[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon Joe Rogan on Tucker Carlson and Ukraine Aid Joe Rogan on 62 year-old soldier with one arm, one eye Jordan Peterson On China's Social Credit Controls Senator Kennedy Exposes Bad Jusge Jewish Land Grab Trump Taps Dr. Marty Makary, Fierce Opponent of COVID Vaccine Mandates, as New FDA Commissioner Recovering J6 Prisoner James Grant, Tells-All About Bidens J6 Torture Chamber, Needs Immediate Help After Release AOC: Keeping Men Out Of Womens Bathrooms Is Endangering Women What Donald Trump Has Said About JFK's Assassination Horse steals content from Sara Fischer and Sophia Cai and pretends he is the author Horse steals content from Jonas E. Alexis and claims it as his own. Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room Ukrainians have stolen up to half of US aid ex-Polish deputy minister Gaza doctor raped, tortured to death in Israeli custody, new report reveals German Lutheran Church Bans AfD Members From Committees, Calls Party 'Anti-Human' Berlin Teachers Sound Alarm Over Educational Crisis Caused By Multiculturalism Trump Hosts Secret Global Peace Summit at Mar-a-Lago! Heat Is Radiating From A Huge Mass Under The Moon Elon Musk Delivers a Telling Response When Donald Trump Jr. Suggests FBI recovers funds for victims of scammed banker Mark Felton: Can Russia Attack Britain? Notre Dame Apologizes After Telling Hockey Fans Not To Wear Green, Shamrocks, 'Fighting Irish' Dear Horse, which one of your posts has the Deep State so spun up that's causing 4um to run slow? Bomb Cyclone Pacific Northwest

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?
Source: Answers In Genesis
URL Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove
Published: Feb 5, 2009
Author: Jason Lisle
Post Date: 2009-02-05 15:38:06 by Old Friend
Keywords: None
Views: 4100
Comments: 305

Critics of biblical creation sometimes use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. The argument goes something like this: (1) there are galaxies that are so far away, it would take light from their stars billions of years to get from there to here; (2) we can see these galaxies, so their starlight has already arrived here; and (3) the universe must be at least billions of years old—much older than the 6,000 or so years indicated in the Bible.

Many big bang supporters consider this to be an excellent argument against the biblical timescale. But when we examine this argument carefully, we will see that it does not work. The universe is very big and contains galaxies that are very far away, but that does not mean that the universe must be billions of years old.

The distant starlight question has caused some people to question cosmic distances. “Do we really know that galaxies are so far away? Perhaps they are much closer, so the light really doesn’t travel very far.”1 However, the techniques that astronomers use to measure cosmic distances are generally logical and scientifically sound. They do not rely on evolutionary assumptions about the past. Moreover, they are a part of observational science (as opposed to historical/origins science); they are testable and repeatable in the present. You could repeat the experiment to determine the distance to a star or galaxy, and you would get approximately the same answer. So we have good reason to believe that space really is very big. In fact, the amazing size of the universe brings glory to God (Psalm 19:1).

Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.

But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument. Let me suggest that the answer to distant starlight lies in some of the unstated assumptions that secular astronomers make. The Assumptions of Light Travel-time Arguments

Any attempt to scientifically estimate the age of something will necessarily involve a number of assumptions. These can be assumptions about the starting conditions, constancy of rates, contamination of the system, and many others. If even one of these assumptions is wrong, so is the age estimate. Sometimes an incorrect worldview is to blame when people make faulty assumptions. The distant starlight argument involves several assumptions that are questionable—any one of which makes the argument unsound. Let’s examine a few of these assumptions. The Constancy of the Speed of Light

It is usually assumed that the speed of light is constant with time.2 At today’s rate, it takes light (in a vacuum) about one year to cover a distance of 6 trillion miles. But has this always been so? If we incorrectly assume that the rate has always been today’s rate, we would end up estimating an age that is much older than the true age. But some people have proposed that light was much quicker in the past. If so, light could traverse the universe in only a fraction of the time it would take today. Some creation scientists believe that this is the answer to the problem of distant starlight in a young universe.

However, the speed of light is not an “arbitrary” parameter. In other words, changing the speed of light would cause other things to change as well, such as the ratio of energy to mass in any system.3 Some people have argued that the speed of light can never have been much different than it is today because it is so connected to other constants of nature. In other words, life may not be possible if the speed of light were any different.

