Light years

[Salty]

We were all taught in school that it takes 8 seconds (@ the speed of light) for sun rays to get to Earth.


Many stars are a million light years away. Thus when their light arrives at earth we are seeing something that started a million years ago.

How does this coincide with a young (6 K years) Earth?

 

[RLBosley]

Job 9:8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Isaiah 42:5 Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Jeremiah 10:12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.

The above verses and others seem to indicate that at creation the universe was much smaller than it is now and God has/is spreading it outward. That would cause the stars to spread outward as well meaning that we could be seeing the light from more recent history though the stars are farther away now. Similar to the glowing trail you see if you move a flashlight or sparkler very quickly.

Also I read somewhere that the speed of light likely isn't constant. In fact if I remember correctly some English scientists ( I think?) actually stopped some light for a short period of time (seconds or less). Also there is debatable evidence that the speed of light is increasing, however that could simply be that we are getting better at detecting and measuring it's real speed.

 

[InTheLight]

We were all taught in school that it takes 8 seconds (@ the speed of light) for sun rays to get to Earth.


Many stars are a million light years away. Thus when their light arrives at earth we are seeing something that started a million years ago.

How does this coincide with a young (6 K years) Earth?

It doesn't. It's a problem for YECers.

 

[OldRegular]

We were all taught in school that it takes 8 seconds (@ the speed of light) for sun rays to get to Earth.


Many stars are a million light years away. Thus when their light arrives at earth we are seeing something that started a million years ago.

How does this coincide with a young (6 K years) Earth?

Tim dilation!

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0949906689/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[InTheLight]

The above verses and others seem to indicate that at creation the universe was much smaller than it is now and God has/is spreading it outward. That would cause the stars to spread outward as well meaning that we could be seeing the light from more recent history though the stars are farther away now. Similar to the glowing trail you see if you move a flashlight or sparkler very quickly.

The speed at which the heavenly bodies would have to be traveling from 6,000 years ago to now in order to get the incredible distances separating them is unthinkable.

Also I read somewhere that the speed of light likely isn't constant. In fact if I remember correctly some English scientists ( I think?) actually stopped some light for a short period of time (seconds or less). Also there is debatable evidence that the speed of light is increasing, however that could simply be that we are getting better at detecting and measuring it's real speed.

Yet, the speed of light is a constant for as long as we've been measuring it. Interesting that YECers complain that the Big Bang theory is invalid, as is evolution because there were no observers to see it yet are willing to concede that the speed of light has changed in order for their theories to fit, even though there has been no direct observation of this.

 

[RLBosley]

The speed at which the heavenly bodies would have to be traveling from 6,000 years ago to now in order to get the incredible distances separating them is unthinkable.

Probably. I didn't say it is a perfect solution. But it is at least a start.

Yet, the speed of light is a constant for as long as we've been measuring it. Interesting that YECers complain that the Big Bang theory is invalid, as is evolution because there were no observers to see it yet are willing to concede that the speed of light has changed in order for their theories to fit, even though there has been no direct observation of this.

Maybe. Again I may be misremembering that anyway.

But Old Earth Creationist's have bigger problems... especially theological since they put death before sin. But also scientific. Can't remember it off hand but there was something about the transfer of energy and heat in a vacuum such as space, where the current levels couldn't reflect a million/billion year old universe. I'm probably off since I haven't studied that particular branch of apologetics in a while.

 

[Iconoclast]

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

[preachinjesus]

How does this coincide with a young (6 K years) Earth?

It's a huge problem for YECers. Along with the challenges of finding archeological discoveries older than 10,000 years on this planet, the size and scope of all creation appear to present a very, very old creation.

This is one of the big reasons I'm no longer a YECer.

There are some ways to resolve this question. One of the primary being, did God create Adam and Eve as infants or adults? If you believe (which I do as well) that God created them with age built in, why not the rest of creation?

 

[humblethinker]

We were all taught in school that it takes 8 seconds (@ the speed of light) for sun rays to get to Earth.


Many stars are a million light years away. Thus when their light arrives at earth we are seeing something that started a million years ago.

How does this coincide with a young (6 K years) Earth?

Salty, If it didn't coincide with a young Earth, would it matter to you? Would you consider the possibility that the earth is not young? If that were a certainty instead, would it bring your faith crashing to the ground? I ask these less directly to you and mainly to the YEC's on this board. What if YEC does not reflect the material reality? What then? I had a good friend tell me that if the KJV wasn't THE version then it would be nothing more than Shakespeare. Would anything other than an young earth do the same to our faith?

So, let me ask the YEC's this: If we were to observe a supernova tomorrow, would it be the case that it ACTUALLY happened? If it actually happened then how far away from the earth was it when it did actually happen? (too close and we'd be melted) Please describe how the star, in the past 6000 years, would have been 'close' and visible to us prior to the explosion but now far enough away for us to not be affected by it?

Regarding SN 1054, when did that explosion ACTUALLY happen? How far away from us was it then? How far away from us is it now? Perhaps it didn't ACTUALLY happen after all?

