Starlight Problem

[FaithT]

Many scientists believe the book of Genesis.

Many? Got a list?

 

[Bobber]

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




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?

Who says the farther away galaxies look so young? Can you provide a link to demonstrate this?

 

[d taylor]

Creation of God? Who ever said God was created?

The Bible says God is infinite.

I was speaking about the creation God created. 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..

 

[GodLovesCats]

Many? Got a list?

If you really wanted to know, you would do your own homework. You just want to be in denial.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I was speaking about the creation God created. 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..

I believe the scientific proof that has been widely supported many times and interpret the Bible as it should be, which is NOT literally.

Nothing in Genesis 1 contradicts evolution or extinction of species. You are refusing to provide any proof science is a lie because you know there is none.

 

[FaithT]

If you really wanted to know, you would do your own homework. You just want to be in denial.

I have been doing my own homework. I’m hoping for more names than I’ve seen. Where did you get many?

 

[GodLovesCats]

I have been doing my own homework. I’m hoping for more names than I’ve seen. Where did you get many?

From the fact that all of the sciences have been studied worldwide as long as possible in human history.

Since this thread is about starlight, how about Galileo Gallilei, a Catholic astronomer?

 

[FaithT]

From the fact that all of the sciences have been studied worldwide as long as possible in human history.

Since this thread is about starlight, how about Galileo Gallilei, a Catholic astronomer?

I wantEd names of modern day scientists from the 20th and 21st centuries.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I wanted names of modern day scientists from the 20th and 21st centuries.

You want to believe all scientists are atheists no matter what list of names I come up with, so I will not waste my time.

 

[d taylor]

I believe the scientific proof that has been widely supported many times and interpret the Bible as it should be, which is NOT literally.

Nothing in Genesis 1 contradicts evolution or extinction of species. You are refusing to provide any proof science is a lie because you know there is none.

I know you believe in science, you have stated this. Which is why you do not believe in the creation account given in The Bible.

Which is fine with me, but do not try and equate what science states as being God's creation with the actual truthful creation account given in The Bible by God. The two are not the same and are not compatible in any way.

 

[FaithT]

You want to believe all scientists are atheists no matter what list of names I come up with, so I will not waste my time.

No, I know that not all scientists are atheists. Some are very faithful Christians, Muslim, Hindu, etc.

 

[Derf]

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?

The current answer is "We don't know yet." Some ideas have been presented, but so far no particular idea has caught on.

 

[trophy33]

The current answer is "We don't know yet." Some ideas have been presented, but so far no particular idea has caught on.

Therefore, YEC is not based on data (data: we see distant stars and the velocity of light is constant), but on a wish/bias ("we want the universe to be young, but we do not know how to explain, test or predict things")

Therefore, its not scientific.

 

[Job 33:6]

Therefore, YEC is not based on data (data: we see distant stars and the velocity of light is constant), but on a wish/bias ("we want the universe to be young, but we do not know how to explain, test or predict things")

Therefore, its not scientific.

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.

 

[com7fy8]

If stars are so far, God could have made them with light already between them, no need for it to "travel".

Another item > Romans 8:20-21. This says creation was "subjected to futility".

To me, this can mean the original creation was not like it is now after Adam and Eve fell into sin. There possibly were not the physical laws we have now, so limiting things.

 

[Derf]

Therefore, YEC is not based on data (data: we see distant stars and the velocity of light is constant), but on a wish/bias ("we want the universe to be young, but we do not know how to explain, test or predict things")

Therefore, its not scientific.

Are you saying that if a scientiific theory doesn't have an explanation for something, then it is unscientific?

 

[Derf]

If stars are so far, God could have made them with light already between them, no need for it to "travel".

Another item > Romans 8:20-21. This says creation was "subjected to futility".

To me, this can mean the original creation was not like it is now after Adam and Eve fell into sin. There possibly were not the physical laws we have now, so limiting things.

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.

 

[trophy33]

Are you saying that if a scientiific theory doesn't have an explanation for something, then it is unscientific?

If it is not useful for explanation of data, testing and predicting, its not scientific, thats right.

 

[Derf]

If it is not useful for explanation of data, testing and predicting, its not scientific, thats right.

That's certainly not true, because there have been numerous explanations offered in our modern era that were considered scientific, but were later discovered to be wrong. In which case, nothing woukd be scientific until it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[trophy33]

That's certainly not true, because there have been numerous explanations offered in our modern era that were considered scientific, but were later discovered to be wrong. In which case, nothing woukd be scientific until it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

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