This is a legitimate concern. The way in which the universal constants are connected is only partially understood. So, the impact of a changing speed of light on the universe and life on earth is not fully known. Some creation scientists are actively researching questions relating to the speed of light. Other creation scientists feel that the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light is probably reasonable and that the solution to distant starlight lies elsewhere. The Assumption of Rigidity of Time

Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But, in fact, this assumption is false. And there are a few different ways in which the nonrigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale.

Albert Einstein discovered that the rate at which time passes is affected by motion and by gravity. For example, when an object moves very fast, close to the speed of light, its time is slowed down. This is called “time-dilation.” So, if we were able to accelerate a clock to nearly the speed of light, that clock would tick very slowly. If we could somehow reach the speed of light, the clock would stop completely. This isn’t a problem with the clock; the effect would happen regardless of the clock’s particular construction because it is time itself that is slowed. Likewise, gravity slows the passage of time. A clock at sea-level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock at sea-level is closer to the source of gravity.

It seems hard to believe that velocity or gravity would affect the passage of time since our everyday experience cannot detect this. After all, when we are traveling in a vehicle, time appears to flow at the same rate as when we are standing still. But that’s because we move so slowly compared to the speed of light, and the earth’s gravity is so weak that the effects of time-dilation are correspondingly tiny. However, the effects of time-dilation have been measured with atomic clocks.

Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well, which we will discuss below.

Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. So, it is a leap of “blind” faith on their part. However, if we make a different assumption instead, it leads to a very different conclusion. Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.

In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea. Assumptions of Synchronization

Another way in which the relativity of time is important concerns the topic of synchronization: how clocks are set so that they read the same time at the same time.4 Relativity has shown that synchronization is not absolute. In other words, if one person measures two clocks to be synchronized, another person (moving at a different speed) would not necessarily measure those two clocks to be synchronized. As with time-dilation, this effect is counterintuitive because it is too small to measure in most of our everyday experience. Since there is no method by which two clocks (separated by a distance) can be synchronized in an absolute sense, such that all observers would agree regardless of motion, it follows that there is some flexibility in how we choose what constitutes synchronized clocks. The following analogy may be helpful.

Imagine that a plane leaves a certain city at 4:00 p.m. for a two-hour flight. However, when the plane lands, the time is still 4:00. Since the plane arrived at the same time it left, we might call this an instantaneous trip. How is this possible? The answer has to do with time zones. If the plane left Kentucky at 4:00 p.m. local time, it would arrive in Colorado at 4:00 p.m. local time. Of course, an observer on the plane would experience two hours of travel. So, the trip takes two hours as measured by universal time. However, as long as the plane is traveling west (and providing it travels fast enough), it will always naturally arrive at the same time it left as measured in local time.

There is a cosmic equivalent to local and universal time. Light traveling toward earth is like the plane traveling west; it always remains at the same cosmic local time. Although most astronomers today primarily use cosmic universal time (in which it takes light 100 years to travel 100 light-years), historically cosmic local time has been the standard. And so it may be that the Bible also uses cosmic local time when reporting events.

Since God created the stars on Day 4, their light would leave the star on Day 4 and reach earth on Day 4 cosmic local time. Light from all galaxies would reach earth on Day 4 if we measure it according to cosmic local time. Someone might object that the light itself would experience billions of years (as the passenger on the plane experiences the two hour trip). However, according to Einstein’s relativity, light does not experience the passage of time, so the trip would be instantaneous. Now, this idea may or may not be the reason that distant starlight is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale, but so far no one has been able to prove that the Bible does not use cosmic local time. So, it is an intriguing possibility.5 The Assumption of Naturalism

One of the most overlooked assumptions in most arguments against the Bible is the assumption of naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that nature is “all that there is.” Proponents of naturalism assume that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural laws. This is not only a blind assumption, but it is also clearly antibiblical. The Bible makes it clear that God is not bound by natural laws (they are, after all, His laws). Of course God can use laws of nature to accomplish His will; and He usually does so. In fact, natural laws could be considered a description of the way in which God normally upholds the universe. But God is supernatural and is capable of acting outside natural law.

