Starlight and a Young Earth.

[Micaiah]

Scripture speaks of God stretching out the heavens with His hand. While on one level this is clearly metaphorical, since God doesn't have an arm or hand, on another level I wonder if this may give insight into the way the heavens were created. It could provide some clues on how light could reach earth from distant galaxies in a short about six thousand years.


Isaiah 42:5
Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it:
(Whole Chapter: Isaiah 42 In context: Isaiah 42:4-6)


Isaiah 45:12
I have made the earth, And created man on it. I--My hands--stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded.
(Whole Chapter: Isaiah 45 In context: Isaiah 45:11-13)


Isaiah 48:13
Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, And My right hand has stretched out the heavens; When I call to them, They stand up together.
(Whole Chapter: Isaiah 48 In context: Isaiah 48:12-14)


Isaiah 51:13
And you forget the LORD your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens And laid the foundations of the earth; You have feared continually every day Because of the fury of the oppressor, When he has prepared to destroy. And where is the fury of the oppressor?
(Whole Chapter: Isaiah 51 In context: Isaiah 51:12-14)


Jeremiah 10:12
He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, And has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.
(Whole Chapter: Jeremiah 10 In context: Jeremiah 10:11-13)


Jeremiah 32:17
"Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and outstretched arm. There is nothing too hard for You.
(Whole Chapter: Jeremiah 32 In context: Jeremiah 32:16-18)


Jeremiah 51:15
He has made the earth by His power; He has established the world by His wisdom, And stretched out the heaven by His understanding.
(Whole Chapter: Jeremiah 51 In context: Jeremiah 51:14-16)

 

[notto]

If the earth is only 6000 years old then we have witnesses the explosion of stars that have never existed in the first place.

 

[Micaiah]

Yes, if the stars were always that far way from earth.

 

[notto]

It would be a bit crowded, hot, and bright if at some point all of the fully formed stars and galaxies we see were within 6000 light years of earth. I think that this would not be possible and defy a few laws of physics.

Our galaxy is approximately 160,000 light years across and 3000 light years thick. Even compressing the matter from these stars down to 6000 light years would seem a bit of a stretch.

Nearby galaxies are 2,200,000 light years away. If they moved from under 6000 light years to 2,220,000 light years in 6000 years, what stopped this momentum and why did they slow down?

If the actual space of the universe stretched this much in this little time, why did this rate stop to the currently measured expansion and what evidence supports this theory?

 

[Follower of Christ]

There are a few theories (including some amazing new ones) on starlight.

If we're going to accept a secular theory, then one that backs up scripture should be as easily accepted by any christian.

 

[wildbrumby]

Read the book "Starlight and Time"? by Dr. R Humphreys?

 

[Smilin]

16th March 2003 at 08:23 AM notto said this in Post #4 If the actual space of the universe stretched this much in this little time, why did this rate stop to the currently measured expansion and what evidence supports this theory?

Notto, has the Hubble Constant been determined?
Last I read, measurement were still being taken..

I also remember reading that the rate of expansion is NOT constant but varies the further you travel out into the universe...

 

[Smilin]

19th March 2003 at 11:12 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #5

If we're going to accept a secular theory, then one that backs up scripture should be as easily accepted by any christian.

Disagreed,
Your turning a religious text into a science text which, IMO, is one
of the BIGGEST mistakes in Christianity today.

Scientists are of many religious beliefs, many choose no religion.
I have reference to a Native American legend/spiritual belief
that explains starlight as well.....

Are you willing to easily accept that one as well?

 

[notto]

Today at 09:11 PM Smilin said this in Post #7



Notto, has the Hubble Constant been determined?
Last I read, measurement were still being taken..

I also remember reading that the rate of expansion is NOT constant but varies the further you travel out into the universe...

I'm not suggesting that the expansion rate is constant everywhere, just that for the whole 6000 year thing to work out, there would need to be some reason for it to stop expanding at the pace required, or some evidence that it did would be left behind.

Suggesting that all of the matter of the universe was within 6000 light years of earth or it vicinity (within the last 6000 years) or that the rate of expansion has changed as much as would be needed to have the universe be 6000 years old and to see the evidenc we see of vast distances is a bit ridiculous.

 

[Smilin]

Today at 10:17 PM notto said this in Post #9



I'm not suggesting that the expansion rate is constant everywhere, just that for the whole 6000 year thing to work out, there would need to be some reason for it to stop expanding at the pace required, or some evidence that it did would be left behind.

Suggesting that all of the matter of the universe was within 6000 light years of earth or it vicinity (within the last 6000 years) or that the rate of expansion has changed as much as would be needed to have the universe be 6000 years old and to see the evidenc we see of vast distances is a bit ridiculous.

