Is this it for creationism?

[Jose Fly]

For the last few years or so I've noticed a decided decline in the number of people trying to advocate and/or defend creationism online. Not only that, I've also noticed a definite decline in the quality of arguments they put forth, and that many of the ones who are left seem to mostly argue via empty assertions.

I believe both stem from the same overall cause....creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments.

To illustrate the above, consider Talk Origin's "Index to Creationist Claims". Note that it was last updated sixteen years ago (2006) and how it still pretty much covers just about every argument you can expect to see an internet creationist make, even today.

This tells me that creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments, and because of that, online creationists have nothing new to present and therefore are reduced to relying mostly on argument via assertion.

Question for debate: Am I missing some new creationist arguments, or is what we've been seeing from creationists over the last sixteen years all they have?

Subquestion for creationists: Given that the arguments in the TO Index have not had any impact on science, do y'all have any expectations that repeating those arguments will change anything?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #40]

So somehow light doesn't reflect from a mirror, but interacts with it in such a way that any round trip delay is caused only by the interaction at the mirror and the speed of light is actually instantaneous! Maxwell is rolling in his grave. This magical, unexplained interaction apparently is the same whether the mirror is silver, gold, aluminum, a dielectric coating or anything else. This is right up there with Humphreys' planetary magnetic field gibberish. Of course it is only published in an AIG article where actual science is not required. If there are advances in cosmology in the coming years, it won't be from these guys!

None of the articles were from creationists. In fact here is a video from Veritasium that talks about the one way speed of light



Researchers are thinking about the speed of light because of perplexing observations that are being made. Like the James Webb is making.

Round trip measurements and practical communications (eg. from rovers on Mars to/from Earth, spacecraft to/from Earth, latency in satellite internet that uses geosynchronous satellites, etc.) don't show any reason to believe the one-way speed is any different from a measured two-way speed, but this article latches onto "it could be instantaneous" and makes the giant leap of claiming that this is the case based on some incoherent rambling about how light interacts with matter. The results in the following pure, unadulterated nonsense"

The correct understanding is a preferred direction in space. I almost guarantee that if the James Webb observations are confirmed and the objects are smaller as distance increases then you can expect a lot more changes in cosmology and new theories on the speed of light. I am not sure how the geometry would work any other way but for the speed of light to be instantaneous.

But regardless of the speed of light issue, the observations made by the James Web support creationist theories and not deep time theories.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #41]

None of the articles were from creationists.

The second article references two "papers" published at AIG, a creationist organization with a Statement of Faith.

I am not sure how the geometry would work any other way but for the speed of light to be instantaneous.

But we know it isn't instantaneous for all kinds of reasons. I can do a simple experiment in my lab in 5 minutes to prove it using a pulsed laser and an air-spaced etalon, but we know this from far too many measurements over centuries now to eliminate any possibility whatsoever that that speed of light is instantaneous today, or at any time since the first atoms formed. The CMB was emitted some 100K years after the Big Bang (according to that hypothesis), while the first atoms formed some 380K years after the BB. These times are long before the oldest galaxies seen by Webb so far (if they turn out to be galaxies).

But regardless of the speed of light issue, the observations made by the James Web support creationist theories and not deep time theories.

Not so far ... nothing James Webb has observed violates physics as we understand it today or supports "creationist theories." Creationists like those at AIG are adept at taking preliminary measurements or observations, or anything with a shred of ambiguity or uncertainty, and twisting them to claim support for a creationist narrative.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

But we know it isn't instantaneous for all kinds of reasons. I can do a simple experiment in my lab in 5 minutes to prove it using a pulsed laser and an air-spaced etalon,

This experiment is still measuring the two-way speed of light because you are reflecting it off of mirrors. I do not think Veritasium is Christian his video channel is definitely not Christian. He goes through most of the experiments you are mentioning.

but we know this from far too many measurements over centuries now to eliminate any possibility whatsoever that that speed of light is instantaneous today, or at any time since the first atoms formed.

Of measuring the two-way speed of light not the one-way. Einstein said that the one-way speed of light was assumed by convention not because it was measured.

The CMB was emitted some 100K years after the Big Bang (according to that hypothesis), while the first atoms formed some 380K years after the BB. These times are long before the oldest galaxies seen by Webb so far (if they turn out to be galaxies).

But according to the BB Theory, the early universe should be chaotic with few spiral galaxies. That is not what James Webb saw. The James Webb saw a very smooth universe just like the one that we see around our own galaxy. Besides also seeing objects becoming smaller, not larger as the BB theory predicts.

The fact that objects look smaller the farther away the object is, is a real problem for the big bang theory. That would mean that the universe is not expanding.

Not so far ... nothing James Webb has observed violates physics as we understand it today or supports "creationist theories." Creationists like those at AIG are adept at taking preliminary measurements or observations, or anything with a shred of ambiguity or uncertainty, and twisting them to claim support for a creationist narrative.

This is not AIG making these arguments. It is people in the secular cosmology that are making these claims. The one article that I cited from AIG was a mistake I did not even see that it was from AIG. There are many other articles that say the same thing.

