Age of the Universe

[DMcFadden]

Todd,

If you ever get any spare time, I would love to hear your take on Russ Humphrey's book already cited above (post #8). He includes some math to back up his arguments. However, I'm just a dumb bureaucrat who runs an old folks home. What do I know about them high-falutin arguments?

 

[Brian Withnell]

My problem with this is very simply put. If my son put together evidence of something that never happened, didn't actually say that the event that he made to appear to have happened, what would you call it? Duplicity? Deception? Certainly a violation of the 9th commandment. Do we really want to attribute to God what we would call lying in our own children?

The main problem here is it's not your created son we are talking about. You are measuring God against a human interpretation of a standard of morality. How is it certainly a violation of the 9th commandment? If God created a mature tree, and then said, "I created this mature tree," there is no lie.

Now if God created a mature universe and said, "I created this in the space of six days" and he leaves it at that, how can that be called a lie?

It hardly fits that by finding evidence of a mature universe we are in a position to attribute deception to God.

The issue is the evidence of things that did not happen. We do not judge God, but we judge the interpretation that would require deception on God's part. If the interpretation would require duplicity, then it is wrong. You are correct that I hold a standard up to judge my son ... that standard is the nature of God revealed in his word. Duplicity is not a part of God's nature, and so I have a hard time believing he would create evidence of something that not only didn't happen, but that never existed in the first place. It isn't that God would do that, but if our interpretation of scripture would put that upon God, then our interpretation of scripture is just plain wrong. I'm not judging God, I'm judging what I believe is a wrong interpretation of scripture through the logical argument of reductio ad absurdum. The idea of a literal 24 day in the six days of creation would make God be a liar in natural revelation. That makes the 144 hour interpretation wrong, as it is impossible for God to lie.

While it is barely plausible that a 144 hour creation is correct ... it would require what anyone would call duplicity if the exact circumstances and entities were removed from the telling ... it is not necessary to the text, it is not necessary to keep a consistent view of scripture, it is not necessary for any theology of the faith touching either the nature of God or salvation.

Figurative interpretation of the six days is not novel, it does not come from synergism of secular science and the Bible, and is a result of carefully looking at the passage in context of the whole of scripture. I see no compelling reason to hold to a 144 hour interpretation, and many reasons to reject it. I know I am in a minority position on this, but I see no viable options.

 

[toddpedlar]

3. I'm not sure I follow, Todd. How does relativistic time dilation "fail on the face of it"?

You are saying, if I'm not mistaken, that the universe (all of it, moving relative to us?) is in fact 13.7 billion years old, whereas we measure creation as 6000 years ago or so. Those parts of the universe are moving relative to us, so time dilation, you seem to have said, can explain the difference. A moving clock runs slow (this is well accepted and experimentally proven) and therefore in the part moving relative to us, 13.7 billion years can have passed, while on earth, only 6000. I think I've understood your explanation properly, but correct me if I'm wrong.

However, the problem with this is at least twofold.

1) We don't measure the age of the universe by looking at some kind of clock. We infer the age from the relationship that is accepted between distance scale and speed of recession of stars (which itself is inferred from the red shift of spectral lines in the light emitted by stars). The age is then given by solving the equation Distance = time interval * speed of light for the time interval. So the problem is that if the part of the universe is receding (and you say it ages 13.7 billion years while in our part only 6000 years has passed) the same relationship still applies between red shift and distance. The time interval passing on those receding stars is irrelevant because we haven't actually measured it.

Now even if the above were wrong, then you'd still have the second problem:

2) The recession speeds are far too slow to cause time dilation of the magnitude proposed. The ratio between the dilated time interval and our interval is 13.7 billion / 6000, or 2.28 million. This requires, then a speed of recession that differs from the speed of light by only one part in 10 billion. Recession speeds of galaxies that have a red shift of 6 (those that are of order 14 billion light years away according to Hubble) are more like 0.96. If the speed of recession required for the time dilation factor you speak of was the actual speed of the farthest galaxies, we'd be talking red shifts of 5 MILLION. Biggest redshifts are 6-7. No dice.

