Speed of light question caught on Phy.org forum:

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never claimed billions of years. I only claimed that it appears to be billions of years. You have not disputed the apparent distance to the stars. You have suggested that a star that appears to be billions of light years away is in fact billions of light years away, does currently exist, but was created more recently than the time it would take for ligh that it isn't and that almost everything I see up there is part of a non-existent history.

You should go back to and read your own posts.
My claims have been that the stars and the light were made at the same
time. The amount of time it takes the light to travel was first brought up
by you. You can continue this line of you said or he said, or come up with
something else to say. History assumes you know the events, I'm claiming
God created the stars and the light, gave a statement on how and what
He did, you are the one assuming time (ie history) by saying you know
what happened for how long.

It is no different than walking into a room with what everyone knows is
a 50 hour candle half way burned through, someone tells you they lit the
candle a 30 minutes ago, but you claim it is a 50 hour candle half way
down, so it must have been lit for 25 hours in a row. A history lie would
have been to claim it was burning 25 hours when in fact it was last lit 30
minutes ago. You don't know how long the stars have been where they are
now, you also don't know how long we have been here, but you assume you
do. You assume a great deal of things have been going on for quite awhile
to come up with the time you think have passed.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You should go back to and read your own posts.
My claims have been that the stars and the light were made at the same
time. The amount of time it takes the light to travel was first brought up
by you. You can continue this line of you said or he said, or come up with
something else to say. History assumes you know the events, I'm claiming
God created t ...[text shortened]... s have been going on for quite awhile
to come up with the time you think have passed.
Kelly

I still don't understand why God created the Universe in a way to fool scientists? Why did god create all evidences for BigBang if BigBang never occurred?
Why did god create all evidences for evolution if evolution never occurred?
I just don't get it!
Why is it so important for god to hide his intention by covering it up with strong evidences for BigBang and evolution?

Originally posted by KellyJay
My claims have been that the stars and the light were made at the same
time.

OK, let me explain it again without using the word 'billions' or any specific time frame.

The thread started off with what is a well known problem for creationists. ie the apparent distance of the stars is further in light years than the age of the universe suggested by creationists. Therefore a contradiction needing explaining by creationists.
One possible explanation is that light traveled faster at some point in time, the OP asked whether it is possible to prove that this explanation is not satisfactory.
You seemed to be suggesting an alternative explanation ie that the light was created in transit between the stars and us.

So, going with your suggestion of a possible explanation, we are exploring the implications.
1. If the light we see from some distant stars now was created in transit, therefore the actual distance to such star in light years (regardless of what speed light traveled in the past) is greater than the age of the universe.
ie age of universe = x years,
distance to star > x light years.
2. From 1. any activity of the star observed by observing the light, took place prior to the beginning of the universe ie it did not take place. This non-existent history might even include highly complex events such as a star exploding which would mean that the star never actually existed.

You keep throwing it back at me and saying I am assuming, or making up history, but I am just pointing out that a made up history is simply a logical conclusion or your own 'complete watch' argument.
I'll say that again: what I am arguing is a logical conclusion, not an assumption.

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK, let me explain it again without using the word 'billions' or any specific time frame.

The thread started off with what is a well known problem for creationists. ie the apparent distance of the stars is further in light years than the age of the universe suggested by creationists. Therefore a contradiction needing explaining by creationists.
One po ...[text shortened]...
I'll say that again: what I am arguing is a logical conclusion, [b]not an assumption.[/b]

As I pointed out, not just light but man also was created that way. The universe
was created as a watch can be made with all the parts in place doing their thing.
The timing and position of a more than a few things were setup just right so that
life could be supported.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I pointed out, not just light but man also was created that way. The universe
was created as a watch can be made with all the parts in place doing their thing.
The timing and position of a more than a few things were setup just right so that
life could be supported.
Kelly

And as I pointed out, that might imply that Adam too had a fake history. He still remembers the hunting expedition he went on as a kid.

All I am doing is pointing out that your claim regarding starlight leads to the conclusion that we observe a history that never happened. You don't seem to like the conclusion, but seem reluctant to withdraw the claim.
I am also pointing out that if the conclusion is accepted for stars then it should be equally accepted for Adam, the earth and any other object/entity that contains records going back further than the age of the universe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And as I pointed out, that might imply that Adam too had a fake history. He still remembers the hunting expedition he went on as a kid.

All I am doing is pointing out that your claim regarding starlight leads to the conclusion that we observe a history that never happened. You don't seem to like the conclusion, but seem reluctant to withdraw the claim. ...[text shortened]... any other object/entity that contains records going back further than the age of the universe.

