not spelled out, the argument seems to be saying that if the light was not carrying images of specific events and the start still existed then there would not be a problem with the created-in-transit explanation.
That is an arguement from adverse consequenses. No, an argument from adverse consequences is one that argues the truth or otherwise of a claim based on the consequences of believing the claim or on the desirability of the consequences, not on the absence or presence of consequences that logically follow from the claim.
On the funding issue ... I asked for an example and offered to help obtain funding. You didnt have a specific and simply reasserted the claim of lack of funding. So? Me not having a specific doesn't mean that it isn't true. You have not disputed my basis for making the claim, which was not unsubstantiated opinion nor personal experience.
I use the term assertion in the same way you insisted that I was merely asserting claims by the SDSS team leader. There is a difference, in that your assertion was accompanied by an admission that you couldn't back it.
On the photon issue , from my perspective , there is no difference between a photon in transit between galaxies , and a photon created in transit within the star. Yet a difference has been provided.
... the only difference is the ability to observe that fact. That was not the difference.
Have a good vacation.
Philip J. Rayment 03:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Who cares?

Is there any evidence that the starlight problem is seriously considered by academics? I tried to search Google Scholar, and among its 14 hits for "starlight problem", three were about astrophysical problems unrelated to what we discuss here, and the remainder was more or less evenly divided between the websites creation.com and creationresearch.org and books written by a certain Dr. Jason Lisle. Besides Lisle, the most credible scholar who has written on this topic seems to be David Russell Humphreys whose book we cite. Both Lisle and Humphreys are physicists who are now associated with Answers in Genesis and the Creation Research Institute, respectively. That's it. There seems to be not a single article in any theological journal on this subject. According to Google, nothing written on the subject is cited by anybody. Now I wonder: Are theologians not aware that there might be a problem, do they just ignore it, or is it considered so trivial that they don't bother with actually writing papers on this subject?

I wondered whether it might be a subtle bias against a creationist point of view, for example that the theological journals usually contain contributions by people who believe genesis not to be literally true, though even then I'd have expected papers pointing out the problem. For comparison, I searched Google Scholar for Noah, flood, baramin and came up with 50 hits, including some in the Journal of Creation, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Science & Education and even in the Geological Society London Special Publications. Thus, Google Scholar (and the academic community) do contain references to Genesis (and adding "baramin" takes us to a pretty small subset of all interpretations of the Noah story). Furthermore, searching for UFO, aliens, "crop circles" and Cydonia produses about twice as many Google Scholar hits as the starlight problem, and while they also are a collection of books and websites, some of them at least have citations in articles published in peer-reviewed journals.

So the short version of my question: Is there any evidence that the starlight problem is taken more seriously by scholars than UFOs or the "Face on Mars"? If not, why do we have an article? Yoritomo 19:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

