Light years

[Winman]

Well, that's easily refuted. To borrow an imaginative theory positing the speed of light not being constant by so-called YEC scientists and applying it to this problem--obviously the rate of movement of the moon away from Earth must have changed. So has the rate of dust deposition on the moon surface.

Speaking of established scientific facts, the speed of light is a constant that holds up pretty much any scientific theory or application.

Working backwards from a preconceived premise--um, that would be Ussher's dating scheme.

It is NOT an established fact that the speed of light is constant, in fact, hundreds of measurements over several hundred years suggest that the speed of light is slowing, and that in the very recent past the speed of light may have been billions (Yes, BILLIONS) of times faster than it is today.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm

It is quite easy to find numerous articles on this subject.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Well, that's easily refuted. To borrow an imaginative theory positing the speed of light not being constant by so-called YEC scientists and applying it to this problem--obviously the rate of movement of the moon away from Earth must have changed. So has the rate of dust deposition on the moon surface.



Speaking of established scientific facts, the speed of light is a constant that holds up pretty much any scientific theory or application.

Working backwards from a preconceived premise--um, that would be Ussher's dating scheme.

Now your straying away from science & into wishful thinking. Science can only establish what is observable, not what you think might, perhaps, maybe happened. You are making the assumption that the moon's rate of orbital decay has changed. Tell me, from a strictly scientific point of reference, how has the moon's orbit changed, & why would the moon's diminishing gravitational field attract less dust millions of years ago than it does today? How far was the moon from the earth one million, 100 million, & 1 billion years ago.... based solely upon the scientific method of the accumulation of data via purely non-biased means.

 

[InTheLight]

You are making the assumption that the moon's rate of orbital decay has changed. Tell me, from a strictly scientific point of reference, how has the moon's orbit changed, & why would the moon's diminishing gravitational field attract less dust millions of years ago than it does today?

I was being facetious.

 

[InTheLight]

It is NOT an established fact that the speed of light is constant, in fact, hundreds of measurements over several hundred years suggest that the speed of light is slowing, and that in the very recent past the speed of light may have been billions (Yes, BILLIONS) of times faster than it is today.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm

It is quite easy to find numerous articles on this subject.

The article cited said the speed of light may have been faster at the onset of the big bang, not "the very recent past" as you allege. I challenge you to post a credible reference that says the speed of light was billions of times faster in the recent past (or ever, for that matter.)

 

[michael-acts17:11]

I was being facetious.

Facetiousness & sarcasm doesn't always come through the screen.

Care to answer my questions anyway?

 

[Winman]

The article cited said the speed of light may have been faster at the onset of the big bang, not "the very recent past" as you allege. I challenge you to post a credible reference that says the speed of light was billions of times faster in the recent past (or ever, for that matter.)

Barry Setterfield of Austrailia was the first to put together all the data showing the speed of light has slowed back in the 80's. Since that time quite a few physicists have also published reports that light has slowed. According to some of these physicists, the speed of light was BILLIONS of times faster just a few thousand solar years ago.

And therein is the answer, the earth is indeed about 6000 solar years old, but in radiometric years the universe is many billions of years old.

You don't have to agree, but the published work is out there, and much research is still going on. Astronomers have said that if this is true it would solve many of the difficult problems associated with the big bang.

Here is a more recent article;

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-517850.html

 

[OldRegular]

Barry Setterfield of Austrailia was the first to put together all the data showing the speed of light has slowed back in the 80's. Since that time quite a few physicists have also published reports that light has slowed. According to some of these physicists, the speed of light was BILLIONS of times faster just a few thousand solar years ago.

And therein is the answer, the earth is indeed about 6000 solar years old, but in radiometric years the universe is many billions of years old.

You don't have to agree, but the published work is out there, and much research is still going on. Astronomers have said that if this is true it would solve many of the difficult problems associated with the big bang.

Here is a more recent article;

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-517850.html

I find the following statement most interesting in the reference!

After considering that a change in the electron charge over time would violate the sacrosanct second law of thermodynamics, they concluded that the only option was to challenge the constancy of the speed of light.

