Starlight Problem

[okay]

Let us be kind to our brothers caught in these bizarre American culture wars.

Because isn't that what it's all really about? It never was about data. It was always about protecting our identity in Christ.

I agree to a large extent. We all could be better at following Paul’s teaching about loving each other, following our own consciouses and not judging each other.

I think you are probably right that culture wars are part of this - at least the way the different camps tend to talk about and judge each other. As a Christian who accepts evolution, I have definitely been present when the person at the front of the room made statements about “those evolutionists” that made us out to all be haters of God and truth. At the same time, I have heard Christians that may agree more with me on this issue talk about folks who interpret Genesis “literally” as if they are all uneducated idiots.

The culture wars have done immense damage to the church and to our witness.

<End of rant!>

 

[Derf]

The problem with YEC is that it does not offer anything, from the beginning. Its not science.

Sure it does. It offers to see the creation of the world through the Creator's eyes. It challenges bankrupt concepts of non-life begetting life, and a universe that has always existed. You may recognize the former as a current scientific challenge in biology, and the latter as a past scientific challenge that has been proven wrong.

Belief in God allows us to explain design in nature, purpose in life, and even comforts us that the whole world won't be overwhelmed by the ravages of climate change, despite all the dour predictions to the contrary from...science.

YEC might not be science, any more than the Theory of Evolution is science, since hypotheses and theories are mere stories that have to be tried and tested by scientific methods.

 

[trophy33]

Sure it does. It offers to see the creation of the world through the Creator's eyes. It challenges bankrupt concepts of non-life begetting life, and a universe that has always existed. You may recognize the former as a current scientific challenge in biology, and the latter as a past scientific challenge that has been proven wrong.

Belief in God allows us to explain design in nature, purpose in life, and even comforts us that the whole world won't be overwhelmed by the ravages of climate change, despite all the dour predictions to the contrary from...science.

YEC might not be science, any more than the Theory of Evolution is science, since hypotheses and theories are mere stories that have to be tried and tested by scientific methods.

YEC does not offer anything scientific. Its not testable, it does not explain reality and it does not make any predictions. Therefore its not scientific.

The theory of evolution does, therefore its scientific.

 

[Derf]

YEC does not offer anything scientific. Its not testable, it does not explain reality and it does not make any predictions.

Sure it does. One was that most "junk" DNA would be found to be functional. Another is that we would find that "vestigial" organs still have purpose and function.

Both of these have been shown to be true.

Here's a bigger list:
Obvious Implications/Predictions of Young Earth Creationism: Whether or not any creation scientist ever got around to framing these as explicit predictions, here are a few obvious implications of biblical creationism.
- In a big picture and sweeping manner, genetic sequences will not adhere to the tree of life concept
- Darwin's Tree of Life (the name lifted from Genesis) will fail in countless crucial ways as a predictive tool
- Genesis taken literally predicts unexpected worldwide Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA similarity and genetic research will continue to rediscover the history of Genesis (see rsr.org/canaan#science) with Jews and Arabs descended from Abraham, the discovery of mitochondrial Eve, Y chromosomal Adam, the overall genetic bottleneck of the flood, mankind's distribution from Babel (not Out-of-Africa), and the Jewish priestly genetic marker (from the book of Exodus). Secular research consistent with Scripture for example includes the papers in Nature andScience calculating that most of mankind's genetic diversity arose not in an alleged million-year evolutionary timeframe but rather, in historical (i.e. biblical) times.

Therefore its not scientific.

See above.

The theory of evolution does, therefore its scientific.

Then they both are. Now we try to figure out how well the predictions have done.

 

[trophy33]

Sure it does. One was that most "junk" DNA would be found to be functional. Another is that we would find that "vestigial" organs still have purpose and function.

Thats not incompatible with evolution. And its not much for YEC.

Here's a bigger list:
Obvious Implications/Predictions of Young Earth Creationism: Whether or not any creation scientist ever got around to framing these as explicit predictions, here are a few obvious implications of biblical creationism.
- In a big picture and sweeping manner, genetic sequences will not adhere to the tree of life concept
- Darwin's Tree of Life (the name lifted from Genesis) will fail in countless crucial ways as a predictive tool
- Genesis taken literally predicts unexpected worldwide Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA similarity and genetic research will continue to rediscover the history of Genesis (see rsr.org/canaan#science) with Jews and Arabs descended from Abraham, the discovery of mitochondrial Eve, Y chromosomal Adam, the overall genetic bottleneck of the flood, mankind's distribution from Babel (not Out-of-Africa), and the Jewish priestly genetic marker (from the book of Exodus). Secular research consistent with Scripture for example includes the papers in Nature andScience calculating that most of mankind's genetic diversity arose not in an alleged million-year evolutionary timeframe but rather, in historical (i.e. biblical) times.

