Ask a Young Earth Creationist 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Indeed. Obviously not every question can be answered, due to time constraints (or an unwillingness to answer a particular question). But even the occasional illogical answer would be less frustrating than a thread stagnating with unanswered questions.

Starting a thread like this asking for questions, and then failing to show up to answer the questions - even ineptly - is a pretty bad look. At least illogical answers provoke discussion; right now this is just sad. :(
 
Especialy since hero is around fairly often, even daily. If he has time to post in other threads, he should post here.
 
Moderator Action: Thread closed until a YEC is willing to start replying.
The poster can PM a mod if they're willing
 
According to one estimate, Ur was the largest city in the world from c. 2030 to 1980 BC. Its population was approximately 65,000.
How did the Human population get so high so fast?
 
65000 is only 2^16. There's ~80 generations from 4000 BC to 2000 BC. That's not particularly fast growth.

Just think, what was the world's population 2000 years ago? What is it now? How did it grow so fast?
 
How do you distinguish between being a Christian & being a Biblical literalist? What do you do when nature tells you something about the nature of God, but this is contrary to what's in the Bible? For example, why would you worship the Biblical god that wiped out humanity with a Flood, when any actual god did no such thing?
 
How do you distinguish between being a Christian & being a Biblical literalist? What do you do when nature tells you something about the nature of God, but this is contrary to what's in the Bible? For example, why would you worship the Biblical god that wiped out humanity with a Flood, when any actual god did no such thing?

It seems to me that YEC doesn't get the same thing from nature that others do . . . in other words, they will disagree about factual information or the interpretation thereof in, eg, the case of the worldwide flood, and say that there is physical evidence that such a thing happened.
 
Well, other things then.

The bible says that the 'spirit/soul is in the blood', but most people think that an embryo is alive. Jesus said that evil thoughts come from the heart.

Obviously, some things could be interpreted as expressions. But not everything.
 
Well, other things then.

The bible says that the 'spirit/soul is in the blood', but most people think that an embryo is alive. Jesus said that evil thoughts come from the heart.

Obviously, some things could be interpreted as expressions. But not everything.

I am willing to bet that what is taken literally and what is assumed to be a metaphor will seem arbitrary to you, but will depend on the individual and what they think science has demonstrated.
 
How come there's light from places millions of light years away reaching us now?
 
I'm pretty sure that YECs believe that the Universe is as old as the Earth. No?

A "literal" reading of Genesis 1 would suggest that the sun, the moon and the stars were created on the fourth day, so most of the universe would have to be younger than the earth.
 
How come there's light from places millions of light years away reaching us now?

There are several theories for that, most of which really suck.



The best might be White Hole Cosmology. I read a book on that 7 years ago, but may not remember it all right and I hadn't taken Calculus yet so I couldn't really even attempt to check most of its equations.

It can be derived from General Relativity if you reverse a couple common assumptions astronomers make.

First, you have to assume that matter in the universe is bounded, concentrated to a central area in space rather than roughly evenly dispersed throughout. This makes it so that the universe has a center of gravity, and thus significant gravitational time dilation. The universe could be trillions of yeas old in Swartzenchild time (that is, at a point measured from far enough away for time dilation to be nil) while being only a few thousand years old when measured in local time at the core.


Second, you must reverse the "Copernican Principle," that is assert that Earth is at (or rather very near) the center of the universe.


Apparently the assumption that the universe is unbounded and has no center is mostly for the sake of simplifying calculations; without a center any point in space can serve equally well as the origin in mathematical models, whereas if there is a center it must be used as the origin or else complex transformations are needed to mitigate errors that would grow increasingly the further the assumed origin is from the center of the universe. IIrc actually proving whether the universe has a center or not would be possibly only if we could make and compare accurate measurements from hundreds of light years apart.



A bounded universe would apparently have too either be collapsing into a blackhole or exploding out from a white hole. The white hole option is actually closer to the popular conception of the big bang than the real scientific theory is, but still depends on space expanding. IIrc the model requires a changing "Cosmological Constant," representing the 4D analog of pressure applied to a 2D surface and thus is a sort of force originating outside of our space time continuum. I've read there are some observations that seem to imply that this yet unmeasured "constant" actually does change.


I saw an article maybe 5 years ago by the same author of the book that reworked a few sections, saying that after he worked our the formulas himself rather than trying to run some of Stephen Hawkin's black hole equations in reverse he found that there are some really odd things happening near the event horizon of the white hole, and that in one region within time is not only slowed but stopped.





One other thing I recall from the book is that Red Shifting actually depends on the expansion of the space through which light travels and not on the distance or time it took to travel through it. The rate at which the space may expand during that time is essentially unlimited and unmeasurable. It seems Hubble's Law can accurately determine the distance to a point in terms of how long it would take light to travel through space without it continuing to expand but we can say nothing of how much time it took to make the trip without making a fairly arbitrary assumptions on how space was expanding in transit.
 
But that's still only a couple days - negligible!

Of course. But such an interpretation would exclude the universe being older than the earth, which was my point.

I saw an article maybe 5 years ago by the same author of the book that reworked a few sections, saying that after he worked our the formulas himself rather than trying to run some of Stephen Hawkin's black hole equations in reverse he found that there are some really odd things happening near the event horizon of the white hole, and that in one region within time is not only slowed but stopped.

That's a curious way to approach white holes. Usually you start at black holes and then notice that the time to cross the event horizon diverges (goes to infinity). To patch that divergence a coordinate transformation is introduced and in these new coordinates (which are not very useful in our reference frame, but we're talking theoretical physics here...) the divergence disappears. Now in these new coordinates there is a mirror solution to the black hole, where all geodesics leave and never come back. This was dubbed the white hole. An additional effect is a solution that mirrors our universe, but is not reachable form our universe (So if you postulate that the universe was created by a white hole, you also have to postulate a second universe. Too bad that isn't testable.)

Now if you take the white hole and transform back into useful coordinates, the divergence is there again, meaning that it takes infinite time to cross the event horizon.

I don't know about that book, but the "trying to run the black hole equations in reverse" thing sounds a bit like "White holes sound very nice and might explain something, but General Relativity is too complicated for me so I won't bother studying it"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom