# Is Starlight real?



## RamistThomist

I'm not very good at science, so I might phrase this poorly, but the light from stars contains information of a sorts. Yet the light from stars takes a really long time to get here (light years or something). yet the world was only created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. So, was the starlight at the original moment stars were created "real" information or "apparent" information?


----------



## Mushroom

Perhaps in the same way that Adam's appearance was of full age?


----------



## CharlieJ

Jacob,

I think yes. I do not believe the earth is young. I believe that the concrete information in "old" starlight and geology is a record of actual historical events. I think it is very strange to assert that an observed supernova from 50,000 light years away depicts the death of a star that never existed, much less exploded.


----------



## au5t1n

There are a variety of theories as to how we can see distant stars when we know from Scripture (our only infallible source of information) that the earth is young. Perhaps early in history, shortly after creation, conditions were such that light could travel more rapidly for a time as things were expanding. I do think that the stars do actually exist, or in some cases did exist, but we can only speculate how this is possible. There are a lot of interesting theories, but at the end of the day, all we know for sure is what is revealed in the creation account.

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Mushroom said:


> Perhaps in the same way that Adam's appearance was of full age?



That's what I used to think, but starlight specifically communicates information in a way that Adam's matured appearance does not. Complicating the problem and not necessarily tied to Genesis 1-2 are exploding supernovae from thousands of light years away (and thus a time period greater than 6,000 years), whose effects we are seeing now. Why would God create the effects of an exploding star that never existed?


----------



## RamistThomist

au5t1n said:


> There are a variety of theories as to how we can see distant stars when we know from Scripture (our only infallible source of information) that the earth is young. Perhaps early in history, shortly after creation, conditions were such that light could travel more rapidly for a time as things were expanding. I do think that the stars do actually exist, or in some cases did exist, but we can only speculate how this is possible. There are a lot of interesting theories, but at the end of the day, all we know for sure is what is revealed in the creation account.
> 
> Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2



I am not denying the existence of stars (LOL). Some have offered models that the universe was curved in such a way that allowed starlight to take "short cuts," though that research has been questioned. As to Scripture's indirect identification of the earth's age, to the degree it does so, one has to rely on genealogies. While I am not saying there are necessarily gaps in the Genesis genealogies, there are in Matthew so it is not an unreasonable supposition.


----------



## au5t1n

Jacob, have you heard of Starlight and Time by Russell Humphreys? It is just one hypothesis, but it is an interesting one. Even if it turns out to be wrong, other ideas will come along. There is no reason to posit that the stars are fake in light of the young age of the earth. There are many scientific mysteries, and for all we know, it could even be a miracle that advanced the light to Adam. We may never know the answer, but we know God made all things - including real stars - in the space of six days.

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## au5t1n

I posted the last post before seeing your reply to my first. I see your point. As for the genealogies, even if gaps could be there, they could not account for billions of years. Besides, unlike in Matthew, the genealogies in Genesis lay out the timings of things meticulously.

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## RamistThomist

au5t1n said:


> Jacob, have you heard of Starlight and Time by Russell Humphreys? It is just one hypothesis, but it is an interesting one. Even if it turns out to be wrong, other ideas will come along. There is no reason to posit that the stars are fake in light of the young age of the earth. There are many scientific mysteries, and for all we know, it could even be a miracle that advanced the light to Adam. We may never know the answer, but we know God made all things - including real stars - in the space of six days.
> 
> Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2



It's interesting, but, as others have noted:

if there was a huge gravitational field centered on the Solar System 6000 years ago that was strong enough to cause the effects he claims, the effects of this field would still be visible today in the motion of the stars around the center of our galaxy.


----------



## Peairtach

I would study the various proposals and possibilities that creationists have looked at, and keep an open mind. There are many things that current science hasn't discovered yet, and a number on which it is wrong. All truth is God's truth and He will provided the answers in the end. In God's good time, lies and falsehoods that oppose His Word will be overthrown. This is part of the faith and patience of the saints.

The stars were created for Man, so if they were created a few days before Man, the light must have reached earth more quickly than usual.

