The light travel time problem

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,301
982
Houston, TX
✟154,100.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I have a question for Young Universe Creationists who claim a literal interpretation of Gen. 1. But first, I should let everyone know, I am not a theistic evolutionist, I do not agree with Darwin's theory, and I do not believe that man existed on earth for more than 6k years. So please do not assume things of me that aren't true.

This question I have asked numerous times, and no one has yet to give a satisfactory answer. The only answer I received in a forum was a sarcastic one, which doesn't help. The question is, how to resolve the light travel time problem? But before you answer, I should let you know I've already done research on the subject and read possible solutions by people like ICR and AIG. None of them have a viable solution, since I have shown that every hypothesis has a fundamental problem that is unresolvable.

The issue has to do with the event history of supernovas observed in the past century. The most famous one (SN1987) has been discussed around this issue in several circles. This supernova was observed in 1987 at a calculated distance of 167,000 light years. Other supernovas have been observed at up to a distance of 10B light years. This indicates a universe history of more than 10B years.

To validate this event history, let's take an event of Earth's geological history, the meteoric crater in New Mexico. It can be shown by evidence, that is, the fact of the crater, and the fact that pieces of meteor were found in the center of the crater, that it was a historical event. IOW, God didn't create the Earth 6k years ago with the form of the crater intact as is, with pieces of meteor in it, as if appearing like there was an event when in fact the event never actually happened.

In the same way, when Adam was created, he didn't have scars from cuts and scrapes as if he had 20 years of experience trimming trees and brush, when in fact it was his first day of existence.

With that said, it is reasonable to assume that if some event is observed at a calculated distance of 10B light years, that the event actually did happen 10B years ago. People who try to work around this issue trying to make a 10B year universe history to look more like 6k years usually are not taking into account the necessary stability of the universe for life as we know it to exist in it.

The only work around I've come up with so far is to reject the traditional literal interpretations of Gen. 1. I do not see that chapter as a historical narrative. I do not see that chapter as a scientific account of how God did it. I see the statement "God created the world and everything in it in 6 days" as a religious statement, not a scientific one. I think Gen. 1 was written to contradict ancient Near-East myths about origins. I think that Gen. 1 is an accommodation to man's perspective at that time, as this is the most viable explanation so far. To poke attempts at making it a modern science textbook is, IMO, a fool's errand. I interpret Gen. 1 as an allegory (for lack of a better term). I think it is not to say how God created things scientifically, but THAT He created it is the thrust of the narrative. I think that those who impose a Western scientific paradigm on that chapter is doing everyone a disservice.

So, I am a skeptic concerning YECism. If anyone can show a reasonable scientific hypothesis that Gen. 1 should be interpreted literally, by presenting a viable hypothesis solving the light travel time issue, then I am open to reading it. If you want to show me a link to an ICR or AIG article, or something similar, I'm open to reading it, but chances are that I will find a fundamental problem with the hypothesis, and respond by showing why that hypothesis is not viable.

Again the question: how to resolve the light travel time problem?
 

setst777

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 25, 2018
2,202
599
66
Greenfield
Visit site
✟350,021.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I have a question for Young Universe Creationists who claim a literal interpretation of Gen. 1. But first, I should let everyone know, I am not a theistic evolutionist, I do not agree with Darwin's theory, and I do not believe that man existed on earth for more than 6k years. So please do not assume things of me that aren't true.

This question I have asked numerous times, and no one has yet to give a satisfactory answer. The only answer I received in a forum was a sarcastic one, which doesn't help. The question is, how to resolve the light travel time problem? But before you answer, I should let you know I've already done research on the subject and read possible solutions by people like ICR and AIG. None of them have a viable solution, since I have shown that every hypothesis has a fundamental problem that is unresolvable.

The issue has to do with the event history of supernovas observed in the past century. The most famous one (SN1987) has been discussed around this issue in several circles. This supernova was observed in 1987 at a calculated distance of 167,000 light years. Other supernovas have been observed at up to a distance of 10B light years. This indicates a universe history of more than 10B years.

To validate this event history, let's take an event of Earth's geological history, the meteoric crater in New Mexico. It can be shown by evidence, that is, the fact of the crater, and the fact that pieces of meteor were found in the center of the crater, that it was a historical event. IOW, God didn't create the Earth 6k years ago with the form of the crater intact as is, with pieces of meteor in it, as if appearing like there was an event when in fact the event never actually happened.

In the same way, when Adam was created, he didn't have scars from cuts and scrapes as if he had 20 years of experience trimming trees and brush, when in fact it was his first day of existence.

With that said, it is reasonable to assume that if some event is observed at a calculated distance of 10B light years, that the event actually did happen 10B years ago. People who try to work around this issue trying to make a 10B year universe history to look more like 6k years usually are not taking into account the necessary stability of the universe for life as we know it to exist in it.