You may personally claim that, but its not accepted by experts in their fields. Also, if you quote something, its unethical to leave out the source. To help you, you quoted a text from YEC talk show radio, RSR.

 

[Derf]

Thats not incompatible with evolution. And its not much for YEC.

It was a prediction of evolution that failed. And a prediction of YEC that succeeded.

You may personally claim that, but its not accepted by experts in their fields.

"Experts" in their fields attempt to silence YEC proponents by saying
1. They are scientists
2. They dont make predictions
3. And when they do make good predictions, it doesn't count because of #1. That's the sound of desperate "scientists" who "can't allow a divine foot in the door." (I'll let you find my source for that one, too.)

Also, if you quote something, its unethical to leave out the source. To help you, you quoted a text from YEC talk show radio, RSR.

Thanks for the reminder.
And yes, I appreciate a lot of what RSR.org has to offer.

If you have a topic to research on their site, just type in "rsr.org/(topic)" with no parentheses.

 

[trophy33]

It was a prediction of evolution that failed. And a prediction of YEC that succeeded.

The problem is scope. YEC had minor success in one small detail. Other than that, it does not work or even make sense.

While evolution is used daily in science, though some predictions must be corrected, which is normal. Its a theory, not a law. And problems to predict are complex.

Also, junk DNA is rather a quite complex issue:

The Complex Truth About ‘Junk DNA’ | Quanta Magazine

Genomes hold immense quantities of noncoding DNA. Some of it is essential for life, some seems useless, and some has its own agenda.

www.quantamagazine.org

 

[Derf]

The problem is scope. YEC had minor success in one small detail. Other than that, it does not work or even make sense.

On the thread topic, YEC hasn't had much success yet, but in other fields, it has. Evolution support is obviously a platitude in scientific articles. The evidence doesn't support either the predictions or the conclusions, but they still give a nod to it anyway, bowing at the altar of evolution.

While evolution is used daily in science, though some predictions must be corrected, which is normal. Its a theory, not a law. And problems to predict are complex.

Also, junk DNA is rather a quite complex issue:

The Complex Truth About ‘Junk DNA’ | Quanta Magazine

Genomes hold immense quantities of noncoding DNA. Some of it is essential for life, some seems useless, and some has its own agenda.

www.quantamagazine.org

Yes, that article tried to paint the failure in a positive light. But it did express the failure, if you read it carefully.

 

[Job 33:6]

On the thread topic, YEC hasn't had much success yet, but in other fields, it has. Evolution support is obviously a platitude in scientific articles. The evidence doesn't support either the predictions or the conclusions, but they still give a nod to it anyway, bowing at the altar of evolution.

Yes, that article tried to paint the failure in a positive light. But it did express the failure, if you read it carefully.

Genesis describes ancient near east cosmology. And for that reason, YEC is really dead on arrival, from a Biblical perspective. Let alone does the scientific community acknowledge it. The church has many hermeneutical issues it has to internally deal with before the secular world will acknowledge it.

 

[com7fy8]

The problem with the idea that God created the light "in-transit" is that some of that light has shown supernovas and other events that would be weird to be happening in the light, but not in the physical objects. He might as well have just not made the heavens at all, and just put a big tv screen in the sky.

But was the original universe in the physical state that it is in, now?

I think of how God's word says "the creation was subjected to futility", in Romans 8:20. So, I see how at first the universe could have been in a state not subject to our present laws of nature, before Adam and Eve fell.

And so . . . possibly there would not be light "in transit", but it could have been instantaneously everywhere present and not limited by our present laws.

 

[Derf]

But was the original universe in the physical state that it is in, now?

I think of how God's word says "the creation was subjected to futility", in Romans 8:20. So, I see how at first the universe could have been in a state not subject to our present laws of nature, before Adam and Eve fell.

And so . . . possibly there would not be light "in transit", but it could have been instantaneously everywhere present and not limited by our present laws.

Good question. I think the answer is No, because if something like a supernova looks like it happened more than ~6000 years ago, then it would be presumed to have happened when everything was still "very good", and it seems too quick for God's stars that He just made to be exploding. That assumes that supernovas aren't "very good", but I could be wrong.

 

[com7fy8]

Good question. I think the answer is No, because if something like a supernova looks like it happened more than ~6000 years ago, then it would be presumed to have happened when everything was still "very good", and it seems too quick for God's stars that He just made to be exploding. That assumes that supernovas aren't "very good", but I could be wrong.

Ok, so ones are saying that certain stars look older than others? And I guess that could mean billions of years older or younger, which "could" be more than one day of creation.