stars visible at distances greater than 6,000 light years is a big problem for young earth creationists who expouse a literal genesis of approx. 6000 years ago. Mainstream science and many churches dont regard it as an issue, they accept an old universe or just say "God did it" and dont try to justify it. Hamster 20:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Similar reasoning holds for Noah's flood and the baramin, yet there are significantly more papers in scholarly journals, both favoring and opposing a literal interpretation of Genesis. Why don't those opposing a literal interpretation write about this "big problem"? Our article states they do - but apparently not in the scientific or theological literature. I don't see why we have an article on a problem that's ignored by the scholars who should be interested in it. Yoritomo 21:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Vote delete. Teh Terrible Asp 00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Why don't those opposing a literal interpretation write about this "big problem"? Our article states they do - but apparently not in the scientific or theological literature. That's because most of those opposing the biblical account can't produce a peer-review-quality argument. Philip J. Rayment 07:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Head in the sand silliness. That distant starlight creates a problem for creationists doesn't somehow shift the burden to real scientists to rebut claims of a young earth or universe when creationists fail to do more than handwaving and relying on the bible to rebut real science. Extraordinary claims that go against a century or more of empirical evidence require extraordinary evidence. Quite contrary to your claim, it's the creationists who have uniformly failed to create a peer-reviewed scientific literature addressing the problem distant starlight poses and making whatever their case may be about light being created before stars, etc. Your suggestion that "those opposing the biblical account can't produce a peer-review-quality argument" is obviously puerile carping, as even a cursory review of the literature (perhaps you'd know more about this if you had more than a high school science education) reveals there is no shortage of extremely significant articles in peer-reviewed journals going back a century exploring and discussing the speed of light, red shifts, the size and age of the universe, etc. And by "no shortage" I mean I find it puzzling that you would even consider making the statement you did in the face of such overwhelming contrary evidence. Teh Terrible Asp 19:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The astronomers who argue for an old universe usually don't consider the theological implications, and I doubt there are any astronomy papers actually stating "thus, Genesis is wrong" - if I'm wrong, please provide a citation. I'd have expected a debate among theologians - for example between theose who take Genesis as an allegory and those who take it literally. Both sides have published on other topics, so the silence is not due to a general inability of either literalists or their opponents. Anyway, our article explicitly says: "Critics of Biblical creation use this issue as an argument [...]." Who are those critics, and where did they raise this criticism? Yoritomo 20:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Asp, nobody said that it did shift any burden, but your claim that creationists fail to do more than handwaving and relying on the bible to rebut real science. is arrant nonsense. Humphreys and Hartnett, for example, use Einstein's discoveries about relativity to argue their case and do not rely on the Bible to do it. As such, they are using "real science" just as much as those with different views.
Quite contrary to your claim, it's the creationists who have uniformly failed to create a peer-reviewed scientific literature addressing the problem distant starlight poses and making whatever their case may be about light being created before stars, etc. First, it is not contrary to my claim, because I didn't claim otherwise! Secondly, you are wrong anyway, as creationists have written peer-reviewed papers making their case.
Your suggestion that "those opposing the biblical account can't produce a peer-review-quality argument" is obviously puerile carping, as ... there is no shortage of extremely significant articles in peer-reviewed journals going back a century exploring and discussing the speed of light, red shifts, the size and age of the universe, etc. You're shifting the goal posts. The question was specifically about the implications for the biblical account; nobody was questioning the speed of light, red shifts, nor the size of the universe.
Anyway, to answer Yoritomo's question, examples are here and here and here and here.
Philip J. Rayment 03:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Asp, nobody said that it did shift any burden You did when you said "those opposing the biblical account can't produce a peer-review-quality argument." Why in the world would real scientists address in a peer-reviewed literature the handwaving of members of the fringe that itself isn't peer reviewed?
Humphreys and Hartnett, for example, use Einstein's discoveries about relativity to argue their case and do not rely on the Bible to do it. As such, they are using "real science" just as much as those with different views. No, they're not real scientists doing real science. They started with a view toward confirming the biblical account. Moreover, their papers on the subject aren't peer reviewed as far as I can tell. If you want to refer to specific papers rather than making a general claim that I'll have a harder time confirming, please do it.
You're shifting the goal posts. The question was specifically about the implications for the biblical account; nobody was questioning the speed of light, red shifts, nor the size of the universe. Deflection. The age of the universe is implied directly from empirical evidence derived from the speed of light, red shifts, and the size of the universe. Creationists certainly have been questioning things like a constant value for c in an effort to dissemble about the age of the universe. However, nothing creationists have done to address these proofs merits discussion in the peer reviewed literature, as Yoritomo correctly observed. It's little more than a curiosity. Teh Terrible Asp 16:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
And now we are back to unsubstantiated (and insulting) claims about these scientists and their papers. The last time around (actually the last couple of times), I pointed to a list of Hartnett's papers in particular. I have also asked for a specific reason for the conclusion that the Journal of Creation is not peer reviewed. IIRC the discussion died at about that time. Please look over the "Refereed Journal Publications" list here (even just pick out the cosmology papers if you wish) and explain your reasoning as to why the publications are not peer reviewed, and why your actual reasoning as to why Journal of Creation is not peer reviewed. Else, please stop repeating the claim. LowKey 01:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You [said that it shifted the burden] when you said "those opposing the biblical account can't produce a peer-review-quality argument." In making that comment I'm not saying that it shifted any burden, and neither am I shifting it myself, given that the question was about those opposing the biblical account. Nobody was asking where the burden lies or who has the better argument. Yoritomo was asking why those opposing the biblical account don't seem to have written anything peer-reviewed on it.