 

[InTheLight]

Probably. I didn't say it is a perfect solution. But it is at least a start.



Maybe. Again I may be misremembering that anyway.

But Old Earth Creationist's have bigger problems... especially theological since they put death before sin.

Yes, animal death could have happened before sin. An honest reading of Romans 5:12 does not preclude animal death before sin.

But also scientific. Can't remember it off hand but there was something about the transfer of energy and heat in a vacuum such as space, where the current levels couldn't reflect a million/billion year old universe. I'm probably off since I haven't studied that particular branch of apologetics in a while.

OK, maybe those transfer rates have changed. After all, if the speed of light can change, why not the transfer rate of energy? And maybe the radioactive decay rate of C-14 has changed as well. See what happens when you open this can of worms?

 

[RLBosley]

Yes, animal death could have happened before sin. An honest reading of Romans 5:12 does not preclude animal death before sin.

No it couldn't. "death by sin" not "death of men by sin." Yes the context is in reference to sins effects on man, but to it clearly says death. Period. Death was not in the world before sin. Death is a result of sin, not something that was confined to animals before the fall of man. God hates death and went so far as giving His Son to abolish death so how could that same God say that a Creation was "good" if part of it (animals) was created already capable of dying? It doesn't make sense.

OK, maybe those transfer rates have changed. After all, if the speed of light can change, why not the transfer rate of energy? And maybe the radioactive decay rate of C-14 has changed as well. See what happens when you open this can of worms?

That's why trusting in "science falsely so called" is dangerous. I'm not saying science or technology is bad in anyway - I am using a computer after all - but that primarily our trust must be in Scripture. Scientific findings change every few years/decades; it is very naive to say that the "answers" they have now are 100% correct.

All that being said. The OE/YE debate is an "in house" debate. Meaning that there are sincere, well-intentioned, genuinely saved believers on both sides. None of us on either side know the precise workings of God and when we are glorified and standing before the Lord, I very much doubt any of this will matter.

 

[InTheLight]

No it couldn't. "death by sin" not "death of men by sin." Yes the context is in reference to sins effects on man, but to it clearly says death. Period. Death was not in the world before sin. Death is a result of sin, not something that was confined to animals before the fall of man.

As I said, an honest reading of the verse does not preclude animal death. In fact, it say death SPREAD to all men (as if it was already present, but not affecting man.)

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Animals don't sin. Animals don't have eternal souls.

God hates death and went so far as giving His Son to abolish death so how could that same God say that a Creation was "good" if part of it (animals) was created already capable of dying? It doesn't make sense.

You are looking at death not being 'good' and rationalizing it as a human would. God looked upon Jesus' death as good:

6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

All that being said. The OE/YE debate is an "in house" debate. Meaning that there are sincere, well-intentioned, genuinely saved believers on both sides. None of us on either side know the precise workings of God and when we are glorified and standing before the Lord, I very much doubt any of this will matter.

I'm still working this out for myself. A couple of things though--the earth is older than 6,000 years old. There are ancient trees that have rings that show the tree is older than 6,000 years. The OP's problem with the speed of light does not support a 6,000 year old planet. Coral reef growth rate does not support it. There is nothing in scripture to preclude animal death before the fall.

There's too many problems with both views--YEC and abiogenesis (including evolution) that I happily admit that "I don't know for sure" except that God created the Heavens and the earth.

 

[humblethinker]

No it couldn't. "death by sin" not "death of men by sin."

So tell me RLBosley, accepting your model that does not provide for death prior to Adam's sin... I'd like to offer a thought experiment and see if you can help me out... What would have happened in the event that an apple had fallen from the tree and landed on an ant, such that the head of the ant was severed from its body? Would the ant still have been alive? Perhaps head-severing would not have been physically possible in this pre-adamic-sin existence? Would you propose that the ant's 'neck' would have only stretched? Perhaps the ant's head could be severed but that the ant's head would have been drawn back to his body by some natural force, or perhaps by its own determination and that upon reconnection the ant body would be back to normal. Perhaps occurrences such as this could not even happen? Perhaps in such a world apples don't 'fall' to the ground or maybe they do but it is never the case that an insect or other small creature would be hit by it. What is it that would guarantee such? Perhaps the apple would hit the ant but it would not penetrate or otherwise molest the ant?

What are some of the predictions that your theory would make?

The OE/YE debate is an "in house" debate. Meaning that there are sincere, well-intentioned, genuinely saved believers on both sides. None of us on either side know the precise workings of God and when we are glorified and standing before the Lord, I very much doubt any of this will matter.

I agree and am glad you feel the same way. I like to think that if a young earth is what one needs to affirm and maintain your faith in the Bible and God, then keep it. But surely, every one else's acceptance of a young earth is not what you need to affirm and maintain your faith or your love for or fellowship with them, correct?

 

[RLBosley]

As I said, an honest reading of the verse does not preclude animal death. In fact, it say death SPREAD to all men (as if it was already present, but not affecting man.)

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Animals don't sin. Animals don't have eternal souls.

