The number one bugger for creationists: C

[aeroz19]

C...what a pain, eh? It is the number one problem that Creationists have to deal with. Some stars are millions of light-years away, and this means that earth has been around for at least millions of years. How do creationists solve this huge problem? Well, since they believe the Bible says that the earth is no older than 10,000 years, they must never question this, EVER!! Instead, they think inside the box--the Bible box, a very limited, small box.

(I'm blowing steam here obviously, because I hate closed minded thought, [and I am surrounded by it a lot], which hinders progress and confuses millions of people, and even threatens to destroy their faith. Many of you know where I am coming from...)

But does the Bible even say the earth is 10,000 years old? To come later (in another thread)...

So, here's how Creationists deal with the problem of star light:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/star-light.html

1. God created the light at the beginning. However, they are insisting that the light we see today from distant celestial bodies is that light. There are problems with this beyond reason.

2. C was much faster back in the beginning. However, this is totally unsupported.

3. Quantum Physics. Light seems to travel slower to us than it really is.

This is so sad.

Note: I'm starting to lean toward the old-age theory. I used to believe the Earth was 6000 years old, but that just doesn't seem to hold up in the real world.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

This is so sad.

Nice op.

Apologetics masquerading as science is always sad.

 

[Shalia]

Maybe I'm even sadder. I think God could have put the light wherever he chose to. Since He put the stars billions of light years away, He had a reason. Maybe He chose to advance how far the light had traveled simply so we could have a prettier night sky to look at. Dunno. I'm not yet in a position to ask. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it's the most important thing to worry about in the Bible, nor the most important question. God could have done whatever He wanted to with the light, He created it. He could put it wherever He darn well pleased. Why not?

If we believe in a God that created the earth and cosmos in 6 days, <collective we meaning believers in the Bible, not necessarily me and you, as I don't know if you believe the same> what on earth prevents us from believing He didn't have the stars and the skies mapped out for us as well?

 

[mhess13]

Adam was fully mature when he was created, so were the trees. I don't see the problem with starlight. God created a mature universe. He's God after all...That's no harder to do than raising a man from the dead!

 

[Shalia]

Adam was fully mature when he was created, so were the trees. I don't see the problem with starlight. God created a mature universe. He's God after all...That's no harder to do than raising a man from the dead!

Yeah, that. You said what I meant, and in a lot fewer words.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Yeah, that. You said what I meant, and in a lot fewer words.

But now we leave the jurisdiction of science. It has nothing to say about the supernatural.

 

[Arikay]

Because theologically its a bad idea. Its similar to the oomphalo (spelling?) argument. Would God give adam and eve bellybuttons even though they were never born like everyone else? Would God give Adam a scar to make it appear like he had had surgery? The answer that many theologians have come to is, No. God is not a deciever.
With starlight, not only must he have created light already on its way, he would have had to create the appearance of events that never happend. Supernova that never really occured, etc.

Scientifically its an even worse argument. As its a cop out. Its like saying, "the earth was created last tuesday, and was made to appear to be 4.5 billion years old, your memories are all false and have been created to make you think you are x years old." this can't be tested or falsified.
Since many creationist groups claim that creationist is scientifically valid, cop outs like this hurt their case.


It also allows creationist groups to stick with the thoughts that they are pretty much infallible.
I think the sky is green.
The sky looks blue and everyone else says its blue.
I Know, Its really green but god made it appear as if it is blue.
Thus I am right, the sky is green.

 

[Shalia]

But now we leave the jurisdiction of science. It has nothing to say about the supernatural.

Were we ever in the jurisdiction of science? The person who started this thread <can't remember name!> said

C...what a pain, eh? It is the number one problem that Creationists have to deal with. Some stars are millions of light-years away, and this means that earth has been around for at least millions of years. How do creationists solve this huge problem? Well, since they believe the Bible says that the earth is no older than 10,000 years, they must never question this, EVER!!

