LCMS and Distant Starlight Problem

[FaithT]

The LCMS believes in a young earth so how can we see stars many light years away? I’ve read up on this but much of it is over my head, plus they each have problems of their own, or so they say. There’s a new solution called the “dasha theory”.
How does the LCMS reconcile a young earth with the distant starlight problem?

 

[The Transcendentian]

The LCMS believes in a young earth so how can we see stars many light years away? I’ve read up on this but much of it is over my head, plus they each have problems of their own, or so they say. There’s a new solution called the “dasha theory”.
How does the LCMS reconcile a young earth with the distant starlight problem?

I like to use the gravity well theory to explain this.

 

[Till Schilling]

The LCMS believes in a young earth so how can we see stars many light years away? I’ve read up on this but much of it is over my head, plus they each have problems of their own, or so they say. There’s a new solution called the “dasha theory”.
How does the LCMS reconcile a young earth with the distant starlight problem?

Hi Hope,

Obviously the topic of origins is quite important to you.

I do not know the answer of the LCMS to your particular question, but from everything we read from Daniel and Mark and also from what you can read on their website and from what I know about the LCMS they would not want to give you a specific scientific answer to this - and many other - questions regards origin. They are a church body, not a group of scientists. Their doctrine is not based on science but on Scriptures. where there seems to be a contradiction between science and Scriptures they choose to trust Scriptures more and believe that the act of creation as a miracolous act of God cannot be examined or measured by science. In that sense they might - not sure but might - say that God ceated a universe with light rays of these planets already in it.

I think that you will have to come to terms with the fact that the church you now belong to, officially teaches a young earth creation. But you as a member are not required to agree on this. So I encourage you to see the positive side of this: the LCMS's theology, their view of the world and of history makes sense and is undoubtedly biblical.

Because giving up on young earth creation creates a lot of theological problems: what about the fallenness of creation? The violence, sicknesses and death in nature - was it created by God? Why would God create such a world? These and other questions are avoided by teaching young earth creation.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Sometimes I wonder whether people actually read the Bible. It clearly says in Genesis 1:14-19

"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, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 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. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."

So, since God created the stars to serve as signs He certainly did not let us wait millions of years until the light actually reached the earth and could be used as signs. "And God saw that it was good". God didn't create some imperfect universe and let the earth sit in darkness for millions of years. If God is capable of creating the stars then He certainly is also capable of creating the light beams from the stars to the earth.

Also remember that the scientific appearance of something is not proof of its age. God created Adam as a grown man and not as a baby. Adam appeared to be ~30 years old while in fact he was just a couple of minutes old. The light of the stars appears to be millions of years old (only determined by the distance of the stars and not by measuring the "age of the light" itself) while it is just as old as the earth itself.
There is no scientific method to find out what God created and what not, and when science tries to interpret the data regarding old ages it has to rely on assumptions that exclude God.

 

[Till Schilling]

Also remember that the scientific appearance of something is not proof of its age. God created Adam as a grown man and not as a baby. Adam appeared to be ~30 years old while in fact he was just a couple of minutes old. The light of the stars appears to be millions of years old (only determined by the distance of the stars and not by measuring the "age of the light" itself) while it is just as old as the earth itself.
There is no scientific method to find out what God created and what not, and when science tries to interpret the data regarding old ages it has to rely on assumptions that exclude God.

That would probably be the LCMS's answer to Hope's question.

However, the idea leads to a problem: God creates a universe which misleads humans. God gives human reason and the ability to do science but then misleads them. So how can we then gain knowledge? Knowledge about our natural environment that is. How can we ever be sure that our understanding of the laws of nature are not misguided and wrong? The result is that people do not believe anything to be true anymore. Everything is put into question. In its most condensed conclusion "science do not matter" leads to trusting in wild conspiracy theories like QAnon etc.

In other words: your statement pulls the earth under the foundations of science.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

That would probably be the LCMS's answer to Hope's question.

However, the idea leads to a problem: God creates a universe which misleads humans. God gives human reason and the ability to do science but then misleads them. So how can we then gain knowledge? Knowledge about our natural environment that is. How can we ever be sure that our understanding of the laws of nature are not misguided and wrong? The result is that people do not believe anything to be true anymore. Everything is put into question. In its most condensed conclusion "science do not matter" leads to trusting in wild conspiracy theories like QAnon etc.

In other words: your statement pulls the earth under the foundations of science.

Not at all. You sound as if "science" is all about the origin of the universe. Science is 99.999% not about the origin of the universe and not mislead at all. Physics and chemistry, basically all laws of nature, are independent of the origin of the universe - simply because they describe the existing universe and don't try to explain the universe.

I don't know how much you know about the "scientific" methods to gain knowledge about the origin of the universe. If you dive a bit deeper into the matter you will realize rather quickly that the methods used to make statements about the beginning of the universe (and about anything that's many thousands or "millions" of years ago) all rely on assumptions. You can only make statements about the unobserved past if you assume that all processes as we see them today have been the same throughout the past. Any change, even natural disasters and catastrophies, can cause your assumptions to be wrong.
Some of the assumptions still being used to determine the age of the universe have already been proven to be wrong or at least called into question.

There is nothing wrong with doing science regarding observable things and time, but as soon as you try to make statements about something that happened "long, long ago" which nobody observed there is little scientific about it anymore.

Acknowledging God as almighty Creator does by no means make science irrelevant or meaningless. Did you not know that the greatest scientists of all times believed in God? People like Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton and many others started doing science in the first place because they expected there to be order in nature, because they believed in a God who created everything and who is not a God of chaos.

Even Albert Einstein, who believed in a Creator but not in a personal God, wrote: "The scientist's religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

 

[Till Schilling]

If you dive a bit deeper into the matter you will realize rather quickly that the methods used to make statements about the beginning of the universe (and about anything that's many thousands or "millions" of years ago) all rely on assumptions. You can only make statements about the unobserved past if you assume that all processes as we see them today have been the same throughout the past.
...
There is nothing wrong with doing science regarding observable things and time, but as soon as you try to make statements about something that happened "long, long ago" which nobody observed there is little scientific about it anymore.
"

Where is the unscientific assumption in radiometric dating?

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Where is the unscientific assumption in radiometric dating?

Depends on which radiometric method you are talking about exactly, but most of them assume 3 things:
1) You have to know the initial concentration in the rock, therefore the first assumption is that no daughter-element was present in the rock when it was formed
2) For radiometric dating to work there must not be any measured elements (for example uranium and lead) leaching in or out of the rock over the years. If it's not a closed system the dating method will fail.
3) The decay rate must have been the same throughout the past. If the decay rate was different 200 million (or 5 thousand) years ago then the radiometric dating will fail. So we have to assume that no neutrino bombardment happened in the past, nor similar events influencing the decay.

 

[Till Schilling]

Depends on which radiometric method you are talking about exactly, but most of them assume 3 things:
1) You have to know the initial concentration in the rock, therefore the first assumption is that no daughter-element was present in the rock when it was formed
2) For radiometric dating to work there must not be any measured elements (for example uranium and lead) leaching in or out of the rock over the years. If it's not a closed system the dating method will fail.
3) The decay rate must have been the same throughout the past. If the decay rate was different 200 million (or 5 thousand) years ago then the radiometric dating will fail. So we have to assume that no neutrino bombardment happened in the past, nor similar events influencing the decay.

Those are not philosophical assumptions but - openly admitted - technical conditions which can impact the result of the measuring. In that sense „assumptions“ exist also when observing something happening today. Which is why scientists try to get a lot of data and use statistical methods. To get the best results.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Those are not philosophical assumptions but - openly admitted - technical conditions which can impact the result of the measuring. In that sense „assumptions“ exist also when observing something happening today. Which is why scientists try to get a lot of data and use statistical methods. To get the best results.

Why would you expect "philosophical assumptions" in science?? Of course the assumptions made in science are of technical nature - yet wrong assumptions are wrong assumptions.
There can be indeed daughter-elements be present when the rock is forming, it has been shown that rocks are not a closed system and whether the decay rate has always been the same cannot be proven nor disproven. 2 out of 3 assumptions are false and the methods are still being used because there is no other way to get "millions of years" which are necessary for evolution to work. Whoever calls this "scientific" has either not understood the problem or refuses to acknowledge the obvious.

 

[d taylor]

There is no problem of distant star light, because star light is not distant. At least distant as in billion, trillion light years/ miles away.

The sun, moon and stars are placed in the raqia above the earth possibly 1000 to 5000 miles up.

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth,

 

[FaithT]

There is no problem of distant star light, because star light is not distant. At least distant as in billion, trillion light years/ miles away.

The sun, moon and stars are placed in the raqia above the earth possibly 1000 to 5000 miles up.

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth,

Um....that’s wrong.

 

[d taylor]

Um....that’s wrong.

