Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

New Theory or New Low in Creationist Thought

  1. Nov 13, 2007 #1
    Posted in CARM and later deleted out of embarrassment when the absurdity could no longer be defended.

    "Originally Posted by supersport
    Something occurred to me to day that makes me believe that the whole starlight "problem" is....shall we say, bunk. Long-agers like to hammer Christians with the issue of how in the world light from stars situated millions of light years away could make it to the earth in 10,000 years or less.

    I'm sorry to have to do this but I'm going to just have to break down and bring out a bit of logic and common sense for everyone to chew on. So, let's all clear our minds, hold hands, and think through this real slowly for just a moment.

    The speed of light has a documented speed....a speed that can be measured. For example, if I were to stand where I live in Ft Worth Texas and shine a flashlight to a friend of mine standing on the sun, the light would take a short amount of time to arrive at the sun, right? I don't know how long this period of time would be (I think it's a few seconds) but that's not what's important. What's important is that light can be measured and travels at a specific speed....or so some say.

    Let's continue. Sound is the same way. If I were to stand in Ft Worth Texas and fire off a shotgun, it would take a while for that sound to reach Houston...(assuming this was a very loud shotgun). Probably many seconds. So once again, sound -- just like light -- can be measured and travels at a specific speed.

    Still with me? Great.....hang tight, here's where it gets good.

    Now let's play like one of my kids is standing 10 feet in front of me doing jumping jacks. Would you agree that I see her in real time?...that there is no delayed reaction in my seeing her? Great. Now picture her standing a thousand feet away from me doing jumping jacks. I can still see her in real time, right?....even though I'm near-sighted, and she might be a bit blurry, there is no actual delay. So in other words there is no measurable difference in vision -- there is no difference between watching my daughter do jumping jacks 10 feet away and watching her do jumping jacks 1000 feet away. Still with me?

    Now let's move her to New York. I'm still in Ft. Worth. Now she's on top of the Empire State building doing jumping jacks. Granted, because of the great distance and the curvature of the earth I could not normally see her jumping. However, if I happened to have Superman eyes and I could somehow see around the curvature of the earth, I would STLL see her jumping in real time. RIGHT?? Right. There is no delay. Put another way: delay = 0 when it comes to sight.

    So if delay is equal to zero when it comes to site then it doesn't matter if my daughter is jumping 10 feet away or 90 trillion feet away. 90 trillion times zero is STILL zero.

    So let's now say my daughter is wearing a heat-resistant suit and is now jumping on the sun. If my vision was good enough and if I wore my shades I could see her jumping in real time, right? Right. As you can see, distance isn't the problem, vision is the problem....perception is the problem.

    Now let's move to stars that are situated billions of light years away. And let's say that I was blessed with freak vision, and my eyes randomly mutated into telescopes similar to the Hubble. If my daughter was jumping on a far-distant star, would I not still see her jumping in REAL TIME???????? Of course! Distance isn't the issue: the ability to see the object IS the issue.

    So ultimately measuring the speed of light and claiming that it must have taken billions of years to travel to the earth is bunk!

    The reason we can see far-distant stars is not because the light traveled to us, but because the star is so dang big and bright we can see it with our own eyes! We can see the actual real-time fireball because the fireball is so huge. The idea that we would have to wait to see a beam of light travel from the far-distant star to us before we could see that far-distant star is incorrect as I see it because SIGHT has no speed limit. When you look up in the sky, you are not seeing billion-year-old light rays, you are seeing the actual star in real time.

    What you are not seeing are these so-called light "beams" or "rays" that science is so obsessed with measuring. Think about it, when you see a star in the sky, you are watching the actual star, not some light beam. You can see the star with your own eyes because the star is close enough for you to do so.

    If the above is true, then there is no such thing as a starlight problem. When God created the world, he created some stars that were able to be seen and some that weren't. We can only see what we can see -- but this is only limited to our ability to see."
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 14, 2007 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The problem is that you make an assumption that is false: If your daughter is standing ten feet away, there is a measurable delay in the time it takes for light to travel from her to you. In fact, while in HS, a couple of decades ago and then some, and using equipment that was much older, we measured this delay in a hallway in the science building. So you are denying something that can be measured by a high school student.
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: New Theory or New Low in Creationist Thought
  1. New low for China (Replies: 5)