Starlight Problem

[BNR32FAN]

I wonder why people who believe in Genesis literally don’t also believe in that dome.

You mean the atmosphere?

 

[BNR32FAN]

And here's another funny thing about the tadpole galaxy.

Let us imagine a universe where light instantly reaches earth from billions of light-years away, or in some really short time, less than 6000 years.

So rather than an object a billion light years away and taking light a billion light years to reach us, an object is billions of light years away yet we watch it instantaneously in real time. And light instantly travels from deep space super fast (billions of times faster than the speed of light) to earth allowing us to see really distant objects though the universe is only a few thousand years old.

Simply a thought experiment:
View attachment 319231

If we were looking into space and light did somehow speed up faster than the speed of light constant, would that mean that God created such galactic bodies in space mid-formation?

So the tadpole galaxy is being pulled by the gravity of two galaxies mid collision. So, if light is reaching earth, in "real time", and what we are seeing is live or at most a few thousand years old, did God create galaxies instantly already in the process of mid collision and being pulled apart?

Rather than two galaxies forming and then running into eachother and gradually being pulled apart, God skipped the first few steps and simply made it look as if time had passed but in actuality had not with galaxies created already in mid or post collision state, appearing as if they had already run into eachother, though they had not.

When we really unpack the distant starlight problem, we find several logical issues with YECism.

See the above video at 0:37 seconds for context. Imagine, rather than watching two galaxies run into eachother and pull one another apart, that we might turn on the video after the collision has already occurred and after these galaxies have already travelled hundreds of thousands of light-years through space, and we say "yes, God actually created these galaxies with the appearance as if they had already collided but in actuality had not".

Just like Adam being created with an apparent age but he had never actually lived more than a day when God sculpted him of clay. But with a galaxy.

That's what YECs have to do to get around the starlight problem. They have to assume that light sped up, some insane speed, and assume God created things with the appearance of age though they were simply created that way Instantaneously without any age at all.

Rather than simply just accepting that the universe is old, these are some of the logical gymnastics necessary to make YECism work. And this is the exact same logical issue they face with every other field of science. Plate tectonics sped up then slowed down the moment we decided to look at it. The speed of light sped up and slowed down the moment we decided to look at it. The rate of evolution sped up and slowed down the moment we decided to look at it etc etc.

God made things look as if they were old, though in actually they were not. Scars that tell stories included.

Imagine if Adam had a scar on his right leg, and we said "Adam, if you had been made yesterday, how did you get that scar?". This is what the distant starlight problem and many other problems do to YECism, they force these awkward questions.

I don’t think the light would’ve had to speed up at all it could’ve just been created from nothing like everything else.

 

[BPPLEE]

You mean the atmosphere?

Gen 1:7

And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which are under the expanse, and the waters which are above the expanse: and it is so.
Gen 1:8

And God calleth to the expanse 'Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day second.

YLT, literal translation. Nothing about a dome.
The NASB has Dome in one place

Amo 9:6

The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens
And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth,
He who calls for the waters of the sea
And pours them out on the face of the earth,
The LORD is His name.
It is the only version that translates the word as dome
NKJV
Amo 9:6

He who builds His layers in the sky,
And has founded His strata in the earth;
Who calls for the waters of the sea,
And pours them out on the face of the earth—
The LORD is His name.
YLT
Amo 9:6

Who is building in the heavens His upper chambers; As to His troop, Upon earth He hath founded it, Who is calling for the waters of the sea, And poureth them out on the face of the land, Jehovah is His name.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don’t think the light would’ve had to speed up at all it could’ve just been created from nothing like everything else.

Then what would it mean for galaxies like the tadpole galaxy that have a trail behind them that look "as if" they had run into another galaxy? Or what about supernovae? Did God create them already having had exploded?

Galaxies that look as if they have been travelling and have a history behind them.

Galaxies that look as if they have collided in the past:

And why would galaxies further away, which logically ought to be older for time for light to reach us, why would galaxies further away look more primitive than galaxies closer to us?

Far away:

Closer to us:

These observations imply that God did not simply create light in place instantaneously, but rather light has taken time to reach us, hence why galaxies further away look older, because more time would be needed for their light to reach us, than galaxies nearby. Ie the further and deeper we look into space, the older we are looking back in time.

None of this would make any sense if God simply made all light everywhere in the universe reaching us instantly all at once.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And here's a simple way to summarize this post.

If light travelled from distant galaxies roughly instantaneously to us or at some hyperspeed allowing it to reach us within 6000 years, then objects further away should appear older or if identical age to objects closer to us. Because light would take longer to reach us from further away. Or if an equal quantity of time.

But in reality, the closer objects are to us, the older they look and the further we look back in time, the younger galactic bodies look.

For example:
View attachment 319234

This super distant galaxy, looks young, like an infant galaxy.

View attachment 319235

This galaxy above, Andromeda, looks really old, and it's very close to us.

You see, in reality, the closer an object is, the older it looks and the farther away the object is, the younger it looks.

This is because light takes lots of time to travel across space, so when we look really really deep I to space, we are looking really really far back in time, and thus objects look like baby galaxies.

But this is counter Intuitive to YECism, which suggests that light from across the entire universe somehow all reached us nearly instantaneously. If light travelled to us so quickly, then objects of such great distances should look older or of equal age as objects closer to us. Because the speed of light would be so fast, that it would out-pace stellar/galactic evolution.

To really boil it down to a single question, we could simply ask, if the universe is only 6000 years old, and if light did travel billions of light years in a mere 6000 years, then why do the furthest galaxies look so young and the closest galaxies look so old? If all of them are a mere few thousand years old?

