Speed of light

[turlockmike]

I am a Christian but I have a hard time coinciding a literal 6 day creation alongside the fact that we can see stars millions of light years away. Does anyone have a sciencetific explaination and I mean a good one. I've taken plenty of physics in college so please don't respong with "God made it so it appears that way". Thanks....

 

[USincognito]

This is the formal debate subforum. You might try restarting this thread in the main Crevo forum.
http://www.christianforums.com/f70

 

[LeeC]

I am a Christian but I have a hard time coinciding a literal 6 day creation alongside the fact that we can see stars millions of light years away. Does anyone have a sciencetific explaination and I mean a good one. I've taken plenty of physics in college so please don't respong with "God made it so it appears that way". Thanks....

Good start... thinking, questioning.

The answer is simple... The universe is 13.7 billion years old and the universe is very large.

Many Christians also believe this is true.

If you want more details, i.e. why I believe this - then please ask.



Lee

 

[Graham4C]

please don't respong with "God made it so it appears that way".

Bad argument.
If you veiw things that way, then you surely cannot accept "God made humans appear this way" or "God made the Earth appear this way".

The bible says that God made the stars. Why would he create them so they cannot be seen untill millions of years after creation? The answer is that He wouldn't.

So your answer IS "God made them appear that way"

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Bad argument.
If you veiw things that way, then you surely cannot accept "God made humans appear this way" or "God made the Earth appear this way".

The bible says that God made the stars. Why would he create them so they cannot be seen untill millions of years after creation? The answer is that He wouldn't.

So you answer IS "God made them appear that way"

I disagree. The more likely answer is that the universe is 12-13 billion years old, as per the standard model. If it looks old, and all the evidence says it's old, then why call it young?

 

[us38]

Bad argument.
If you veiw things that way, then you surely cannot accept "God made humans appear this way" or "God made the Earth appear this way".

The bible says that God made the stars. Why would he create them so they cannot be seen untill millions of years after creation? The answer is that He wouldn't.

So you answer IS "God made them appear that way"

Prove that god didn't make the universe last Thursday with all of our memories implanted.

 

[Graham4C]

and all the evidence

Thats rich

Prove that god didn't make the universe last Thursday with all of our memories implanted.

You cant disprove it, in the same way that you can't prove Evolution, or disprove God.

 

[gluadys]

Thats rich

[/FONT]

You cant disprove it, in the same way that you can't prove Evolution, or disprove God.

Indeed, there is no disproving last Thursdayism, but there is no reason to believe it either, just as there is no reason to believe last 6,000 yearism either.

We don't try to prove evolution or disprove God. We do note that all the evidence is best explained rationally by an old universe, an old earth and evolution.

For a Christian, like myself, who doesn't believe God is a trickster playing games like last Thursdayism with us, but a God who created a real, ordered, discoverable world, this leads to the conclusion that what best explains the evidence is a good indication of what God actually did and when he did it.

 

[Graham4C]

nor do i believe that God is a trickster creating a system which complies with no laws observable anywhere else, and interjecting every now and again to change the process of things.

The only explanation to cover the Big Bang, biogenesis, and Evolution is that God interjected at each small step along the way. This sounds very much like the "trickster" you described.

 

[gluadys]

nor do i believe that God is a trickster creating a system which complies with no laws observable anywhere else, and interjecting every now and again to change the process of things.

The only explanation to cover the Big Bang, biogenesis, and Evolution is that God interjected at each small step along the way. This sounds very much like the "trickster" you described.

How so? I can see two possibilities.

1. God created an ordered process so that continued "interjection" is unnecessary.

2. God does "interject" at each small step, but does so in a regular predictable way that is fully consistent with scientific study of the regularities of nature.

By either possibility, the created universe is real, ordered, predictable and knowable via sense and reason. What you see is what you get.

Nothing is obscured behind a veil of impenetrable miracles such that it looks ancient but is actually only 6,000 years (or less than 7 days) old.

It is the latter I consider "tricksterism".

 

[DarrelDesoto]

This is my first post. I hope I'm doing it correctly. There seem to be quite the plethora of rules regarding where a heathen like me can and cannot go, so if I've wandered into the wrong forum, just let me know and I'll exit immediately, with my most abject apologies. Meanwhile...

Although I am an atheist, I've had and have a number of Christian friends. Some of them are very active in their church and have also taken up careers in science. One who went into biology said to me, "Biological Evolution is the physical mechanism God chose to bring about the diversity of life we see in the world around us". A profound thought, I thought.

