Post Reply
Page 1 of 53  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 53 Next
3 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2012 - 7:58PM #1
steven_guy
Posts: 11,751
If the entire universe is a merely six thousand years old, how come we can see stars, nebulae and galaxies more than 6,000 light years distant? And what we see are middle aged, ageing and dying stars? 

The M.31 galaxy in Andromeda is nearly three million light years from the Milky Way galaxy and it is a naked eyed object. It also appears to be a middle aged galaxy with many old stars and nebulae caused by ancient super novae.

No one who looks at the universe with open eyes could possibly come to the frankly ludicrous conclusion that the universe is a measly 6,000 years old.

Can any Creationist credibly explain why the universe appears to be billions of years old? 
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2012 - 8:20PM #2
Blü
Posts: 25,264

Our Creo friends say Yahweh created the universe with the starlight already on its way, so that the sky on Day 4 looked like the modern sky, pretty much.


Why would Yahweh bother to indulge in such deceit?  Essentially the same deceit as burying fossils in chronological sequence in the strata?  Answer: Deceit?  What deceit are you talking about?


Genesis describes a geocentric universe with a flat earth and an inverted bowl over it to which the stars are attached.  No, the Creos say, the bible writers knew all about modern cosmology (and modern everything else) so no way would they make errors of that kind. 


The problem of how the bible writers came to write such errors regardless is solved by declaring that any reading of the bible that discloses such errors can't be the correct reading.  Why not?  Because the bible means what Creos say it mean, so what the text actually says is irrelevant.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2012 - 8:32PM #3
steven_guy
Posts: 11,751

Apr 21, 2012 -- 8:20PM, Blü wrote:


Our Creo friends say Yahweh created the universe with the starlight already on its way, so that the sky on Day 4 looked like the modern sky, pretty much.


Why would Yahweh bother to indulge in such deceit?  Essentially the same deceit as burying fossils in chronological sequence in the strata?  Answer: Deceit?  What deceit are you talking about?


Genesis describes a geocentric universe with a flat earth and an inverted bowl over it to which the stars are attached.  No, the Creos say, the bible writers knew all about modern cosmology (and modern everything else) so no way would they make errors of that kind. 


The problem of how the bible writers came to write such errors regardless is solved by declaring that any reading of the bible that discloses such errors can't be the correct reading.  Why not?  Because the bible means what Creos say it mean, so what the text actually says is irrelevant.




Yes, I guessed as much. The idea that God created the light already en route to us from a universe that was deliberately made to look more than 13 billion years old is a real problem for Creationists. It suggests that the earth is at the centre of the universe and that all of creation is one gigantic con-job.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2012 - 9:22AM #4
57
Posts: 24,408

Might I suggest you read this book

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2012 - 9:44AM #5
JRT
Posts: 340

 


In the beginning God created Dates. And the date was Moon's Day, July 4, 4004 B.C. And God said, let there be light; and there was light. And when there was Light, God saw the Date, that it was Moon's Day, and he got down to work; for verily, he had a Big Job to do. And God made pottery shards and Silurian mollusks and pre-Cambrian limestone strata; and flints and Jurassic Mastodon tusks and Picanthopus Erectus skulls and Cretaceous placentals made he; and those cave paintings at Lasceaux. And that was that, for the first Work Day.



And God saw that he had made many wondrous things, but that he had not wherein to put it all. And God said, Let the heavens be divided from the earth; and let us bury all of these Things which we have made in the earth; but not too deep. And God buried all the Things which he had made, and that was that. And the morning and the evening and the overtime were Tiwe's Day.



And God said, Let there be water; and let the dry land appear; and that was that. And God called the dry land Real Estate; and the water called he the Sea. And in the land and beneath it put he crude oil, grades one through six; and natural gas put he thereunder, and prehistoric carboniferous forests yielding anthracite and other ligneous matter; and all these called he Resources; and he made them Abundant. And likewise all that was in the sea, even unto two hundred miles from the dry land, called he resources; all that was therein, like manganese nodules, for instance. And the morning unto the evening had been a long day; which he called Wodin's Day.



And God said, Let the earth bring forth abundantly every moving creature I can think of, with or without backbones, with or without wings or feet, or fins or claws, vestigial limbs and all, right now ; and let each one be of a separate species. For lo, I can make whatsoever I like, whensoever I like. And the earth brought forth abundantly all creatures, great and small, with and without backbones, with and without wings and feet and fins and claws, vestigial limbs and all, from bugs to brontosauruses. But God blessed them all, saying, Be fruitful and multiply and Evolve Not. And God looked upon the species he hath made, and saw that the earth was exceedingly crowded, and he said unto them, Let each species compete for what it needed; for Healthy Competition is My Law. And the species competeth amongst themselves, the cattle and the creeping things; and some madeth it and some didn't; and the dogs ate the dinosaurs and God was pleased. And God took the bones from the dinosaurs, and caused them to appear mighty old; and cast he them about the land and the sea. And he took every tiny creature that had not madeth it, and caused them to become fossils; and cast he them about likewise. And just to put matters beyond the valley of the shadow of a doubt God created carbon dating. And this is the origin of species. And in the Evening of the day which was Thor's Day, God saw that he had put in another good day's work.