 

[toddpedlar]

Todd,

If you ever get any spare time, I would love to hear your take on Russ Humphrey's book already cited above (post #8). He includes some math to back up his arguments. However, I'm just a dumb bureaucrat who runs an old folks home. What do I know about them high-falutin arguments?

Well, like I said I'd be happy to look at it if I could get a hold of a copy - but I have my doubts either in terms of gravitational time dilation (which I think can't hold any water) or in terms of gravitational red shift (which probably can't either).

 

[AThornquist]

UGH, MY BRAIN!

 

[Zenas]

Todd,

What books would you recommendo n the subject? I'm interested in it and I think there are some problems that I don't really have the scientific background at the moment to fathom.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I think "Creation and Change" by Doug Kelly answers a lot of these questions Andrew...

 

[shackleton]

To figure how far away the distant galaxies are and the light that comes from them aren't they noting how far it has traveled in a certain amount of time then calculating it back to when it would have all been together, (big bang), then seeing how long it would take for it to be where it is now?
If it did not start all the way back as one glob but closer to where it is now wouldn't that it look like it was older than it was? Mathematically?

 

[Zenas]

The logical way I assume they assume is thus:

They measure that the light had to travel for (x) amount of years in order to reach us, ergo, if the light started traveling at the begining of the dimension of time in our universe (y) and it just now reached us, then (y) = (x) and therfore, our universe is (x) amount of years old, i.e. 13.7 billion years old.

 

[toddpedlar]

Todd,

What books would you recommendo n the subject? I'm interested in it and I think there are some problems that I don't really have the scientific background at the moment to fathom.

You mean on the subject in total, or the subject of reconciling red shift data to shorter timeframes? I've not found too many of the latter category that are very good - like I said, the "changing speed of light" idea fails miserably because of all the ramifications of c not being a constant with respect to time, and any "time dilation" explanation seems to me to fail also.

In terms of explaining conventional cosmology (which I think is necessary to understand well if you're to critique it) you need to understand special relativity first ( A. P. French has an old classic book on Special Relativity that's very good) and then move on to cosmology proper (Introduction to Cosmology by Narlikar is pretty good).

 

[Zenas]

Have there been any recent major changes to cosmology? I only ask because as I read on wikipedia, bastion of all secular knowledge, there is a conventional and modern cosmology.

 

[Tripel]

Brian,
Simple question: Did God deceive when he created Adam and Eve and the rest of creation appear to be mature, even though they were a nanosecond old when he created them?

I'm not Brian, but since I probably share a similar stance to Brian on this issue, I'll take a stab. No, I don't think that is considered deception on God's part. I think there is a difference in creating something that is mature, and something that is aged. God created man as mature, but brand new.

Another example would be trees. If you were to cut down a tree in the garden of Eden, would there be age circles on the stump? From a 144 hour creation standpoint, I would think the answer would be no. The tree is mature (in that it is fully grown and bearing fruit) but it is not aged in that it doesn't show the markings of years of growth. For the tree to have age circles (thus showing its likely age), one could say that is deceptive of God.

What I think is most likely is that the trees in Eden, DID have age circles because they grew to their maturity over the span of many years.

...and I acknowledge I could be wrong here. I don't pretend to have it all figured out.

 

[toddpedlar]

Have there been any recent major changes to cosmology? I only ask because as I read on wikipedia, bastion of all secular knowledge, there is a conventional and modern cosmology.

Modern (I think) deals with things like inflation (accelerating rates of expansion of the universe) and dark matter / dark energy, both of which are fairly recent attempts to explain some discrepancies between observations and conventional cosmological expectations. So, in a word, yes - but you've got to understand the conventional before you tackle the modern.

 

[VictorBravo]

The issue is the evidence of things that did not happen. We do not judge God, but we judge the interpretation that would require deception on God's part. If the interpretation would require duplicity, then it is wrong.

That is precisely the problem. The interpretation of what, though?

If your standard is the apparent age of the earth, then you measure Scripture by that standard.

If your standard is Scripture, then you evaluate your interpretation of the age of the earth.