Why in the world would real scientists address in a peer-reviewed literature the handwaving of members of the fringe that itself isn't peer reviewed? ... No, they're not real scientists doing real science. As Lowkey has said, unsubstantiated and insulting claims. They are real scientists by any definition that is not self-serving.
They started with a view toward confirming the biblical account. Just like atheists start with a view that the biblical account is wrong. Yet I don't see you criticising them for that, so that's double standards.
Deflection. The age of the universe is implied directly from empirical evidence derived from the speed of light, red shifts, and the size of the universe. No, it's you who is deflecting. If someone says that A+B+C+D = E, and someone else disputes D and says that A+B+C+F = G, you are obfuscating to argue that A and B and C are well documented.
Creationists certainly have been questioning things like a constant value for c in an effort to dissemble about the age of the universe. Wrong on two counts. First, the fact that some creationists have proposed questioning things like the speed of light is irrelevant given that the leading creationists overwhelmingly reject this proposal. Second, your claim that they are trying to deceive is slanderous and unacceptable.
Philip J. Rayment 03:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
got that list of acceptable creationists ? there are still papers claiming c-decay that stopped decaying around 1960 being quoted on creationist sites. Hamster 06:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
(reply to Lowkey on Creation Journal peer review since Ace is banned. ) I will give my view why the Journal of Creation is not regarded as a proper peer-reviewed journal in the scientific community. That is that submission guidelines state the following "Journal of Creation is dedicated to upholding the authority of the 66 books of the Bible, especially in the area of origins. All our editors adhere to the Creation Ministries International (CMI) Statement of Faith and most papers will be designed to support this." That statement alone would make it impossible for me to submit a scientific paper to this Journal and I would have to question the integrity of any reviewer of a scientific subject who has sworn to uphold the Bible over valid scientific research. The second issue is that the reviewers are not stated anywhere that I can find. Other journals I submit to list reviewers by subject area so you know you will get 3 or 4 out of that group. And finally no papers from Creation Journal appear to be cited in any significant way in other mainstream science publications. That is taken by a quick review of Hartnetts papers from Creation as cited for this starlight discussion. For example : A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem
JG Hartnett - Journal of Creation, 2003 has 13 citations, 12 referring to other creation sites and one that was not working to asa3.org which appears to be a Christian Fellowship site. The citation counts and references put the Creation Journal near the bottom of the list of Scientific Journals on the basis of impact factor. Thats just my opinion though but no one I know would submit a paper there if other journals were available. Hamster 05:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Who banned me this time? Lets settle this like men! Ace McWicked 06:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Not you. Hamster got it wrong (and confused me in the process). Philip J. Rayment 08:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
got that list of acceptable creationists ? See talk:Creation-evolution controversy#Author's comments.
I will give my view why the Journal of Creation is not regarded as a proper peer-reviewed journal in the scientific community. Okay, that's your view. My view is that it's because it's creationist, not because of a particular guideline point.
That statement alone would make it impossible for me to submit a scientific paper to this Journal ... However, your unwillingness to contribute does not disqualify it as peer-reviewed.
...I would have to question the integrity of any reviewer of a scientific subject who has sworn to uphold the Bible over valid scientific research. Now you are reading something into the statement that is not there. CMI does not say that the Bible trumps valid scientific research. On the contrary, the only way it could would be if the two are incompatible, and CMI doesn't believe that.
The second issue is that the reviewers are not stated anywhere that I can find. Other journals I submit to list reviewers by subject area ... Some do, many don't. So that's not a reason to disqualify it either.
And finally no papers from Creation Journal appear to be cited in any significant way in other mainstream science publications. This is a subjective criterion. I'm not disputing that you are correct that mainstream publications don't cite it, but this argument amounts to saying that it's not peer-reviewed because of the opinions of others, not because of objective criteria. Further, as mainstream science is evolutionary, you are saying that it can't be considered peer-reviewed because evolutionary publications don't cite it! Duh!
...asa3.org which appears to be a Christian Fellowship site. The ASA is a group for Christian scientists, but in no way are they creationist. Mainly they would be theistic evolutionists.
So none of your reasons for rejecting it as peer-reviewed amount to anything.
Weren't you going on holidays?
Philip J. Rayment 08:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Getting back to the initial point of this section (i.e. who cares?); reference 2 in the reflist is a page which starts out by explaining that there is a starlight problem. I am sure that we could point to multiple other such sites (Talk Origins for one). I would expect that you would find it quite difficult to find a paper by a naturalistic scientist specifically addressing the problem because such scientists don't see a need to specifically address it. Their naturalistic assumptions are already inherent in the models and calculations that result in great ages (i.e. on this point their model is internally consistent) so they see no further need to address the issue; seeing it as an inherent problem of the YEC model. Likewise I would not expect to see many YEC's attempting to solve the horizon problem, as they see it as an inherent problem for the Big Bang. In both cases SEP rules. YEC scientists certainly acknowledge that this (the distant starlight problem) is an issue that needs to be addressed. As anti-creationists mention this issue, and YEC's acknowledge it, it seems fair to have an article explaining the issue. LowKey 04:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