This is starlight problem 2.0 here.

I don’t know how a distant universe can appear to be young or old. What makes them appear younger or older?

 

[eleos1954]

I've already addressed this. If not on earth, say, if you lived on Saturn, you could calculate times based on the rotation of Saturn. A day on Saturn would be the amount of time on which Saturn makes one full rotation.

And with that said, there would still be a "day" even if earth didn't exist.

Lol what is this?
"As opposed to solar time which reckons the passage of time based on the Sun's position in the sky."

So you admit that time exists independently of earth and can be based on the motion and position of the sun now?

Which is to say that if earth didn't exist, someone on Saturn could use the sun to calculate time?

Why yes, I would agree with this. Which is why I'm saying that time does not depend on the existence of Earth.

A day on Saturn would be the amount of time on which Saturn makes one full rotation.

and why use Saturn or any other planets' rotation to calculate time?

With 400 billion Milky Way stars, we estimate they contain 1-to-10 trillion orbiting planets, total. Which one of these orbiting planets determines time for the universe?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Then what would it mean for galaxies like the tadpole galaxy that have a trail behind them that look "as if" they had run into another galaxy? Or what about supernovae? Did God create them already having had exploded?
View attachment 319425

View attachment 319426

Galaxies that look as if they have been travelling and have a history behind them.

Galaxies that look as if they have collided in the past:

And why would galaxies further away, which logically ought to be older for time for light to reach us, why would galaxies further away look more primitive than galaxies closer to us?

Far away:
View attachment 319427

Closer to us:
View attachment 319428

These observations imply that God did not simply create light in place instantaneously, but rather light has taken time to reach us, hence why galaxies further away look older, because more time would be needed for their light to reach us, than galaxies nearby. Ie the further and deeper we look into space, the older we are looking back in time.

None of this would make any sense if God simply made all light everywhere in the universe reaching us instantly all at once.

I don’t think anyone knows the answer to this but God Himself.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Gen 1:7

And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which are under the expanse, and the waters which are above the expanse: and it is so.
Gen 1:8

And God calleth to the expanse 'Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day second.

YLT, literal translation. Nothing about a dome.
The NASB has Dome in one place

Amo 9:6

The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens
And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth,
He who calls for the waters of the sea
And pours them out on the face of the earth,
The LORD is His name.
It is the only version that translates the word as dome
NKJV
Amo 9:6

He who builds His layers in the sky,
And has founded His strata in the earth;
Who calls for the waters of the sea,
And pours them out on the face of the earth—
The LORD is His name.

Yeah to me that sounds like the atmosphere

 

[BPPLEE]

Yeah to me that sounds like the atmosphere

I added some to my previous post. Dome is only used in one place in one translation.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don’t think anyone knows the answer to this but God Himself.

Throws hands up*

And that's how the conversation goes every time.

How silly, that's not a tail left behind a galaxy in motion, rather God simply made it in it's present form with the appearance as if it were moving through space, but in reality, were not.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yeah to me that sounds like the atmosphere

The expanse cannot be an atmosphere because God placed the stars in it. Among many other reasons but I'd say this is one of the more simple and straight forward ones.

 

[BPPLEE]

The expanse cannot be an atmosphere because God placed the stars in it. Among many other reasons but I'd say this is one of the more simple and straight forward ones.

God called the expanse Heavens YLT

 

[Job 33:6]

God called the expanse Heavens YLT

Sure. But I don't think "heaven" or "heavens" is equivalent to sky. Because stars aren't in the sky of course.

Have you watched Ben Stanhope's raqia video? I've shared it elsewhere in these forums.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sure. But I don't think "heaven" or "heavens" is equivalent to sky. Because stars aren't in the sky of course.

Have you watched Ben Stanhope's raqia video? I've shared it elsewhere in these forums.

It's a half hour long but I'd say it tells us everything needed to understand what is meant by the "expanse".

 

[FaithT]

You mean the atmosphere?

No, a tangible, physical dome, like a BIG container that holds back the water.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Throws hands up*

And that's how the conversation goes every time.
View attachment 319429

How silly, that's not a tail left behind a galaxy in motion, rather God simply made it in it's present form with the appearance as if it were moving through space, but in reality, were not.

View attachment 319430

Congratulations you won that discussion now let’s try to explain some more of God’s miracles thru science and see how that works out. Before we begin let’s go ahead and look at the definition of the word miracle to save some time.

Miracle- a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency

Well I guess there’s no point in trying to explain God’s miracles thru science then.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The expanse cannot be an atmosphere because God placed the stars in it. Among many other reasons but I'd say this is one of the more simple and straight forward ones.

From what I can see the word translated to “expanse” refers to something solid made of water which to me seems to best describe our atmosphere.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It's a half hour long but I'd say it tells us everything needed to understand what is meant by the "expanse".

Ok you lost me at about 25 seconds as soon as they mentioned flat earth.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Sure. But I don't think "heaven" or "heavens" is equivalent to sky. Because stars aren't in the sky of course.

Have you watched Ben Stanhope's raqia video? I've shared it elsewhere in these forums.

Both the sky and space are referred to as the heavens. Notice the sun, the moon, and the stars are placed in the expanse of the heavens and birds are also placed in the expanse of the heavens.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, a tangible, physical dome, like a BIG container that holds back the water.

ok if this is a flat earth discussion I’m not interested. This is not the topic of the thread. And if I’m not mistaken flat earthers say that a wall of ice known as Antarctica is what holds back the water but no one can go there because NASA will kill them or brainwash them with a Vulcan mind meld or something.