What hunting story, please!?

Again, YOU ARE the one suggesting you can see history, I'm telling you what
you see is simply stars and starlight. You don't know the age of the universe
you have never seen me say I know, I have said I believe or have faith in
the creation story. You are the one suggesting just by looking at the universe
you can see history, I'm saying just by looking at the universe you see just
the universe. As my example of the candle, seeing a rate and a known
distance does not mean you know how long the candle was lit, you only know
what is in front of you now.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What hunting story, please!?

Again, YOU ARE the one suggesting you can see history, I'm telling you what
you see is simply stars and starlight. You don't know the age of the universe
you have never seen me say I know, I have said I believe or have faith in
the creation story. You are the one suggesting just by looking at the universe
you can see hist ...[text shortened]... mean you know how long the candle was lit, you only know
what is in front of you now.
Kelly

On that analogy, the candle, you certainly can tell the age of the candle, how long it has been burning because longer burn=shorter candle. As for stars, we know right now we can extract parallax measurements of stars and make geometrically correct distance measurements. We look at stars and we can see there is a spectrum in the light, some stars have X amount of iron (star ash) and some have 0.1X, etc. So by looking at them we can make reasonable conclusions about their age and distance.

I think you are fantasizing when you think the universe was created to look to us like it is billions of years old when in your version of fact it is only a few thousand. One problem with your conjecture right here on Earth is written in places like the grand canyon.

In the grand canyon we can see a path the river took that carved out that magnificent world site. The thing also we can see is exact images taken over 100 years ago and see the rate of change directly. So we can do the math and see that going back 6000 years, the canyon would have to have looked pretty close to what it is in fact now. The longer we can make that known time stamp to erosion chart, the more we can demonstrate to almost anyone's satisfaction the canyon is millions of years old.

The other problem with your young universe conjecture is this: Maybe some kind of infinite god could fashion a universe just to fool humans, kind of like how the 'three prong blivet' illusion works, from one angle it could look like it is billions of years old but go off that angle, it won't work.

I refuse to believe the universe was built just so humans could occupy this insignificant portion of it. I firmly believe the universe may have all the right ingredients for life and that implies a whole universe of life forms, some coming online now in distance solar systems and others a billion years extinct, including civilizations at least if not more advanced than us.

Such a god could make the 'three prong blivet' angle work for us but not for every being in distant galaxies and such.

Originally posted by sonhouse
On that analogy, the candle, you certainly can tell the age of the candle, how long it has been burning because longer burn=shorter candle. As for stars, we know right now we can extract parallax measurements of stars and make geometrically correct distance measurements. We look at stars and we can see there is a spectrum in the light, some stars have X amo hree prong blivet' angle work for us but not for every being in distant galaxies and such.

Fine by me, I've already agreed that is what you were doing, looking at the
universe and than telling me how old it is, nothing new here! You give me more
details as if that changes what I have already said you were doing. You are
looking at it, and than you come up with the 'age' the 'history' if you will of how old
you claim the universe is, as if someone told you that would be the truth of the
matter. I'm not at all claiming the universes "looks" like a billion years old, I'm
claiming that it looks like the universe, the age is whatever the age is, and just
by looking at it I cannot know how old that is! The samething with the grand
canyon, you assume you know why it looks the way it does so you tell me how
old it is. There are more than a few rivers on the planet and not all of them have
dug into the earth like the claims you are making about that one, so why isn't
the Mississippi river a grand canyon too, or the Nile and so on? It is a good story,
no one can disprove it, so believe it, it fits your world view.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Again, YOU ARE the one suggesting you can see history, I'm telling you what
you see is simply stars and starlight. You don't know the age of the universe
you have never seen me say I know, I have said I believe or have faith in
the creation story. You are the one suggesting just by looking at the universe
you can see history, I'm saying just by looking at the universe you see just
the universe.

You just don't want to see it do you?
Let me explain again:
1. You suggest that light was created in transit.
2. By the laws of physics, any information carried in light is of events that happened prior to the current point in time.
3. If the light that was created in transit carries information of any kind, that information is about events that never happened.

As my example of the candle, seeing a rate and a known
distance does not mean you know how long the candle was lit, you only know
what is in front of you now.
Kelly
And I have not claimed to know or even calculated any rates or distances, so this particular analogy of a candle does not help. I am not saying I know how long a star has been shining or how fast light moves. I am saying that if light was created in transit then any events seen in that starlight did not happen.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You just don't want to see it do you?
Let me explain again:
1. You suggest that light was created in transit.
2. By the laws of physics, any information carried in light is of events that happened prior to the current point in time.
3. If the light that was created in transit carries information of any kind, that information is about events that never ...[text shortened]... ing that if light was created in transit then any events seen in that starlight did not happen.

