age/expansion of the universe

[mindlight]

Over the years, I have a lot of fun with the idea of relativity and what a day was way back then. It remains an interesting concept.

However, Exod. 20 seems to have a single measure day for day one and day six. At least, that would seem to be the most logical reading.

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.

Exactly and thats what keeps me a YEC and to the literal meaning in the end. Moses was never closer to God than when he received the law and by tying the explanation of the sabbath into the creation pattern itself he seems to establish that a literal period of 7 days was being described when he wrote down Genesis also.

Still my other questions remain how can there be a night if God is the Light and what is the purpose of such darkness in the three nights before the sun and stars.

 

[mindlight]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I've always found it a bit odd that someone could insist the length of a day has not changed since the beginning of creation, and then berate uniformitarianism in the same breath.

A YEC is saying that a day was a God ordained time period and that the natural bodies e.g. sun and stars by which time later came to be measured merely echo a pattern which had already been instituted.

The mistake of a uniformitarian has two main aspects which both involve accepting nature as a primary evidence over Gods word:

1) To assume that what can be observed today will allow the original pattern of creation to be discerned and that that what is seen is not somehow distorted.

2) To assume that discernible patterns in nature have always been the same and can be generalised from back to the very beginning.

 

[shernren]

A YEC is saying that a day was a God ordained time period and that the natural bodies e.g. sun and stars by which time later came to be measured merely echo a pattern which had already been instituted.

The mistake of a uniformitarian has two main aspects which both involve accepting nature as a primary evidence over Gods word:

1) To assume that what can be observed today will allow the original pattern of creation to be discerned and that that what is seen is not somehow distorted.

2) To assume that discernible patterns in nature have always been the same and can be generalised from back to the very beginning.

You stated that when we assume that "what we see is not somehow distorted" and that "discenible patterns can be generalised into the distant past", we are accepting nature as primary evidence over God's word. That we are accepting nature as primary evidence in this whole business is obvious - it is science, after all! - but are we accepting it "over" God's word?

For: firstly, does God's word tell us that creation has been physically distorted by the Fall? To the contrary, the Bible tells us that within your views, before the Fall, there was land and sea and sun and moon and stars that behaved the way they do today. You say that the sun and moon's timekeeping reflects a natural order of time in God's mind. Well, a "day" is simply how long it takes a small rock on the outer arm of our galaxy to rotate around its axis; a "year" is simply how long it takes that small rock to complete one orbit around its parent star. If these were intended to be timekeeping devices by God, then that tells us that in your view, gravity at least cannot have changed since the Fall. There were trees and grass and animals of every kind, and Adam and Eve were able to eat - that tells us that chemistry was the same before the Fall as after. (If it was not, then what sensible meaning would you be able to ascribe to us being "Adam and Eve's descendants" - if we are not even made of the same stuff as they are?)

However, these are the very same patterns that we use to detect deep time. The Bible talks about rivers with gold and jewels; however, the varves on the Green River are well chemically correlated over half a million layers with annual processes - giving a time of at least 500,000 years. And God never told us that rivers would change because of the Fall. What, then, explains those 500,000 years? Supernova 1987A can be determined by trigonometry to be 168,000 light years away, and it emitted frequencies of radiation which could be easily identified to be the same as isotopes we have observed occurring on Earth. And this radiation frequency is tightly tied with the rate at which atoms decay. Has this been affected by the Fall? And in what way? According to the Bible the stars declare the glory of God; if the stars are not trustworthy even to speak of themselves, how can they be trustworthy to speak of God who is so much greater?

If a day is a divinely-ordained period, then the laws that impose the period of "a day" on the Earth must also be divinely-ordained - and it is those same laws that we can use to detect deep time. How is it, then, that you can be so confident that those processes would have been trustworthy to God to keep the time of a day, and yet not trustworthy to leave the evidence of deep time that we see?

 

[krew]

Alan Guth, Proff of Physics at M.I.T. is considered,by far, the best mind in his field. He claims he is close to the correct math to prove his inflationary theory.,..goto...google video and search "alan guth"

 

[busterdog]

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.