Mhess and I were stating as far as we are concerned, it's not a problem to deal with. God can create mature people, a mature planet, mature trees, mature animals, surely He can create a mature universe for us to live in. He is God, He can create anything He wants in any form He wants. To us <well, me> it's not any "problem" to deal with, and was never in the jurisdiction of science based on the start of the thread. The person starting the thread seemed to want creationists to explain how we can know that there is light that's billions of light years away and still think the earth is young. Now, I'm not sure which "earth" theory I believe as I haven't even researched them all, but I do believe God created the earth, and He can surely put the stars and all their light wherever He chooses to.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Were we ever in the jurisdiction of science?

Yes. It's a SCIENCE forum.

The person who started this thread <can't remember name!> said
[/color]
Mhess and I were stating as far as we are concerned, it's not a problem to deal with. God can create mature people, a mature planet, mature trees, mature animals, surely He can create a mature universe for us to live in. He is God, He can create anything He wants in any form He wants. To us <well, me> it's not any "problem" to deal with, and was never in the jurisdiction of science based on the start of the thread. The person starting the thread seemed to want creationists to explain how we can know that there is light that's billions of light years away and still think the earth is young. Now, I'm not sure which "earth" theory I believe as I haven't even researched them all, but I do believe God created the earth, and He can surely put the stars and all their light wherever He chooses to.

As I said, it IS a science forum. Evidence is the currency by which viewpoints are traded here.

Do you have any to support your view?

 

[Shalia]

Yes. It's a SCIENCE forum.

As I said, it IS a science forum. Evidence is the currency by which viewpoints are traded here.

Do you have any to support your view?

Didn't know it was a science forum. Thought it was a place where people could discuss why they believed in creationism vs. evolution. Seeing as the "proof" for creationism is in a book that you don't believe in, and the "proof" for evolution is something I don't believe, how on earth are we supposed to come up w/ scientific fact?

I'll honestly admit I HAVE no scientific proof that God created the earth with stars mature enough to have light already here. I have my personal beliefs and the faith in the word of the Bible. What scientific evidence do you expect me to come up with when the available evidence requires faith to believe, and ergo is not really "evidence"?

 

[Asimov]

Didn't know it was a science forum. Thought it was a place where people could discuss why they believed in creationism vs. evolution. Seeing as the "proof" for creationism is in a book that you don't believe in, and the "proof" for evolution is something I don't believe, how on earth are we supposed to come up w/ scientific fact?

No...proof for Creationism is not in a book. Proof for a God Created universe doesn't require proof, only faith. Creationism is the scientific theory that tries to show that all parts of the bible are scientifically accurate. Which they're not. Evolution has no problem with God creating.

I'll honestly admit I HAVE no scientific proof that God created the earth with stars mature enough to have light already here. I have my personal beliefs and the faith in the word of the Bible.

So, where exactly in your faith does it say that God had to create the stars mature enough to have light already here (which doesn't really make sense)? Your personal beliefs do not even coincide with the Word.

What scientific evidence do you expect me to come up with when the available evidence requires faith to believe, and ergo is not really "evidence"?

Then stop trucking around Creationism as if it is science. If you have no available evidence that Creationism is true, then clearly it is not science.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Didn't know it was a science forum. Thought it was a place where people could discuss why they believed in creationism vs. evolution. Seeing as the "proof" for creationism is in a book that you don't believe in, and the "proof" for evolution is something I don't believe, how on earth are we supposed to come up w/ scientific fact?

I'll honestly admit I HAVE no scientific proof that eGod created the earth with stars mature enough to have light already here. I have my personal beliefs and the faith in the word of the Bible. What scientific evidence do you expect me to come up with when the available evidence requires faith to believe, and ergo is not really "evidence"?

From Erwin, the Site Administrator: Welcome to the Scientific Discussion Forum (also know as the Evolutionary/Creationist debate forum)!
I expect nothing. The available evidence requires no faith to believe- it points to the theory of evolution! We have paleontology, genetics, physiology, and numerous other fields in biology. We don't need faith to determine that the conclusions of these fields are truth. The evidence is there.

 

[aeroz19]

1. God created the light at the beginning. However, they are insisting that the light we see today from distant celestial bodies is that light. There are problems with this beyond reason.

Ok, let's say that since God created all things with an appearance of "maturity": the earth, universe, plants, animals, and people were mature.