In other words, God has said, in essence, "Behold my creation. It is what it is and I did it." If we interpret our obsevations as evidence of things that did not happen, maybe the fault is in how we interpret that evidence, rather than assuming that it is a true interpretation and then using it to evaluate Scripture.

 

[shackleton]

Is it possible that the earth being under water for about a year, just because the part near Mt. Ararat was dry does not mean the entire earth was dry, are the effects of a world wide flood enough to account for the look of "age?"

The entire earth does look like it has been under water, like a dried up river bed. Could the frozen poles be left over water from the flood? I guess it is safe to assume that Iceland was once covered in ice and Greenland was once green.

 

[toddpedlar]

The issue is the evidence of things that did not happen. We do not judge God, but we judge the interpretation that would require deception on God's part. If the interpretation would require duplicity, then it is wrong.

That is precisely the problem. The interpretation of what, though?

If your standard is the apparent age of the earth, then you measure Scripture by that standard.

If your standard is Scripture, then you evaluate your interpretation of the age of the earth.

In other words, God has said, in essence, "Behold my creation. It is what it is and I did it." If we interpret our obsevations as evidence of things that did not happen, maybe the fault is in how we interpret that evidence, rather than assuming that it is a true interpretation and then using it to evaluate Scripture.

And this rule of interpretation is not deemed "scientific", despite the fact that God's revelation, being truthful communication of fact from God to man is very valid evidence to take into account. (but I can't get anywhere discussing this with scientists)

 

[toddpedlar]

Is it possible that the earth being under water for about a year, just because the part near Mt. Ararat was dry does not mean the entire earth was dry, are the effects of a world wide flood enough to account for the look of "age?"

The entire earth does look like it has been under water, like a dried up river bed. Could the frozen poles be left over water from the flood? I guess it is safe to assume that Iceland was once covered in ice and Greenland was once green.

I'm not sure how you judge that rock "looks like it has been under water".

The name Greenland doesn't imply (and historical records don't show) that it was wholly "green". Similarly the name "iceland" has a completely different history also - it isn't an implication that it was encased in ice.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Have there been any recent major changes to cosmology? I only ask because as I read on wikipedia, bastion of all secular knowledge, there is a conventional and modern cosmology.

https://store.creation.com/us/product_info.php?sku=10-3-505

 

[Brian Withnell]

To figure how far away the distant galaxies are and the light that comes from them aren't they noting how far it has traveled in a certain amount of time then calculating it back to when it would have all been together, (big bang), then seeing how long it would take for it to be where it is now?
If it did not start all the way back as one glob but closer to where it is now wouldn't that it look like it was older than it was? Mathematically?

That is true ... the problem is that we "see" things that occurred long before 6000 years ago. One of the closest supernova in recent history is 1987a, and that was well over 100,000 light years away. In other words it took more than 100,000 years for the light to travel from the explosion of the star to earth. If that is the case, then the YE theory of interpretation of Gen 1 has a problem in the observation of something that just never happened.

These nearer supernovae hold more of a problem (in my view) than the more distant supernovae. The nearer supernovae are close enough that we would have to discard many of the issues we might hold as conjecture for a very distant supernova. Those that are 13 billion years in the past have a greater chance of things being totally different in the opening moments of the universe. Saying that we measure the apparent age at 13 billion years, and that this particular supernova was "only" 160,000 - 170,000 thousand years ago would put it cosmologically in the very recent past. It is one thing to say how we cannot possibly know what was happening in the first moments of a big bang, but 200,000 years ago if the apparent age is nearly 14,000,000,000 years? We saw it with our own eyes! It was visible on earth without the aid of a telescope.

The problem is that if God is telling the truth in natural revelation, then in special revelation our interpretation must be off if we hold to a YE. Yes, you can conjecture that the star never existed (if the YE interpretation is correct, it must not have existed) but then that means that you already have concluded that the only viable interpretation is YE, and then you have to fit the natural revelation to a preconceived interpretation of scripture. I find that not necessary, nor satisfying what I know about the nature of God and being truthful in all he says. So what is my only alternative? That God lies? God forbid! My conclusion is that YE interpretation of Gen 1 must be wrong.