If they all started in a new state and then all were subjected to futility together . . . I see how we could expect them all to look just as old. But, I suppose they could have changed at different speeds from their original states so they could look different ages.

In any case, I am intrigued that ones say the universe started together from nothing. What physical scientific laws would have nothingness turn into trillions of stars? Why would they start right at a certain point and not much much sooner or much later??

And if all is material and matter can't go out of existence . . . why would molecules form into humans who can so worry about going out of existence??

If all in existence were subject to scientific and therefore predictable principles . . . why would they make the universe then when they did, and not act predictably earlier or later?

I'm seeing that the stars are a family, made by God who is family of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. And He said Abraham's descendants would be as the stars, as his children . . . his family. The stars are shining to one another - - - like how we in Jesus bless each other with our light of love as family.

There can be later and newer parts of a wondrous work of art.

And may be ones want to suppose they are the center of everything . . . so they can believe their earth is the center of the universe!

It is marvelously wonderful, in any case for us to enjoy > God "gives us richly all things to enjoy," we have in 1 Timothy 6:17. And His ways are "past finding out" (in Romans 11:23). So I see that His ways can't be figured out, and these ways have made and managed the universe and therefore no one can figure it out.

But our motives can come out, in how we might try to get others to see it and how we are supposed to see things.

 

[Jipsah]

I was speaking about the creation God created.

Is there another one?

If i composed the sentence wrong so what. You are going to believe what you want to anyway, about God's creation and science even though you have no support from The Bible about your beliefs..

The Bible says nothing about Ohm's Law, either, but it's established by God as part of His Creation.

 

[Jipsah]

I wonder where from The Bible did people get the idea that stars (also the sun and moon) are millions to trillions of miles away from earth.

By looking at them. Amazing concept, innit?

 

[Jipsah]

Some do, i do. But It is true not many, science has done its job well deceiving humanity.

How does science benefit from "deceiving humanity"?

 

[Divide]

There’s an old thread about this so rather than add to it, I wanted to start another, this one especially directed to YECs. If the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old how can we see starlight that’s many, many light years away?

It has to do with at the moment that the Lord created the universe and time (time-space-matter Gen 1:1)The universe began expanding and it's been expanding ever since. We can not look forward into time but we can look backwards into time. The starlight that we see that is millions of years old and the red shift of the light and all that amounts to being refocused and that's just what scripture says, we see through a glass darkly.

 

[Jipsah]

I have learned it is quite scary for many people to have faith in God, in areas of creation.

Not in the least. God created everything, end of. The problem is that some folks expect to get a full understanding of the unimaginably huge and complex nature of the universe as God created it in one page of the Bible..That's extraordinarily silly, especially considering that the purpose of the Bible wasn't to convey technical data of any kind at all. The writer of Genesis had the task of conveying the idea that God created everything there is and convey that idea in simplest possible terms. Mission accomplished.

Especially when God is pitted against the dreaded science.

Science is the study of God's Creation in all of its near infinite scope. You want it distilled down to one page. Fat chance. God isn't "pitted against" anyone, He rules.

 

[Divide]

You are still using earth as a time reference.

A year is the time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun once. A calendar year is 365 days. A solar or tropical year is 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds. This year is used for most astronomical calculations.

Time works by measuring periods between the past, present and future. Does the universe have a mind to establish and understand this? No.

Does the past, present and future exist without planet earth?

Think about this a little bit (remove planet earth) .... if earth did not exist how would time be calculated in the universe? could it even be calculated... does it even exist? That's what science is questioning.

Remove planet earth and give me your calculations.

I thought they already did that? Isnt that what Einstein's theory of relativity was about? The universe (space) is expending at the same rate that time ticks by. So then they started calling it SpaceTime. So if earth went away from a Chienese Death Star but the universe was still here, then the universe woud keep on expanding without the earth there.

But if there's no one to check a wristwatch does time really still exist?
If a tree falls and there is no ear to hear does it still make a sound?
I think so.

 

[d taylor]

Not in the least. God created everything, end of. The problem is that some folks expect to get a full understanding of the unimaginably huge and complex nature of the universe as God created it in one page of the Bible..That's extraordinarily silly, especially considering that the purpose of the Bible wasn't to convey technical data of any kind at all. The writer of Genesis had the task of conveying the idea that God created everything there is and convey that idea in simplest possible terms. Mission accomplished.

Science is the study of God's Creation in all of its near infinite scope. You want it distilled down to one page. Fat chance. God isn't "pitted against" anyone, He rules.

-
​

Science has a big problem with God's creation, telling the truth about it.

 

[Derf]

-
​

Science has a big problem with God's creation, telling the truth about it.

Science doesn't. Scientists do sometimes.