This would certainly have been the case during Creation Week. God created the universe supernaturally. He created it from nothing, not from previous material (Hebrews 11:3). Today, we do not see God speaking into existence new stars or new kinds of creatures. This is because God ended His work of creation by the seventh day. Today, God sustains the universe in a different way than how He created it. However, the naturalist erroneously assumes that the universe was created by the same processes by which it operates today. Of course it would be absurd to apply this assumption to most other things. A flashlight, for example, operates by converting electricity into light, but the flashlight was not created by this process.

Since the stars were created during Creation Week and since God made them to give light upon the earth, the way in which distant starlight arrived on earth may have been supernatural. We cannot assume that past acts of God are necessarily understandable in terms of a current scientific mechanism, because science can only probe the way in which God sustains the universe today. It is irrational to argue that a supernatural act cannot be true on the basis that it cannot be explained by natural processes observed today.

It is perfectly acceptable for us to ask, “Did God use natural processes to get the starlight to earth in the biblical timescale? And if so, what is the mechanism?” But if no natural mechanism is apparent, this cannot be used as evidence against supernatural creation. So, the unbeliever is engaged in a subtle form of circular reasoning when he uses the assumption of naturalism to argue that distant starlight disproves the biblical timescale. Light Travel-Time: A Self-Refuting Argument

Many big bang supporters use the above assumptions to argue that the biblical timescale cannot be correct because of the light travel-time issue. But such an argument is self-refuting. It is fatally flawed because the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. In the big bang model, light is required to travel a distance much greater than should be possible within the big bang’s own timeframe of about 14 billion years. This serious difficulty for the big bang is called the “horizon problem.” 6 The following are the details. Figure 1 & 2

The Horizon Problem

In the big bang model, the universe begins in an infinitely small state called a singularity, which then rapidly expands. According to the big bang model, when the universe is still very small, it would develop different temperatures in different locations (Figure 1). Let’s suppose that point A is hot and point B is cold. Today, the universe has expanded (Figure 2), and points A and B are now widely separated.

However, the universe has an extremely uniform temperature at great distance— beyond the farthest known galaxies. In other words, points A and B have almost exactly the same temperature today. We know this because we see electromagnetic radiation coming from all directions in space in the form of microwaves. This is called the “cosmic microwave background” (CMB). The frequencies of radiation have a characteristic temperature of 2.7 K (-455°F) and are extremely uniform in all directions. The temperature deviates by only one part in 105.

The problem is this: How did points A and B come to be the same temperature? They can do this only by exchanging energy. This happens in many systems: consider an ice cube placed in hot coffee. The ice heats up and the coffee cools down by exchanging energy. Likewise, point A can give energy to point B in the form of electromagnetic radiation (light), which is the fastest way to transfer energy since nothing can travel faster than light. However, using the big bang supporters’ own assumptions, including uniformitarianism and naturalism, there has not been enough time in 14 billion years to get light from A to B; they are too far apart. This is a light travel-time problem—and a very serious one. After all, A and B have almost exactly the same temperature today, and so must have exchanged light multiple times.

Big bang supporters have proposed a number of conjectures which attempt to solve the big bang’s light travel-time problem. One of the most popular is called “inflation.” In “inflationary” models, the universe has two expansion rates: a normal rate and a fast inflation rate. The universe begins with the normal rate, which is actually quite rapid, but is slow by comparison to the next phase. Then it briefly enters the inflation phase, where the universe expands much more rapidly. At a later time, the universe goes back to the normal rate. This all happens early on, long before stars and galaxies form.

The inflation model allows points A and B to exchange energy (during the first normal expansion) and to then be pushed apart during the inflation phase to the enormous distances at which they are located today. But the inflation model amounts to nothing more than storytelling with no supporting evidence at all. It is merely speculation designed to align the big bang to conflicting observations. Moreover, inflation adds an additional set of problems and difficulties to the big bang model, such as the cause of such inflation and a graceful way to turn it off. An increasing number of secular astrophysicists are rejecting inflation for these reasons and others. Clearly, the horizon problem remains a serious light travel-time problem for the big bang.

The critic may suggest that the big bang is a better explanation of origins than the Bible since biblical creation has a light travel-time problem—distant starlight. But such an argument is not rational since the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. If both models have the same problem in essence7, then that problem cannot be used to support one model over the other. Therefore, distant starlight cannot be used to dismiss the Bible in favor of the big bang. Conclusions

So, we’ve seen that the critics of creation must use a number of assumptions in order to use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. And many of these assumptions are questionable. Do we know that light has always propagated at today’s speed? Perhaps this is reasonable, but can we be absolutely certain, particularly during Creation Week when God was acting in a supernatural way? Can we be certain that the Bible is using “cosmic universal time,” rather than the more common “cosmic local time” in which light reaches earth instantly?