The only alternative I could see would be in the following dialog.

We say to God: "Wow, look at that!"
He replies to us: "Look at what? That never even happened."​

 

[caoclan]

My problem with this is very simply put. If my son put together evidence of something that never happened, didn't actually say that the event that he made to appear to have happened, what would you call it? Duplicity? Deception? Certainly a violation of the 9th commandment. Do we really want to attribute to God what we would call lying in our own children?

The main problem here is it's not your created son we are talking about. You are measuring God against a human interpretation of a standard of morality. How is it certainly a violation of the 9th commandment? If God created a mature tree, and then said, "I created this mature tree," there is no lie.

Now if God created a mature universe and said, "I created this in the space of six days" and he leaves it at that, how can that be called a lie?

It hardly fits that by finding evidence of a mature universe we are in a position to attribute deception to God.

The issue is the evidence of things that did not happen. We do not judge God, but we judge the interpretation that would require deception on God's part. If the interpretation would require duplicity, then it is wrong. You are correct that I hold a standard up to judge my son ... that standard is the nature of God revealed in his word. Duplicity is not a part of God's nature, and so I have a hard time believing he would create evidence of something that not only didn't happen, but that never existed in the first place. It isn't that God would do that, but if our interpretation of scripture would put that upon God, then our interpretation of scripture is just plain wrong. I'm not judging God, I'm judging what I believe is a wrong interpretation of scripture through the logical argument of reductio ad absurdum. The idea of a literal 24 day in the six days of creation would make God be a liar in natural revelation. That makes the 144 hour interpretation wrong, as it is impossible for God to lie.

While it is barely plausible that a 144 hour creation is correct ... it would require what anyone would call duplicity if the exact circumstances and entities were removed from the telling ... it is not necessary to the text, it is not necessary to keep a consistent view of scripture, it is not necessary for any theology of the faith touching either the nature of God or salvation.

Figurative interpretation of the six days is not novel, it does not come from synergism of secular science and the Bible, and is a result of carefully looking at the passage in context of the whole of scripture. I see no compelling reason to hold to a 144 hour interpretation, and many reasons to reject it. I know I am in a minority position on this, but I see no viable options.

1. I don't understand how you can dismiss a literal reading of Genesis so flippantly as to say "While it is barely plausible that a 144 hour creation is correct." How do you interpret the decalogue? Figuratively? You know that figurative statemet in the 4th Commandment "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day."

2. Are Adam and Eve figurative?

3. Is the entry of sin into creation figurative? "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—"

4. If yes to #3, were there millions/billions of years of death?

5. Are the effects of sin figurative?

 

[DMcFadden]

Todd,

I have the greatest respect for experts (particularly those I trust like you). My layman's understanding is that Russ argues that the assumptions of the Big Bang put our solar system in a different place than he assumes in his computations. If you ever look it over, it would be great.

 

[shackleton]

I'm not sure how you judge that rock "looks like it has been under water".

I am thinking of someplace like Utah or the Grand Canyon, they look like an area that has been swept by a great flood. Even the evolutionists state that it is from glaciers melting, so could it possibly be the flood of Noah.

 

[toddpedlar]

Todd,

I have the greatest respect for experts (particularly those I trust like you). My layman's understanding is that Russ argues that the assumptions of the Big Bang put our solar system in a different place than he assumes in his computations. If you ever look it over, it would be great.

I understand - and I'd be glad to look at the book... just have to find a copy.

 

[DMcFadden]

Todd,

Save the money and try the following:

Humphreys answers Various Critics

Check out "Starlight - Time and Again," particularly the response by Humphreys at the end.

Here is a link to a non-technical preview of his argument (just a preview). Starlight and Time

 

[Brian Withnell]

That is precisely the problem. The interpretation of what, though?

If your standard is the apparent age of the earth, then you measure Scripture by that standard.

If your standard is Scripture, then you evaluate your interpretation of the age of the earth.

