How do most Christian deal with objects millions or billions of light years away from Earth?

[Richard.20.12]

> Nothing in nature supports that.

But the Bible supports that. All life was fully functioning at Creation. Adam and Eve didn't need to "grow up" at Creation and neither did the animals. They weren't created as babies. So if you carry this over to the whole aspect of Creation it makes a lot of sense that God would choose this way to do things when it came to the universe as well. This is the only way that really explains the distances involved.

So now the question is what was here before the Earth and universe was created? God was here. What was He doing? Were there other worlds? What kind? Did they have the same timeline as ours? Are there others out there right now? Why wouldn't there be? Wouldn't God in His infinite abilities get bored with just one world or does love remove that problem? When we love someone and are around them we are seldom bored, especially children who delight us. We are God's children and are created in the image of Him so its natural to assume certain aspects of life are replicated in His creation.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

one has a choice about which authority to believe.

The bible with its six day creation and miracles etc

The first eleven chapters of Genesis are a collection of epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends. Please see the commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis by Claus Westermann—it devotes 648 pages to Genesis 1-11 giving us by far the most thoroughly researched study of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 -11. Additional recent commentaries on the Hebrew text of Genesis include those by Gerhard von Rad and Ephraim Speiser. Genesis was never intended to be an authoritative document on the creation of the earth.

Atheistic evolution with its rejection of God and the idea that the super natural exists.

There is no such thing as atheistic evolution. Science and religion are two very different disciplines that do not intersect. Therefore, science could not care less about the teachings of religion. However, individual evolutionists and other scientists may have religious beliefs, and among evolutionists we find Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Taoists, as well as persons with indigenous and ethnic beliefs. Some scientists, however, may have no religious beliefs, and a few of these scientists may be atheists—but atheism is uncommon among scientists because evidence is a major component of science, and evidence that God does not exist is seriously lacking!

Indeed, the term “atheistic evolution” is a deliberately false concept concocted by young earth creationist “ministries” with the purpose of deceiving the public into believing a false concept of the theory of evolution.

Of course there are those who will pick and chose from the what ever bits of the bible can be explained by atheistic science.

The term “atheistic science” is an oxymoron for the reason stated above!

Distant starlight is a big problem for creationists and also for evolutionists.

The Big Bang would have caused great temperatures atdifferent levels right across the universe.


But


That is not what science finds, the universe has a constant even temperature with only a few degrees of variation.


The problem is that there has not been enough time for heat to have radiated across the univers and to have evened out!

Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang - creation.com read about it for yourself.

Starlight has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution! What kind of willfully deceptive trickery is this? For an honest, objective discussion of this matter, please see this article,

Light Matters: A Response to Jason Lisle - Articles

 

[Tolworth John]

“atheistic evolution”

As Dawkins says evolution enabled him to be intellectually fulfilled as an atheist.
Those preaching and teaching evolution are mainly atheists, they acknowledge that a believe in evolution logically leads to not believing in God, so atheistic evolution is a reasonable label.

While believe in evolution is not critical to ones salvation, it is part of a slippery slope of dis belief leading to unbelief.


The starlight problem, if you had read it, shows that just as distant star light is a problem for yec it is also a problem for evolution.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Lllllllllldelete

 

[coffee4u]

Now one could say that God has the ability to create light on its way to Earth and it is possible. Its unlikely but it is possible and would account for a young Earth. But we all know God is rather straight forward and doesn't trick us by bending the rules of physics and nature to do something He could have designed from the start. So that is unlikely.

Another option is the Earth is young but the universe is old.

Another option is Genesis describes not Creation from the start of the universe, rather rejuvenation of this world. But when you read Genesis 2 it sure doesn't sound like that:

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth,and there was not a man to till the ground.

That sounds like a brand new Earth. But I'm not reading it in the original language of course.

So what do you think? Are we really looking at the Andromeda Galaxy as it was 2.5 million years ago? And that's the closest galaxy. And I'm pretty sure there is no debate on the accuracy of these distances since they can be checked and checked by the finest mathematics minds in the world.

I can think of all kinds of possibilities.
God created the stars (fully grown as he did everything else) and moved them into place with the light trailing back to earth in an instant. Perhaps God bent time or speed a certain way past the earth. God is timeless perhaps the universe is too. Maybe Einstein's theory of relativity is but a kindergartners view of how time really works, a mere scratch on the surface of something far more complex.
Perhaps the stars also changed when creation fell. If the world is corrupted and groaning so too may they be.
If the universe is bound not open this could change things, some of what we see could even be an optical illusion.