Exactly and thats what keeps me a YEC and to the literal meaning in the end. Moses was never closer to God than when he received the law and by tying the explanation of the sabbath into the creation pattern itself he seems to establish that a literal period of 7 days was being described when he wrote down Genesis also.

Still my other questions remain how can there be a night if God is the Light and what is the purpose of such darkness in the three nights before the sun and stars.

I you are going for symbolism, or a prophetic pattern, you just said it yourself.

Not sure if that is where you question was going?

 

[gluadys]

An interesting hymn I came across that comments on this question.

http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML

I do think creationism relies on denying the connection between the Word and Creation. "Word" is taken to refer only to the revelation of scripture. Yet that very scripture teaches us that the Word is what/who created nature and that nature is also a revealer of God.

Nor does anything in scripture teach us that the created world has become an unreliable revelation.

To me, nature is just as much the word of God as scripture. And that has been a traditional Christian teaching for many centuries. Nature is the general revelation given to all; scripture the special revelation given to God's people. Both are reliable testimonies, for both take their ultimate source in the Word itself.

The only thing that is unreliable are human interpretations of one or both revelations.

 

[mindlight]

You stated that when we assume that "what we see is not somehow distorted" and that "discenible patterns can be generalised into the distant past", we are accepting nature as primary evidence over God's word. That we are accepting nature as primary evidence in this whole business is obvious - it is science, after all! - but are we accepting it "over" God's word?

Agreed this is the crucial question.

For: firstly, does God's word tell us that creation has been physically distorted by the Fall? To the contrary, the Bible tells us that within your views, before the Fall, there was land and sea and sun and moon and stars that behaved the way they do today.

There were changes as a result of the Fall e.g. the ground was cursed and the battle with weeds commences. There were also changes as a result of the judgment of the flood - lifespans shrunk enormously, the entire landscape of the earth appears to have been reconfigured and it appears that distortions appear in the calendar so that a year is no longer 360 days and a day not exactly 24 hours for example. This would indicate a catastrophe on the scale of being able to influence the orbit of the earth. There is also the Romans verse (I keep quoting and disagreeing with people about), about creation being in bondage to decay. Creation lost an essential feature of its renewing connection to the Maker as a result of the fall and then was dramatically shaken by some huge cosmic catastrophe at the time of the flood.

You say that the sun and moon's timekeeping reflects a natural order of time in God's mind. Well, a "day" is simply how long it takes a small rock on the outer arm of our galaxy to rotate around its axis; a "year" is simply how long it takes that small rock to complete one orbit around its parent star. If these were intended to be timekeeping devices by God, then that tells us that in your view, gravity at least cannot have changed since the Fall. There were trees and grass and animals of every kind, and Adam and Eve were able to eat - that tells us that chemistry was the same before the Fall as after. (If it was not, then what sensible meaning would you be able to ascribe to us being "Adam and Eve's descendants" - if we are not even made of the same stuff as they are?)

All these laws are interelated and we cannot separate out the study of human chemistry, gravity etc from a consideration of the kinds of radiation and environment these people were exposed to for instance. If we as a planet have become slightly out of synch with the original pattern of space and time then the effects of that must be enormous on human beings and on this planet and everything is somehow effected by that. If the subtlest of differences will have enormous ramifications overa period of thousands of years.

However, these are the very same patterns that we use to detect deep time. The Bible talks about rivers with gold and jewels; however, the varves on the Green River are well chemically correlated over half a million layers with annual processes - giving a time of at least 500,000 years. And God never told us that rivers would change because of the Fall. What, then, explains those 500,000 years?

There are half million layers - someone has calculated that these layers seem to correspond with the seasonal effects they can observe today. They have then tied these two conclusions together and said the river must therefore be 500,000 years old. In catastrophic conditions 100s or thousands of layers might have formed in hours or even minutes. There are too many places where these calculations could go wrong for me to be convinced with these kinds of evidences.

Supernova 1987A can be determined by trigonometry to be 168,000 light years away, and it emitted frequencies of radiation which could be easily identified to be the same as isotopes we have observed occurring on Earth. And this radiation frequency is tightly tied with the rate at which atoms decay. Has this been affected by the Fall? And in what way? According to the Bible the stars declare the glory of God; if the stars are not trustworthy even to speak of themselves, how can they be trustworthy to speak of God who is so much greater?