If it spread to all men it must have an originating point. And the point is sin - in man. So yes death spread to all men, because it started in men.

And yes animals don't have souls and don't sin, but all of creation was subjected to the curse because of Adam's sin. Romans 8:19-22 explains that the "whole creation" is waiting and groaning for judgment because it is in the "bondage of corruption." The New Living Translation specifically calls it "death and decay" (Not a fan of that translation but it was useful for making a point )

You are looking at death not being 'good' and rationalizing it as a human would. God looked upon Jesus' death as good:

6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

That's specifically talking about the death of Christ which was good for us because it accomplishes our reconciliation. But God does not look on death in general as good.

There's too many problems with both views--YEC and abiogenesis (including evolution) that I happily admit that "I don't know for sure" except that God created the Heavens and the earth.

:thumbsup:

 

[RLBosley]

So tell me RLBosley, accepting your model that does not provide for death prior to Adam's sin... I'd like to offer a thought experiment and see if you can help me out... What would have happened in the event that an apple had fallen from the tree and landed on an ant, such that the head of the ant was severed from its body? Would the ant still have been alive? Perhaps head-severing would not have been physically possible in this pre-adamic-sin existence? Would you propose that the ant's 'neck' would have only stretched? Perhaps the ant's head could be severed but that the ant's head would have been drawn back to his body by some natural force, or perhaps by its own determination and that upon reconnection the ant body would be back to normal. Perhaps occurrences such as this could not even happen? Perhaps in such a world apples don't 'fall' to the ground or maybe they do but it is never the case that an insect or other small creature would be hit by it. What is it that would guarantee such? Perhaps the apple would hit the ant but it would not penetrate or otherwise molest the ant?

What are some of the predictions that your theory would make?

That's an interesting thought. Obviously I have no idea. I know next to nothing about trees but could it be possible that the apple falling is a symptom of death (maturity just being a stepping stone toward death)? If so then perhaps the apple couldn't fall off without it being pulled off. But even then that just moves the question to "What if after pulling off the apple, Adam dropped said apple onto an ant?" My best guess is that the ant would be unharmed. But I don't know since I have no experience whatsoever with a perfect creation.

I agree and am glad you feel the same way. I like to think that if a young earth is what one needs to affirm and maintain your faith in the Bible and God, then keep it. But surely, every one else's acceptance of a young earth is not what you need to affirm and maintain your faith or your love for or fellowship with them, correct?

While I believe in a young earth I do not think it is a measure of one's salvation or even orthodoxy. It's a non-essential.

 

[humblethinker]

That's an interesting thought. Obviously I have no idea. I know next to nothing about trees but could it be possible that the apple falling is a symptom of death (maturity just being a stepping stone toward death)? If so then perhaps the apple couldn't fall off without it being pulled off. But even then that just moves the question to "What if after pulling off the apple, Adam dropped said apple onto an ant?" My best guess is that the ant would be unharmed. But I don't know since I have no experience whatsoever with a perfect creation.

While I believe in a young earth I do not think it is a measure of one's salvation or even orthodoxy. It's a non-essential.

Absolutely, I agree. Now, do we expect other Bible believers to accept what we believe when we haven't thought of the question (much less a reasonable answer) to things for which they have already imagined questions? This should encourage humility instead of presumption.

RLB, what I fear is that we evangelicals, Baptits, offend first with and with much more than the gospel, and we are proud of it. So, people who have different views get offended by other things long before they have a chance to be offended by the Gospel, by Jesus.

 

[Revmitchell]

Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?

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...

...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...

...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...

...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...

...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...

...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...

...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?...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove

 

[RLBosley]

Absolutely, I agree. Now, do we expect other Bible believers to accept what we believe when we haven't thought of the question (much less a reasonable answer) to things for which they have already imagined questions? This should encourage humility instead of presumption.

RLB, what I fear is that we evangelicals, Baptits, offend first with and with much more than the gospel, and we are proud of it. So, people who have different views get offended by other things long before they have a chance to be offended by the Gospel, by Jesus.

You're right. The main focus, especially when sharing the gospel with the lost, should be Christ and what He has done for us. That's why when witnessing we should avoid the rabbit trails of evolution, creation and homosexuality and instead focus on the law that condemns us and the cross and resurrection that redeems us.

But I don't think there is anything wrong with a friendly debate among believers regarding these issues. After all, we can't all be right

 

[Revmitchell]

When we are willing to let man made science (which is unreliable) to rule our interpretation of scripture we will get it wrong every time.

 

[humblethinker]

...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.

Revmitchell, this is an interesting use of language. I take it that it's from the link you provided?

In my view, the conversation to be had is between theists: Theistic Evolutionists, Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists. The problem I see for YECs is that they too often make the "Godless evolution" their windmill and tilt at it with all of their conviction and gusto. Take, for example, the statement above. They seem to take 'critics of creation' to surely and obviously mean a young earth creation. The debate/conversation to have is one that should be faithful to intellectual integrity and they should have this conversation with believers who do not hold to YEC.