The only work around I've come up with so far is to reject the traditional literal interpretations of Gen. 1. I do not see that chapter as a historical narrative. I do not see that chapter as a scientific account of how God did it. I see the statement "God created the world and everything in it in 6 days" as a religious statement, not a scientific one. I think Gen. 1 was written to contradict ancient Near-East myths about origins. I think that Gen. 1 is an accommodation to man's perspective at that time, as this is the most viable explanation so far. To poke attempts at making it a modern science textbook is, IMO, a fool's errand. I interpret Gen. 1 as an allegory (for lack of a better term). I think it is not to say how God created things scientifically, but THAT He created it is the thrust of the narrative. I think that those who impose a Western scientific paradigm on that chapter is doing everyone a disservice.

So, I am a skeptic concerning YECism. If anyone can show a reasonable scientific hypothesis that Gen. 1 should be interpreted literally, by presenting a viable hypothesis solving the light travel time issue, then I am open to reading it. If you want to show me a link to an ICR or AIG article, or something similar, I'm open to reading it, but chances are that I will find a fundamental problem with the hypothesis, and respond by showing why that hypothesis is not viable.

Again the question: how to resolve the light travel time problem?

God created the heavenly bodies to give light instantly, as God spoke it. Therefore, the heavenly bodies, and their light, were created to shine their lights on the earth at that very time.

Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
 
Upvote 0

Noxot

anarchist personalist
Supporter
Aug 6, 2007
8,191
2,450
37
dallas, texas
Visit site
✟231,339.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Again the question: how to resolve the light travel time problem?
I had a thought pop in my head earlier so this topic is of interest to me. can photons be entangled to display what is happening real time to us? i'm sure many folks have already thought this sort of stuff through.
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
IOW, God didn't create the Earth 6k years ago with the form of the crater intact as is, with pieces of meteor in it, as if appearing like there was an event when in fact the event never actually happened.
This is an unproven assumption...
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi tdidymas,

Well, I'm going to suggest that if you've read the ICR & AIG explanations, there likely isn't an explanation that's going to satisfy your mind to reject a millions, billions years old universe. As the Scriptures declare, God's righteous ones shall live by faith. Paul wrote it this way: For we live by faith, not by sight. Faith being the substance of believing things that just can't be seen and proved, but are attested to by the God who created all things.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Notice, please, what that passage of Scripture says in its completeness. First, it is by faith, not the science of men, that believers understand that the universe was formed at God's command. Secondly, while scientific theory attempts to teach us that the earth and the other heavenly bodies were formed 'from' some pre-existing matter, God's word says that's not true. What is seen was not made out of what was visible.

So, bottom line. If you are the kind of believer who can't except what God's word says because our scientific knowledge would refute it...then maybe you're not really a believer. What do you think it means for the Scriptures to speak so much about 'believing'? What is it actually that we are being asked to believe? Jesus said that God's word is truth. Is it...for you? Are you willing to believe God's word over the words and scientific study and studied wisdom of men? To just turn in your mind and say that no matter the supposed evidence that man can provide to support 'how' things came to be...I believe God.

You see, in another thread just today I was pointing out to a seeker of wisdom that God deals in miracles. By definition a miracle is some event that cannot be explained by the natural processes of things. The birth of a child from a woman who had never had sexual relations with a man. That's a miracle and there's not a scientist who has ever, or is now, living that can explain to you how that child came to be born. Similarly, the creation event was a miracle. Something that, according to the Scriptures, God created from nothing and twice repeated that He did it in six days. That's a miracle!

Of course, man's thirst for knowledge compels him to look into 'how' the universe came to be. So we poke and prod and study and extrapolate using the laws that we know control all the natural elements. Out of that we come up with what sound like reasonable explanations because, well... because we know that light acts in certain ways and therefore...

But what if when God creates light, it is created in a manner outside of the natural laws that we know? What if, on the day that God said, "Let there be stars and heavenly bodies in the entire expanse of the universe."; that the light from those stars was immediately, on the very day, at the very moment they came to exist...the light from each and every one of them was visible to observers on the earth as much as they could see with their naked eye. Remember if you will, that when Adam looked up at the night sky, it was as we look up at the night sky standing in the middle of Alaska or some other great expanse of land with no light sources from the earth to blind the eye. He would have seen the night sky just literally loaded by the millions with stars. What if God made every one of those stars, visible to Adam six days later, visible in the very moment that they were created no matter how great a distance they were from the earth? You see, that's understanding that the creation event was a miracle. We can't explain it based on what we know about super novas...no matter how hard we try or how very, very smart the people who are trying to explain it to us, are.

We can define it anyway that we like. We can say that God stretched the light of the stars supernaturally. We can say that God sped up the travel of light to travel from one end of the universe to the other in a mere moment for just that special creation event, and then everything fell into operating through a set of natural properties.

So, you don't really need someone to explain to you 'how' God did what He claims to have done in the Scriptures. There really isn't any way that a feeble man can explain the 'how' of God's miracles. You'll never understand or be able to prove 'how' that embryo got stuck to the wall of Mary's womb. What you need is to understand that as hard as science may try, it's never going to be able to prove 'how' miracles come to be.

Tell me, if you can. How did Jesus change several large jugs of water, within mere moments, into wine? Why, when the servants poured out the liquid contents from those jugs, wasn't it just water?