Similar questions could be asked of the wine that our Lord provided for the guests at Cana. Was the "terroir" real? Was the aging process real? Etc, etc.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647

Science is not my strongest suit either so I'm always grateful for help from others as well. This is a place where you can draw back on the consistent integrity of the Lord Himself - he cannot tell a lie Num 23:9 lays the foundation. Further, he gave the stars for "signs and seasons." It is not some great cosmic subterfuge going on. He created and what He created is real and has a testimony rooted in those founding principles about His character that we love, worship and hold dear. That said, you are right to seek to harmonize this perplexing observation with clear Biblical testimony a la Genesis and corollary passages that affirm the creation account as in Exodus, Psalms and elsewhere. Austin references Russell Humphrey above and creation.com is a excellent resource for that. Remarkably (well, it isn't, really just ironic) old earth proponents and especially Big Bangers have problems with their theory when it comes to starlight. Given background radiation, there has not been enough time lapsed for energy transfer to take place even given THEIR timetable. A snippet from one article reads:

"The misotheistic publication New Scientist admitted in 13 things that do not make sense (19 March 2005, updated 14 April 2009):

This “horizon problem” is a big headache for cosmologists, so big that they have come up with some pretty wild solutions. “Inflation”, for example. You can solve the horizon problem by having the universe expand ultra-fast for a time, just after the big bang, blowing up by a factor of 1050 in 10–33 seconds. But is that just wishful thinking? 

Other big bangers have tried to cure this headache by proposing that the speed of light was much faster in the past, e.g. João Magueijo and John Barrow. Yet when some creationists proposed something similar a few decades ago, it was a heresy! I.e. anything goes when it comes to rescuing the big bang dogma, but rescuing Genesis by exactly the same means is verboten."

So, difficulty in our position does not provide a out for difficulty in theirs. There are a number of thoughtful articles available out at CMI's website. Admittedly, there is a lot of heavy lifting to be done on that one and Dr. Humphrey could be wrong on the matter as could Dr. Lisle.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Suppose time was created simultaneously with "Let there be light"? Problem solved?

AMR


----------



## au5t1n

The possibilities are endless. Yes, the existing hypotheses have difficulties, but we can be content knowing that the LORD made the stars, and He made them a comparatively short time ago. We may never know how, in God's Providence, the starlight reached us in shorter time than the scientific method predicts.

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Perhaps this is the same as what Patrick meant – I see no reason why the LORD, upon creation, could not have had the light from the distant stars instantly travel to / and be seen from the vantage of earth, simply as part of the creation package. Although I am not scientifically / technically "geocentric", still I believe it was for humankind God created the universe – knowing that in the aeons to come (from creation) His Son would make His home on New Earth, and God would dwell among glorified humankind, their loving Father.


----------



## GloriousBoaz

I've been studying this lately as it fancinates me. My first thought was that God just made the light in transit, in other words, He made the light beams complete when He made the stars, but this poses a problem for the "information" in the stars, i.e. the supernovas and such, that occur several billion light years away. I will give you an article that is non~technical and he addresses this problem, also he addresses the horizon problem that old earthers have. And he gives several possible solutions:

Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - Answers in Genesis

That is a great overall article, he even talks about how we shouldn't overly naturalize these events.

I second the recommendation of CMI also, they have lots of great info.

here is another non~technical article zooming in on one of the theories in the first article I posted:
Distant Starlight - Answers in Genesis

And here is a very technical article on that same subject, "Anisotropic Synchrony Convention":
Anisotropic Synchrony Convention


----------



## Mushroom

And then there are the electrical universe theories that explain much that the current model can't, and provide for a much younger universe. All just models within which to operate until enough errors are found to motivate moving on to the next more accurate one.


----------



## a mere housewife

In the creation account, the light (which already exists) is gathered up into the stars -- the purpose of which is related to time, and to giving light 'on the earth'. I don't know how that affects all the theories, but light in Genesis precedes the stars, not vice versa, as in science?


----------



## kvanlaan

> And then there are the electrical universe theories that explain much that the current model can't, and provide for a much younger universe. All just models within which to operate until enough errors are found to motivate moving on to the next more accurate one.