In other words, God has said, in essence, "Behold my creation. It is what it is and I did it." If we interpret our obsevations as evidence of things that did not happen, maybe the fault is in how we interpret that evidence, rather than assuming that it is a true interpretation and then using it to evaluate Scripture.

If God said "the heavens declare the glory of God" then I can look to the heavens to see what God wrote there as well as in the scripture. It isn't that I use natural revelation first, or even special revelation first. It is that I make every attempt to reconcile both. Not doing so is to discard something of what God has said. Discarding what he recorded in his word leaves us with no way to find salvation, for natural revelation gives insufficient knowledge of the only way of salvation. Discarding natural revelation is just as much discarding what God has said. Finding a way of looking at both at the same time and making sure we use the whole counsel of God in both special revelation and natural revelation I have to believe leaves us less likely to err. God does not lie. He is not duplicitous. He is not deceptive. If our interpretation of either the natural revelation or the Word would make him so we are wrong in one realm or the other. When God says "Behold my creation" we must be careful not to read into what he said beyond what he said. That is what I think a 144 hour creation does.

 

[caoclan]

That is precisely the problem. The interpretation of what, though?

If your standard is the apparent age of the earth, then you measure Scripture by that standard.

If your standard is Scripture, then you evaluate your interpretation of the age of the earth.

In other words, God has said, in essence, "Behold my creation. It is what it is and I did it." If we interpret our obsevations as evidence of things that did not happen, maybe the fault is in how we interpret that evidence, rather than assuming that it is a true interpretation and then using it to evaluate Scripture.

If God said "the heavens declare the glory of God" then I can look to the heavens to see what God wrote there as well as in the scripture. It isn't that I use natural revelation first, or even special revelation first. It is that I make every attempt to reconcile both. Not doing so is to discard something of what God has said. Discarding what he recorded in his word leaves us with no way to find salvation, for natural revelation gives insufficient knowledge of the only way of salvation. Discarding natural revelation is just as much discarding what God has said. Finding a way of looking at both at the same time and making sure we use the whole counsel of God in both special revelation and natural revelation I have to believe leaves us less likely to err. God does not lie. He is not duplicitous. He is not deceptive. If our interpretation of either the natural revelation or the Word would make him so we are wrong in one realm or the other. When God says "Behold my creation" we must be careful not to read into what he said beyond what he said. That is what I think a 144 hour creation does.

God has spoken through natural revelation, but remember that special revelation states that all creation groans in travail as in birth pains (sin has effected creation and on our ability to interpret it rightly). None of the YEC have "discarded" natural revelation as you have implied. We just have a different take on natural revelation.

As to your statement "we must be careful not to read into what he said beyond what he said," I say the same thing to you. Assumptions used by unbelievers are by nature biased presuppositions, why accept them at face value?

Please address my questions in post #52. How do you reconcile your view with Scripture's reference to Genesis 1 that is found outside Genesis?

 

[shackleton]

Brian,
What is your definition of young earth? Less than 4.5 billion, (the estimated age of just the earth), or 6,000? I would say Usher was way off in his estimation of 6,000 years but there is not much indication beyond that how old. The genealogy from Genesis has many holes in it. If it is counted chronologically you have Adam dying with the people drown in the flood at only 1,000 years. When gaps are taken into account we do not now how many generations have been left out and we do not know how long Adam and Eve lived without sin. I would imagine that if it was around 100,000 years the earth would look pretty old since that is still a long period of time. Scientists seem to believe that man as we know him came on the scene about then anyway. I would imagine that would allow time for ice ages and volcanoes since there is ample evidence of both.

The main thing is that the bible is clear that Yahweh created the universe and everything in it, we just do not know much about the specifics.

 

[Brian Withnell]

1. I don't understand how you can dismiss a literal reading of Genesis so flippantly as to say "While it is barely plausible that a 144 hour creation is correct." How do you interpret the decalogue? Figuratively? You know that figurative statemet in the 4th Commandment "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day."