God bless,
Ted
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If we apply what we know of physical light to Gen 1:3 and following verses we get mired pretty fast...so I suggest we understand it as allusions to something else.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

WoW - light with no darkness... IF this light is the visible light our eyes can see, then by making it, it creates its own darkness...How can light be not separated from darkness or how can it be so separated if it wasn't already separated by its creation? Can this really apply to visible light? Doesn't sound like light we know, does it?

So, was GOD doing tricks with visible light or does this point to something else?

1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.
Does "GOD is light" refer to a visible glow or shine like a star or sun? This is weird stuff right? Does “Let there be light,” mean HE self created HIMself? Well of course not, so light is a characteristic of GOD, a divine attribute:

1 John 1:5 And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you: God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
That God is light - Light, in the Scriptures, is the emblem of purity, truth, knowledge, prosperity, and happiness - as darkness is of the opposite. John here says that "God is light" - φῶς phōs - not the light, or a light, but light itself; that is, he is himself all light, and is the source and fountain of light in all worlds. He is perfectly pure, without any admixture of sin. He has all knowledge, with no admixture of ignorance on any subject. He is infinitely happy, with nothing to make him miserable. He is infinitely true, never stating or countenancing error; he is blessed in all his ways, never knowing the darkness of disappointment and adversity.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
...that is, as light is opposed to the darkness of sin; he is pure and holy in his nature and works, and of such pure eyes as not to behold iniquity; and so perfectly holy, that angels cover their times before him, when they speak of his holiness:

Vincent's Word Studies
God is Light (Θεὸς φῶς ἐστὶν)
A statement of the absolute nature of God. Not a light, nor the light, with reference to created beings, as the light of men, the light of the world, but simply and absolutely God is light, in His very nature. Compare God is spirit, and see on John 4:24 : God is love, 1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16. The expression is not a metaphor. "All that we are accustomed to term light in the domain of the creature, whether with a physical or metaphysical meaning, is only an effluence of that one and only primitive Light which appears in the nature of God" (Ebrard). Light is immaterial, diffusive, pure, and glorious. It is the condition of life.


People's New Testament
John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him. The message heard from Christ, now declared, is that God is light. The source whence all light, whether it be physical, or moral, or spiritual, comes ; the Enlightener of the universe. The term denotes luminous clearness, the free and benevolent source from whence flow light, intelligence, purity and blessing, absolutely free from alien intermixture, since in him there is no darkness at all. Light represents truth, knowledge and holiness. Darkness represents ignorance, error, falsehood and sin.

In terms used by the Scripture to define LIGHT in other places, this would mean that GOD created goodness and separated it from evil…

LIGHT IS FAITH:
LIGHT is the moral attribute of goodness, a life by faith unto righteousness while darkness is evil, rejecting GOD by faith unto death. And in Gen 1:4 GOD separated between them: Genesis 1:4 God saw that the light was good, and HE separated the light from the darkness.

This suggests that ALL people created in HIS image already existed by the end of verse 2 or between the verses and speaks to the free will decision that was the separation between all those who accepted YHWH as their GOD (becoming HIS elect) and those who rejected HIM as a liar and a false god, becoming condemned at this time.

So might not Genesis 1:3 read: And God said, “Let there be light,” [ie faith unto righteousness] and there was light [faith]. 4 God saw that the light [faith] was good, and he separated the light from the darkness [evil, rejecters, antagonists to HIS will].

FAITH BY FREE WILL:
Pre-conception existence theology contends that HE did this by asking for our true free will decisions to either accept HIS purpose for our creation or by rejecting that purpose because we thought HE was a false god, unable to fulfill his warnings of the consequences, and we did not have to bow to anyone. The separation was finalized by the election of the sons of light to HIS eternal church while He left the dark to their chosen perdition.

To ensure that none of HIS newly elected church would be destroyed by sin, HE gave us all the gospel promise that if any of HIS elect should rebel against HIS will and chose to become evil in HIS sight that though that would put them outside of HIS will, it would not put them outside of HIS grace nor love and that HE would always do what was necessary to bring them back to HIM in accord with their first true free will decision.
 
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
10,550
4,684
59
Mississippi
✟248,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I have a question for Young Universe Creationists who claim a literal interpretation of Gen. 1. But first, I should let everyone know, I am not a theistic evolutionist, I do not agree with Darwin's theory, and I do not believe that man existed on earth for more than 6k years. So please do not assume things of me that aren't true.

This question I have asked numerous times, and no one has yet to give a satisfactory answer. The only answer I received in a forum was a sarcastic one, which doesn't help. The question is, how to resolve the light travel time problem? But before you answer, I should let you know I've already done research on the subject and read possible solutions by people like ICR and AIG. None of them have a viable solution, since I have shown that every hypothesis has a fundamental problem that is unresolvable.

The issue has to do with the event history of supernovas observed in the past century. The most famous one (SN1987) has been discussed around this issue in several circles. This supernova was observed in 1987 at a calculated distance of 167,000 light years. Other supernovas have been observed at up to a distance of 10B light years. This indicates a universe history of more than 10B years.

To validate this event history, let's take an event of Earth's geological history, the meteoric crater in New Mexico. It can be shown by evidence, that is, the fact of the crater, and the fact that pieces of meteor were found in the center of the crater, that it was a historical event. IOW, God didn't create the Earth 6k years ago with the form of the crater intact as is, with pieces of meteor in it, as if appearing like there was an event when in fact the event never actually happened.

