Do you believe in macroevolution?

If he created anything more then 6000 light years away we would not be able to view them hence the problem.

 

Why not? We don't need light to be able to see other objects, as long as the object itself is luminous. If you've ever seen the sun in the morning before it's light reaches us it is a red colour, as it actually is.

 

For us to see an object more then 6000 light years away we need more then 6000 years for the light to reach us. I'm not sure I follow your second sentence, how can we see the sun before it's light reaches us?

 

I'm not too sure either, but I've seen it. I was working down the back of my work one day and the sun was red, and the area I was working hadn't lit up yet, so I concluded that I was seeing the sun before it's light had reached me. Maybe I'm crazy, but I cannot think of any other possible explanation.

 

I'm questioning that too Surroundx - there's other reasons why the sunrise/set is red.

However, seeing the sun before the light reaches you - surely is impossible? For if you've seen the sun, the light has reached you.

 

Your probably right. But I've never seen the sun anything other than yellow in the morning (except that one morning). And it was identical in colour to photographs of it in books/magazines etc. I can think of no other possible explanation than that. However, I'm more than willing to consider alternatives. Since if I was right it would be a pretty fundamental revolution (I think), and I'm not a very lucky person.

 

The sun is red at sunset and sunrise because it has to pass through more atmosphere and the shorter wavelengths (like blue) are more scattered, I'm sure a physics teacher like slim6y can explain that better. The area hadn't lit up yet because not enough light had reached you yet but still enough to view the sun. It is physically impossible to see something before the light reaches you.

 

The sky is blue....The grass has riz.... Wait on... Why is the sky blue???

Hey - why is the sky blue during the day - but in the morning it's red (if you're up early enough) or in the evening at sunset it's red....

I wonder if there's a creationists point of view of this - so - jp2 is right - scattering.... But... We also need to accept that physics plays no role in the colour of the sky and just that god made it that way.

That's one theory you'd have to teach in Utah - the easy answer in the exam - would get you 100% everytime.

The other answer is:

The type of scattering that makes the sky blue is called Rayleigh Scattering - I'll assume at this point you know a small amount about light and wavelengths (which are in nano metres, light has incredibly small wavelengths!). Blue light has small wavelengths and red light slightly larger wavelengths.

I'd often use a board to show the longer wavelengths of light diffracting or dispersing, while the shorter ones are scattered through the outer atmosphere's gas molecules (lots of nitrogen and stuff like that).

The size of those molecules is also highly important - they seem to fit the blue light between them - it's just 'luck' that god made atoms the way he did, but had we had a different composition of atmosphere we may have had a different colour of sky.

So the sun sends out colours of the entire spectrum that we can see (and plenty more that we can't see such as infra red and ultra violet - the theory is if we could see ultra violet the sky would appear more that colour than blue - however, it is also noted that these even smaller wavelengths are not scattered to the same extent as blue and some are even absorbed - luckily).

So blue, because of its size, fits nicely through the molecules of gas in the atmosphere which causes much grater scattering. While the other end of the spectrum (we see) such as red, has much larger wavelengths and isn't scattered as easily as blue therefore we don't see that at all! Though surprisingly if you look to the horizon as the sun is high in the sky (for those lucky enough to have a blue sky and not a downpour of rain) you'll notice the horizon is more white than blue. Well, it's still blue, but because that light has much further to go to your eyes, some of the scattering is scattered even further and could be scattered away from your eyes - so the sky appears more pale the further to the horizon you look. Not red, because red is still poorly scattered by our gas molecules in the atmosphere.

But... As the sun drifts down towards our horizon, the light that reaches us comes from further away now.

Similar to why the sky is pale at the horizons, more blue light can now be scattered in other directions - as well as the greens. What's left is the better chance for the red light to reach your eyes.

Now dust particles in the air (such as photochemical smog - from trees - or dust, vapours etc etc) may cause more reflection, sending blue light in the opposite direction away from your eyes. Because red light is unlikely to be scattered compared to blue, the blue is now scattered away and the red has more chance to be scattered by the larger particles (which there are far more of due to the larger distance the light has to reach you).

Cast your memory back to that eerie day that.... well, Lake Eyre had lost some of its dust and the sky turned... red... Not just because of the dust being red, but because the sunlight now became absorbed and scattered for the much larger wavelengths - even at midday!