God often bent the laws of nature.
Physics is the branch of science that deals with the structure of matter and how the fundamental constituents of the universe interact, right?
But how much can we know from way down here?
All dating methods and mathematical models are based on assumptions. Assumptions are not proofs. Assumptions may be wrong.
Just because mankind thinks it's 2.5 million years does not mean it is. Perhaps it is mankind tricking himself because we are missing necessary facts and once we meet God and understand, all the pieces will fall into place.
Job 38:4
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?”
No we weren't and nobody has access to it as that world is gone.

Genesis 2 is simply focused in on the garden.
It talks about different types of cultivated plants which were not mentioned in chapter 1. This is why it is said in connection to a man working the soil.
Wild plants in Genesis 1 do not need cultivation those in chapter 2 do. It also mentioned animals previously created and God has Adam name them.

Exodus 20 reaffirms that all things were created within the 6 days, no gap.
1 And God spoke all these words:
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

 

[Richard.20.12]

Lllllllllldelete

What does that mean?

 

[Richard.20.12]

As Dawkins says evolution enabled him to be intellectually fulfilled as an atheist.
Those preaching and teaching evolution are mainly atheists, they acknowledge that a believe in evolution logically leads to not believing in God, so atheistic evolution is a reasonable label.

While believe in evolution is not critical to ones salvation, it is part of a slippery slope of dis belief leading to unbelief.


The starlight problem, if you had read it, shows that just as distant star light is a problem for yec it is also a problem for evolution.

Well said. Whenever I hear evolutionists talking and the subject of God comes up (which they try to minimize as instinctually they're very uneasy about this) they really sound like they are relieved that they don't have to acknowledge a Creator, a Designer, someone they will later need to be accountable to. Its like "Now THAT's out of the way, I'm free to do what I want without anyone telling me what to do. Now I'm free!". Its really not much different from a young child obstinately refusing to do something asked of their parents and feels relief when they've skirted the issue. What did the first man do when asked of God as to his first sin? Skirted the issue and blamed someone else. Pretty spineless and that's our sad history....LOL.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Those preaching and teaching evolution are mainly atheists, they acknowledge that a believe in evolution logically leads to not believing in God, so atheistic evolution is a reasonable label.

Before my Damascus Road experience in which I became a new man in Christ and was filled with the Holy Spirit, I was an evolutionary biologist. All of my friends and colleagues were evolutionary biologists—and none of them ever expressed any atheistic views. Furthermore, belief in the theory of evolution does NOT logically lead to atheism!

Science and religion are two very different disciplines that do not intersect. However, Young earth creationism commingles religion and science and thereby contaminates both science and religion. Consequently, when some Christians witnessed to me from an antievolution point of view, I knew that they were ridiculously ignorant dingbats and I had no interest in their Jesus or their Bible. Indeed, antievolution propaganda in the name of Christianity was a huge stumbling block that kept me far away from the truth.

After several years of this, a Christian man shared with me the gospel free of contaminants and his words convicted me of my need to be saved. However, the antievolution propaganda kept coming into my mind and trusting in Jesus was not possible for me. But—by the grace of God, an Assembly of God congregation felt an overwhelming burden for my soul and was determined to pray that God would touch me in a supernatural way and make Himself known to me. And then it happened—totally unexpectedly! As I was walking down the sidewalk in the downtown of a large city the hand of Jesus touched me, changed me, and I was no longer the man that I used to be, but a new man in Christ!

While believe in evolution is not critical to ones salvation, it is part of a slippery slope of dis belief leading to unbelief.

The truth is that antievolution propaganda was for me, as it has been for tens of millions of other people in need of salvation, a huge stumbling block that for years kept me in bondage to disbelief. The theory of evolution is supported by massive amounts of data that is growing by the hour, and awareness of this reality has absolutely nothing to do with religion or ones personal relationship with Christ.

The starlight problem, if you had read it, shows that just as distant star light is a problem for yec it is also a problem for evolution.

The age of the earth has been very carefully measured using radiometric dating techniques to be 4.54 billion years old. Distant star light has absolutely nothing to do with this measurement. Furthermore, this age of the earth is now universally accepted by scientists working in a very wide spectrum of specialties. Young earth creationist organizations say, “Not so!” but the many articles that they have written to argue against this measurement reveal that they have never read the data and that they are blindly clueless regarding the material that was studied. Moreover, they argue that this data is based upon an assumption of constancy but they present no evidence against the constancy. Furthermore, no argument against constancy even begins to explain the difference between 4.54 billion years and 10,000 years according to their religion.