In the same way, when Adam was created, he didn't have scars from cuts and scrapes as if he had 20 years of experience trimming trees and brush, when in fact it was his first day of existence.

With that said, it is reasonable to assume that if some event is observed at a calculated distance of 10B light years, that the event actually did happen 10B years ago. People who try to work around this issue trying to make a 10B year universe history to look more like 6k years usually are not taking into account the necessary stability of the universe for life as we know it to exist in it.

The only work around I've come up with so far is to reject the traditional literal interpretations of Gen. 1. I do not see that chapter as a historical narrative. I do not see that chapter as a scientific account of how God did it. I see the statement "God created the world and everything in it in 6 days" as a religious statement, not a scientific one. I think Gen. 1 was written to contradict ancient Near-East myths about origins. I think that Gen. 1 is an accommodation to man's perspective at that time, as this is the most viable explanation so far. To poke attempts at making it a modern science textbook is, IMO, a fool's errand. I interpret Gen. 1 as an allegory (for lack of a better term). I think it is not to say how God created things scientifically, but THAT He created it is the thrust of the narrative. I think that those who impose a Western scientific paradigm on that chapter is doing everyone a disservice.

So, I am a skeptic concerning YECism. If anyone can show a reasonable scientific hypothesis that Gen. 1 should be interpreted literally, by presenting a viable hypothesis solving the light travel time issue, then I am open to reading it. If you want to show me a link to an ICR or AIG article, or something similar, I'm open to reading it, but chances are that I will find a fundamental problem with the hypothesis, and respond by showing why that hypothesis is not viable.

Again the question: how to resolve the light travel time problem?

Why are you believing science over the Bible. that is believing that there is an outer space where stars are suppose to be trillions + light years away.

If you believe that you will be confused about the creation God created and that is recorded in the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

eleos1954

God is Love
Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
9,698
5,614
Utah
✟713,703.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I have a question for Young Universe Creationists who claim a literal interpretation of Gen. 1. But first, I should let everyone know, I am not a theistic evolutionist, I do not agree with Darwin's theory, and I do not believe that man existed on earth for more than 6k years. So please do not assume things of me that aren't true.

This question I have asked numerous times, and no one has yet to give a satisfactory answer. The only answer I received in a forum was a sarcastic one, which doesn't help. The question is, how to resolve the light travel time problem? But before you answer, I should let you know I've already done research on the subject and read possible solutions by people like ICR and AIG. None of them have a viable solution, since I have shown that every hypothesis has a fundamental problem that is unresolvable.

The issue has to do with the event history of supernovas observed in the past century. The most famous one (SN1987) has been discussed around this issue in several circles. This supernova was observed in 1987 at a calculated distance of 167,000 light years. Other supernovas have been observed at up to a distance of 10B light years. This indicates a universe history of more than 10B years.

To validate this event history, let's take an event of Earth's geological history, the meteoric crater in New Mexico. It can be shown by evidence, that is, the fact of the crater, and the fact that pieces of meteor were found in the center of the crater, that it was a historical event. IOW, God didn't create the Earth 6k years ago with the form of the crater intact as is, with pieces of meteor in it, as if appearing like there was an event when in fact the event never actually happened.

In the same way, when Adam was created, he didn't have scars from cuts and scrapes as if he had 20 years of experience trimming trees and brush, when in fact it was his first day of existence.

With that said, it is reasonable to assume that if some event is observed at a calculated distance of 10B light years, that the event actually did happen 10B years ago. People who try to work around this issue trying to make a 10B year universe history to look more like 6k years usually are not taking into account the necessary stability of the universe for life as we know it to exist in it.

The only work around I've come up with so far is to reject the traditional literal interpretations of Gen. 1. I do not see that chapter as a historical narrative. I do not see that chapter as a scientific account of how God did it. I see the statement "God created the world and everything in it in 6 days" as a religious statement, not a scientific one. I think Gen. 1 was written to contradict ancient Near-East myths about origins. I think that Gen. 1 is an accommodation to man's perspective at that time, as this is the most viable explanation so far. To poke attempts at making it a modern science textbook is, IMO, a fool's errand. I interpret Gen. 1 as an allegory (for lack of a better term). I think it is not to say how God created things scientifically, but THAT He created it is the thrust of the narrative. I think that those who impose a Western scientific paradigm on that chapter is doing everyone a disservice.

So, I am a skeptic concerning YECism. If anyone can show a reasonable scientific hypothesis that Gen. 1 should be interpreted literally, by presenting a viable hypothesis solving the light travel time issue, then I am open to reading it. If you want to show me a link to an ICR or AIG article, or something similar, I'm open to reading it, but chances are that I will find a fundamental problem with the hypothesis, and respond by showing why that hypothesis is not viable.

Again the question: how to resolve the light travel time problem?

The speed of light is based on theory and this theory is applied to the universe (so vast we can't comprehend it) as a whole, we are not able to observe the entire universe .... leaves a lot of things in question scientifically .... many scientific theories out there about it. Which ... if any are absolutely correct? Who knows? ;o)

Is using the speed of light for measuring distance an absolute in measuring the universe?
 
