Talk:Starlight problem

From Conservapedia

!

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. Conservative 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. QNA 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. Czolgolz 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun... MiddleMan

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.Prof0705 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Contents 1 My applogies, but thats funny 2 Argument with no description 3 Total mismatch 4 Setterfield vs. Hartnett 5 solution to a problem 6 Backward versions 7 Logical fallacy?

My applogies, but thats funny

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --Mtur 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --Mtur 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. Conservative 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since E² = p²c² + m²c⁴ : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention. MiddleMan

Argument with no description

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--TimS 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Total mismatch

Two quotes from the same article:

• "The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
• "The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."

These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --Jenkins 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". HelpJazz 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe and only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --Jenkins 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. Philip J. Rayment 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Setterfield vs. Hartnett

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --Jenkins 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. Philip J. Rayment 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

solution to a problem

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jwalker (talk)

"...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.": Supposedly? It would seem that there is a problem.

"supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.

"...there are minor fluctuations...": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.

"...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?

"...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?

"...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there are (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!

Philip J. Rayment 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Backward versions

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? Jparenti 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. Learn together 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. Philip J. Rayment 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. Jparenti 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.

And the Big Bang story presumes that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible does indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it looks like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:

Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.

So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.

"...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they are based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?

"It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have not been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)

"That's forcing your science into your ideology...": Like Hubble did?

"...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old according to the Bible is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.

Philip J. Rayment 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Logical fallacy?

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--JZim 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)

The logical fallacy is if you are using the distance the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. Philip J. Rayment 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)