Young Earth Creationists are fun

sckewer

New Member
So I came across this young earth creationist, and when it was finally pointed out that we can see stars that are billions of light years away, he argued that God changed the speed of light to allow us to see those stars. I started showing him the math but he wouldn't listen. I will grant that it is absurd enough to be a troll, but yet I have heard of rare young earth creationists, and they would have to do something like that to explain the stars. Its why we need to protect the night sky.
 

ImprobableJoe

New Member
I've heard that "argument" before. It is nothing more or less than an attack on the very concept of knowing. It is a way for creationists to celebrate and encourage ignorance. That sort of "argument" reduces down to "God did it, God can do anything and everything, and everything MUST be twisted to fit the Bible no matter how much the evidence contradicts it." The evidence that the earth and universe are staggeringly old? Proof that "God" can make young things look old. All the evidence for evolution? Proof that either "God" can make things look evolved, or proof that Satan is manipulating the evidence. You don't ever have to admit a single flaw in your mythology, because the first rule is that the mythology is perfect, and the second rule is that the evidence must be twisted or ignored in order to maintain the belief that the mythology is perfect.
 

Raistlin Majere

New Member
The best thing to do with these people is to pose a very simple question to them.

"If god is omnipotent, then why can't he create an immovable rock?"

For us, the answer is simple. There is no omnipotent god.
For them, it is impossible to answer.
 

irmerk

New Member
I like both of the responses up there ^.

Still, apparently this person thinks it is a matter of either God made the new look old or it is just actually old. Why agree it is just old? Maybe because it is consistent with all other worldviews and everyday decisions, assumptions and conclusions. Why believe God did it? Let me more simply explain why not believe God did it: It is just as invalidated as any crazy idea I personally could come up with - including all of the contradictory ideas already created, such as the flying spaghetti monster. So, weigh those choices and guess what is more logical to accept?
 

MagnaMater

New Member
Raistlin Majere said:
The best thing to do with these people is to pose a very simple question to them.

"If god is omnipotent, then why can't he create an immovable rock?"

For us, the answer is simple. There is no omnipotent god.
For them, it is impossible to answer.

I thought there are a lot of unmoveable rocks out there... *thinks a bit more*
well, you can go and cut them up in small pieces, then they'll all be moveable...


but as involuntary commedians they are indeed very funny, I use them as my entertainment :mrgreen:
 

orpiment99

New Member
Raistlin Majere said:
The best thing to do with these people is to pose a very simple question to them.

"If god is omnipotent, then why can't he create an immovable rock?"

For us, the answer is simple. There is no omnipotent god.
For them, it is impossible to answer.
The problem is, then they argue that god could create an immovable rock, if he wanted to. In my experience, some of these people can excuse their god on anything.
 

another_mutant

New Member
SN197A is also a good one to bring up in such arguments. If the speed of light was higher in the past, SN1987A is a larger object, meaning it is actually farther away.
 

Rhysz

New Member
another_mutant said:
SN197A is also a good one to bring up in such arguments. If the speed of light was higher in the past, SN1987A is a larger object, meaning it is actually farther away.

You don't honestly believe a YEC would fall for that do you? God must have made it that way to make it more Beautifull or to test our faith.

"When in doubt, just ad Skydaddy"

Regards,
Rhysz
 

another_mutant

New Member
LOL... well, for the dogmatic, you are no doubt right. I have run into a few stubbornly dogmatic enough to ignore any arguments & keep posting their disproven conjecture as fact.

For the others, SN1987A sometimes brings them into the "god created light in transit"... to which I point out that a complete detailed history created by the creator of the universe is no less real than the universe itself, so the scientists are still right, because they are observing a real history.

(for more fun, you could ask them why you should believe the Bible when it doesn't match the Word of God. )
 

Josan

New Member
Raistlin Majere said:
"If god is omnipotent, then why can't he create an immovable rock?"