Upvote 0

Freth

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 11, 2020
1,505
1,823
Midwest, USA
✟372,480.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
I have a question for Young Universe Creationists who claim a literal interpretation of Gen. 1. But first, I should let everyone know, I am not a theistic evolutionist, I do not agree with Darwin's theory, and I do not believe that man existed on earth for more than 6k years. So please do not assume things of me that aren't true.

This question I have asked numerous times, and no one has yet to give a satisfactory answer. The only answer I received in a forum was a sarcastic one, which doesn't help. The question is, how to resolve the light travel time problem? But before you answer, I should let you know I've already done research on the subject and read possible solutions by people like ICR and AIG. None of them have a viable solution, since I have shown that every hypothesis has a fundamental problem that is unresolvable.

The issue has to do with the event history of supernovas observed in the past century. The most famous one (SN1987) has been discussed around this issue in several circles. This supernova was observed in 1987 at a calculated distance of 167,000 light years. Other supernovas have been observed at up to a distance of 10B light years. This indicates a universe history of more than 10B years.

To validate this event history, let's take an event of Earth's geological history, the meteoric crater in New Mexico. It can be shown by evidence, that is, the fact of the crater, and the fact that pieces of meteor were found in the center of the crater, that it was a historical event. IOW, God didn't create the Earth 6k years ago with the form of the crater intact as is, with pieces of meteor in it, as if appearing like there was an event when in fact the event never actually happened.

In the same way, when Adam was created, he didn't have scars from cuts and scrapes as if he had 20 years of experience trimming trees and brush, when in fact it was his first day of existence.

With that said, it is reasonable to assume that if some event is observed at a calculated distance of 10B light years, that the event actually did happen 10B years ago. People who try to work around this issue trying to make a 10B year universe history to look more like 6k years usually are not taking into account the necessary stability of the universe for life as we know it to exist in it.

The only work around I've come up with so far is to reject the traditional literal interpretations of Gen. 1. I do not see that chapter as a historical narrative. I do not see that chapter as a scientific account of how God did it. I see the statement "God created the world and everything in it in 6 days" as a religious statement, not a scientific one. I think Gen. 1 was written to contradict ancient Near-East myths about origins. I think that Gen. 1 is an accommodation to man's perspective at that time, as this is the most viable explanation so far. To poke attempts at making it a modern science textbook is, IMO, a fool's errand. I interpret Gen. 1 as an allegory (for lack of a better term). I think it is not to say how God created things scientifically, but THAT He created it is the thrust of the narrative. I think that those who impose a Western scientific paradigm on that chapter is doing everyone a disservice.

So, I am a skeptic concerning YECism. If anyone can show a reasonable scientific hypothesis that Gen. 1 should be interpreted literally, by presenting a viable hypothesis solving the light travel time issue, then I am open to reading it. If you want to show me a link to an ICR or AIG article, or something similar, I'm open to reading it, but chances are that I will find a fundamental problem with the hypothesis, and respond by showing why that hypothesis is not viable.

Again the question: how to resolve the light travel time problem?

Others have answered the question quite nicely, but I'll add my own perspective.

1. Truth.

God cannot lie.​

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.

Hebrews 6:13-14,18 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying, Surely blessing [1] I will bless thee , and multiplying [2] I will multiply thee ... That by two immutable things [promises, as numbered, above], in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.
2. The knowledge of the world.

Scripture warns us about the knowledge of the world.​

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

1 Corinthians 2:4-5 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:19-21 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
3. Faith.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:3 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.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Conclusion:

Q: how [sic] to resolve the light travel time problem?
A: The answer is to not ask the question in the first place.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Unqualified
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dqhall

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2015
7,547
4,171
Florida
Visit site
✟766,603.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I have a question for Young Universe Creationists who claim a literal interpretation of Gen. 1. But first, I should let everyone know, I am not a theistic evolutionist, I do not agree with Darwin's theory, and I do not believe that man existed on earth for more than 6k years. So please do not assume things of me that aren't true.

This question I have asked numerous times, and no one has yet to give a satisfactory answer. The only answer I received in a forum was a sarcastic one, which doesn't help. The question is, how to resolve the light travel time problem? But before you answer, I should let you know I've already done research on the subject and read possible solutions by people like ICR and AIG. None of them have a viable solution, since I have shown that every hypothesis has a fundamental problem that is unresolvable.

The issue has to do with the event history of supernovas observed in the past century. The most famous one (SN1987) has been discussed around this issue in several circles. This supernova was observed in 1987 at a calculated distance of 167,000 light years. Other supernovas have been observed at up to a distance of 10B light years. This indicates a universe history of more than 10B years.

To validate this event history, let's take an event of Earth's geological history, the meteoric crater in New Mexico. It can be shown by evidence, that is, the fact of the crater, and the fact that pieces of meteor were found in the center of the crater, that it was a historical event. IOW, God didn't create the Earth 6k years ago with the form of the crater intact as is, with pieces of meteor in it, as if appearing like there was an event when in fact the event never actually happened.