The measured age of the earth from an evangelical Christian perspective,

Radiometric Dating

 

[Tolworth John]

Science and religion are two very different disciplines that do not intersect.

Facts do not interpret themselves, a theory based on ones preconceived ideas is need.
So religion and science do intersect.
In fact without Christian preconceptions there is no science.

Ask your science friends where they get the idea that the the universe is consistent and understandable.

These are both ideas that flow from Christianity, it is not found in roman/greek believfs or in egyption, chinese , indian or in any other religion.

 

[Richard.20.12]

OK, so you're a Christian and believe in evolution with ample education in the area.

Please address this glaring problem for me as a
Christian.

Evolution's main premise is lifeforms changed to survive. Yet the most advanced lifeform on the planet (man) has the worst chances of survival because he is slow, rather weak, very sensitive to temperature changes and most importantly reproduces very slowly. Sure you could argue that mental advancement helps survival but it would make no sense to lose attributes that help your survival. When I look around I see bacteria and insects the strongest, most resilient lifeforms; they also reproduce abundantly. So it makes no sense to me that we would advance from that stage. Because it wouldn't be needed to survive. I have never heard any answer to this problem of evolution. There are many other issues that I have with it but that's the main one.

 

[Richard.20.12]

As for the age of the Earth, how do you interpret Genesis? By going through the Bible it seems to be about 6000 years ago. Do you think the Earth was instead renewed 6000 years ago for our recent timeline? (Some believe that and that allows for an old Earth.) What about dinosaurs? Doesn't it seem odd that so much of the world's history wouldn't have man in it? Like almost none if the Earth is billions of years old? 6000 into 4.5 billion is 1 in 750,000 after all. Of course if the Earth is being renewed every few thousand years this cycle of Earthly life could have been going on for billions of years. And there could be planets like ours renewing their life cycles all over our galaxy and every galaxy. We can't even begin to grasp the magnitude of the possibilities.

 

[Eloy Craft]

OK, so you're a Christian and believe in evolution with ample education in the area.

Please address this glaring problem for me as a
Christian.

Evolution's main premise is lifeforms changed to survive. Yet the most advanced lifeform on the planet (man) has the worst chances of survival because he is slow, rather weak, very sensitive to temperature changes and most importantly reproduces very slowly. Sure you could argue that mental advancement helps survival but it would make no sense to lose attributes that help your survival. When I look around I see bacteria and insects the strongest, most resilient lifeforms; they also reproduce abundantly. So it makes no sense to me that we would advance from that stage. Because it wouldn't be needed to survive. I have never heard any answer to this problem of evolution. There are many other issues that I have with it but that's the main one.

Perhaps, the human body is the goal for evolving flesh. A body to receive a living soul that makes human life a composite of life in heaven and life on earth.
Adam failed to realize the ultimate goal for man and creation. Freedom from entropy.
Jesus accomplished that end goal for us and the universe. Perhaps?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

OK, so you're a Christian and believe in evolution with ample education in the area.

Please address this glaring problem for me as a Christian.

Evolution's main premise is lifeforms changed to survive.

That is NOT a premise of the theory of evolution but a severe misrepresentation of the theory. All life forms live in an environment in which they are able to live and reproduce. As their environment changes, those individuals who are the most able live and reproduce in the changed environment are the mostly likely to pass their genes onto the next generation.

Yet the most advanced lifeform on the planet (man) has the worst chances of survival because he is slow, rather weak, very sensitive to temperature changes and most importantly reproduces very slowly. Sure you could argue that mental advancement helps survival but it would make no sense to lose attributes that help your survival. When I look around I see bacteria and insects the strongest, most resilient lifeforms; they also reproduce abundantly. So it makes no sense to me that we would advance from that stage. Because it wouldn't be needed to survive. I have never heard any answer to this problem of evolution. There are many other issues that I have with it but that's the main one.

Let’s go back to the genus Australopithecus, a genus of early hominins that existed in Africa during the Late Pliocene and Early Pleistocene and from which Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens (modern humans) descended. We know little about Homo erectus and not as much about Homo neanderthalensis as we would like to, but we know that early Homo sapiens were physically able to speak. This ability gave them a huge advantage over other species because it enabled them to communicate among themselves greatly enhancing their ability to learn from each other survival techniques, etc. And, of course, learning how to light fires and cook their food was another substantial advantage over species.