We know that the rate at which time flows is not rigid. And although secular astronomers are well aware that time is relative, they assume that this effect is (and has always been) negligible, but can we be certain that this is so? And since stars were made during Creation Week when God was supernaturally creating, how do we know for certain that distant starlight has arrived on earth by entirely natural means? Furthermore, when big bang supporters use distant starlight to argue against biblical creation, they are using a self-refuting argument since the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. When we consider all of the above, we see that distant starlight has never been a legitimate argument against the biblical timescale of a few thousand years.

As creation scientists research possible solutions to the distant starlight problem, we should also remember the body of evidence that is consistent with the youth of the universe. We see rotating spiral galaxies that cannot last multiple billions of years because they would be twisted-up beyond recognition. We see multitudes of hot blue stars, which even secular astronomers would agree cannot last billions of years.8 In our own solar system we see disintegrating comets and decaying magnetic fields that cannot last billions of years; and there is evidence that other solar systems have these things as well. Of course, such arguments also involve assumptions about the past. That is why, ultimately, the only way to know about the past for certain is to have a reliable historic record written by an eyewitness. That is exactly what we have in the Bible.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Just answer the damned question. I've asked twice now.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   23:40:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Sumerian city of Ur.

It doesn't say Sumerian.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   23:42:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The big bang has already been disproven. The universe isn't only moving outward. Things are moving in all kinds of directions. You need to keep up.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   23:43:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It will happen about five minutes after the last "authority" is strangled with the guts of the last priest...

Do you support killing priests?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   23:44:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

And it's not enough to say God DID create the Universe by way of an event similar to the Big Bang theory, oh no. It has to be "He did it in one day" or they reject it...

God told us how he did it. You are not smarter then God. You are not even smarter then my cat.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   23:45:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I already said evolution was at one time probably a valid THEORY. That time has long since past. It has been thoroughly discredited.

This dating by light years is also junk science. Since no one can verify the start and how things were created.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   23:47:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

And because he did not want to be burned at the stake a Catholic Priest by the name of Nicolai Copernicus would not allow his work on planetary motion to be published while he was still living.

The catholics are a cult. Not real christians.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   23:48:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

My problem with Biblicists is that they will not look at history and accept the fact that the Christian Bible has been selectively edited through the centuries.

The catholics tried to keep the book of revelation out of the Bible. They weren't powerful enough to accomplish that though. ALthough many have tried. God has preserved his word. You would have it that God can't set a standard for his people. That he is weak.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   23:50:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The catholics are a cult. Not real christians.

They're the ones that rewrote the gospels, called them authentic, and slapped them in with some rough translations of the Old Testament from Aramic and Hebrew to Greek and Latin.

They are the ones that gave you "God's word"...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:09:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

God told us how he did it.

No, he did not. Desert dwellers wrote a fanciful tale that you believe, that is all.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:10:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Just answer the damned question. I've asked twice now

I did, and you only asked it ONCE. Besides, I could answer it a million times and a million different ways, you still wouldn't understand it.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:12:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The big bang has already been disproven.

You're wrong.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:12:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I already said evolution was at one time probably a valid THEORY. That time has long since past. It has been thoroughly discredited.

Another lie.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:13:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

This dating by light years is also junk science

I bet you think radio waves are magic, don't you. If our knowledge of electromagnetism wasn't what it is today, you wouldn't be posting on 4um or anywhere else, as we'd still be using manual typewriters or pen and paper.

It all revolves around an understanding of the nature of light, and a huge part of it has to do with its speed.

You take quack science and call it "good", and reject sound science that results in actual working technology as "junk".

Put it to you this way. If I know a car is travelling at a constant 65 mph and it travels for one hour, I know it's traveled 65 miles. In your mind, that's junk science. But I'll try to take you through this step by step anyways in case there are others that are curious.

I know that light travels at 186,000 mph. I know that it travels a certain distance in a year, and it's called a light year. I know that if a star is 10 light years away, it took 10 years for the light from that star to get here. If it exploded 10 years ago, we'd just be seeing that explosion today.

