• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

How can we see distant stars in a young universe?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by caddy, Apr 13, 2005.

  1. Physics_guy

    Physics_guy Well-Known Member

    +57
    Besides the lunacy of having an ice layer surrounding the world (pressure, heat transfer, etc) you also need to understand that magnification has nothing to do with whether or not light froma distant star had time to reach Earth or not. Furthermore, water (or ice) does not magnify - curved water/ice does, just as any object with a curved surface that has a slower rate of light propagation than air will have a magnifying effect.

    Now please, if you are going to use the ludicrous "God created the light already on the way" argument, explain to me why God would then create light coming from stars that never actually existed (for example SN1987a is a supernova that was observed in 1987 that was measured through fairly simple and very accurate trigonometry to be 187,000 light years away - thus that means either the light left that star 187,000 years ago, or 6,000 years ago God created light from a star that never existed and showed a false history).

    Even Humphreys is not using this ridiculous argument anymore, though his is at least as ridiculous to anyone with even a single course in graduate level GR.
     
  2. Physics_guy

    Physics_guy Well-Known Member

    +57
    Ok - I guess you believe in a deceiver God who creates false histories and images of non-existant evenets. Pretty poor theology if you ask me - but if you want to believe it go ahead.
     
  3. Matthew777

    Matthew777 Faith is the evidence of things unseen

    +95
    Christian
    Private
    US-Others
    In the Genesis account, we read that God created the stars in an instant to light up the night sky. Why then would He not create them in such a way that the light would reach our earth?
     
  4. Hydra009

    Hydra009 bel esprit

    +334
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    No, we don't.

    Genesis 1:3. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

    Do you see "in an instant" anywhere?
     
  5. Physics_guy

    Physics_guy Well-Known Member

    +57
    Ok - again with the light was created en route idea. That is great idea except light is not just brightness, it also carries information. This information can form images and a history that would mean God create things that never actually existed. See the paradox there?
     
  6. Self Improvement

    Self Improvement Well-Known Member

    +70
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    How so? Science doesn't "proved" things false.

    Nope, doesn't have anything to do with evolution and science does not deal with proofs.
     
  7. Self Improvement

    Self Improvement Well-Known Member

    +70
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Just another pathetic explaination for something you can't explain. Give it up already.

    I can see a star 1 million light years away it already falsifies a young Earth.
     
  8. Dale

    Dale Senior Veteran Supporter

    +1,050
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Quote given by The Magi in post #5:
    <<That is, they[big bang theorists] make arbitrary assumption (without any scientific necessity) that the universe has no boundaries—no edge and no center. >>

    What in blazes would a decisive EDGE to the universe look like? What material would we expect this thing to be made of?
     
  9. Randall McNally

    Randall McNally Secrecy and accountability cannot coexist.

    +130
    Agnostic
    US-Others
    That's not correct. At least not in Florida. The state-mandated high school biology text is Holt's Modern Biology. Abiogenesis is included in the unit on evolution, but it is clearly demarcated with a separate section. The Miller-Urey experiment is described in some detail, as are the more modern theories about the Earth's early atmosphere that are seemingly incompatible with Miller & Urey's model.

    As always, my challenge to creationists to demonstrate the widely-claimed-but-rarely-seen errors of fact in school textbooks remains.
     
  10. anunbeliever

    anunbeliever Veteran

    +42
    Agnostic
    I read Humphreys book and i actually appreciated where he was coming from. He cant deny that the universe is old. He explains reasons why other YEC theories like 'slow light', 'God stretched the light back to the source', and 'distance measurements are wrong' dont work. He tries to reconcile an old universe with a young Earth. His theory is that the Earth is at the centre of the universe and that, during creation week, it was within a shrinking event horizon. Time outside of the event horizon passed much faster than time within the horizon. Hence millions of years past outside for days passing on Earth.

    I'll leave it to physicists and mathamaticians to explain why his theory is wrong. There are enough evidences for an old Earth and an old solar system to debunk it for me.
     
  11. MartinM

    MartinM GondolierAce

    +239
    Atheist
    Engaged
    http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n2_cosmology.pdf

    This one's even more interesting. AiG's John Hartnett reviews the existing creationist proposals for solving this thorny problem, explains the problems with each of them, and proposes his own.

    Problem is, having shot down every other solution creationists like to bring up - including Humphreys' joke of a model - his own model is, shall we say, somewhat lacking:

    Meaing that Hartnett can pick the rate to make his numbers come out any way he likes - as you'll see in the section marked 'calculations'.

