YEC "evidence" posted in Christianity 301

[rogue06]

Welcome to the world of science and politics and apologetics. Those involved in apologetics have to choose what arguments they think they can use effectively (or with social acceptance).

Setterfield has responded to such criticisms on his website. Theories aren't 'proven' just because of the approval of a multitude (or any specific person). Theories are proven because of the fit to the data -- and not to have any sufficient obstacles.

Your reference to other creationist groups and sites seems superfluous to a serious discussion. I wouldn't have thought you would use an argument from authority.

My interest would primarily be on the theory and the responses by Setterfield -- to evaluate whether the criticisms have been addressed and if Setterfield's responses are adequate to preserve the theory. The issues raised thus far have been responded to by Setterfield.

facepalm3.gif

Thanks for the belated welcome even if it's a couple decades late.

My point about mentioning how the largest YEC groups rejecting Setterfield's pseudo-scientific musings has nothing whatsoever to do with arguing from authority (since I hardly regard these groups as being authoritative), but rather noting that even those who would have the most to benefit by accepting them can see the insurmountable problems that envelope it.

Moreover, Setterfield has not exactly "responded" to the myriad of objections but rather summarily dismissed them.

[mikewhitney]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]35320[/ATTACH]

Thanks for the belated welcome even if it's a couple decades late.

My point about mentioning how the largest YEC groups rejecting Setterfield's pseudo-scientific musings has nothing whatsoever to do with arguing from authority (since I hardly regard them as being authoritative), but rather noting that even those who would have the most to benefit by accepting them can see the insurmountable problems that envelope it.

Moreover, Setterfield has not exactly "responded" to the myriad of objections but rather summarily dismissed them.

Have you assessed the responses on his website?

Do you have sample links to objections he has not responded to?

[oxmixmudd]

Welcome to the world of science and politics and apologetics. Those involved in apologetics have to choose what arguments they think they can use effectively (or with social acceptance).

Setterfield has responded to such criticisms on his website. Theories aren't 'proven' just because of the approval of a multitude (or any specific person). Theories are proven because of the fit to the data -- and not to have any sufficient obstacles.

Your reference to other creationist groups and sites seems superfluous to a serious discussion. I wouldn't have thought you would use an argument from authority.

My interest would primarily be on the theory and the responses by Setterfield -- to evaluate whether the criticisms have been addressed and if Setterfield's responses are adequate to preserve the theory. The issues raised thus far have been responded to by Setterfield.

If you are looking for a serious discussion of the actual flaws in his conjecture, I've given you two posts already with material that focus only on the merits of Setterfield's conjecture over what the scientific evidence is. To be sure, there are other - legitimate* - Variable Speed of Light (VSL) theories out there. The difference between those theories and what Setterfield is putting forward is that they are consistent with the majority of the evidence, even have possible theoretical outcomes that would be more elegant than current theory.

One of the more substantive ones was put forward by Joao Magieijo and deals with VSL as a solution to the Horizon problem normally solved with inflation

To be fair, even the legit investigators of VSL theories (i.e. people with Ph.D's in astrophysics whose ideas and math can pass peer review) are met with serious skepticism in the scientific community. And not without good reason. But at least these fellows have carefully worked through many of the inherent problems with such theories.

Not one of the more legit theories is compatible with a 10,000 year old universe. And the reason is this: VSL as proposed by Setterfield is not a theory but an conjectured solution to a major problem specific to YEC: How can we possibly see object billions of light years from the Earth in a universe <10,000 years old? Further, how can we see objects and artifacts that not only are millions or billions of light years from the Earth, but which also display the artifacts of millions or billions of years of real history (something Setterfield's theory simply can't deal with). This is compounded by the fact YEC itself is not the natural conclusion implied by the data itself, but an imposed solution based on a specific presumptive interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.


Jim


*as I said, there are many in physics that see ALL VSL theories as the product of 'crackpots'. Nevertheless, the theories I'm calling 'legit' have been presented in peer reviewed journals and their originators know in detail and respect the hurdles they must overcome if their work is to be confirmed experimentally, or even accepted as likely in the scientific community.

[Roy]

It seems that you haven't done much evaluation of his theory. Why was it that people stopped investigating the speed of light changes after 1941?