I know that if a distant galaxy is determined to be 1 million light years away, that light took 1 million years to reach Earth. There are galaxies that are observed to be up to 12 billion light years away, so light from those galaxies took 12 billion years to get here.

Thus, the universe is AT LEAST 12 billion years old, as that is how old that light is, so those galaxies had to have existed for at least that long.

Sorry if you can't understand that, but those are the facts.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:29:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It doesn't say Sumerian.

Yet Ur was a Sumerian city.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:30:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

A fourth time.

Is it possible that God created the earth with starlight already reaching the earth?

Yes or No.

quit the bullshit.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-06   0:31:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It doesn't say Sumerian.

BTW, you haven't answered MY question. Where does the history of Sumer fit in with the Hebrew tribes, and where did the people of Sumer come from in terms of lineage from Adam?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:33:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Is it possible that God created the earth with starlight already reaching the earth?

I've already answered it idiot and I said it didn't matter, as even if he did, the light from those distant stars and galaxies would have gone out immediately after the laws of the universe became normal, ie. what they are today.

AND, for the universe to behave normally, it would have to have behaved that way immediately.

Many things revolve around the speed of light, such as radiation, electric fields, magnetic fields, and many other things that you wouldn't understand.

For example, the amount of energy (in joules) that a piece of matter can release is equal to the mass of that matter (in kilograms) times the speed of light squared (in meters per second). Thus, if the laws of the universe weren't what they are today, where the speed of light was infinite (instantaneous travel to infinity as you suggest), then even the smallest speck of dust would release more energy than the entire universe could ever produce, as it would release infinite energy. Thus, the universe would turn into infinite energy.

This is from the familiar equation, E=mc²,

where E = energy, m = mass, and c = speed of light

I doubt you understood any of that, but that is the definitive proof.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:47:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Here's the math...

If E=mc², and c (speed of light) is infinite, then;

m (kilograms) * infinite (meters per second) * infinite (meters per second) = infinite E (joules)

Infinity times any non-zero value, or even itself, is still infinity.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   0:58:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I already said evolution was at one time probably a valid THEORY. That time has long since past. It has been thoroughly discredited.

Have I defended Darwinian Evolution on this thread?

No.

My only passing reference to it was less than complimentary and was certainly no defense. You are engaging in disinformation tactics and trying to avoid the points I have made.

This dating by light years is also junk science. Since no one can verify the start and how things were created.

Sophistry. The observations are made on the available, and observable, evidence. It is you that is making an unsupportable assertion - asserting an unproved and unprovable mythology that somehow God created the universe 6,000 years ago with the light beams streaming in. Of course you cannot prove this nor can you provide a reason for God do do such a thing. Ultimately your argument rests upon unsupported suppositions that are ludicrous on their face.

It is like the old Elephant Joke:

Q. Why do Elephants have red eyes?

A. So they can hide in Cherry Trees.

Q. Have you ever seen an elephant in a Cherry Tree?

A. No.

Response: See, it works.

""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-02-06   1:42:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

asserting an unproved and unprovable mythology that somehow God created the universe 6,000 years ago with the light beams streaming in

And like I told him, the universe would turn into pure energy if the speed of light was instantaneous due to the fact that E=mc², where c is the speed of light. If c was infinite, then instead of the sun only releasing the energy that it does, it (and every other star) would release infinite energy as the nuclei of the sun's hydrogen fuse into helium, since the energy released from that reaction would be infinite.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   2:14:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Yes or no or bozo.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-06   9:31:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The answer is that it doesn't matter, because the light from the stars would STILL have to be traveling at the speed of light for the universe to exist. If the laws of the universe were different in the first few seconds, so what? It wouldn't affect what we see today, nor would it have affected what people saw thousands, or even millions of years ago, since the age of the universe is uniform, and life has been on this planet for a tiny fraction of the age of the universe, which is about 14 billion years.

That's the answer, if you don't like it, tough.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   10:17:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

bozo

If anyone's a bozo here, it's you, jackass.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   10:18:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

BTW, did that simple math baffle you?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-06   10:18:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Science and macro evolution are not compatible.

God is always good!

RickyJ  posted on  2009-02-06   21:42:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Ironic, because it's the Bible thumpers whose idea of a scientific explanation is "big Daddy in the sky waved a magic wand, and it was all here."

