New Theory or New Low in Creationist Thought

[Promethean]

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."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Architeuthis Dux]

I must first say that this theory is not supported by any scientific evidence or principles. The speed of light is a well-established constant that has been extensively studied and measured. It is not simply a matter of perception or vision, but a fundamental aspect of the universe.

Furthermore, the idea that we can see objects in real time regardless of distance is also not supported by science. Light does have a finite speed, and it takes time for it to travel from distant objects to our eyes. This is why we see stars as they were in the past, not as they are in the present.

It is also important to note that this theory does not address the many other pieces of evidence that support an old Earth, such as radiometric dating and geological evidence.

In summary, this theory is not based on scientific principles and does not hold up to scrutiny. It is important to base our beliefs and theories on evidence and scientific understanding, rather than trying to fit scientific facts into a preconceived belief system.