And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, which is tall and well-foormed and pale of hue: and let us also make monkeys, which resembleth us not in any wise, but are short and ill-foormed and hairy. And God added, Let man have dominion over the monkeys and the fowl of the air and every species, endangered or otherwise. So God created Man in His own image; tall and well-formed and pale of hue created He him, and nothing at all like the monkey. And God said, Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of the earth. But ye shalt not smoketh it, lest it giveth you ideas. And to every beast of the earth and every fowl of the air I have given also every green herb, and to them it shall be for meat. But they shall be for you. And the Lord God your Host suggesteth that the flesh of cattle goeth well with that of the fin and the claw; thus shall Surf be wedded unto Turf. And God saw everything he had made, and he saw that it was very good; and God said, It just goes to show Me what the private sector can accomplish. With a lot of fool regulations this could have taken billions of years. And the evening of the fifth day, which had been the roughest day yet, God said, Thank Me it's Freda's Day.



And God made the weekend which he called Saturn's Day and Sun's Day.



www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/24299


the floggings will continue until morale improves
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2012 - 9:47AM #6
JRT
Posts: 340

 


Biblical Cosmology



Modern or ancient, every culture operates within a certain cosmology or understanding of the universe. This cosmology sets the context of how a people understand their world and their place in it. With very few exceptions our modern day cosmology is shaped by the scientific discoveries of the past 500 years. Some of these discoveries have greatly upset religious understandings and it sometimes takes centuries to reconcile the differences. However, since we live in a culture that has been greatly shaped by the bible and Christian beliefs, it is worthwhile to ask about biblical cosmology.



The biblical understanding of the universe is much the same as that of the surrounding cultures in the ancient Middle East at the time when it was written. Unfortunately, nowhere does the bible attempt to present a comprehensive cosmology, so we are forced to rely upon individual passages and to attempt to understand them in the light of their culture and their history. To begin with, biblical cosmology can be characterized as a three-tiered universe. This strange phrase needs some explanation to make the concept clearer.



First, the surface of the earth is circular and flat except for geographical features like hills and valleys. To these people it was theoretically possible to go high enough to see the entire earth, or to envision a tree tall enough that it could be seen from everywhere on the earth's surface, or even to build a tower to reach the sky. The sky was thought of as a solid bowl, called the firmament, that was upended over the circular earth to enclose a volume in the shape of a hemisphere. I should add that there are some bible verses that speak of the four corners of the earth. This would make the firmament look more like a tent than a bowl. The lights of the sky (sun, moon, planets and stars) were inside the firmament and were very much smaller than we presently understand. In fact they were very much smaller than the earth itself. The mechanism by which these celestial objects moved about is not really explained. The noncanonical Book of Enoch (mentioned in the bible as authoritive and part of the canon of Ethiopian Christians) speaks of gates in the east and west for the sun and the moon to enter and leave. Enoch also suggests that their movements are caused by winds.



What I have just described is the middle tier of the three. Above the firmament are waters. This region is described as heaven, the abode of God and the angels. There were also gates in the firmament to permit water to enter as rain. Below the earth are also waters. This region is described as sheol or hell. There were also gates in the earth to permit water to spring up from below. This three level universe is variously described as either hung on nothing or supported by pillars. Storehouses are also envisioned in heaven for the snow and hail.



How should a of Christian today react to this biblical cosmology? The vast majority of what might be described as 'mainline' Christians are actually quite comfortable with this seeming dichotomy. They recognise that the bible is the product of a relatively unsophisticated people with an entirely pre-scientific understanding of nature, who used poetic or metaphorical language to convey their spiritual understandings. On the other hand there is the minority point of view of those Christians who regard the bible to be inerrant and to be understood literally. This group has been forced into extreme apologetic efforts in order to reconcile the bible with modern scientific understandings.



Speaking personally, I find these apologetic attempts to be rather inventive and very strained. I believe that if the scripture writers and early target audience were to read these apologetics, they would find them extremely puzzling and entirely foriegn. This is not to say that they were not intelligent people or not keen observers of nature but rather that that they lacked the intellectual basis to form scientific hypotheses and even the instrumentation to gather accurate data --- all that came about some 2,000 years later.



Isaiah 11:12And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE
EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Psalm 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."(NIV)

Psalm 93:1"The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in
majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (NIV)

Psalm 96:10 "Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity." (NIV)

Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (NIV)

Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (NIV)



Job 9:6 “He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.”(NIV)



Job 26:11 “The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke.”(NIV)



Job 38:22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail," (NIV)

the floggings will continue until morale improves
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2012 - 12:54PM #7
Oncomintrain
Posts: 3,199

Apr 22, 2012 -- 9:22AM, 57 wrote:


Might I suggest you read this book




That would be tough, seeing as how you linked us to a DVD.