Going back much further to the common ancestors of all primates, we see that they all had an opposable thumb enabling them to grasp and hold onto objects in their environment. Furthermore, as their hands continued to evolve, their dexterity improved to where their functionality far surpassed that of all other species.

 

[Richard.20.12]

Perhaps, the human body is the goal for evolving flesh. A body to receive a living soul that makes human life a composite of life in heaven and life on earth.
Adam failed to realize the ultimate goal for man and creation. Freedom from entropy.
Jesus accomplished that end goal for us and the universe. Perhaps?

Or perhaps God gets it right the first time.

 

[Richard.20.12]

That is NOT a premise of the theory of evolution but a severe misrepresentation of the theory. All life forms live in an environment in which they are able to live and reproduce. As their environment changes, those individuals who are the most able live and reproduce in the changed environment are the mostly likely to pass their genes onto the next generation.

Let’s go back to the genus Australopithecus, a genus of early hominins that existed in Africa during the Late Pliocene and Early Pleistocene and from which Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens (modern humans) descended. We know little about Homo erectus and not as much about Homo neanderthalensis as we would like to, but we know that early Homo sapiens were physically able to speak. This ability gave them a huge advantage over other species because it enabled them to communicate among themselves greatly enhancing their ability to learn from each other survival techniques, etc. And, of course, learning how to light fires and cook their food was another substantial advantage over species.

Going back much further to the common ancestors of all primates, we see that they all had an opposable thumb enabling them to grasp and hold onto objects in their environment. Furthermore, as their hands continued to evolve, their dexterity improved to where their functionality far surpassed that of all other species.

> As their environment changes, those individuals who are the most able live and reproduce in the changed environment are the mostly likely to pass their genes onto the next generation.

That is precisely the premise and whole foundation of evolution. Its survival in a long winded way. "Most able to live and reproduce" IS survival. So it makes zero sense to lose the very attributes that make survival a certainty. Reproduction rates of 1 is a pretty lousy way of maintaining your species! I'd go with hundreds or thousands like in bacteria or insects if I was a betting man! But no, it makes more sense to dwindle down to .... 1. I guess you can say "It was God doing that!". No matter how you look at evolution it makes no sense at all. And it breaks its own foundational premises.

I thought you were educated. That wasn't much of a response. I expected something remotely interesting at least. Why don't we start with clear fossils that show an actual skull between ape and human? Not a tooth or a skull fragment where they just fantasize as to what it looked like. And how you would know when this creature started talking would be interesting to know. Voice recording with stone implements?

You didn't address my other queries as to how Genesis fits in with the evolutionary fanciful narrative.

I suspect high level scientists that are Christian retain their evolutionary "belief" (excuse is more like it) so they don't get fired from a very lucrative position. Getting a PhD is not a trivial pursuit and a comfortable salary is expected. And during that entire process they would have to fake a belief system, integrating it into all their work. I cannot imagine doing that for so many years. But I guess you adapt when you really love a field. Once graduated it probably becomes a norm. Surely a high price to pay.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Or perhaps God gets it right the first time.

I'm not sure what you mean. Given we are rational beings that is.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

As for the age of the Earth, how do you interpret Genesis? By going through the Bible it seems to be about 6000 years ago. Do you think the Earth was instead renewed 6000 years ago for our recent timeline? (Some believe that and that allows for an old Earth.) What about dinosaurs? Doesn't it seem odd that so much of the world's history wouldn't have man in it? Like almost none if the Earth is billions of years old? 6000 into 4.5 billion is 1 in 750,000 after all. Of course if the Earth is being renewed every few thousand years this cycle of Earthly life could have been going on for billions of years. And there could be planets like ours renewing their life cycles all over our galaxy and every galaxy. We can't even begin to grasp the magnitude of the possibilities.

The earth is 4.54 billion years old. This is a very well proven age from science that has no bearing whatsoever on my interpretation of any part of Genesis or any parts of the Bible that make a reference to any part of Genesis.