there is absolutely value in this article. It outlines the problem for a young creation. Mainstream science in cosmology or astronomy would merely note the distances obtained and as long as the values are consistant its simply noted. Hamster 05:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Homogeneity edit

I've reverted the "related problems" section back to the "critics" version that it replaced, because it glossed over the inconsistency of using the starlight problem as a reason to reject creationism whilst ignoring an equivalent problem with the Big Bang, because of the contrasting implications that the starlight problem was still a problem whilst the horizon problem wasn't, and because it mischaracterised the problems in the reference to homogeneity.

The edit said (in part) "Generally, the starlight problem can be considered to be inexplicable homogeneity in a universe of a finite age." It's not just a "finite age" that makes it a problem, but the particular (range of the) age. And the same applies to the Big Bang; if the universe was a lot older (but still finite) but no bigger, the horizon problem wouldn't exist. So again, a "finite age" is not the problem. Further, the starlight problem is specifically about being able to see distant stars from Earth; it's not about the homogeneity of the universe.

The creation model has an apparent problem, but there are proposed solutions. The Big Bang has an apparent problem, but there are proposed solutions. One of the solutions for the Big Bang's problem is widely accepted, but not universally, and it's not "proven" in any real sense of the word. So to give the impression that the creationist's problem has somewhat tentative and possibly wrong solutions whilst the Big Bang's problem has been solved is misleading.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I made that edit after thinking long and hard about why the horizon problem is or is not related to the starlight problem. I had trouble making any connection at all, and your version doesn't explain anything. Of course by "inexplicable homogeneity in a universe of a finite age" I meant too much homogeneity for such a young age, or too young for all that homogeneity. Maybe I wasn't very clear. Maybe you can now be clearer about why you think the problems are "similar". (A side note: It is not a very convincing argument to say, "I don't have an answer to problem A, but you don't have an answer to problem B, either.") --Awc 13:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll add explanation of why they are related.
It is not a very convincing argument to say, "I don't have an answer to problem A, but you don't have an answer to problem B, either. True. Which is why the point needs to be made about the Big Bangers who carry on about the creationists' Starlight Problem as though the creationists are the only one with the problem.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Philip just reverted an edit by Sterile reading "There is no adequate corresponding explanation for the starlight problem." with the comment "Yet there's a whole section on proposed explanations!" In fact, the section on "Proposed explanations" contains three ideas, the first two of which are rejected as, well, inadequate.

I personally find the third proposal ingeneous. God made a regular universe, but he put a bell jar over the Earth so that it was in suspended animation while the rest of the universe was developing, including stars being born, exploding, and sending their light toward Earth. When the universe was 13 billion years old, he lifted the bell jar and let the universe and the Earth interact again. That was 6000 years ago. The Earth is only 6000 years old, like Genesis says, even if the universe is 13 billion years old, as it appears to be.

As far as I can tell, this is a proposal made 16 years ago that has not been further developed since, neither by the author nor by others. Is that because it was so perfect at its inception, or because its shortcomings were quickly recognized, or because creationists aren't interested in doing science, they just wanted something, anything to throw back when accused of not having any explanation for the starlight problem? You tell me. I'm not sure if Sterile's statement is a good way to deal with the situation. Perhaps we should spend more time examining the proposal. What I object to, even under the aSK rules of the game, is considering an explanation as "adequate" just because there is nothing else available. Can we try to be just a little bit encyclopedic?

--Awc 13:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. The article doesn't make it clear, but there's actually two explanations other than the two rejected ones (and other rejected ones). The first was made by Russell Humphreys, who is continuing to develop his ideas, and the second, along similar (but not identical) lines is by John Hartnett. The latter is much newer. So although the article is overly brief and you therefore can't get it from the article, it's not true that it has not been developed further since.
What I object to is considering a materialistic explanation adequate just because there is no better materialistic explanation available, and I also object to alternative views being suppressed.
To correct you a little on the particular time-dilation ideas, they are not claiming that the universe is 13 billion years old while the Earth is 6000 years old. Rather they are claiming that the universe is 6000 years old as observed by a hypothetical observer on Earth, but much older (I don't believe that 13 billion is ever stated) as measured by a hypothetical observer far out in space.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
visitor navigation
contributor navigation
monitoring
Toolbox