Exactly,,,
And let's not leave continental drift out of all this..
Not to derail the thread or anything...
I'm confused and concerned why the 6,000 year old
myth has been resurrected????????????

 

[notto]

Today at 09:07 PM wildbrumby said this in Post #6

Read the book "Starlight and Time"? by Dr. R Humphreys?

There are several Christian physicist who have more experience in the areas that Humphreys discusses (general relativity and cosmology) that have shown the flaws in his "new cosmology". Had Humphreys followed the standard model of scientific research and publication instead of the popular press, peer review would have helped him develop a more credible book. As it stands, the scientific impact of his work is nill.

" Before proceeding with our discussion of the present state of the Starlight and Time hypothesis, we wish to make it clear that our observations about Dr. Humphreys' cosmological writings are not intended to cast aspersion on the sincerity of his Christian faith or the quality of his Christian testimony. The errors and defects in Humphreys' ideas are not moral errors, but scientific ones, and our pointing out of Humphreys' errors in these scientific areas does not imply criticism of his moral integrity. The one moral criticism which we would make of Dr. Humphreys' advocacy of his model, is his failure to heed the counsel of skilled Christian physicists in this matter. This is not a small criticism, for Humphreys' overconfidence in this matter has led to the widespread dissemination of a false theory. The inevitable collapse of this theory may damage the faith of many Christians who have leaned on it to reinforce their faith. The responsibility for such damage will rest with Dr. Humphreys and those of his associates who have promoted his theory, disregarding the expert counsel which God has made available to them. It is also possible that the widespread distribution and acceptance of his theory will have negative consequences for the credibility of Christian testimony to unbelievers. Again, responsibility for this will lie with Dr. Humphreys and his associates. "

" To our knowledge, not one person competent in general relativity and cosmology theory who has examined Starlight and Time has given a "pass" to this theory. Despite the lack of expert corroboration of his work, Humphreys continues to insist on the validity of his demonstrably false theory. Unfortunately, most of the major young-earth organizations are continuing to follow Humphreys and are ignoring the demonstrations of the falsity of his theory which have arisen from both inside and outside the young-earth movement. "

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main


" In his most recent defense of this theory, "New Vistas of Spacetime Rebut the Critics", Humphreys gives up so much ground on each of these three central arguments that one can fairly say that he has abandoned the original formulation of his hypothesis. New Vistas has little to say about Schwarzschild time. Whereas this time coordinate was "the essence" of the original argument, it now receives only passing mention and is no longer appealed to in support of Humphreys' claim to have solved the light travel problem. Although Humphreys continues to employ the phrase "gravitational time dilation", it is clear from his argument that he no longer contends that potential differences in the bounded matter sphere produce differences in the time-keeping rates of physical clocks --- indeed, he explicitly concedes that physical clocks tick at the same rate in such a universe. Finally, event horizons, which played a prominent part in Starlight and Time, are now admitted by Humphreys to have no effect , and the effects which he wrongly attributed to them in Starlight and Time are now attributed to the changing signature of the Klein metric. "

 

[Smilin]

errr.. I'm in Creation Science...

oooookkayyyy... my mistake..

However I agree with the topic... compared to starlight,
the Earth is VERY young...

 

[Follower of Christ]

Yesterday at 10:21 PM Smilin said this in Post #10



Exactly,,,
And let's not leave continental drift out of all this..
Not to derail the thread or anything...
I'm confused and concerned why the 6,000 year old
myth has been resurrected????????????

It never died, you were just in your secular cave.....

 

[notto]

Yesterday at 09:21 PM Smilin said this in Post #10

I'm confused and concerned why the 6,000 year old
myth has been resurrected????????????

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html

This is a very good history of the age of earth arguments from science and theology over time.

 

[Jase]

Some scientists now are saying the Speed of Light may not have always been constant ( they say it could have been as much as 1069 times what it is now at the beginning of the universe). I did a bunch of math and stuff on it based on Quasars and found out that it is feasible, if light was once faster, for a 10,000 year old universe to exist because stars are travelling away from the Earth, some as much as 88% the speed of light.  Which means, had they started travelling away from us at 1069 X the Speed of Light, they would be about where we see them now in only 10,000 or so years.  Now there are alot of other factors i didn't include, I just may some guesses and threw out some numbers and if its true the SoL hasn't always been the same speed, the universe may very well not be 13 billion years old, only appear to be that way based on the current speed of light.