Here's a picture for you:



There's also some reasonable explanation at that site where the photo comes from too...

I bet Bluetongue1 could come up with a better explanation than mine... And so could JPN (though, I did suggest that god made the sky blue, which should be close enough to that explanation).

So - in summary - shorter wavelengths are scattered... The further they have to go the more scattered they become. The more scattered they become the less incident on your eyes so you see less blue. Red at sunset has more distance to go and now more chance for the scattered red light to hit your eyes. As the red light is less likely to be scattered it won't be scattered away like the blues and the greens. The dustier and more polluted (whether it be natural or not) will cause more red light to scatter in our direction too.

 

Oh my... it is at this stage I must request the Admin includes a "facepalm" smiley because I simply cannot be bothered to post the photo as often as it deserves.

EDIT: Yeh, this is the one:

 

I accepted that I was wrong....

 

Phylogeny Challenge - YouTube

The early part of the video isn't as related to the topic as the rest of the video is but the rest puts a serious smackdown on JPN's life outlook.

 

Let's all have sex with monkeys to bring about that missing link......It's only a smackdown if you let it be so. I am no biologist and I haven't devoted my lifetime studying this so I won't claim to have all the answers. My own beliefs lies along the lines that animals do evolve and adapt, to an extent, where exactly those boundaries lie I cannot tell you (refer to earlier statement) But I don't believe that all life comes from the first single celled organisms which formed from lifeless matter. At the end of the day, I don't believe either side can prove their case beyond doubt no matter how much they try. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. If I'm wrong....oh well...I would have lived a life trying to live morally and upright and will pass away. If you're wrong......well let's not go there then shall we.

I have enjoyed this debate very much and do not mean malice toward any of my adversaries, for loss of a better word, not even Slimey. Although some of my comments toward him may have been a bit harsh, I'm sorry if I have offended anyone.

 

I figured out where humans evolved from... (makes more sense actually)

[video=youtube;QlCj8lwgyes]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlCj8lwgyes[/video]

 

ahm....what has someone done with a pig???? Anyone going to admit to that one??

 

Any counter argument yet JPN? Or are you willing to accept that maybe just maybe Genesis isn't to be read as a flawless and literal record of historical events?

 

No won't say that, Havent had a chance to come up with something yet...need to concentrate and have time...hard to do with the kids running around...

 

I'd just like to say I think this thread has be great and I've enjoyed reading it all the way through and have respect to both sides for not turning it into a s#^t fight.

 

Its just a little hard to believe that eveything that is wonderfully made / created is an accident. how can something that we carnt even understand fully be an accident, thats right science has proved it, actually all science has proven is that someones theory is plausible or even possible, it doesnt prove that it actually happened. cell reproduction, for it to work to produce the first humans / animals would take take how long? and at the rate cells divide and also die at, not really all that probable.
It is much easier and likely that we were actually made for a purpose, as for the rest of the earth, and far far beyond, oh wait or was that all accidental too.

 

I'm not sure in what sense you are using the term "accident", so I cannot be more specific than I'm about to be. Firstly, probability certainly is a powerful tool of estimation, and one which we base a large portion of our lives on. However, the mere fact that something is improbable does not rule it out. Only logical incoherence and physical impossibility do.

The most important error you make is by insinuating that science can prove things. In fact only mathematicians are "allowed" to prove anything. Part of the power of science is the readiness of science and scientists to throw out old theories and replace them when the empirical evidence necessitates.

Human are subjective beings, with only limited mental capabilities. The fact that we cannot understand how things can come about naturally does not automatically mean we were created. Of course, I'm not suggesting that the opposite is therefore the case either. Rather, our inability to comprehend something is not in itself sufficient to guarantee either possible conclusion. I fully understand your hesitation at accepting that the universe is entirely naturalistic. And you are more than welcome to have your own views and opinions, and they need not be justified either. Whether you are justified in your beliefs only comes into question in two possible circumstances. Firstly, when you are trying to convince others of your views. And secondly, when you are otherwise acting upon your beliefs, such as abortionists being murderers who need to be killed.

 

thankyou. that is right along the lines of my thinking. not sure about the abortionists bit tho and what you were getting at with that, but glad to see someone with the correct thinking.