Does this imply that light was also mature? And what does that mean anyway? Light being mature? Mature light, a Creationist would say, is light that has been created everywhere at once.

Lets say that star A has been created. It's light is immediately being emitted, but God made light all over the universe in all places to appear as though it was coming from this star. So, on Earth, God created some rays of light that appeared to be coming in the direction of that star--a star that is millions of light years away. This gets somewhat complex!

Assuming that God made light rays all the way from the distant star to the earth, then what does that light show us? When the light reaches earth, do we see how it looked on Day 1 of creation until the light emitted from the star reaches us a million years later?

And what if a supernova occurs? Guess we'll have to wait until the created light all reaches us, and the regular light is emmitted, to see the supernova.

Wait, but we have already seen supernovas. How can this be?

This type of an explanation does not satisfy me. God never said He did anything like this.

Even the sites in the OP admit that item no. one is out of the picture:

"This would mean that for a 10,000-year-old universe, that anything we see happening beyond about 10,000 light-years away is actually part of a gigantic picture show of things that have not actually happened, showing us objects which may not even exist."

Item number one has been refuted.

 

[aeroz19]

I'll honestly admit I HAVE no scientific proof that God created the earth with stars mature enough to have light already here. I have my personal beliefs and the faith in the word of the Bible. What scientific evidence do you expect me to come up with when the available evidence requires faith to believe, and ergo is not really "evidence"?

*grabs her fellow Christian sis by the shoulders*

This is what I mean! We can't possibly be expected to believe on faith in our interpretations of the Bible, we have to have evidence to support what we believe! We could be very wrong in what we believe the Bible says; it has happened before! That's why we should educate ourselves on both sides of the issue and discover for ourselves what the truth is.

 

[Tachocline]

... faith to believe, and ergo is not really "evidence"?

Inadvertently wery well said.

 

[Aeschylus]

C...what a pain, eh? It is the number one problem that Creationists have to deal with. Some stars are millions of light-years away, and this means that earth has been around for at least millions of years. How do creationists solve this huge problem? Well, since they believe the Bible says that the earth is no older than 10,000 years, they must never question this, EVER!! Instead, they think inside the box--the Bible box, a very limited, small box.

(I'm blowing steam here obviously, because I hate closed minded thought, [and I am surrounded by it a lot], which hinders progress and confuses millions of people, and even threatens to destroy their faith. Many of you know where I am coming from...)

But does the Bible even say the earth is 10,000 years old? To come later (in another thread)...

So, here's how Creationists deal with the problem of star light:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/star-light.html

Good OP, certainly a topic meriting furtehr investigation.

1. God created the light at the beginning. However, they are insisting that the light we see today from distant celestial bodies is that light. There are problems with this beyond reason.

If I was a six-day creationist this is probably what I would choose, but as you say it has many problems (such as why woud God, wanting us to believe in six day literal creation, create evidence to the contrary), it also goes against the creationist idea that creationism can be supported by science as such an assertion could only be of a theological nature.

2. C was much faster back in the beginning. However, this is totally unsupported.

This is quite difficult to square with science, but there are several ways that you could possibly go about it, but each has it's own flaw:

1) c is not constant.

c is infact more fundamental than just the speed of light in a vacuum, it is a fundamental proeprty of the geometry of spacetime (so fundmantal infact by convention it is usually taken as equal to 1). It is easy to show that changing c has some very profound and unexpected effects on physics.

For example I'm sure you've seen the iconic formula E = mc², this formula relates the 'rest energy' E of an object to it's mass m, the c in the formula is and must be the same c that refers to the speed of light in a vacuum. Being a fundmanteal property of spacetime he constant c pops up in all sorts of very importnat formulas which have nothing to do with light. For the six-day creation to be correct c must of been hugely different sevral thousand years ago, this would result in hugely different physics, physics under which life as is probably couldn't of existed, aslo we can actually observe if c (by examing the phuysics of those faraway galaxies) was different from our observations of the light believd to be sevral billions of years old and we can safely say if c varies at all it must be by only a small amountand certainly not the ridculosuly huge amount required by creationists.

2 Light used to be faster than c.

This has many problems, firstly particles that tavel faster than c (tachyons)have never been observed and we're not even sure if they are allowed by physics as they lead to all sorts of paradoxes such as the abilty to communicate with the past. Secondly physics tells us that objects travelling above c must always travel above c and can never travel at c or slower. Thirdly there are some issues relating to the conservation of energy as particles that travel above c have imaginary energies and whichever way you play it you cannot have it so that energy is conserved as the real enrgy vanishes (the conservation of enrergy refrs to real energy).

3. special relativty is wrong.

Special relativty is proably the most tested theory in physics being tested under rigourous scientific conditons at particle accelerators everyday, it also forms the foundation for nearly all of modern physics.

3. Quantum Physics. Light seems to travel slower to us than it really is.

I'm not sure where you're getting this one from, however all the QM 'faster than c' experiments are a bit like physicist parlour tricks involving subtle loopholes in QM that make it appear that special relativty has been violated when infact it never is. None of these tho' could be used to make the light from distant stars reach us any quicker.

 

[aeroz19]

Explanation: The closest and brightest supernova in over a decade was recorded just over a month ago in the outskirts of nearby galaxy NGC 2403. Officially tagged SN 2004dj, the Type IIP explosion likely annihilated most of a blue supergiant star as central fusion could no longer hold it up. The supernova can be seen as the bright object in the above image in the direction of the arrow. The home galaxy to the supernova, spiral galaxy NGC 2403, is located only 11 million light years away and is visible with binoculars toward the northern constellation of Camelopardalis (the Giraffe). The supernova is fading but still visible with a telescope, once peaking at just brighter than magnitude 12. Supernovas of this type change brightness in a predictable way and may be searched for in the distant universe as distance indicators.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

So, did this event occur 11 million years ago, or 6000 years ago, or more recently than 6000 years ago?

Lets say it occured 5000 years ago. How did that light reach us now, when it is so far away and light only travels at 300,000km/sec?


Distance to the supernova:
11 million light years
= 11 million of the units of distance that light travels in a year
= (11 million) of these --> (300,000km/sec)(60sec/min)(60min/hr)(24hrs/day)(365.25days/yr)
=(11 million) times (9.46726x10^12km/yr)
=1.0414008x10^20 km


Wow, that's over a trillion kilometers! Can someone please ckeck my numbers? Thanks. I am sensing that something is wrong with my data.


Now, if this event occured 5000 years ago, how do we explain how we saw it? Well, we could say that light traveled really fast, which means you have to prove that c has decayed and why.

Speed of c:
(1.0414008x10^20 km)/5000yrs
=(2.0828016x10^16 km/yr)(1 yr/31557600 sec)
=6.6x10^8 km/sec
=2200 times faster than c today.


This means that c is decaying at a rate of 131,940 km/sec per year, if you look at it in a linear manner. However, this would mean that we would have noticed the decay, since it is so obvious a decay.

Have I effecively killed item number 2?

 

[Lonnie]

" Some stars are millions of light-years away, and this means that earth has been around for at least millions of years. How do creationists solve this huge problem? Well, since they believe the Bible says that the earth is no older than 10,000 years, they must never question this, EVER!! "

That is rather easy to awnser, I came up with an awnser to that years ago.(no offence)
God made the heavens, since I think that God can do what ever he wants, he could have created the stars with the light from them striking the earth.

 

[notto]

That is rather easy to awnser, I came up with an awnser to that years ago.(no offence)
God made the heavens, since I think that God can do what ever he wants, he could have created the stars with the light from them striking the earth.

But this leads to the problem that we are now seeing things that never existed. This means that God is deceiving us to believe that some stars that never existed did or that the stars we are seeing never actually looked like we see them now (basically, God is showing us a picture show of things that never happened an is still doing it).

You have to remember that we are talking about more than light. The pictures from the Hubble, in your answer, are just God's picture show and it is all false.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Adam was fully mature when he was created, so were the trees. I don't see the problem with starlight. God created a mature universe. He's God after all...That's no harder to do than raising a man from the dead!

God raised a man (several men) from the dead for a noble purpose.

God created a young universe that looks mature to decieve us.

Nice God you got there... real trustworthy.