In the same way, when Adam was created, he didn't have scars from cuts and scrapes as if he had 20 years of experience trimming trees and brush, when in fact it was his first day of existence.

With that said, it is reasonable to assume that if some event is observed at a calculated distance of 10B light years, that the event actually did happen 10B years ago. People who try to work around this issue trying to make a 10B year universe history to look more like 6k years usually are not taking into account the necessary stability of the universe for life as we know it to exist in it.

The only work around I've come up with so far is to reject the traditional literal interpretations of Gen. 1. I do not see that chapter as a historical narrative. I do not see that chapter as a scientific account of how God did it. I see the statement "God created the world and everything in it in 6 days" as a religious statement, not a scientific one. I think Gen. 1 was written to contradict ancient Near-East myths about origins. I think that Gen. 1 is an accommodation to man's perspective at that time, as this is the most viable explanation so far. To poke attempts at making it a modern science textbook is, IMO, a fool's errand. I interpret Gen. 1 as an allegory (for lack of a better term). I think it is not to say how God created things scientifically, but THAT He created it is the thrust of the narrative. I think that those who impose a Western scientific paradigm on that chapter is doing everyone a disservice.

So, I am a skeptic concerning YECism. If anyone can show a reasonable scientific hypothesis that Gen. 1 should be interpreted literally, by presenting a viable hypothesis solving the light travel time issue, then I am open to reading it. If you want to show me a link to an ICR or AIG article, or something similar, I'm open to reading it, but chances are that I will find a fundamental problem with the hypothesis, and respond by showing why that hypothesis is not viable.

Again the question: how to resolve the light travel time problem?
An astronomical event that occurred light years away such as the remnants of a supernova might be seen in the night time sky as if it is today, while it happened years ago.

Paul wrote in Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Paul wrote his thoughts more than 1900 years ago, yet the reader might find his words today. In as much as all humans have erred and the Bible was written by human hands, it falls short of the glory of God. The wisdom given to men to seek the Lord after the teachings of Jesus has a chance, while worshipping the Bible falls short of perfection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Noxot
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Again the question: how to resolve the light travel time problem?
Just my thoughts on SN1987A, FWIW:

SN1987A: A blue supergiant star, created in BC4004 in the hollow of God's hand for the angel Sanduleak, i.e. his home. SN1987A was then 'ballooned' to the distance of 168,000 light years distance from the earth, with its starlight kept intact on the earth, when God stretched the universe.

Psalm 104:2b who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

Circa 2300 B.C., Sanduleak leaves his home and comes to earth and marries a woman here; settling down and having [giant] children.

God destroys the world with a global flood and confines Sanduleak to:

Jude 6: And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

God then destroys Sanduleak's home (the supergiant star), circa 2345 B.C. and moves the light from its destruction across space for "discovery" on 23 February 1987.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I have a question for Young Universe Creationists who claim a literal interpretation of Gen. 1. But first, I should let everyone know, I am not a theistic evolutionist, I do not agree with Darwin's theory, and I do not believe that man existed on earth for more than 6k years. So please do not assume things of me that aren't true.

This question I have asked numerous times, and no one has yet to give a satisfactory answer. The only answer I received in a forum was a sarcastic one, which doesn't help. The question is, how to resolve the light travel time problem? But before you answer, I should let you know I've already done research on the subject and read possible solutions by people like ICR and AIG. None of them have a viable solution, since I have shown that every hypothesis has a fundamental problem that is unresolvable.

The issue has to do with the event history of supernovas observed in the past century. The most famous one (SN1987) has been discussed around this issue in several circles. This supernova was observed in 1987 at a calculated distance of 167,000 light years. Other supernovas have been observed at up to a distance of 10B light years. This indicates a universe history of more than 10B years.

To validate this event history, let's take an event of Earth's geological history, the meteoric crater in New Mexico. It can be shown by evidence, that is, the fact of the crater, and the fact that pieces of meteor were found in the center of the crater, that it was a historical event. IOW, God didn't create the Earth 6k years ago with the form of the crater intact as is, with pieces of meteor in it, as if appearing like there was an event when in fact the event never actually happened.

In the same way, when Adam was created, he didn't have scars from cuts and scrapes as if he had 20 years of experience trimming trees and brush, when in fact it was his first day of existence.

With that said, it is reasonable to assume that if some event is observed at a calculated distance of 10B light years, that the event actually did happen 10B years ago. People who try to work around this issue trying to make a 10B year universe history to look more like 6k years usually are not taking into account the necessary stability of the universe for life as we know it to exist in it.

The only work around I've come up with so far is to reject the traditional literal interpretations of Gen. 1. I do not see that chapter as a historical narrative. I do not see that chapter as a scientific account of how God did it. I see the statement "God created the world and everything in it in 6 days" as a religious statement, not a scientific one. I think Gen. 1 was written to contradict ancient Near-East myths about origins. I think that Gen. 1 is an accommodation to man's perspective at that time, as this is the most viable explanation so far. To poke attempts at making it a modern science textbook is, IMO, a fool's errand. I interpret Gen. 1 as an allegory (for lack of a better term). I think it is not to say how God created things scientifically, but THAT He created it is the thrust of the narrative. I think that those who impose a Western scientific paradigm on that chapter is doing everyone a disservice.