Oh I get it, what you again fail to see is that you assume that all things have been
doing what you think they were forever or at least I assume billions of years, but
and it is a big, but....you don't know how it all started, nor do you know for how
long, why, or much of anything else. You see what is around you, you jump to
a conclusion based upon assumptions that you see it therefore it has always been.
The light was lit when? You don't know, so you project your views, you create
a history as if you know and say it with faith. Of course if something shows up
that forces you to alter your views you will, but you will just come up with some
other belief about how it started.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Oh I get it, what you again fail to see is that you assume that all things have been
doing what you think they were forever or at least I assume billions of years, but
and it is a big, but....you don't know how it all started, nor do you know for how
long, why, or much of anything else. You see what is around you, you jump to
a conclusion based upon ass ...[text shortened]... views you will, but you will just come up with some
other belief about how it started.
Kelly

Cosmology according to Kelly:
(1) Creationism is right.
(2) If something contradicts creation, then (1) applies.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Oh I get it,....

No. You don't.

what you again fail to see is that you assume that all things have been
doing what you think they were forever or at least I assume billions of years,
I have made no such assumption. I have made one assumption only: that information contained in light at a given time is information from a time prior to the time in question. This is the basic 'arrow of time', or 'cause / effect' law that we all know so well.
When we see something, we may be fooled about what we see, but we never ever ever see the future. What we see, is invariably the past. To violate that rule, light would have to travel backwards in time which would create no end of paradoxes.

I look out my window and I see a bird sitting on the fence. Without making any assumptions other than the above I can conclude that one of the following is true:
1. there was a bird outside my window prior to the light reaching my eye.
2. there was something else outside my window prior to the light reaching my eye and I am mistaken that it is a bird.
3. the light was manipulated in some way so as to fool me - nevertheless I am still observing events prior to the light reaching my eye.
4. the universe was created after the light apparently left the bird and before reaching my eye. Conclusion: The bird I think I see never existed. It is an invented history.

You have claimed 4. then rejected the conclusion. You cannot claim 4. then use 1-3 to try and avoid the conclusion.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Fine by me, I've already agreed that is what you were doing, looking at the
universe and than telling me how old it is, nothing new here! You give me more
details as if that changes what I have already said you were doing. You are
looking at it, and than you come up with the 'age' the 'history' if you will of how old
you claim the universe is, as if som ...[text shortened]... a good story,
no one can disprove it, so believe it, it fits your world view.
Kelly

Even if the grand canyon were the only one like it on the planet, which it isn't, my point is there is solid evidence of the progression of the erosion or the depth of cut of the river through bed because we have photo's from more than 100 years ago, which can establish a baseline of deterioration. The ratio of 100 to 6000 is only 60 to one.
So when we see, say one foot of erosion (just a guess) from 100 years ago to now, we can assume with confidence there could not be much more than a couple hundred feet at best going back 6000 years. Since the GC is several thousand feet deep, it has to have been cutting for way more than 6000 years, more like millions. The rock and sand of the top surface is about the same strength as the bottom layers exposed now so there would not have been a huge increase in the erosion rate 6000 years ago, it would have shown in the record of erosion.

You have your head in the metaphorical sand if you can't see the Earth as what it really is, billions of years old.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. You don't.

[b]what you again fail to see is that you assume that all things have been
doing what you think they were forever or at least I assume billions of years,
I have made no such assumption. I have made one assumption only: that information contained in light at a given time is information from a time prior to the time in question. Thi ...[text shortened]... rejected the conclusion. You cannot claim 4. then use 1-3 to try and avoid the conclusion.[/b]

As I pointed out you are doing that, assuming.
I pointed also that you don't know how long or the cause of everything.
You may be right, I don't know, but I also know that just by looking at this
universe we do not know where everything came from, nor do we know how
it all got here. You assume you do.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
Even if the grand canyon were the only one like it on the planet, which it isn't, my point is there is solid evidence of the progression of the erosion or the depth of cut of the river through bed because we have photo's from more than 100 years ago, which can establish a baseline of deterioration. The ratio of 100 to 6000 is only 60 to one.
So when we see ...[text shortened]... the metaphorical sand if you can't see the Earth as what it really is, billions of years old.

I don't know how old it is, I have a belief. You are telling what it really is.
Kelly