I suppose the stars led astrologers to Jesus but mainly the practice of looking for spiritual guidance from the stars was condemned in scripture. There was a pattern in the stars from which deep wisdom could be discerned but in the end the One through whom all things were made is the more reliable guide.
Supernova 1987A is a point of light in the night sky. By calculating angles relative to other points of light an estimate of distance has been arrived at givent he view that light speed is a constant in all conditions. As with a twig in water distorted to the viewer from outside the water we cannot necessarily say that the appearance matches the reality with 100% certainty. Furthermore the nature of the light observed from this star corresponds with observations made about isotopes on the Earth. Isotopes on Earth and in the conditions of our solar system appear to decay at a certain rate. Based on this rate of decay on earth we then draw conclusions about the age of isotopes on the star. As I mentioned earlier I do not really know how a star would work in a perfect state but a number of things would probably be necessary for a star to be a permanent feature of the night sky. The processes of fission and fusion - the formation and dissolution of elements would probably have to be balanced. The instability of these processes would have to be resolved and the light and therefore energy of a star given out from the star would have to be replaced in some way and absorbed elsewhere to keep everything in balance. Would atoms "decay" in the same way in sucha perfect universe or give off such harmful light. Could we envisage a continual process of dissolution and reformation which would ultimately appear quite randomn to the observor. When we examine the light spectrum today we see light as it is now but not necesasrily how it has always been or would be had the perfect connection with the Creator been maintained. Also whose to say that the presence of x amount of an element indicates that 10,000 years ago there was y amount because the rate of decay is a constant z. This depends on so many factors. is the rate of decay always a constant in every star system and over the greatest length of time and has never been overriden by other factors. I do not believe we can so with any degree of certainty. The destruction of a star is not something that I would expect to see in a perfect creation so it is a product of natural forces which have themselves gone wrong in some way. I do not know if the star over Bethlehem was a supernova or not. If it was I suppose God can use the wrongness in creation to achieve his purpose as much as the original design.

If a day is a divinely-ordained period, then the laws that impose the period of "a day" on the Earth must also be divinely-ordained - and it is those same laws that we can use to detect deep time. How is it, then, that you can be so confident that those processes would have been trustworthy to God to keep the time of a day, and yet not trustworthy to leave the evidence of deep time that we see?

If the Earth and indeed the universe can be shaken then there is no reason at all to suggest that anything about it is that constant. What is constant is God, creation is like scribbles on a blackboard that can be wiped away and redrawn.

 

[Scotishfury09]

::

Hello everyone!

Mindlight, I have a question for you, but you'll have to play along.

Suppose that everything in the universe and everything we can observe came into being exactly how scientists describe it and how the Theory of Evolution describes it. All of life was formed from the most basic organism and even our intelligence was formed through evolution (check out The Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan for an interesting read on that). Now, assume that you are a contemporary of Moses. Assume that instead of asking Moses they ask you, "how did we get here? How did everything else get here?" Through some act of God, you are able to understand everything about the universe. You know that the universe really is x years old. You know that the earth is y years old and that human beings came from the same ancestors as apes. You know that the sun-disc god Ra is completely fake, and that it's not a god at all, but really a giant ball of gas. You decide to explain to these humble people how they got here and you say...



P.S. What's your interpretation of Ecclesiastes 1:5?
The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

 

[mindlight]

::

Hello everyone!

Mindlight, I have a question for you, but you'll have to play along.

Hi, Oh go on then

Suppose that everything in the universe and everything we can observe came into being exactly how scientists describe it and how the Theory of Evolution describes it. All of life was formed from the most basic organism and even our intelligence was formed through evolution (check out The Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan for an interesting read on that).

Big assumption and I suppose you also want me to assume that I can be certain of all this.

Now, assume that you are a contemporary of Moses. Assume that instead of asking Moses they ask you, "how did we get here? How did everything else get here?"

