I am of the knowledge that we were created by God Almighty, and I believe in the literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. Therefore, I believe in the idea of a "young earth". I feel that there is a large amount of scientific evidence to support all of this. That being said, I do wonder about the ideas of lightyears. It is said that what we see at the edge of the galaxy, or universe, one, is so far away that it happened billions of years ago, but the light is just now reaching Earth. Now, since I don't believe that Earth, or anything else for that matter, even existed billions of years ago, I am wondering how one would explain the idea of lightyears, and us seeing things that are suppossedly billions of lightyears away. Does anyone have any possible answers?
age of the earth and lightyears
- Thread starter lighting the day
- Start date
Bushido216
Well-Known Member
- Aug 30, 2003
- 6,383
- 210
- 38
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The only answer is that the Universe isn't 6,000 years old. Infact, neither is the Earth. I believe the current theory is that the Universe is ~14 billion years old and the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old.
Upvote
0
First I would be curious to see what this evidence that supports a young earth is, as I have a good feeling it is false evidence (possibly pratt list items, that would be evidence that has been refuted many many times).
Second, there are a couple possibilities.
1) God created light, en route. So what we see in space was faked by god to appear older than it was. God even red shifted the light to make it appear that these galaxies are moving away from us.
This is not scientifically testable, and is not the best theological positions.
2) Light moved much quicker in the past. This is called the c Decay theory and has been falsified. Faster light in the past would have effects on many things, including decay rates of isotopes. A huge increase would cause many stability issues and would result all sorts of problems in the past, from exploding stars to melting planets. None of that has been observed. The change would also be observable in how light interacts with distant objects. More can be found about c Decay, as i am not well versed in it.
3) The Earth and universe is really old and genesis is not literal.
Second, there are a couple possibilities.
1) God created light, en route. So what we see in space was faked by god to appear older than it was. God even red shifted the light to make it appear that these galaxies are moving away from us.
This is not scientifically testable, and is not the best theological positions.
2) Light moved much quicker in the past. This is called the c Decay theory and has been falsified. Faster light in the past would have effects on many things, including decay rates of isotopes. A huge increase would cause many stability issues and would result all sorts of problems in the past, from exploding stars to melting planets. None of that has been observed. The change would also be observable in how light interacts with distant objects. More can be found about c Decay, as i am not well versed in it.
3) The Earth and universe is really old and genesis is not literal.
Upvote
0
lighting the day said:
Basically, you have outlined another great argument against a literal interpretation of the creation story. The only answer I have is that we are seeing things that are billions of light years away.
Upvote
0
MartinM
GondolierAce
You basically have 4 options:
1) Stuff isn't really as far out as it seems
2) The speed of light has changed drastically over the lifetime of the Universe
3) Time runs, or once ran, very slowly on Earth compared to elsewhere in the Universe
4) The Universe is billions of years old
Unfortunately for you, 1-3 are demonstrably false.
1) Stuff isn't really as far out as it seems
2) The speed of light has changed drastically over the lifetime of the Universe
3) Time runs, or once ran, very slowly on Earth compared to elsewhere in the Universe
4) The Universe is billions of years old
Unfortunately for you, 1-3 are demonstrably false.
Upvote
0
Looking at other threads, I have seen the idea that God created the Universe with the appearance of age, just as he did Adam. What is to disprove this?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Upvote
0
J
Jet Black
Guest
there is absolutely nothing to disprove that. Of course one cannot disprove that it was made last tuesday either. The problem with the appearance of age argument, is that it makes God a deciever, since he intentionally put things there that never happened, for example SN1987A, complete with neutrino emissions, decay curves, dust cloud formation.... the lot. look up Oomphalos.
Upvote
0
lighting the day said:
If you believe in a tricky deity then no amount evidence can disprove anything, for that omniscient trickster could have fabricated everything to fool you. The question is, do you really believe that God created the universe and us as a great cosmological joke? Do you really believe He is malevolently bent on fooling those He created in the image of Him? Why would He lead his own worshippers into temptation through these pernicious acts of subterfuge?
Upvote
0
What Jet said. 
There is no way to disprove it, however it also means that there is no way to disprove the idea that god created the universe last week and Jesus is just a figment of your imagination. It also means god created the earth with animal fossils, from animals that were never alive to begin with. He created mutiple radiometric decay systems all so that they would line up and say the earth was old. He would be a deciever, a liar and thats not good.
There is a difference between creating adam grown up and creating him with a scar from the appendix surgery he never had, but he thinks he had, another scar from falling off a swing when he was a child, which never really happend, etc.
There is no way to disprove it, however it also means that there is no way to disprove the idea that god created the universe last week and Jesus is just a figment of your imagination. It also means god created the earth with animal fossils, from animals that were never alive to begin with. He created mutiple radiometric decay systems all so that they would line up and say the earth was old. He would be a deciever, a liar and thats not good.
There is a difference between creating adam grown up and creating him with a scar from the appendix surgery he never had, but he thinks he had, another scar from falling off a swing when he was a child, which never really happend, etc.
lighting the day said:
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
Talcos Stormweaver
Fighter of Ignorance!
Before I begin, I believe that this is a contridiction of the principles of scientific learning. You are assuming that your scientific theory is correct, and you are trying to find evidence to support it, in turn supporting your literalist belief. However, one does not go selectively looking for answers. Rather yet, as evidence is presented, the theory is modified, or it is dropped. If you can not explain how evidence, such as the light from the many stars from afar (amognst other things), then it falsifies your theory. However, you should be aware that this does not falsify your belief, unless you have intertwined your faith with the accuracy of the evidence that you have at your side to support your theory and belief, which is most likely.
Now, the current supporting idea is that either God created the Earth and the universe as a mature being, or perhaps the speed of light has been slowing down since the act of creation, accounting for the changes. However, either argument has its strong and negative points, and I suggest you listen to those far wiser than me for such answers.
Upvote
0
fragmentsofdreams
Critical loyalist
lighting the day said:
It makes God into the Deceiver, the position Satan in Christian theology.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
The problem isn't scientific, but theological.lighting the day said:
God could've done it that way and gone through a lot of trouble to make it look like He hadn't, but that would make Him a liar, unworthy of worship, wouldn't you agree?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,141
- 51,515
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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
Lethe
Well-Known Member
- Jul 14, 2011
- 1,229
- 33
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Married
This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It is therefore useless.
Here's another example demonstrating why it is not a proper line of reasoning: God created the world last Thursday. The world was created in such a way that all of our memories and buildings and factories and so forth, were created just as we saw them last Thursday.
Prove me wrong.
Upvote
0
BarryDesborough
Well-Known Member
There is much unnecessary evidence for age. Young Earth creationists essentially maintain that God is a liar and a cheat. Sensible Christians undertand that the evidence is what it appears to be - evidence for age, and the discrepancy between scripture and reality is down, either to the culture at the time of writing, or to crude literal modern interpretations.
Upvote
0
BarryDesborough
Well-Known Member
And who is responsible for the thread necromancy? (mousey-mousey, clickety-click...) Ah! I see!
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
Similar threads