From other Christians, many in scientific fields, and from what I've read, it appears that a belief in the modern views of natural science, including evolution, is not necessarily in conflict with their religious beliefs. Referring to the Catholic Church's very un-Christian treatment of Galileo, a Christian physicist said to me, "Galileo Galilei died in 1642, the same year Issac Newton was born. The Lord moves in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform". (By the way, Newton was born on Christmas Day of that year...just coincidently, of course.) For those of you who may not be as familiar with those historical incidents, the Catholic Church tried to suppress Galileo's books that gave evidence and credence to the Copernican system (the Sun as the center of the solar system) rather than the old, Aristotelean system (the Earth at the center of the universe) that the Church had staked it's reputation on. Issac Newton's work, of course, showed how the Copernican system was easily obtained as a result of relatively simple, fundamental physical principles, and that terminated any further doubt or debate on the subject, except in those countries where the Holy Inquisition was in full rampage.

It has always seemed to me to be something of a contradiction to believe that God would go to all the trouble of setting up a Universe to work by natural law and then violate that law in a very visible way, that is, by individual acts of creation. That concept has always reminded me of some incompetent manager who can only manage his department by facing each crisis as they occur one at a time, rather than managing pro-actively by carefully planning out the proper procedures and implementing them before any crises arrive. It seems to me, and this is of course just my opinion, but it seems to me that a Supreme Deity that could create the entire Universe would be able to plan everything out in advance and plan out a set of rules that would allow the entire Universe to evolve as He had planned without further intervention, saving individual intervention for miracles that really mattered--that is, for special occasions rather than for daily operation. Now, in my mind, that would be awesome! As I have studied the sciences, and even biology, what has always blown my mind is how so much complex yet harmonious operation can come from such a small number of relatively simple principles. Even though I have my own views on the existence of God, in the stillness and the dim light of late night studies with no distractions or other people around, it was always those times when I was deeply focused on some detailed examination of some subject of science that, sometimes, I would wonder: Wouldn't that be an incredibly awe-inspiring view, that some incomprehensibly clever and intelligent presence set all this I'm reading into motion on the basis of a minimal set of rules? Wow, what a thought! But the idea that this Being then decided to manually intervene to change the direction of development of His Universe, well, it sort of spoiled the effect, so to speak. Not that He couldn't do it if He wanted to, but it just didn't seem quite as "divine" in my mind.

Anyway, none of this is "scientific" and I'm not offering a logical argument. It's just some of the conversations, thoughts, and experiences I've had that tend to lead me to think that, if there really is a God, then he is a scientist and that He would expect us to use the brains and curiosity He's given us to understand His Universe in the fullest, possible way. That, in my mind, would lead to a very profound worship of God.

Could it be, after all, that scientists are actually closer to having a fuller appreciation of the true Mind of God than are theologians?

 

[gluadys]

Could it be, after all, that scientists are actually closer to having a fuller appreciation of the true Mind of God than are theologians?

Scientists make some of the best theologians. One of my favorites is John Polkinghorne, the British theoretical physicist turned Anglican priest and theologian.

 

[avdrummerboy]

DarrelDesoto
You're sure your an athiest? You don't sound like one Just open minded.

 

[DaSwuush]

Thats rich

[/FONT]

You cant disprove it, in the same way that you can't prove Evolution, or disprove God.

Evolution is proven....

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Evolution is proven....

I think he is referring to the Theory of Evolution and/or to Common Descent, neither of which are proven.

 

[gluadys]

I think he is referring to the Theory of Evolution and/or to Common Descent, neither of which are proven.

But are both overwhelmingly supported by multiple lines of evidence.

 

[avdrummerboy]

As to the original post, why we see stars. According to all the modern theories, assuming all them to be true, the universe started out small and grew (expanded.) If stars actually were formed very close to the earth during creation (formation for the non- creationalists,) then the light would only have to travel a short distance to reach earth, and as they moved further and further away, the light kept hitting the earth just red shifted as we see today. That is my theory!!! Makes sense even though the "inflationary model" has pretty much collapsed on itself.

 

[Blayz]

If stars actually were formed very close to the earth during creation

They were not.
You are incorrect.
Next!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But are both overwhelmingly supported by multiple lines of evidence.

Oh yes, very much so. But they are not proven; there's the slimmest of chances that evolutionary theory is false (for example, if two humans concieve and bear a modern chimpanzee by completely natural means, then no matter how much evidence we have accumulated, the theory must be discarded).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

As to the original post, why we see stars. According to all the modern theories, assuming all them to be true, the universe started out small and grew (expanded.) If stars actually were formed very close to the earth during creation (formation for the non- creationalists,) then the light would only have to travel a short distance to reach earth, and as they moved further and further away, the light kept hitting the earth just red shifted as we see today. That is my theory!!!

Stars are hundreds of thousands of times bigger (both in mass and radius) than the Earth. If they were formed near to us, they would all collapse in on themselves: it's a little trick called gravity.

Makes sense even though the "inflationary model" has pretty much collapsed on itself.

How so?