I need to pull off the ten plagues of Egypt, feed 600,000 people in a desert from manna and quail for 40 years and spend 40 days in the presence of the Living God and then collect the handwritten words of God from a mountain that everyone else is too scared to go near to have that kind of credibility vis a vis Moses but OK

Through some act of God, you are able to understand everything about the universe.

Ah that is how I knew OK go on.

You know that the universe really is x years old. You know that the earth is y years old and that human beings came from the same ancestors as apes. You know that the sun-disc god Ra is completely fake, and that it's not a god at all, but really a giant ball of gas. You decide to explain to these humble people how they got here and you say...

Telling them not to believe in false Egyptian idols would be no problem as Moses was busy doing that also.

I think the key here is being honest. Yes I have to speak to people in a language they understand but I should not lie to them about things that I know.

I could have just said the universe is very old and started with a big bang. God guided processes that spanned thousands and millions of years and in that lengthy process he created and formed life as we see it today.

But Moses did not say that did he!? He was more detailed and more specific. So does that make Moses a liar and the story of Moses a fake? I think it would if I took the view that the consensus of modern science was correct on these issues. If he was not truly divinely inspired then Jesus legitimation of him and quoting from him is also questionable so this calls into question the authority of the gospel accounts also. Because he was divinely inspired he was able to speak of the great event of creation in an accessible language.

Having debated and discussed the authority of scripture over decades with all sorts I am convinced of its reliability and authenticity and authority. However I know a great many scientists and I know how they work and think and they deal with models of probability when it comes to questions to with the uttermost reaches of the universe and the question of our origins. This does not undermine science per see just suggest that some scientists have exceeded their remit and are telling provisional conclusions as if they were absolute truthes.

P.S. What's your interpretation of Ecclesiastes 1:5?
The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

From the existential perspective of the observor on terra firma this is what the sun does today as always. To say the sun hurries back to where it rises is a poetic way of saying that it rises in the East as always even though it sets in the West. The image of the sun running back under the earth to the place where it rises implies a geocentric vision of the solar system. If you centre yourself in the place that you are and merely observe where the sun is relative to yourself then it rises, its sets and then it hurries under the place where you stand and back to where it rises

 

[mindlight]

An interesting hymn I came across that comments on this question.

http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML

I do think creationism relies on denying the connection between the Word and Creation. "Word" is taken to refer only to the revelation of scripture. Yet that very scripture teaches us that the Word is what/who created nature and that nature is also a revealer of God.

Nor does anything in scripture teach us that the created world has become an unreliable revelation.

To me, nature is just as much the word of God as scripture. And that has been a traditional Christian teaching for many centuries. Nature is the general revelation given to all; scripture the special revelation given to God's people. Both are reliable testimonies, for both take their ultimate source in the Word itself.

The only thing that is unreliable are human interpretations of one or both revelations.

8:18 For I consider that our present sufferings cannot even be compared to the glory that will be revealed to us. 8:19 For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God. 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility – not willingly but because of God who subjected it – in hope 8:21 that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children. 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers together until now. 8:23 Not only this, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we eagerly await our adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Big assumption and I suppose you also want me to assume that I can be certain of all this.

That would be the point.
I'm not saying you HAVE to believe this, it's only for the sake of argument.

I need to pull off the ten plagues of Egypt, feed 600,000 people in a desert from manna and quail for 40 years and spend 40 days in the presence of the Living God and then collect the handwritten words of God from a mountain that everyone else is too scared to go near to have that kind of credibility vis a vis Moses but OK

Would you rather just be Moses? That's fine too, it doesn't really matter.

Telling them not to believe in false Egyptian idols would be no problem as Moses was busy doing that also.

I think the key here is being honest. Yes I have to speak to people in a language they understand but I should not lie to them about things that I know.

I could have just said the universe is very old and started with a big bang. God guided processes that spanned thousands and millions of years and in that lengthy process he created and formed life as we see it today.

Universe?! What's that? Started with a bang? Does that mean that any bang will be a catalyst for new universes (assuming you've explained a universe)? I want you to give me exactly what you would say. Simple enough to be understood, but still the truth.