I posted above,

The first eleven chapters of Genesis are a collection of epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends. Please see the commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis by Claus Westermann—it devotes 648 pages to Genesis 1-11 giving us by far the most thoroughly researched study of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 -11. Additional recent commentaries on the Hebrew text of Genesis include those by Gerhard von Rad and Ephraim Speiser. Genesis was never intended to be an authoritative document on the creation of the earth.​

Explanatory Note,

Life Forms did not change in order to survive. Those individuals who were the most able live and reproduce in their changing environment were the individuals mostly likely to pass their genes onto the next generation.​

 

[coffee4u]

As for the age of the Earth, how do you interpret Genesis? By going through the Bible it seems to be about 6000 years ago. Do you think the Earth was instead renewed 6000 years ago for our recent timeline? (Some believe that and that allows for an old Earth.) What about dinosaurs? Doesn't it seem odd that so much of the world's history wouldn't have man in it? Like almost none if the Earth is billions of years old? 6000 into 4.5 billion is 1 in 750,000 after all. Of course if the Earth is being renewed every few thousand years this cycle of Earthly life could have been going on for billions of years. And there could be planets like ours renewing their life cycles all over our galaxy and every galaxy. We can't even begin to grasp the magnitude of the possibilities.

It isn't going through the Bible that points to 6000 years, it was Bishop James Ussher who arrived at that figure and made it popular. The Bible was never meant to be used as a calculator. God only tells us about events and people who he wants us to know about. So while the Bible is clearly not pointing to millions of years it also does not state 6 thousand either. As a creationist once I realized who had come up with this timeline I tossed it aside. Any man who is arrogant enough to claim he knows the exact date of creation is in my opinion not someone any christian should follow as a teacher. While he was not predicting the return of Christ it smacks very close to that type of thing. His claim that creation occurred on October 23, 4004 BC makes me question who he was and his beliefs.
Matthew 24:36
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
I don't put such a constraint on creation. Maybe it was 6, maybe it was 20.

What about dinosaurs? They were created along with man, died in the global flood, were wiped out by man after the flood. It's really quite simple once the Jurassic park millions of years indoctrination is removed from your thinking. Then you can read Job and fully see that God was describing a dinosaur and a sea monster that Job knew and was familiar with.

Highly doubtful that God created any other planets with life.

 

[miamited]

Hi @Richard.20.12

But we all know God is rather straight forward and doesn't trick us by bending the rules of physics and nature to do something He could have designed from the start. So that is unlikely.

We all know that, do we?

Let's see. There's the account of the crossing of the Israelites through the Red Sea.

Exodus 14:22
...and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left.

Last I studied, water can't stand as a wall based on God's rules of physics.

Then there's the account of the shadow on the steps of Ahaz:

2 Kings 10:10
So Isaiah the prophet called out to the LORD, and He brought the shadow back the ten steps it had descended on the stairway of Ahaz.…

Last I studied in astrophysics it is impossible for a shadow cast by the sun to go backwards. It's a known part of God's physical laws...right?

Finally, and there are more, but it shouldn't take more than one example to falsify your claim:

Luke 1:34
“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

All medical science will tell you that it's impossible for a woman to be pregnant without the introduction of male human sperm to be introduced in the female human egg. Now, how that is introduced, today, can be in different ways, but no one has yet created a human being without the two basic building blocks of sperm and egg. It's a known part of God's laws of nature.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Ragdoll]

One thing that I have learned and will pass on is that cosmology is a pseudoscience that teaches the unknowable. One can easily become mystified by studying cosmology because of all the numerous theories out there. I think it is important to focus one's mind and energy on things that can be known, rather than waste so much time on mystical claims that are unknown and unknowable. Cosmology is mere philosophy and those who think that scientists have solved the universe have unfortutnately been misled.

Case and point: recently, NASA discovered the very first planet outside of our galaxy. Yep. Google it. You'll find several articles on this new discovery. The very first planet discovered outside our galaxy. Let that soak in. Does it sound like scientists have solved the universe? Nope. Cosmology is a pseudoscience still in its infancy.

If you are one who likes to learn useful knowledge, spend your time on known things like geoscience and biology or theology. Research no farther than the solar system and you'll enjoy your time in research much more than those who have lost themselves by spending all their time studying unknowable things like cosmology.

How do Christians deal with the philosophy of millions and billions of years? I don't worry about that at all. I've studied history and found where the dating game came from. Deep Time was an ancient Greek philosophy rejected by the early church fathers. But that Deep Time philosophy managed to sneak its way into modern science despite not having any real science to it. So I don't worry about it. I trust God and not the government. Evolution is government run science and we know how reliable the government is, so..

I abandoned the study of philosophy so I never waste my time on any philosophical issues. Philosophy is just a means of pushing your opinion off on others and sounding convincing through eloquent speech. So philosophy is boring because you cannot learn anything useful to pass on to others.