I find this question amusing, but not really all that mind-boggling. If there was a god who was omnipotent, he would not be able to create a rock he himself could not move, as such a thing would be impossible by definition. It is similar to the old "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" question.
 

PJDesseyn

New Member
the thing about that question is, that if a God is omnipotent and created everything, then he has the power to control energy and matter. this means that, no matter how strong or how immovable the rock is, he can control matter anyway and move this material rock.

as for an unstoppable force hitting an immovable object: they both get destroyed by the impact OR the unstoppable force goes right through it. (tachyons and stuff)
 

Josan

New Member
PJDesseyn said:
as for an unstoppable force hitting an immovable object: they both get destroyed by the impact OR the unstoppable force goes right through it. (tachyons and stuff)

Well, the whole point is that both cannot exist by definition. Because what would happen if they did exist and they meet? Well, if as you said they both get destroyed, they were never unstoppable or unmovable in the first place were they? It it simply an impossible thing as if one exist, then the other can not. It is wordplay.
 

Pulsar

New Member
another_mutant said:
SN197A is also a good one to bring up in such arguments. If the speed of light was higher in the past, SN1987A is a larger object, meaning it is actually farther away.
No, that's a common misconception (shanedk made that error too in one of his vids). In fact, the distance of SN1987A is independent of the speed of light in the past. I'll try to explain.

The distance is calculated from the time difference between direct light from the star and light which traveled first to the inner ring. Let's call the distance between the star and the inner ring d. The first beam travels from the star to us, while a second beam first travels to the ring, and then from the ring to us. That means that beam 2 lags a distance d behind beam 1. Now suppose, while both beams are underway towards us, that the speed of light changes. Then the speed of both beams would change, but if both beams are affected in the same way (a reasonable assumption), then their relative distance d would still be the same.
Finally, beam 1 hits us at a time t1, and beam 2 hits us at a t2. The distance between them is then simply d = c*(t2-t1), with c the current speed of light. If c had been different, then the time delay t2-t1 would also have been different, but we would still find the same value for d. And using trigonometry, we can calculate from d the distance of the supernova.

See also here.
 

boonw

New Member
sckewer said:
So I came across this young earth creationist, and when it was finally pointed out that we can see stars that are billions of light years away, he argued that God changed the speed of light to allow us to see those stars.

Bring up that if they believe the speed of light can change then they cant accept gravity. Mass is calculated by E=mc2. Because mass is made of energy, and C is the speed of light, then if the speed of light could change, then so would the masses of everything. This would throw all the planets out of order lol.
 

Raistlin Majere

New Member
PJDesseyn said:
the thing about that question is, that if a God is omnipotent and created everything, then he has the power to control energy and matter. this means that, no matter how strong or how immovable the rock is, he can control matter anyway and move this material rock.

Well that makes the rock movable, doesn't it? So he still didn't create an immovable rock.
 

Ozymandyus

New Member
I've always thought the immovable arguments were silly. Undoubtedly an omnipotent being could create something immovable by every definition of moveable that was already in existence. If the being then decided to move that immoveable object, he could create a new way to move things, or simply alter the object in whatever way to make it moveable again.

Could such a being create an object that he could then not affect at all, not use his omnipotence on? Perhaps, he could CHOOSE to make such an object, and thus choose to never affect it after the moment of its creation. He would simply have to create and object that he would never have a desire or need to affect, because making an object that he would ever have any desire to interact with would immediately make it affectable. But it is still possible to imagine such an object... as mind bending as it is.

I'm not arguing that such a being exists of course, but such silly thought experiments certainly do nothing to prove or disprove the case. Though its still fun to think about I suppose.
 

another_mutant

New Member
Back when I was a Christian & reviewing my faith, I pondered if the "unmovable rock" question was the answer to free will. Since free will and an omnipotent creator seemed incompatible, had God created free will and thus given up omnipotence.

Pulsar -

So the distance would only be off by the amount speed of light changed between the original and the outer ring, a fairly insignificant amount. Thanks for link. Will have to read up more on that.
 
Top