So, I am a skeptic concerning YECism. If anyone can show a reasonable scientific hypothesis that Gen. 1 should be interpreted literally, by presenting a viable hypothesis solving the light travel time issue, then I am open to reading it. If you want to show me a link to an ICR or AIG article, or something similar, I'm open to reading it, but chances are that I will find a fundamental problem with the hypothesis, and respond by showing why that hypothesis is not viable.

Again the question: how to resolve the light travel time problem?
How do you know God did not create Adam with scars?

But whether he did or not is irrelevant. God can make a thing to appear aged any way he wishes to. But, in fact, God can do both and not be lying. As I have said in another forum, here we mere humans are coming up with time manipulation thoughts and semi-cogent theories, and we congratulate ourselves on our cleverness, yet we can't allow God, (who invented time), to do what he wishes with it, but call him a liar if he does?

I said God can do both. We pretty much all agree time is relative. And science concurs: For the person who travels, the time he takes to do so is literally less than the time passed by the one who sits waiting for him to return. When I think of the expansion of space-time at the Big Bang, (though most people disagreed with me here, I'm not sure they understood what I was trying to say), I don't see why not from one POV it could take 6K years, and from another take 15 billion.

As I said at first, though, there's nothing stopping God from giving the universe the appearance of 15 billion years, without it being a lie. It is not he who said it was 15 billion years old.
 
Upvote 0

AdamjEdgar

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2021
449
139
52
Melbourne
✟17,432.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I have a question for Young Universe Creationists who claim a literal interpretation of Gen. 1. But first, I should let everyone know, I am not a theistic evolutionist, I do not agree with Darwin's theory, and I do not believe that man existed on earth for more than 6k years. So please do not assume things of me that aren't true.

This question I have asked numerous times, and no one has yet to give a satisfactory answer. The only answer I received in a forum was a sarcastic one, which doesn't help. The question is, how to resolve the light travel time problem? But before you answer, I should let you know I've already done research on the subject and read possible solutions by people like ICR and AIG. None of them have a viable solution, since I have shown that every hypothesis has a fundamental problem that is unresolvable.

The issue has to do with the event history of supernovas observed in the past century. The most famous one (SN1987) has been discussed around this issue in several circles. This supernova was observed in 1987 at a calculated distance of 167,000 light years. Other supernovas have been observed at up to a distance of 10B light years. This indicates a universe history of more than 10B years.

To validate this event history, let's take an event of Earth's geological history, the meteoric crater in New Mexico. It can be shown by evidence, that is, the fact of the crater, and the fact that pieces of meteor were found in the center of the crater, that it was a historical event. IOW, God didn't create the Earth 6k years ago with the form of the crater intact as is, with pieces of meteor in it, as if appearing like there was an event when in fact the event never actually happened.

In the same way, when Adam was created, he didn't have scars from cuts and scrapes as if he had 20 years of experience trimming trees and brush, when in fact it was his first day of existence.

With that said, it is reasonable to assume that if some event is observed at a calculated distance of 10B light years, that the event actually did happen 10B years ago. People who try to work around this issue trying to make a 10B year universe history to look more like 6k years usually are not taking into account the necessary stability of the universe for life as we know it to exist in it.

The only work around I've come up with so far is to reject the traditional literal interpretations of Gen. 1. I do not see that chapter as a historical narrative. I do not see that chapter as a scientific account of how God did it. I see the statement "God created the world and everything in it in 6 days" as a religious statement, not a scientific one. I think Gen. 1 was written to contradict ancient Near-East myths about origins. I think that Gen. 1 is an accommodation to man's perspective at that time, as this is the most viable explanation so far. To poke attempts at making it a modern science textbook is, IMO, a fool's errand. I interpret Gen. 1 as an allegory (for lack of a better term). I think it is not to say how God created things scientifically, but THAT He created it is the thrust of the narrative. I think that those who impose a Western scientific paradigm on that chapter is doing everyone a disservice.

So, I am a skeptic concerning YECism. If anyone can show a reasonable scientific hypothesis that Gen. 1 should be interpreted literally, by presenting a viable hypothesis solving the light travel time issue, then I am open to reading it. If you want to show me a link to an ICR or AIG article, or something similar, I'm open to reading it, but chances are that I will find a fundamental problem with the hypothesis, and respond by showing why that hypothesis is not viable.

Again the question: how to resolve the light travel time problem?
First, I think it dangerous to put science before the Bible...so your statement show me a scientific reason as to why creation should be taken as literal days is deeply flawed from a religious point of view.

I have answered this question at length in another thread the O.P is familiar with but am not one who has responded with any sarcasm (I am not sure on which forum that happened)

The short answer is this...
Satan tempts us in the dimension of our minds...this is not just in the physical senses of touch, hearing, taste and smell (which are bound to this earth essentially).
If Satan can attack other senses such as feeling and sight (things we cannot touch or smell) where in the Bible does it say that Satan cannot also distort our perception of the speed of light with regards to supernovas exploding?
Saying God cast him to the earth is true, however adding to this by stating God does not allow him to also influence our perceptions of space is very dangerous ground.
It is my view that sin reaches as far out into the universe as thought does and Satan therefore has influence to that extent.
Why do I say this?
Because we know that other worlds also had the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They all face that same temptation Eve did.
Now if we say they are all watching this battle on this world between good and evil, then we cannot deny that Satan is also tempting them too.