But if you go to the book version, there is this helpful rebuttal, right in the comments:



The thrust of Humphreys' book is to come up with a modified cosmology that allows for a very young earth within a very old universe. His proposal is that gravitational time dilation accounts for this vast difference in ages between the earth and the universe. At the core of this proposal is a requirement for a great difference in gravitational force between that experienced at the earth and that experienced in the rest of the universe. This is due to the huge time dilation effect Humphreys requires. For he says that in one 24-hour day of Earth time, the distant stars age billions of years (page 126 of [1]). This requires a time dilation in the order of 10 raised to the 11th power. On it's very face this argument presents a serious problem. If we assume the gravitational force is normal in the rest of the universe, then the force at the earth is so high as to crush everything including the earth itself. If we assume the gravitational force is normal at the earth, then a high repulsive force is required in the rest of the universe, virtually eliminating any possibility that matter coalesces to form stars, planets, galaxies, etc. Put simply, the observable universe does not fit with Humphreys theory.


This is further borne out in the mathematics. Humphreys' theory relies heavily on a very large cosmological constant (which actually varies with time according to Humphreys, see pages 91 and 124 of [1]) for the rapid expansion of the universe during the first few days on earth. There are two main problems with this line of reasoning. One, a very large cosmological constant precludes Newton's theory of gravitation being approximately true. This is clearly shown in Humphreys' own references. Einstein himself (page 186 of [2]) qualifies the introduction of the constant by saying "This field equation, with lambda (mathematical symbol for the cosmological constant) sufficiently small, is in any case also compatible with the facts of experience derived from the solar system." In Weinberg's words (page 155 of [3]) this constant "must be very small so as not to interfere with successes of Newton's theory of gravitation." Two, Humphreys requires that this constant vary (see pages 91, 124, and 126 of [1]) in direct conflict with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. For Einstein says (page 186 of [2]) in his original paper that the field equation may be expanded by adding the fundamental tensor "multiplied by a universal constant" so as not to destroy the "general covariance." Rindler states (page 200 of [4]) it most clearly when he says "within the Newtonian formalism, the coefficients A and B could be functions of time -- for example, they could be linked to the density of an expanding universe. In Einstein's theory, on the other hand, lambda (mathematical symbol for the cosmological constant) has no freedom but to be an absolute constant of nature."


In summary, Humphreys' own references contradict his theory and rather than being consistent with General Relativity, Humphreys' theory stands in direct conflict with it. Without major modifications, Humphreys' theory is destined to join the growing list of young-earth cosmological theories that have all failed to pass "scientific muster."


Michael Glidewell, Ph.D.


References


[1] D. R. Humphreys, Starlight and Time, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1994.


[2] A. Einstein, et. al., The Principle of Relativity, Dover Publications, NY, 1952.


[3] S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, Wiley and Sons, NY, 1972.


[4] W. Rindler, Essential Relativity, 2nd Ed, Springer-Verlag, NY, 1977.


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2012 - 2:34PM #8
steven_guy
Posts: 11,751

Apr 22, 2012 -- 9:22AM, 57 wrote:


Might I suggest you read this book




And I know jolly well that this book is complete and utter crap. Absolute crap, in fact.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2012 - 2:42PM #9
steven_guy
Posts: 11,751

Claim CE412:


The earth is near the center of the universe, at the bottom of a deep gravitational well. Relativistic effects result in billions of years passing in the rest of the universe while only thousands pass near the earth. This explains how multibillion-year-old stars and galaxies can exist in a universe only a few thousand years old.


Source:


Humphreys, D. Russell, 1994. Starlight and Time, Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. 
Humphreys, D. Russell, 2002. Seven years of Starlight and Time. www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&ac...

Response:


  1. Gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. There is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000. 
  2. Humphreys tried to use clocks in the earth's frame of reference. But the cosmos is much older than the earth. Judging from the heavy elements in the sun and the rest of the solar system, our sun is a second-generation star at least. Billions of years must have passed for the first stars to have formed, shone, and become novas, for the gasses from those novas to have gathered into new star systems, and for the earth to form and cool in one such system. The billions of years before the earth are not accounted for in Humphreys's model. 
  3. Humphreys's theory assumes that the earth is in a huge gravity well. The evidence contradicts this assumption. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. 
  4. See Conner and Page (1998) and Conner and Ross (1999) for several other technical objections. 
  5. There is a great deal of other independent evidence that the earth is very old
  6. If there were any substance to Humphreys's proposal, at least some competent cosmologists would build on it and share in the Nobel Prize. Instead, they dismiss it as worthless.


Links:


Conner, Samuel R. and Hugh Ross. 1999. The unraveling of Starlight and Time. www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/un...


References:


  1. Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).
  2. Conner, S. R. and H. Ross, 1999. (see above).

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2012 - 3:36PM #10
57
Posts: 24,408

Apr 22, 2012 -- 2:34PM, steven_guy wrote:


Apr 22, 2012 -- 9:22AM, 57 wrote:


Might I suggest you read this book




And I know jolly well that this book is complete and utter crap. Absolute crap, in fact.




Oh I quess you evo's got us there. steve.



NEXT

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 53  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 53 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook