shinbits said:
Okay. What basic law of physics says that stars need time to "adjust" after being created? And how much time would they need, according to physics?[/
The answer to this question would basically prove your point, at least on the question of stars needing time to adjust.
Of course, that's after some logical follow up questions, if there are any to be asked.
Lets be clear here - if God did this in some supernatural manner that violated standard physics then this question is meaningless.
But if you want stars to form a few thousand years ago "naturally" then they would not be in thermal equilibrium. They would then have to adjust their structure in accord to thermodynamics and fluid dynamics. This is straightforward to calculate. I even gave the approx. formula earlier. For the Sun this thermal adjustment timescale is about 10 million years or so.
Now the Sun appears as a body in hydrostatic, thermal and nuclear equilibrium. Thus it appears as it should if it is very old. The only way you could have made it a few thousand years ago and have it appear as it does is to do it all outside of physics (supernaturally.)
But this means God created the stars to appear old but in your reality they are not. This is the fake history problem.
It's not a false history or bad theology. If God made the universe only a few thousand years ago, wouldn't He want man to enjoy His creation? Wouldn't He want to show off His Glory and the work of His hands? Why would God want to wait millions of years for this to happen?
Why didn't he do it last Thursday? This is terrible theology the creating of false hstories which deceive us. That is not God but the work of the devil.
A universe only a few thousand years old wouldn't a change in the current physics of stars.
Poorly written so I don't get the question.
Well, as mentioned before, the light could've started reaching earth at a much closer distance, then moved away from the earth as the universe expanding, making more space between celestial systems. It could've started out taking only a few weeks to reach earth at first, and as it reached earth, and moving away as the universe expanded.
How can the light move backwards? You also are implying a known incorrect expansion rate.
If I had a powerful flashlight pointed at a wall, kept the light from it steadily pointing at the wall, and drove away in a car with someone at the wheel---
If someone tried to measure how old that light was and started first by measuring the distance of the source, then calculating the speed of light, they would come up with the wrong age. That's because it did not take however many seconds for the light to get there; there light was always there.
You cannot measure how "old" light is. You measure the distance by some other method and then infer how long ago the light was emitted.
You are hopelessly confused here. When you see the light on the ground it isn't the same photons stuck on the ground which is what you seem to be saying. This is just bizarre.
So if the universe was created, the light could've taken only a few weeks to reach, as it moved away from earth, with the spreading of the galaxy.
The expansion really oly takes affect on large length scales. The galaxy is a gravitationally bound system and effectively does not take part in the expansion within itself. This is a common misconception.
And if earth is only a few thousand years old, and it only took, say a few weeks for the light to initially reach it, that means that the stars would only be a few thousand years old also.
No it doesn't. Again you are really really confused here.
As mentioned, no one knows how fast the universe was initially moving at creation. And if it's believable that the Big Bang's "explosion" made the universe move at many times the spead of light, initially, then it is believable, that the universe could've moved that fast initially, at creation.
Does that make sense?
No it doesn't. Your question is about as sensible as asking what is the colour of smell.