The Bible is correct in all matters.

 

[FaithT]

Stars are many light years away and God created both the stars and planets.

 

[d taylor]

Stars are many light years away and God created both the stars and planets.

There is no account anywhere in the Bible of God creating planets, especially in Genesis 1 where the creation account is given (sun, moon and stars). And ends at the start of genesis 2 stating Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.

Paul never mentions planets in 1 Corinthians 15
There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

 

[FaithT]

There is no account anywhere in the Bible of God creating planets, especially in Genesis 1 where the creation account is given (sun, moon and stars). And ends at the start of genesis 2 stating Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.

Paul never mentions planets in 1 Corinthians 15
There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

Anybody else want to take this one? Just please stay on topic.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Anybody else want to take this one? Just please stay on topic.

I'm in no way trying to sound rude towards d_taylor, but if you, dear Hope1960, want to discuss the topic from a Lutheran and/or scientific point of view then there is no use in arguing with a flat-earther. Perhaps skip those inputs...

 

[Daniel9v9]

Thanks for the invite @Hope1960!

I don't have much to add to this as I think the previous thread about Hugh Ross was fairly exhaustive. For a summary, see Hugh Ross and Reasons To Believe

And as a simple recap, when we rightly understand the doctrines of God being almighty and that He created the universe out of nothing, it makes the problem void.

God created the universe mature with all of the characteristics of a mature universe, just as He created Adam and Eve mature — And this is certainly not a deception, for this is exactly what He says He did in His Word. That is, God didn't have to wait for the stars to emit light that reached the earth, but He simply spoke the stars into existence, with the conditions that the light reached our planet from the beginning. This is well within His power, and if He said He did it, which He did, then we can trust it.

Lastly, I want to stress that the Bible and hard science are in perfect agreement (though the hard sciences cannot account for miracles, and that's important to take notice of because the creation and the fall are miracles, that is, contrary to natural law as we know it). Where the disagreement comes in is between the Bible and theoretical science. So, we affirm hard science, but we are not inclined to believe theoretical science if it goes against the plain reading of Scripture.

Here's a document the LCMS produced explaining the proper relationship between science and faith, and I think it covers several important things that are good to appreciate for a fuller understanding of this whole controversy:
http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=3469

That's going to be it for me on this! Happy discussion and God bless +

 

[FaithT]

Thanks for the invite @Hope1960!

I don't have much to add to this as I think the previous thread about Hugh Ross was fairly exhaustive. For a summary, see Hugh Ross and Reasons To Believe

And as a simple recap, when we rightly understand the doctrines of God being almighty and that He created the universe out of nothing, it makes the problem void.

God created the universe mature with all of the characteristics of a mature universe, just as He created Adam and Eve mature — And this is certainly not a deception, for this is exactly what He says He did in His Word. That is, God didn't have to wait for the stars to emit light that reached the earth, but He simply spoke the stars into existence, with the conditions that the light reached our planet from the beginning. This is well within His power, and if He said He did it, which He did, then we can trust it.

Lastly, I want to stress that the Bible and hard science are in perfect agreement (though the hard sciences cannot account for miracles, and that's important to take notice of because the creation and the fall are miracles, that is, contrary to natural law as we know it). Where the disagreement comes in is between the Bible and theoretical science. So, we affirm hard science, but we are not inclined to believe theoretical science if it goes against the plain reading of Scripture.

Here's a document the LCMS produced explaining the proper relationship between science and faith, and I think it covers several important things that are good to appreciate for a fuller understanding of this whole controversy:
http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=3469

That's going to be it for me on this! Happy discussion and God bless +

What’s theoretical science?

 

[Daniel9v9]

What’s theoretical science?

Theoretical science is theories based on evidence that has been interpreted. It's not "stone-cold hard facts", as you put it in a different thread. It's theory and closely connected with and often intermingled with philosophy or even ancient religious ideas.

Hard science, however, is hard facts. An example of this could be "1+1=2", where there is no interpretation involved.

Now, some scientists argue against the distinction between theoretical and hard science. However, it gets convoluted and somewhat ironic, because again, it becomes a philosophical debate, and not a debate about science, properly speaking.

In other words, how the word "science" is thrown around in our day, is often more correctly "theoretical science", which is heavily influenced by philosophy. I can add to this that the area of theoretical science is progressive, meaning it's changeable, whereas hard science is fixed, it's unchangeable. God's Word is also unchangeable, which is why it agrees with hard science, but not always with the various theories in the field of theoretical science.