But Moses did not say that did he!? He was more detailed and more specific. So does that make Moses a liar and the story of Moses a fake? I think it would if I took the view that the consensus of modern science was correct on these issues. If he was not truly divinely inspired then Jesus legitimation of him and quoting from him is also questionable so this calls into question the authority of the gospel accounts also. Because he was divinely inspired he was able to speak of the great event of creation in an accessible language.

First and foremost, I fully believe that Moses was divinely inspired. I'm not completely certain that Moses is the only writer of the Pentateuch, but that's not the topic.

Having debated and discussed the authority of scripture over decades with all sorts I am convinced of its reliability and authenticity and authority. However I know a great many scientists and I know how they work and think and they deal with models of probability when it comes to questions to with the uttermost reaches of the universe and the question of our origins. This does not undermine science per see just suggest that some scientists have exceeded their remit and are telling provisional conclusions as if they were absolute truthes.

I'm not debating the reliability of the scientific method or possible biases of said scientists.

From the existential perspective of the observor on terra firma this is what the sun does today as always. To say the sun hurries back to where it rises is a poetic way of saying that it rises in the East as always even though it sets in the West. The image of the sun running back under the earth to the place where it rises implies a geocentric vision of the solar system. If you centre yourself in the place that you are and merely observe where the sun is relative to yourself then it rises, its sets and then it hurries under the place where you stand and back to where it rises

Here's where I'm able to correct you.

The writers of the OT believed the earth was set on pillars that held the earth above the waters of the deep. They also thought that Tiamat was a resident of those waters and would eat the sun whenever it went below the earth into the waters. To them the sun actually hurried to escape the jaws of Tiamat. No poetry.

 

[gluadys]

8:18 For I consider that our present sufferings cannot even be compared to the glory that will be revealed to us. 8:19 For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God. 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility – not willingly but because of God who subjected it – in hope 8:21 that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children. 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers together until now. 8:23 Not only this, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we eagerly await our adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

And?


I don't think this passage changes the fact that creation is given to us as revelation and scripture often directs our attention to creation well after the fall as still being a reliable revelation.

I see the matter of futility and bondage to decay as related more to human dominion over creation.

I think it noteworthy that nowhere does scripture imply that the fall rescinded human dominion over nature, nor that it erased the divine image in human nature.

But clearly, once humanity was alienated from God, we were also alienated from the rest of God's creation as well, yet still had dominion over it. A recipe for futility to be sure. What purpose has creation when its lord has betrayed his Lord?

Yet creation is still God-given, still sustained by God, and the earth still provides habitation and food for all its living creatures. Creation appears to work as God intended it to work.


btw, have you ever looked into the anthropic principle? What do you think of it?

 

[Mallon]

8:18 For I consider that our present sufferings cannot even be compared to the glory that will be revealed to us. 8:19 For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God. 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility – not willingly but because of God who subjected it – in hope 8:21 that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children. 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers together until now. 8:23 Not only this, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we eagerly await our adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

Romans 1:20 also tells us that God's creation tells us about His qualities. How could this be possible if it were so corrupted as to alter the very constants God embedded in the fabric of His work?
I'm with gluadys. I don't think the "decay" you cited in Romans is anything less than moral or metaphysical.

 

[shernren]

There are half million layers - someone has calculated that these layers seem to correspond with the seasonal effects they can observe today. They have then tied these two conclusions together and said the river must therefore be 500,000 years old. In catastrophic conditions 100s or thousands of layers might have formed in hours or even minutes. There are too many places where these calculations could go wrong for me to be convinced with these kinds of evidences.