 

[Winman]

I find the following statement most interesting in the reference!

If light were billions of times faster just 6000 solar years ago, then light from the farthest galaxies would have arrived here almost instantaneously.

Also, all things that are dated using radiometric methods would show them to be billions of years old when they were only thousands of solar years old. BOTH can be true if light has slowed.

Remember God's first command;

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 

[HankD]

As a software archtect/engineer, I must first design any given system on paper followed by a "stub" system or the prototype system including historical and archival files and databases containing stub data so that the system will work the first time it is initiated.

These initial stub systems depend more upon data relationships than the data itself and contain all the characteristics of the maintenance database.

I have utilities to do this. These utilities provide a system with apparent age to insure that the full blown maintenance software will function on day 1 of the installation.

After all we have been made in His image and likeness.

HankD

 

[percho]

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Was that light, star light?

What was the light that appeared in the darkness that was good and was divided from the darkness.

Was that darkness and light in Gen 1:2,3 the same as the following darkness and light?

To open their eyes, to turn from darkness to light, and the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

What is the power of Satan and was that power present with the darkness of Gen. 1:2?

How long had the darkness been on the face of the deep before the Light appeared?

Is darkness the absence of light?

I am not sure I know how to measure the answer of, "how long," within the premise of Darkness and Light.

 

[Winman]

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Was that light, star light?

What was the light that appeared in the darkness that was good and was divided from the darkness.

Was that darkness and light in Gen 1:2,3 the same as the following darkness and light?

To open their eyes, to turn from darkness to light, and the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

What is the power of Satan and was that power present with the darkness of Gen. 1:2?

How long had the darkness been on the face of the deep before the Light appeared?

Is darkness the absence of light?

I am not sure I know how to measure the answer of, "how long," within the premise of Darkness and Light.

I do not believe this was starlight, because stars were not created until the 4th day. The scriptures also say there was a morning and evening BEFORE the sun was created on day 4.

So, my answer is... I DON'T KNOW :tongue3:

"If the velocity of light is constant, how is it that, invariably, new determinations give values which are lower than the last one obtained . . . . There are twenty-two coincidences in favour of a decrease of the velocity of light, while there is not a single one against it." - M. E. J. Gheury de Bray

http://www.sound-doctrine.net/FAQ-UniverseBillions.html

 

[Aaron]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3XSz5TEInU

Dr. Russel Humphreys explains distant starlight in a young universe.

 

[RLBosley]

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb. 2:14

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

To open their eyes, to turn from darkness to light, and the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

From the above would you agree that Satan, the devil who has the power of death was on the earth when God said let there be light?

IMHO God because of the sin of Satan had removed himself from the earth which became dead and in darkness and decay because of that sin.

Let there be light was the return of God to renew the earth and bring about the result of Hebrews 2:14. To destroy Satan.

Keep in mind also before it was said Let there be light it was ordained for a sinless man to die. Interesting in that there was no death.

Not sure what you're getting at... It sounds though like some form of Gap Theory which is a terrible way to interpret the creation story. God did NOT remove Himself from the earth because of Satan's sin. He was on earth with Adam in the garden. Gen 1 is not a re-creation, it is creation. "Let there be light" was the creation of light.

You're trying to read into the text your beliefs instead of understanding the text and having it change your beliefs.

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Was that light, star light?

What was the light that appeared in the darkness that was good and was divided from the darkness.

Was that darkness and light in Gen 1:2,3 the same as the following darkness and light?

To open their eyes, to turn from darkness to light, and the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

What is the power of Satan and was that power present with the darkness of Gen. 1:2?

How long had the darkness been on the face of the deep before the Light appeared?

Is darkness the absence of light?

I am not sure I know how to measure the answer of, "how long," within the premise of Darkness and Light.

It was actual light, but not star light since stars where not yet created. But your supposition that the light and darkness in Genesis are the light and darkness in Acts 26:18 is a really bad understanding of scripture. There is no gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. :BangHead:

 

[OldRegular]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3XSz5TEInU

Dr. Russel Humphreys explains distant starlight in a young universe.