Now getting back to the OP the fact that creationists have not put forward any new theories shows the veracity of the arguments that we have. The new discoveries that are being made actually shows how weak modern atheistic cosmology is.

[Clownboat]

I'm afraid you are very wrong here Jose. The scientific method is based on unprovable claims, beliefs! The belief that the universe is rationally intelligible, the belief that nature is governed by laws, the belief that same results will always be obtained with the same test under the same conditions all of these are beliefs, rational I agree but assumed, taken for granted.

I hear you. Now what method would your propose we use in place of the scientific method?

[Difflugia]

This experiment is still measuring the two-way speed of light because you are reflecting it off of mirrors.

You're not understanding the physics and math of what's going on. It has nothing to do with "mirrors." The larger point in the problem of measuring c is that it seems a fundamental property of the universe that information can't travel faster than the speed of light. At some point and in some way, the source and destination have to compare notes. A setup that uses one clock necessarily requires a round trip. A setup that uses two clocks can't guarantee synchronization without information travelling from one end to the other.

The problem for the argument that you're making is that experiments can be rigged to show that the speed of light is not exceeded over any arbitrary distance. There is always some part of the overall path where something could temporarily exceed it, but using that as an argument as you are amounts to word games with physics. If the effect that you're arguing "could" be true, then in some experiments, light would have to travel faster than c on one leg and in some, another leg. That result is possible in the same way that unicorns, leprechauns, and gods are possible, but it's also nonsensical. It's the same creationist canard we see too often that conflates possible with probable, "you can't prove it doesn't" with "sometimes it does."

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #43]

This experiment is still measuring the two-way speed of light because you are reflecting it off of mirrors. I do not think Veritasium is Christian his video channel is definitely not Christian. He goes through most of the experiments you are mentioning.

My point was not about 1-way vs. 2-way light measurements. It is that the speed of light cannot be instantaneous (ie. infinite speed of light) as claimed in the article (at least the AIG ones). Here's how that is easily shown (a bit long, but it proves that the speed of light isn't instantaneous).

A plane parallel etalon is just two mirrors (or the ends of a solid optic that are polished and coated) placed some distance apart and with their facing surfaces very flat, and parallel to each other. If you send a collimated, single-frequency laser beam through the centers of the mirrors to a detector behind the mirror opposite the laser, and scan the laser wavelength, you will see a series of peaks and valleys called a fringe pattern. This is caused by successive constructive and destructive interference when an integral number of half wavelengths fit between the mirror reflective surfaces (constructive interference) or not (destructive interference). This Wikipedia article shows a fringe pattern like this if you scroll down to the 5th and 6th figures ... they don't number them):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabry%E2% ... rferometer

The fringe pattern can only happen if there is a standing wave set up in the cavity. To form a standing wave the light must make a minimum of one round trip pass around the cavity. If a pulsed laser is sent into the cavity, with a pulse width less than the time required for one round trip circuit, there can be no interference and no fringe pattern. This can be demonstrated by using shorter and shorter laser pulses. At longer pulse lengths the fringe pattern is present (viewed on a fast oscilloscope), and as the pulse length is shortened there is a point where the fringe pattern disappears. This happens exactly when the round trip time through the etalon (twice the mirror spacing) is longer than the pulse width. If the mirror separation is increased, then the pulse width cutoff that causes the fringes to disappear increases in direct proportion to the mirror spacing, with no dependence on the mirror material or coating. This is the key point that torpedoes the claim that the speed of light is instantaneous and any delays are caused by the interaction of light with the mirrors. If that were the case, the pulse width cutoff that kills the fringes would be the same for any mirror spacing.

But according to the BB Theory, the early universe should be chaotic with few spiral galaxies. That is not what James Webb saw. The James Webb saw a very smooth universe just like the one that we see around our own galaxy.

What do you mean by "early"? From the earlier link, the oldest "thing" (not yet confirmed to be a galaxy) is about 235 million years after the BB.

[Jose Fly]

There are have not been any new observations that creation theory has not predicted. Take for example new observations of the James Webb telescope has shown that there have always been fully formed galaxies.

Citation please.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #45]

You're not understanding the physics and math of what's going on. It has nothing to do with "mirrors." The larger point in the problem of measuring c is that it seems a fundamental property of the universe that information can't travel faster than the speed of light. At some point and in some way, the source and destination have to compare notes. A setup that uses one clock necessarily requires a round trip. A setup that uses two clocks can't guarantee synchronization without information traveling from one end to the other.

I so hate the information argument because information has to be transmitted by some physical process. Although information does travel instantaneously with entangled particles no matter what the distance. So that would be evidence of at least the plaulsibity of light having a preferred direction.

The problem for the argument that you're making is that experiments can be rigged to show that the speed of light is not exceeded over any arbitrary distance. There is always some part of the overall path where something could temporarily exceed it, but using that as an argument as you are amounts to word games with physics. If the effect that you're arguing "could" be true, then in some experiments, light would have to travel faster than c on one leg and in some, another leg. That result is possible in the same way that unicorns, leprechauns, and gods are possible, but it's also nonsensical. It's the same creationist canard we see too often that conflates possible with probable, "you can't prove it doesn't" with "sometimes it does."

