Conservapedian Objections to Relativity?

[AdHominus]

Any idea why Conservapedia deliberately attack the Theory of Relativity and not Quantum Mechanics, or Thermodynamics, ect ect? The move seems extremely arbitrary. Their justification is (paraphrased) "A relativistic world is ungodly since God is objective".
...What?

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

This has already been addressed in this thread. I still have no idea why they object to relativity so much except perhaps because it is the foundation of modern cosmology which conflicts with their young earth creationism.

Incidentally, they do object to thermodynamics. That objection is just not as noticeable because the more rational physicists of that community happen to have been able to clean the page up in that regard...

 

[Aught3]

I believe they got confused between relativity and relativism. This is understandable as they are spelled almost the same.

 

[AdHominus]

This has already been addressed in this thread. I still have no idea why they object to relativity so much except perhaps because it is the foundation of modern cosmology which conflicts with their young earth creationism.

Incidentally, they do object to thermodynamics. That objection is just not as noticeable because the more rational physicists of that community happen to have been able to clean the page up in that regard...

Alright thanks for the info. Crazy.

 

[Commander Eagle]

Any idea why Conservapedia deliberately attack the Theory of Relativity and not Quantum Mechanics, or Thermodynamics, ect ect? The move seems extremely arbitrary. Their justification is (paraphrased) "A relativistic world is ungodly since God is objective".
...What?

Light speed.

The speed of light and observable shifts in wavelengths (red- and blue-shifts) destroys creationism. The easiest way for them to wave away the observable evidence is to say that relativity - and, therefore, an invariable speed of light - is invalid.

 

[AdHominus]

Any idea why Conservapedia deliberately attack the Theory of Relativity and not Quantum Mechanics, or Thermodynamics, ect ect? The move seems extremely arbitrary. Their justification is (paraphrased) "A relativistic world is ungodly since God is objective".
...What?

Light speed.

The speed of light and observable shifts in wavelengths (red- and blue-shifts) destroys creationism. The easiest way for them to wave away the observable evidence is to say that relativity - and, therefore, an invariable speed of light - is invalid.

Wow, I never knew Creationists would ever figure that out. Whenever you try and debate Creationists 75% of what you say is just education, so it's impractical to argue with light-speed. I have tried mentioning Relativity and red shift many many many times, it just pours into one ear and flows out the other.

 

[Commander Eagle]

[Wow, I never knew Creationists would ever figure that out.

They haven't. Thus the argument.

 

[RisingSon]

I think there is a simple answer to why they picked relativity that people are over looking:

Relativity is one of the most widely known (although not often understood) concepts of modern physics, and indeed science. It's something most people have at least heard of. If your readership lacks and even basic knowledge of the subject (which, without trying to paint them all with a wide brush, I assume the readers of Conservapedia do not have).

It's sort of the same with evolution. Most everyone knows about it, but few know anything beyond a very basic and simplified version of it, so it's easy to pick what appear to be flaws in the theory.

 

[AdHominus]

[Wow, I never knew Creationists would ever figure that out.

They haven't. Thus the argument.

Well I bet they don't understand it fully, I meant they probably got how generally Relativity/red-shift destroys Creationism and are deceiving there users before they get to actually know that in the most underhanded and devious way. I've seen some of their science articles; they try there best to seem legitimate. But that veil soon vanishes when they start talking about controversial topics. I mean, they support NephilimFree... a geocentrist.

 

[Hedley]

The answer in the source!!!


http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf

I believe that at least Obama knows something related to physics!

 

[RichardMNixon]

I'd just like to point out that every time I see the subject of this thread on the forum, I read it as "Conservapedian Objections to Reality," and I think, "yeah, yeah they object to reality quite a bit. Oh! Relativity, ok."