Supernova 1987A is a point of light in the night sky. By calculating angles relative to other points of light an estimate of distance has been arrived at givent he view that light speed is a constant in all conditions. As with a twig in water distorted to the viewer from outside the water we cannot necessarily say that the appearance matches the reality with 100% certainty. Furthermore the nature of the light observed from this star corresponds with observations made about isotopes on the Earth. Isotopes on Earth and in the conditions of our solar system appear to decay at a certain rate. Based on this rate of decay on earth we then draw conclusions about the age of isotopes on the star. As I mentioned earlier I do not really know how a star would work in a perfect state but a number of things would probably be necessary for a star to be a permanent feature of the night sky. The processes of fission and fusion - the formation and dissolution of elements would probably have to be balanced. The instability of these processes would have to be resolved and the light and therefore energy of a star given out from the star would have to be replaced in some way and absorbed elsewhere to keep everything in balance. Would atoms "decay" in the same way in sucha perfect universe or give off such harmful light. Could we envisage a continual process of dissolution and reformation which would ultimately appear quite randomn to the observor. When we examine the light spectrum today we see light as it is now but not necesasrily how it has always been or would be had the perfect connection with the Creator been maintained. Also whose to say that the presence of x amount of an element indicates that 10,000 years ago there was y amount because the rate of decay is a constant z. This depends on so many factors. is the rate of decay always a constant in every star system and over the greatest length of time and has never been overriden by other factors. I do not believe we can so with any degree of certainty. The destruction of a star is not something that I would expect to see in a perfect creation so it is a product of natural forces which have themselves gone wrong in some way. I do not know if the star over Bethlehem was a supernova or not. If it was I suppose God can use the wrongness in creation to achieve his purpose as much as the original design.


If the Earth and indeed the universe can be shaken then there is no reason at all to suggest that anything about it is that constant. What is constant is God, creation is like scribbles on a blackboard that can be wiped away and redrawn.

Again I am forced back to the metaphor of a shopkeeper in a china shop. He is aghast because there is an invisible bull raging amongst the shelves; but us observers cannot see a single piece of broken china on the floor, or even a single item so much as quivering on the shelves; indeed, neither can the shopkeeper. And yet the shopkeeper rages: "Get that bull out of my shop, or it will be the end of all my merchandise!"

You are, in effect, trying to tell scientists to toss out a bull which has had no effects on anything that anyone can see or touch. You refuse to accept their results with certainty, but you cannot tell me how uncertainty may have crept in. When scientists publish their results, they indeed include uncertainty estimates (it is standard practice from first year onwards) which are notably attributable to their measurement procedures - this percent from this instrument, that percent from that instrument, some amount because the chemicals may have degraded, this and that because the points don't fall on the line. You, however, would have the scientists in error by millions of percents for no appreciable physical reason.

Take for example Supernova 1987A. How do we know how far away it is? You'd be surprised. The progenitor star had emitted debris which was still orbiting around the star; as the star went supernova, light from the supernova flashed through the debris and it began lighting up ring by ring, each ring lighting up as the supernova light hit it. We on Earth could accurately track each ring lighting up, and that gave us a good measurement of how wide across the rings were - and since we know how large they appear to us, we know how far away they actually are (by basic trigonometry). By the same trigonometry, the star is about 168,000 light years away - meaning that light should take 168,000 years to get from it to us, far longer than the universe has existed according to you.

Now if light traveled faster in the past, then the rings must be bigger than we thought they were (if something faster travels the same time, it must have traveled longer), so since they appear the same size to us, they must be even farther away than 168,000 years - and so light still doesn't have enough time to reach us. If light traveled slower in the past, then obviously light hasn't had enough time to get to us from anywhere!

Or take the varves, and their cousins, the ice core records from the poles. Not only do they show yearly variations, they show patterns that spread across multiple years, including Milankovitch cycles on the order of 11,000 years. What catastrophic processes could cause those?

Nobody is denying that the universe might have behaved differently in the past; but where is the evidence that it did? We are certainly open to the possibility of an invisible bull in your china shop. But what can we do about it, and what difference does it make at all anyway, if not a single item is so much as quivering on the shelves?

Romans 1:20 also tells us that God's creation tells us about His qualities. How could this be possible if it were so corrupted as to alter the very constants God embedded in the fabric of His work?
I'm with gluadys. I don't think the "decay" you cited in Romans is anything less than moral or metaphysical.

Not to mention:

Psalm 19
For the director of music. A psalm of David.

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.

3 There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.

4 Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.


Matthew 5: 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

 

[holdon]

Now if light traveled faster in the past, then the rings must be bigger than we thought they were (if something faster travels the same time, it must have traveled longer), so since they appear the same size to us, they must be even farther away than 168,000 years - and so light still doesn't have enough time to reach us. If light traveled slower in the past, then obviously light hasn't had enough time to get to us from anywhere!