As I responded in the other post about this, my question is not about time when talking about supernovas. My question would be if God created that part of the universe perfect and if sin does not reach that far out into space, then why would God create a sun that explodes in the first place? This is why I consider the theory that "sin extends as far into space as thought and sight" and that (Satan's ability to influence/corrupt light) explains the 167,000 light year supernova issue.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,301
982
Houston, TX
✟154,100.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
God created the heavenly bodies to give light instantly, as God spoke it. Therefore, the heavenly bodies, and their light, were created to shine their lights on the earth at that very time.

Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
Do you see a difference between instantly shining light, and a history of light events?
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,301
982
Houston, TX
✟154,100.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I had a thought pop in my head earlier so this topic is of interest to me. can photons be entangled to display what is happening real time to us? i'm sure many folks have already thought this sort of stuff through.
Yes, the article in the link I posted addressed that, and it's nonsense. Light is proven to take time to travel A to B.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,301
982
Houston, TX
✟154,100.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Hi tdidymas,

Well, I'm going to suggest that if you've read the ICR & AIG explanations, there likely isn't an explanation that's going to satisfy your mind to reject a millions, billions years old universe. As the Scriptures declare, God's righteous ones shall live by faith. Paul wrote it this way: For we live by faith, not by sight. Faith being the substance of believing things that just can't be seen and proved, but are attested to by the God who created all things.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Notice, please, what that passage of Scripture says in its completeness. First, it is by faith, not the science of men, that believers understand that the universe was formed at God's command. Secondly, while scientific theory attempts to teach us that the earth and the other heavenly bodies were formed 'from' some pre-existing matter, God's word says that's not true. What is seen was not made out of what was visible.

So, bottom line. If you are the kind of believer who can't except what God's word says because our scientific knowledge would refute it...then maybe you're not really a believer. What do you think it means for the Scriptures to speak so much about 'believing'? What is it actually that we are being asked to believe? Jesus said that God's word is truth. Is it...for you? Are you willing to believe God's word over the words and scientific study and studied wisdom of men? To just turn in your mind and say that no matter the supposed evidence that man can provide to support 'how' things came to be...I believe God.

You see, in another thread just today I was pointing out to a seeker of wisdom that God deals in miracles. By definition a miracle is some event that cannot be explained by the natural processes of things. The birth of a child from a woman who had never had sexual relations with a man. That's a miracle and there's not a scientist who has ever, or is now, living that can explain to you how that child came to be born. Similarly, the creation event was a miracle. Something that, according to the Scriptures, God created from nothing and twice repeated that He did it in six days. That's a miracle!

Of course, man's thirst for knowledge compels him to look into 'how' the universe came to be. So we poke and prod and study and extrapolate using the laws that we know control all the natural elements. Out of that we come up with what sound like reasonable explanations because, well... because we know that light acts in certain ways and therefore...

But what if when God creates light, it is created in a manner outside of the natural laws that we know? What if, on the day that God said, "Let there be stars and heavenly bodies in the entire expanse of the universe."; that the light from those stars was immediately, on the very day, at the very moment they came to exist...the light from each and every one of them was visible to observers on the earth as much as they could see with their naked eye. Remember if you will, that when Adam looked up at the night sky, it was as we look up at the night sky standing in the middle of Alaska or some other great expanse of land with no light sources from the earth to blind the eye. He would have seen the night sky just literally loaded by the millions with stars. What if God made every one of those stars, visible to Adam six days later, visible in the very moment that they were created no matter how great a distance they were from the earth? You see, that's understanding that the creation event was a miracle. We can't explain it based on what we know about super novas...no matter how hard we try or how very, very smart the people who are trying to explain it to us, are.

We can define it anyway that we like. We can say that God stretched the light of the stars supernaturally. We can say that God sped up the travel of light to travel from one end of the universe to the other in a mere moment for just that special creation event, and then everything fell into operating through a set of natural properties.

So, you don't really need someone to explain to you 'how' God did what He claims to have done in the Scriptures. There really isn't any way that a feeble man can explain the 'how' of God's miracles. You'll never understand or be able to prove 'how' that embryo got stuck to the wall of Mary's womb. What you need is to understand that as hard as science may try, it's never going to be able to prove 'how' miracles come to be.

Tell me, if you can. How did Jesus change several large jugs of water, within mere moments, into wine? Why, when the servants poured out the liquid contents from those jugs, wasn't it just water?

God bless,
Ted
According to you, I'm not a believer because I don't interpret Gen. 1 in accordance with your opinion or how you judge it. Your analogy about what Jesus did is a straw man argument, and has nothing to do with my question. I agree that God created the universe. I also agree with the apostle Paul that things about God can be known by what He has made.

So here's the question for you: can you see a difference between God creating something instantaneously, and God creating a history of something instantaneously?
 
Upvote 0