    Note the total absence of any mechanism for this to actually happen. Sounds suspiciously like 'a miracle happened'.

    Yup. Hartnett's solution is, indeed, nothing more than 'Goddidit'.

    Possibly something to do with the fact that it makes no predictions at all.

    In other words, no scientific explanation of creation is possible, and 'creation science' is an oxymoron.

    ...no non-physical requirements are placed on the model? The laws of physics are suspended! How much more non-physical could it get?



    So basically, Hartnett, one of AiG's own physicists, denounces the existing creationist attempts to explain the light from distant sources, denies the possibility of a scientific explanation altogether, and resorts to invoking a miracle.

    So much for 'creation science'.
     
  12. anunbeliever

    anunbeliever Veteran

    +42
    Agnostic
    Ive heard variants of this. Some say the universe is old whilst the Earth is young. Others say both the universe and the Earth are old, but in Genesis 1:1 God recreated the surface of the Earth and all life on it. Others say that life here evolved over millions of years, but God first intervened when he made homo sapiens into a spiritual being. All require miracles (not that there's anything wrong with that).
     
  13. MartinM

    MartinM GondolierAce

    +239
    Atheist
    Engaged
    So long as they don't want to call it science, yes.
     
  14. 3Amig(o)s

    3Amig(o)s 3Amig(o)s

    151
    +5
    Non-Denom
    I really don't see what's wrong with a miracle? I mean he is God, right? Can't he do anything?

    Anyway, you guys CAN'T say that your "BELIEF" in Evolution is not a type of religion/faith/belief system...

    1. You have to BELIEVE there's no God

    2. You have to BELIEVE that either:
    A. Matter has always been here
    B. Matter was created by something, but where did this creator come from - is he a GOD? Was it always here? Therefore it is a GOD, correct?
    C. OTHER?

    3. You have to BELIEVE all the rest of your theories are correct because you really were NOT there when you BELIEVE it happened. I mean you can't really PROVE it. There's no footage of those phenomenoms happening...correct?

    Heck, I, a Christian, BELIEVE there is a GOD. I admit mine is a religion/faith/belief system...

    How about you? Will YOU admit it?
     
  15. raphael_aa

    raphael_aa Wild eyed liberal

    +118
    Christian
    Married

    You're making an error assuming that christianity is in some way opposed to evolution. Most christians in the world have no problem with evolution. Evolution says nothing about God in the same way the theory of gravity says nothing about God. Evolution (and gravity) rest upon evidence.
     
  16. 3Amig(o)s

    3Amig(o)s 3Amig(o)s

    151
    +5
    Non-Denom
    Well, as far as the light from stars "millions of LY away"...

    The way I see it is KIND OF the big bang way. What I mean is that I believe that it all started at a single point - GOD. He said "Let there be..." and it expanded from there. I think that when GOD made the light back then, He made it travel alot faster as the galaxies, planets, and stars were expanding away from Him - maybe even faster than it was expanding.

    Now, I do believe that this clears up the whole thing on the starlight issue (although this is just MY thoughts on what HE might have done...)

    Anyway. I don't really see what the problem is for God to do a miracle. What gives you the right to write it all off as though there is a rule book? I know that you guys would say that this would have nothing to do with creation science and all but I mean, HE'S GOD...miracles are HIS business I mean, when God created matter, wasn't THAT a miracle? I guess what I'm trying to figure out is what things (in your opinion) can't be miracles? Can there be no miracles for you guys to accept it? How far does it go? How much can be miracles and how much not? I mean HE IS GOD! I guess you guys don't like the idea that if there is a "blank", and we can't fill that blank by natural explanations, GOD fills it. Well, sry. I guess you guys will have to talk to HIM about that one...

    I think what you guys want is a logical explanation for everything. Well that's not logical. Further more, GOD is not logical (at least from a humanistic mindset). Not even you guys have a logical explanation for everything you believe. You try...but no cigar. YES, you study and learn more, but right now evolution (and everything that has to do with it) is still a religion in the sense that the are still unanswered questions, and you have to BELIEVE that certain things that you guys don't know about yet, are true. Not to mention that there are so many new theories and hypothesis coming out all the time. It's hard to know what to trust at the same time as you are trying to refute as you learn. That really goes for both sides. You know this well enough.

    Well, that said, off to bed!

    peace guys.

    amigooo
     
  17. 3Amig(o)s

    3Amig(o)s 3Amig(o)s

    151
    +5
    Non-Denom
    Well, although your assumption is incorrect because of the problems evolution makes for Genesis etc,

    I was wondering where you got your statistcs when you said: "Most christians in the world have no problem with evolution."...?
     