Dr. John Harnett of Australia improves on Humphreys analysis.

http://creation.com/dr-john-hartnett-cv

 

[percho]

Not sure what you're getting at... It sounds though like some form of Gap Theory which is a terrible way to interpret the creation story. God did NOT remove Himself from the earth because of Satan's sin. He was on earth with Adam in the garden. Gen 1 is not a re-creation, it is creation. "Let there be light" was the creation of light.

You're trying to read into the text your beliefs instead of understanding the text and having it change your beliefs.




It was actual light, but not star light since stars where not yet created. But your supposition that the light and darkness in Genesis are the light and darkness in Acts 26:18 is a really bad understanding of scripture. There is no gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. :BangHead:

RL Whether there is a gap or not does not matter concerning Gen 1:2 and Gen 1:3.

Why would that be a bad understanding of scripture?

Is the light in Acts 26 God or not?
Is the darkness in Acts 26 Satan or not?

Why would God dividing the good light in Gen. 1:4 from the darkness as evening and morning creating the first day be a bad understanding of scripture?

John 11:9,10 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. Who is the light of the world? But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him. Who is the night, darkness of this world? Eph 6:12

That verse tells me when God divided the good light from the darkness he also assigned time to the evening and the morning of the first day. twelve hours to each.

That first day was twenty four hours just like day four was twenty four hours.

I think you have to be blind not to see this in Genesis 1:2-4

 

[humblethinker]

"The possibility that the universe might be genuinely old is not one that has received much consideration from within the creationist community. There is no logical contradiction between an old age for the universe and many core elements of creationism, such as a recent supernatural origin for life in the past few thousand years, the goodness of the original creation, death as a consequence of the Fall, and a recent global catastrophic Flood, which led to the formation of much or all of the fossil record."

From: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/distant-starlight-cosmology

What is the current state of creationist cosmology? For Young Earth cosmology, not well, especially compared to the Standard Model of Cosmology, about which the article, in conclusion reads, "the SMC does apparently provide plausible proximate explanations for all of the phenomena discussed above."

The above linked article is on AIG's site and was written in 2011.

 

[InTheLight]

"The possibility that the universe might be genuinely old is not one that has received much consideration from within the creationist community. There is no logical contradiction between an old age for the universe and many core elements of creationism, such as a recent supernatural origin for life in the past few thousand years, the goodness of the original creation, death as a consequence of the Fall, and a recent global catastrophic Flood, which led to the formation of much or all of the fossil record."

From: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/distant-starlight-cosmology

What is the current state of creationist cosmology? For Young Earth cosmology, not well, especially compared to the Standard Model of Cosmology, about which the article, in conclusion reads, "the SMC does apparently provide plausible proximate explanations for all of the phenomena discussed above."

The above linked article is on AIG's site and was written in 2011.

Another quote from the article:

What is the current state of creationist cosmology? The brief survey in this paper would suggest that much work still needs to be done. Indeed, beyond the distant starlight issue, very little has been done to explain the many patterns and trends that have been identified through observations of the universe beyond our solar system.

or as I said in my original post in this thread regarding light from distant stars:

It's a problem for YEC'ers.

 

[HankD]

It's a problem for YEC'ers.

Not for this one.

Ever heard of a virgin having a baby?

HankD

 

[Iconoclast]

Not for this one.

Ever heard of a virgin having a baby?

HankD

There you go:wavey: God as supernatural does whatsoever he desires ,lol

Science has no idea on these things.....Jesus ascended in Acts 1....no space suit, no oxygen tanks, ......we have no ideas about this universe , or it's actual size, or composition:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[TCassidy]

Although I am not a strict YEC, I don't see a problem with the stars being a great distance from the earth. The answer is in Genesis. Why were the heavenly bodies created? To give light upon the earth. That seems to me to be saying that when God created the heavenly bodies He also created the light from those bodies to shine upon the earth.

As for the possibility that the speed of light has decayed along the same lines as the doppler effect, some research has been done using the very first measurements of light speed done back in about 1850, but so far that research has been inconclusive, the difference between the readings now and 160 years ago fall well within the limits of observational error.