This is not my argument. It actually originated with Einstein. I did not like this argument when creationists first made this argument. But it has come to grow on me as I hear secular scientists argue this point.

And if James Webb's observations hold up and objects are smaller the farther away they are then something has to be going on with the light traveling from those distance points.

Although I do thing that theories like the following you will be hearing more about in the years to come.

Problem- The theory of Relativity is premised on the constancy of the speed of light (c) in-vacuo. While no empirical evidence convincingly shows the speed to be variable, nonetheless from a theoretical perspective the invariance is an assumption. Need- It is possible that the evidence could be explained by a different theory. Approach- A non-local hidden-variable (NLHV) solution, the Cordus particule theory, is applied to identify the causes of variability in the fabric density, and then show how this affects the speed of light. Findings- Under these assumptions the speed of light is variable (VSL), being inversely proportional to fabric density. This is because the discrete fields of the photon interact dynamically with the fabric and therefore consume frequency cycles of the photon. The fabric arises from aggregation of fields from particles, which in turn depends on the proximity and spatial distribution of matter. Results disfavour the universal applicability of the cosmological principle of homogeneity and isotropy of the universe. Originality- The work proposes causal mechanisms for VSL, which have otherwise been challenging to ascertain. Uniquely, this theory identifies fabric density as the dependent variable. In contrast, other VSL models propose that c varies with time or some geometric-like scale, but struggle to provide plausible reasons for that dependency. This theory also offers a conceptually simply way to reconcile the refraction of light in both gravitational situations and optical materials.https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... the_Fabric

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #46]

The fringe pattern can only happen if there is a standing wave set up in the cavity. To form a standing wave the light must make a minimum of one round trip pass around the cavity. If a pulsed laser is sent into the cavity, with a pulse width less than the time required for one round trip circuit, there can be no interference and no fringe pattern. This can be demonstrated by using shorter and shorter laser pulses. At longer pulse lengths the fringe pattern is present (viewed on a fast oscilloscope), and as the pulse length is shortened there is a point where the fringe pattern disappears. This happens exactly when the round trip time through the etalon (twice the mirror spacing) is longer than the pulse width. If the mirror separation is increased, then the pulse width cutoff that causes the fringes to disappear increases in direct proportion to the mirror spacing, with no dependence on the mirror material or coating. This is the key point that torpedoes the claim that the speed of light is instantaneous and any delays are caused by the interaction of light with the mirrors. If that were the case, the pulse width cutoff that kills the fringes would be the same for any mirror spacing.

I think, I am mostly understanding your experience. You are saying that resonance is achieved because of the outgoing pulse interacting with the return pulse. There may be some other better solution than the one I am going to give you. But there is the time it takes for the vibrating electrons to produce the light. I don't know and I am not going to take the time to find a better solution.

The point was if the observations from the James Web do hold up then you will see more theories like these getting more attention.

Problem- The theory of Relativity is premised on the constancy of the speed of light (c) in-vacuo. While no empirical evidence convincingly shows the speed to be variable, nonetheless from a theoretical perspective the invariance is an assumption. Need- It is possible that the evidence could be explained by a different theory. Approach- A non-local hidden-variable (NLHV) solution, the Cordus particule theory, is applied to identify the causes of variability in the fabric density, and then show how this affects the speed of light. Findings- Under these assumptions the speed of light is variable (VSL), being inversely proportional to fabric density. This is because the discrete fields of the photon interact dynamically with the fabric and therefore consume frequency cycles of the photon. The fabric arises from aggregation of fields from particles, which in turn depends on the proximity and spatial distribution of matter. Results disfavour the universal applicability of the cosmological principle of homogeneity and isotropy of the universe. Originality- The work proposes causal mechanisms for VSL, which have otherwise been challenging to ascertain. Uniquely, this theory identifies fabric density as the dependent variable. In contrast, other VSL models propose that c varies with time or some geometric-like scale, but struggle to provide plausible reasons for that dependency. This theory also offers a conceptually simply way to reconcile the refraction of light in both gravitational situations and optical materials. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... the_Fabric

These are only getting attention now because of observations like Hubble's deep field and James Webb's observations.

What do you mean by "early"? From the earlier link, the oldest "thing" (not yet confirmed to be a galaxy) is about 235 million years after the BB.

That is Early. How long do you think it takes for large galaxies to form? Large galaxies are caused by colliding smaller galaxies. The Milky Way and Andromeda will not collide for another 4.5 billion years. There would not be enough time for large galaxies to form that soon after the BB.

[Difflugia]

Although information does travel instantaneously with entangled particles no matter what the distance.

And this demonstrates exactly the point I was making.

By the same logic you're relying on to question the measurements of the speed of light, there's no way to show that entagled particles transmit information instantaneously. The verification that information has been transmitted instantly requires a round trip to verify, which cannot be performed faster than c. The particles must begin together to be entangled, then travel to whatever "distance" is desired, and then a return trip must be made to verify the information. It's the identical problem.