No, God spoke and it happened.

You can choose to believe it was all random chance, but you do so based on faith only, not science.

God is always good!

RickyJ  posted on  2009-02-06   21:45:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Sophistry. The observations are made on the available, and observable, evidence. It is you that is making an unsupportable assertion - asserting an unproved and unprovable mythology that somehow God created the universe 6,000 years ago with the light beams streaming in. Of course you cannot prove this nor can you provide a reason for God do do such a thing. Ultimately your argument rests upon unsupported suppositions that are ludicrous on their face.

I never said this proves creationism. I am saying that it is not a valid method to date the age of the universe. We simply cannot scientifically prove that. We can't prove it young or old. Can you agree with that?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-06   21:54:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'd rather be a Bible Thumper then a Satan Humper like pukin

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-06   22:06:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Answer the question above. Yes or no

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-18   23:25:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

s it possible that God created the earth with starlight already reaching the earth?

Yes or No.

Of course.

If you believe in magic.

And then all things are possible.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-18   23:32:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Answer the question above. Yes or no

Go back and read my earlier answers. God created the Laws of the Universe, and according to those laws, the light coming from those distant stars took as many years to get here as they are far away in light years. Since the most distant galaxies we can see are billions of light years away, then the Universe is at least billions of years old.

As I said, sure, God MIGHT have created the Universe with a different set of rules in the first few seconds of its existance, but once the rules we have now were in place, the Universe as we know it today could only exist with the rules as they currently are.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   11:25:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Go back and read my earlier answers. God created the Laws of the Universe, and according to those laws, the light coming from those distant stars took as many years to get here as they are far away in light years. Since the most distant galaxies we can see are billions of light years away, then the Universe is at least billions of years old.

So you are saying it would be impossible for God to create the world the way he CLEARLY says in the Bible?

You also believe that he couldn't have created the universe with light already reaching the earth so that we could see the stars and not wait billions of years?

Tell me why God couldn't have done it that way. Who are you to place limits on what God can do?

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   11:28:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

. Who are you to place limits on what God can do?

If you believe in magic.

And then all things are possible.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   13:59:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So you are saying it would be impossible for God to create the world the way he CLEARLY says in the Bible?

He didn't say it. YOU and a bunch of old Popes and Roman emperors are the ones saying it or who have said it in the past. The descendents of the Jews who WROTE the Old Testament admit that the story is an allegory, not literal truth.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   14:10:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You also believe that he couldn't have created the universe with light already reaching the earth so that we could see the stars and not wait billions of years?

As I said, even IF the light reached the earth immediately from galaxies BILLIONS of light years away, their WOULD be no distant galaxies as the universe would be nothing but infinite energy since the laws of physics require that to be true if light had infinite speed.

Since it is NOT pure infinite energy, and the laws of physics are as they are, then the light from galaxies billions of light years away DOES take BILLIONS OF YEARS to get here. Whether it did or not before matter existed is irrelevent, as the universe as we know it today could NOT exist if light had infinite speed.

Besides, why would God trick humans that way? And what about all the other worlds with life on them, would they be tricked too?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   14:14:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

As I said, even IF the light reached the earth immediately from galaxies BILLIONS of light years away, their WOULD be no distant galaxies as the universe would be nothing but infinite energy since the laws of physics require that to be true if light had infinite speed.

So with God all things are not possible. According to your anti christ views.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   15:14:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If anyone's a bozo here, it's you, jackass.

Author, author. Encore.

Cynicom  posted on  2009-02-19   15:18:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So with God all things are not possible.

I'm saying that God doesn't need to have created the universe the way YOU demand him to have created it just to satisfy you and make your fairy tale become true. That YOU deny the laws of the universe doesn't make them invalid, it just means you're stupid. If God HAD made them different, then they would be different, but they aren't.

I could very well ask you if God would have allowed idiots to falsely spew nonsense about him in order for intelligent people to know who the idiots are.

According to your anti christ views.

So because I don't believe an old fool I must have anti-christ views, eh? Where did Jesus say how long the Earth has been here? I want you to quote me something from the New Testament that tells us how many years ago the Earth was created.

And BTW, your pining for the death and destruction of innocent people indicates that YOU are the true anti-christ here, as Jesus taught love and peace.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   15:31:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Comments (127 - 305) not displayed.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]