Illogical reasoning here. If we see the light of an emitting object and if that light has a certain speed, we deduct the emitting object is at a certain distance. What that has to do with "ring size" I don't know. ???
And how does it follow that "obviously light hasn't had enough time to get to us from anywhere!" ????

 

[shernren]

Illogical reasoning here. If we see the light of an emitting object and if that light has a certain speed, we deduct the emitting object is at a certain distance. What that has to do with "ring size" I don't know. ???
And how does it follow that "obviously light hasn't had enough time to get to us from anywhere!" ????

Ok. Let's say I didn't know how far away Mars is. However, I do know that the Spirit American rover is on Mars, and I know that it is in the center of a particular crater. One day I sneak into NASA headquarters and get away with the Spirit rover's remote control. (WARNING: Despite my matter-of-fact tone, this is obviously a metaphorical analogy.) I tell the rover to travel at 30m/s, and back home I get my telescope out. I determine, simply by pointing at the right spot (WARNING: analogy) that it takes the rover a good 5 minutes to get from the center of the crater to the edge.

"So what?" you ask. "All you can tell from that is that the crater is 5 minutes x 30m/s wide - it has a radius of 9km. So?" However, I can see the crater in my telescope. I can tell how big the crater looks to me. So if I can tell how big the crater looks, and I can tell how big the crater is, then I can tell how far away the crater actually is, by simple trigonometry.

Similarly: there is a ring of gas around the supernova which we can observe lighting up at the speed of light as supernova radiation passes through it. Thus we can tell how big it is, and since we know how big it looks through the telescope, we know how far away it is.

And if an object is 168,000 light years away, by definition light needs 168,000 years to get from it to us.

 

[holdon]

Ok. Let's say I didn't know how far away Mars is. However, I do know that the Spirit American rover is on Mars, and I know that it is in the center of a particular crater. One day I sneak into NASA headquarters and get away with the Spirit rover's remote control. (WARNING: Despite my matter-of-fact tone, this is obviously a metaphorical analogy.) I tell the rover to travel at 30m/s, and back home I get my telescope out. I determine, simply by pointing at the right spot (WARNING: analogy) that it takes the rover a good 5 minutes to get from the center of the crater to the edge.

"So what?" you ask. "All you can tell from that is that the crater is 5 minutes x 30m/s wide - it has a radius of 9km. So?" However, I can see the crater in my telescope. I can tell how big the crater looks to me. So if I can tell how big the crater looks, and I can tell how big the crater is, then I can tell how far away the crater actually is, by simple trigonometry.

Really? Consider this: "I saw the baseball become bigger and bigger. Then it hit me".

And if an object is 168,000 light years away, by definition light needs 168,000 years to get from it to us.

But that's just the problem with expressing distance in light years..... Because of the underlying assumptions.

 

[gluadys]

Really? Consider this: "I saw the baseball become bigger and bigger. Then it hit me".

Yes, really. And your analogy shows the same thing. The baseball looks bigger and bigger as it comes closer. If the crater on Mars was coming closer, it would look bigger and bigger too.

Because we have already measured how big it is i.e. how big it would look if we were standing on its edge, and because we know how big it looks from a distance, we can use that information to figure out how far away it is.

As shernren says, it is simple trigonometry. Even if you didn't learn it in school, it is commonly taught in Boy Scouts.

But that's just the problem with expressing distance in light years..... Because of the underlying assumptions.

It is exactly the same sort of measurement as kilowatt-hours or miles-per-gallon. What sort of underlying assumption are you speaking of?

 

[holdon]

Yes, really. And your analogy shows the same thing. The baseball looks bigger and bigger as it comes closer. If the crater on Mars was coming closer, it would look bigger and bigger too.

So, what "looks" is not the same as reality.

It is exactly the same sort of measurement as kilowatt-hours or miles-per-gallon. What sort of underlying assumption are you speaking of?

Well, I thought someone was arguing about the assumption of the constant speed of light, etc..

 

[Mallon]

So, what "looks" is not the same as reality.

Some people will say anything to avoid admitting defeat.