For the same reason that they stopped investigating hedgehogs on the moon after 1969.

I will remain curious about it unless there appears to be a decisive argument against the theory.

But not curious enough to actually look for one.

I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

Then you have no excuse for even considering Setterfield's theory, and definitely no excuse for not knowing about the speed of light in water.

[Roy]

Welcome to the world of science and politics and apologetics. Those involved in apologetics have to choose what arguments they think they can use effectively (or with social acceptance).

Do you think blindly repeating PRATTs you don't understand without bothering to find out whether or not they are true is an effective technique?

[mikewhitney]

Do you think blindly repeating PRATTs you don't understand without bothering to find out whether or not they are true is an effective technique?

Dont you think it is helpful to bring up something in a forum where other people may help you sort through it?

[shunyadragon]

Dont you think it is helpful to bring up something in a forum where other people may help you sort through it?

Yes, if the source or information has a legitimate basis in science. Much of what you brought up is cut and paste from creationist source without any checking on basic math and physics. If you had three semesters of Physics you would have known before hand that the sources and information you cited concerning the speed of light and other issues are extremely flawed.

On point you asked about why the speed of light was not questioned? or checked since 1941?. In basic physics courses students like I go through experimental confirmation of the speed of light and how it is determined even using basic trigonometry of stars as referenced.

The problem remains flawed bad science and errors in basic math and physics such as errors as to how fast the orbit of the moon is increasing, radioactive decay and the speed of light.

[oxmixmudd]

Dont you think it is helpful to bring up something in a forum where other people may help you sort through it?

Yes - If one is interested in finding out what others know, provided those others are interested in explaining what they know.

So far you haven't shown even the slightest interest in discussing what others know. You've mostly been complaining that others don't take Setterfield seriously and ignoring what people post when they try to explain to you why they don't take him seriously.

Jim

[Roy]

Do you think blindly repeating PRATTs you don't understand without bothering to find out whether or not they are true is an effective technique?

Dont you think it is helpful to bring up something in a forum where other people may help you sort through it?

That's not what you did: ("This video (first of several in a series) may give a starting point to investigate evidence of a younger universe.") and it's not what you have done since.

Do you think avoiding responsibility by misrepresenting your own words is an effective apologetics technique?

[NorrinRadd]

I'm not really intending to be in the debate now. If I do the website, as described earlier, I may facilitate an organized set of pros and cons and responses. Setterfield does provide responses to critics. I'll probably be looking at the site once in awhile. A link on the neutron stars is here: http://www.setterfield.org/Astronomy..._Problems.html

I have 3 semesters of college Physics. So I can follow aspects of the discussion. The Astronomy terms and discussions are not so familiar to me. I've read some of the critics, as represented on the aforementioned link and some other scattered articles on the site.

I had four courses of college physics (including a "400-level" course), three courses on differential equations, and a course on electrodynamics (among various other EE courses).

Even back then, when that info was still fresh in my brain, and my IQ had barely begun its decades of decline, I'm not sure how well I'd understand the details of this stuff.

[Roy]

I had four courses of college physics (including a "400-level" course), three courses on differential equations, and a course on electrodynamics (among various other EE courses).

Even back then, when that info was still fresh in my brain, and my IQ had barely begun its decades of decline, I'm not sure how well I'd understand the details of this stuff.

I've read Setterfield's original paper - it's mostly straightforward maths. I think you'd have no difficulty understanding it.

[oxmixmudd]

I've read Setterfield's original paper - it's mostly straightforward maths. I think you'd have no difficulty understanding it.

That's what I remember about it as well.

Jim

[Bret]

"No new stars have ever been seen to be forming ... so we can't claim new-star formation as a normal aspect of the universe."

Has no one told Psarris about HL tauri or is he pretending it doesn't exist?

[shunyadragon]

"No new stars have ever been seen to be forming ... so we can't claim new-star formation as a normal aspect of the universe."

I disagree, looking into the past through our telescopes we can see stars forming as interstellar clouds:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation

Interstellar clouds

© Copyright Original Source

[Roy]

Frank, Frank, Frank, ... Bret was quoting some-one. That's not his own opinion.