 

[notto]

Today at 08:29 PM Jase said this in Post #15

Some scientists now are saying the Speed of Light may not have always been constant ( they say it could have been as much as 1069 times what it is now at the beginning of the universe). I did a bunch of math and stuff on it based on Quasars and found out that it is feasible, if light was once faster, for a 10,000 year old universe to exist because stars are travelling away from the Earth, some as much as 88% the speed of light.  Which means, had they started travelling away from us at 1069 X the Speed of Light, they would be about where we see them now in only 10,000 or so years.  Now there are alot of other factors i didn't include, I just may some guesses and threw out some numbers and if its true the SoL hasn't always been the same speed, the universe may very well not be 13 billion years old, only appear to be that way based on the current speed of light.

Although the math might work through this type of extrapolation, the physics doesn't. If the speed of light slowed that rapidy, or the speed the rest of the universe is moving away from us was reduced that rapidly with in the past 10,000 years, there would be telltale signs. Also, there are several other indicators that show us the age of stars, our own planet, and even history as man on this planet that show that the world is much older than 10,000 years.

The same experiments that show us that the speed of light may have been different in the past, show us that if this happened, it would have been long ago, and hasn't changed recently. This line of evidence cannot be used to suggest that the universe is young, because if it is, then the results of the experiment would not be the same as the ones they got. The calculations would need to be redone. The evidence for the changing speed of light is from a quasar 12 billion light years away. Even at a speed of 2000 times the current speed of light, the light from this quasar is still millions of years old.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 10:29 PM notto said this in Post #16




Although the math might work through this type of extrapolation, the physics doesn't. If the speed of light slowed that rapidy, or the speed the rest of the universe is moving away from us was reduced that rapidly with in the past 10,000 years, there would be telltale signs. Also, there are several other indicators that show us the age of stars, our own planet, and even history as man on this planet that show that the world is much older than 10,000 years.

The same experiments that show us that the speed of light may have been different in the past, show us that if this happened, it would have been long ago, and hasn't changed recently. This line of evidence cannot be used to suggest that the universe is young, because if it is, then the results of the experiment would not be the same as the ones they got. The calculations would need to be redone. The evidence for the changing speed of light is from a quasar 12 billion light years away. Even at a speed of 2000 times the current speed of light, the light from this quasar is still millions of years old.

When I saw post 15 I figured notto would be here somewhere telling how the theory is impossible.

Notto, if we are to accept YOUR theory then I believe it just as easy to accept any other.
You weren't there to disprove as we werent there to prove.
Its ALL theory.


I have seen quite a few thoeries to show how the light arrived here in a short time and all of them seem just as feasible as evolution

 

[notto]

Yesterday at 10:36 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #17





When I saw post 15 I figured notto would be here somewhere telling how the theory is impossible.

Notto, if we are to accept YOUR theory then I believe it just as easy to accept any other.
You weren't there to disprove as we werent there to prove.
Its ALL theory.


I have seen quite a few thoeries to show how the light arrived here in a short time and all of them seem just as feasible as evolution

Do you understand what falsification is? All theories are not as feasible as evolution. Young earth theories have been falsifiied withh several independent lines of evidence. Mainstream geology and biology has not. Evolution and an old earth have not be falsified and are supported by the evidence that falsifies YEC. These aren't MY theories. They are theories of mainstream science supported through evidence, peer review, repeatable observation, and lack of falsification.

Just like you expect me to show up and show evidence and support of these theories when they are misunderstood, can we expect you to keep showing up, simply telling us we are wrong, eluding to evidence and research that you have seen, and never presenting any of it?

 

[Follower of Christ]

Other than the single issue of starlight (which I have seen very interesting theory on) your ''long earth'' evidence fits into a young earth fact.

You try to act like its your evidence against 6 day'ers and that NOT it for the most part.

I say that YOUR so called evidence fits into my young earth faith.

You try to trip young earthers up with an idea that your secular scientists observations can only prove an old earth and thats not true.

It would only be true if your dating methods were infallable and they are definetly NOT.
You look to YOU secular scientists for proof that these dating methods are perfect and of course to cover their rear ends they confirm that they are indeed infallable.
My 6 day creation scientists say that your secular scientists are wrong about the validity of the dating methods and in seeing the posted evidence I believe they are invalid.

This is NOT about 2 differing sets of evidence.

This is about how the evidence is interpreted.

Your evidence is our evidence, we just see that your methods are as biased toward your ''faith'' as ours is to our faith.
The difference is that we are men enough to admit our view is biased and evolutionists are not.

 

[notto]

Dating methods are not perfect, that is why they need to be used correctly by people who understand them.

If they are used correctly, the can show the age of material they are dating. Several dating methods can be used to verify the results. There is no innacuracy that is presented by creationists that can account for multiple dating methods coming up with the same date. There is no innacuracy that is presented by creationists that can account for the general pattern of dating of lava flows being older as they are deeper in the geologic column.