2. Are Adam and Eve figurative?

3. Is the entry of sin into creation figurative? "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—"

4. If yes to #3, were there millions/billions of years of death?

5. Are the effects of sin figurative?

It isn't flippantly it is after careful consideration. Augustine did not flippantly dismiss the literal reading either, yet he also dismissed it.

1) The fourth commandment (word) is a command to remember the sabbath to keep it holy, and God references the account he gave of creation in doing so. Given I believe the Gen 1 account is figurative, the reason for putting the account into six days with an ongoing 7th day of rest could (this is conjecture) be so he could establish the sabbath. While that is an explanation of the reason for the formless/void then formed/filled parallel, it certainly isn't necessary for God to explain why. I hold strictly to a sabbath because I see it not only as commanded in the summation of the moral law, but throughout scripture. I don't see that as providing interpretive value to the Gen 1 account. There are plenty of sections in scripture which we read as obviously figurative, and have just as much external support for the analogy presented and yet have no trouble with it. We are the bride of Christ, the passages that speak of God's people committing adultery reinforce that analogy, but we don't make crass dictates that the passage equating the church to Christ's bride are literal.

2) Adam and Eve are not figurative. The whole of the need for salvation hinges on a literal Adam and a literal Eve. Paul's reasoning for not ordaining women reflects back on the deception of Eve, and her being formed from Adam. (Though you don't ask, I in no way think evolution occurred. While the Bible doesn't speak to the "how" of God creating Adam from the dust of the ground, the "evidence" for life even beginning from pure mechanistic processes is patently absurd ... the only reason scientists hold to it is because they have no alternative that doesn't allow "God out of the box".)

3) The entry of sin into creation is not figurative, or in any other way chance. Adam as the federal head of mankind sinned in eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil after Eve, being deceived by the devil ate. Adam did so in pure disobedience and so as the federal head of creation, sin passed into all the world.

4) As the answer to #3 was no, I presume that you don't want an answer to this question.

5) The effects of sin are not figurative. My first wife died because of the sin of Adam and the effects of sin even upon those that are elect in Christ. The corruption of all of man's faculties are real, immediate, and eternal for those without Christ. For those in Christ, the effects of the substitutionary atonement (the imputation of our sin to Christ, the imputation of his righteousness to us) makes the effects of sin for the regenerate temporal during the whole of this age ... but in the age to come there will be no more sin, sickness, crying or death. The old things will pass away, and those who sleep in Christ will be literally raised from the dead, and those that still remain will be changed from mortal to immortal. Yet no longer capable of sin.

 

[caoclan]

Thanks for replying Brian. In your response to point #1: The Lord stated: "For in six days..." It doesn't appear to be a figurative statement in that legal context. Also, Israel did actually commit adultery against the Lord.

Response #2-5: I didn't think you believed Adam and Eve were figurative, I am using them as an illustration to challenge when the figurative nature of Genesis 1 begins and ends.

My question to you is when does the literal section of Genesis begin, does it begin from the account of day 6?

 

[brianeschen]

If God said "the heavens declare the glory of God" then I can look to the heavens to see what God wrote there as well as in the scripture. It isn't that I use natural revelation first, or even special revelation first. It is that I make every attempt to reconcile both. Not doing so is to discard something of what God has said. Discarding what he recorded in his word leaves us with no way to find salvation, for natural revelation gives insufficient knowledge of the only way of salvation. Discarding natural revelation is just as much discarding what God has said. Finding a way of looking at both at the same time and making sure we use the whole counsel of God in both special revelation and natural revelation I have to believe leaves us less likely to err. God does not lie. He is not duplicitous. He is not deceptive. If our interpretation of either the natural revelation or the Word would make him so we are wrong in one realm or the other. When God says "Behold my creation" we must be careful not to read into what he said beyond what he said. That is what I think a 144 hour creation does.

Do you take exception to WCF 1:9 and 1:10? It seems that in using General Revelation to interpret Scripture, you would have to.

1:9 The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly (Act_15:15; 2Pe_1:20, 2Pe_1:21).
1:10 The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture (Mat_22:29, Mat_22:31; Act_28:25; Eph_2:20).