15 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are, of course, wrong. Let's say that a brand new train runs from New York City to Albany. Let us say that Albany is exactly 150 miles away from NYC. Let us say that we know that trains always travel at the speed of 50 mph.
No, not with what I gave you.
Kelly
Given those facts, which are exactly analogous to the example you gave, when the train arrives at Albany we know that it is three hours old; the train came into existence and travelled at 50 miles an hour for three hours to reach a point where we could observe it.
16 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayThat depends on the definition of 'know'. It is not true without doubt (one standard definition of the word) that the star has a certain age or even that it exists.
May I ask you a question?
If there is a star 1 billion light years away from the earth.
We see the star light.
Do we know how old the star light is with just the information I have
given?
Kelly
16 May 05
Originally posted by PullhardEither you can't read or he can't write. The question was, verbatim:
I think Kelly is asking how do we know how old a star is just by knowing the speed of a photon of light eminating from it, OR from something that appears to be eminating from it?
If there is a star 1 billion light years away from the earth.
We see the star light.
Do we know how old the star light is with just the information I have
given?
He asked if we could know how old the "star light" was, not the star. His first sentence assumes the star is one billion light years from Earth; if we know how far the star is away (given) and we know what the speed of light is (scientifically observed and measured many times) than yes we can know how old the star light is from that particular star (see my brand new train analogy above).
16 May 05
Originally posted by PalynkaThis brings up an interesting creationist excuse.
Maybe Kelly was trying to say that god created a insta-universe with travelling star light already included.
No need to add water.
What sort of light did God create on the first day? As all the uber-xtians know, the sun, the moon (called the 'lesser light' in the KJV 😛 ), and the stars were not created until the fourth "day" (I put day in quotes because there are some who say that a day was a period of long length, perhaps even 2 billion years). This means that for three "days" some other sort of "light" existed in the universe.
Interesting characteristics of this mysterious light:
1) It was initially mixed with darkness. After creating this strange light, God then "divided" the two.
2) Plants could use it for photosynthesis since they were created on the third "day." Plants without sunlight?
So again what sort of light was this? And where did it go?
(Awaiting an entertaining story)
16 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYou know of trains that instantly come into existence traveling 50 mph?
You are, of course, wrong. Let's say that a brand new train runs from New York City to Albany. Let us say that Albany is exactly 150 miles away from NYC. Let us say that we know that trains always travel at the speed of 50 mph.
Given those facts, which are exactly analogous to the example you gave, when the train arrives at Albany w ...[text shortened]... ce and travelled at 50 miles an hour for three hours to reach a point where we could observe it.
16 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderOops. I misread Kelly's question.
Either you can't read or he can't write. The question was, verbatim:
If there is a star 1 billion light years away from the earth.
We see the star light.
Do we know how old the star light is with just the information I have
given?
He asked if we could know how old the "star light" was, not the star. His first ...[text shortened]... know how old the star light is from that particular star (see my brand new train analogy above).
Well, what is "start light"? I'd guess that the 'star light' is identical to light that is emitted by the star; same wavelengths, same intensity, same direction.
No, we don't know without a doubt how old the star light is. There is a possibility it appeared ten seconds ago ten light-seconds from my eyes. The level of skepticism required to not discard this possibility as extremely unlikely would make it impossible to live one's life if it was applied to everything else. What if your wife doesn't really exist as a human being but is an evil robot Terminator, made with technology so advanced (aided by a little magic maybe) so as to be indistinguishable from a real person - but soon, she will eat your babies! There are an infinite number of possibilities for anything - to live life we cannot be skeptical to the extent one would need to be in order to take seriously that the star light we observe didn't come all the way from the star - unless one has evidence that this is the case.
16 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayNice one Kellyjay. Completely ignore the thread ( Is there a scientific alternative to evolution?) and start talking about something compeltely different - like stars.
May I ask you a question?
If there is a star 1 billion light years away from the earth.
We see the star light.
Do we know how old the star light is with just the information I have
given?
Kelly
When your argument is as threadbare as the science behind creationism, you have little choice other than smoke and mirrors . What surprises me is how some follow your little diversion.
16 May 05
Originally posted by steerpikeWhat surprises me is that someone of your obvious great wisdom deigns to post in debates so obviously beneath you. It 's a chess site debate forum; if it goes off-topic somewhat what is the BFD? The whole forums are a diversion for Zeus' sake; lighten up!
Nice one Kellyjay. Completely ignore the thread ( Is there a scientific alternative to evolution?) and start talking about something compeltely different - like stars.
When your argument is as threadbare as the science behind creationism, you have little choice other than smoke and mirrors . What surprises me is how some follow your little diversion.
16 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderIf Kellyjay wants to debate star light, let him start his own thread. This one is about the science behind creationism - and I am still waiting for it.
What surprises me is that someone of your obvious great wisdom deigns to post in debates so obviously beneath you. It 's a chess site debate forum; if it goes off-topic somewhat what is the BFD? The whole forums are a diversion for Zeus' sake; lighten up!
16 May 05
Originally posted by steerpikeActually I thout this thread was about finding a scientific alternative to evolution. I'd like to here more on that subject myself. What if you've listened to evolution and creationism, and they both have big holes, and sound a bit far fetched?
If Kellyjay wants to debate star light, let him start his own thread. This one is about the science behind creationism - and I am still waiting for it.