  18. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    the Miller Urey experiments were proof of the abiotic synthesis of amino acids and other important chemicals. Please find me a sience book that treats these experiments as a "valid proof of evolution" I would be most fascinated. Creationists often claim that textbooks do this, but when asked all the textbooks seem to vanish.
    really? did you actaully read the link you posted? your statement that you are unfamiliar with Humphreys indicates that you don't actually have a clue as to what is "very interesting" and are simply accepting anything you want to hear.
     
  19. raphael_aa

    raphael_aa Wild eyed liberal

    +118
    Christian
    Married
    The leadership of the largest denominations have all made public statements of their support for evolution as not inconsistent with christianity. Most non-fundamentalist Biblical commentaries interpret Genisis in an allegorical way. The virulent creationist stance especially in public education is a particularly American phenomenom although it is possible given the poll results below even this is misrepresented.


    In a new nationwide poll on the subject, conducted by the polling firm headed by Daniel Yankelovich and commissioned by People For the American Way Foundation, 83 percent of Americans express the view that it's Darwin's theory of evolution, nor creationism, that belongs in science class.

    Question: Agree or disagree: A person
    can believe in evolution and still
    believe God created humans and
    guided their development?

    All Americans
    [*]
    Agree 68%
    Disagree 28%
    Not sure 4%
    (*.)Americans who have heard of
    the term evolution (95% of the total)

    The view of Genisis as allegorical in no way diminishes its value as a text nor its inspiration by God. The view that one particular interpretation of scripture holds the holy high ground is demonstratably false given the thousands of denominations who each hold that their interpretation is the correct one.
     
  20. caddy

    caddy Junior Member

    41
    +1
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    I stand Corrected: Biogenesis, which then leads down the road to Evolutionary thoughts and Concepts:

    at the time Miller was relying heavily on the atmospheric theories of his doctoral advisor, Nobel laureate Harold Urey. Did he create the correct atmosphere or not? Nobody knows for sure, but the consensus is that the atmosphere was not at all like the one Miller used. Miller chose a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor, which is consistent with what many scientist thought back then. Issue: Scientist don't believe that anymore. In the 1960s the evidence for it was little, by the 70s, chemists--Marcel Florkin said the "concept behind Miller's theory of the early atmosphere 'has been abandoned'. But IT IS STILL MENTIONED as though it were fact in the text books. TypeSAddict seems so convincing and convinced that it is True. Why? Two leading origin-of-life researchers, Klaus Dose and Sidney Fox, confirmed that Miller had used the wrong gas mixture. In 1995 Science magazine experts now dismiss Miller's experiment because the "early atmosphere" looked nothng like the Miller-Urey simulation.

    What's the best hypothesis today? That there was very little hydrogen in the atmosphere because it would have escaped into space. They say that it probably consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. So why is Miller-Urey still presented since most since the 60s say NO! Good question.

    So, let's replay and assume we have the correct atmosphere. What do we get? "Not amino acids" says Wells, "what we get are Formaldehyde and Cynaide! Chemicals certainly not conducive to bulding life, on the contrary, they destroy life and cells. Very toxic stuff.

    Let's assume again that someday a scientists actually are successful at producing amino acids from a realistic atmosphere. Wells says "it's not chemically possible, but lets assume." How far would that be from creating a living cell?
    "Very far, Incredibly far" he says. That would be the first step in an extremely complicated process. You would have to get the right number of the right kinds of amino acids to link up to create a protein molecule--and that would still be a long way from a living cell. Then you'd need dozens of protein molecules, again in the right sequence, to create a living cell. The odds against this are astonishing. "The gap between nonliving chemicals and even the most primitive living organism is absolutely tremendous."

    Illustration: "Put a sterile, balanced salt soltion in a test tube. Then put in a single living cell and poke a hole in it so that its contents leak into the solution. Now the test tube has alll the molecules you would need to create a living cell, right? You would already have accomplished far more than what the Miller experiment ever could--you've got all the components you need for life."
    The problem is "you can't make a living cell," he said. "There's not even any point in trying. It would be like a physicist doing an experiment to see if he can get a rock to fall upwards all the way to the moon. No biologist in his right mind would think you can take a test tube with those molecules and turn them into a living cell.

    Point being, even if you can accomplish the thousands of steps between amino acids in the Miller-Urey "TAR"--which probably didn't exist in the real world anyway--and the components you need for a living cell--all the enzymes, the DNA, and so forth--you're still immeasurably far from life. Period


    "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive." Blaise Pascal, The Art Of Persuasion



     
Loading...