Remember, science is only a best-guess at the time, every time. And they move the goalposts constantly. Soft tissue only exists for (I don't recall exactly) 25,000 years or so but scientists then found dinosaur bones with soft tissue attached. Since it doesn't fit their billion-year paradigm, they then changed the 'rule' that soft tissue dissolves that quickly, and leave the bones at the age they want. We also assume (for the most part) that things happened at a constant rate, when the biblical account does not necessarily allow for that. Did carbon exist/decay at the same amount/rate before the Flood? Who knows? If it did not, kiss the 'fact' of carbon dating goodbye. And what was the "void" exactly? What existed therein?


----------



## THE W

total laymen here,

Why would the LORD not be able to manipulate the speed of light in the same way he made an ax float on water, made the sun and the moon stand still, made water gush from a rock, and birthed Jesus from a virgin?


----------



## Andrew1142

I've thought about this a bit, and I've come to a few conclusions on it. I'm neither an expert theologian nor an expert scientist, but I do tend to think that we adopt the atheist counter-missionaries' anti-supernatural presuppositions far too easily in this area. Let me see if I can expand on this by going through an outline of a typical conversation on this subject between a Christian and an atheist.

The atheist will say that the presence of light from billions of lightyears away prove that the universe is billions of lightyears old. Implicitly preceding this statement is the presupposition that any God is not omnipotent, which would mean that God is not God. It is circular reasoning. Why would God be unable to create a universe with the appearance of age?

If you point this out to the atheist, they will likely have one of two objections. One is that there's no reason that God would have to do this. Why would God want to create light from supernovas that never happened, fossils for dinosaurs that didn't exist, etc.? This is, again, a circular objection. Implicitly preceding this objection is the statement that we must fully comprehend God's motives for Him to exist. But, why? If we, as finite beings, can comprehend the mind of God, then He must Himself be finite and therefore not God. Some of God's motives we understand, and some we don't. Maybe someone can come up with a reasonable hypothesis that would explain why God created a universe that appears old, but that's not really relevant. Personally, I don't have any idea about why God would do so, but it does seem to appear that, for whatever reason, He did.

The next objection that the counter-missionary would have is that if God creates a universe with the appearance of age, that's like God lying to us, telling us that the universe is old when it really isn't. I honestly think that this objection is ridiculous, but I have heard it. It's absurd to hold God responsible for our faulty reasoning. That's like saying painting wood is dishonest because it makes us think that wood is blue when it's really brown.

Personally, I tend to lean towards the Omphalos hypothesis (the hypothesis that the universe was created with the appearance of age), but I wouldn't say I "believe" in it, because that's far too strong a word. I just tend to think that it's more likely, based on the evidence. 

I think that we should pursue the sciences while at the same time recognizing that we will often, maybe even more often than not, misunderstand what we observe, and even when we do understand what we observe, we may not at all comprehend the implications. At the same time, we should recognize that while our works (such as the sciences) are fallible and faulty, the Bible is not. This allows us to honestly, and without any sort of feelings of guilt, pursue the sciences. It also allows us to possibly scrap the entire hypothesis if one day (and that day may never come) scientists say "We were wrong after all." (Honest science requires that we repeatedly revisit old theories, to either affirm or reject them.)

I think it's very dangerous to use science to interpret the Bible or conjecture new information into it, to "complete" it. We should instead use exegesis.

Anyway, that's just my two cents. If it helps, I'm glad, but I apologize if it didn't.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647

THE W said:


> total laymen here,
> 
> Why would the LORD not be able to manipulate the speed of light in the same way he made an ax float on water, made the sun and the moon stand still, made water gush from a rock, and birthed Jesus from a virgin?



Actually, some of the most vocal dismissals of this very thing are conservative YECers. There are several serious scientific and theological conundrums that accompany adopting such a position. I'm not completely for sure if you are thinking the "light in transit" theory, but if so here are a couple issues. A quote from AIG:

"Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.

"But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument."

Their concerns and mine are that, just like the Christian's refusal of the RC mass for the antirationality of that "sacrament," the one holding such a position seem to suggest that the Lord is "tricking" us. So these concerns run parallel. The Confessors say, in regards to the Mass, "VI. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to *common sense, and reason*." (bolding mine.) Also, the stars are said to be given as useful demarcation tools. "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." Gen 1:14. Can they be said to be "good" and worthy tools to establish durations of time and yet not give us correct information? If they are just fabrications or ornaments, then they do not serve that purpose at all. In terms of Adam's maturity, for example, he was never said to be a landmark for marking human maturity/aging. Likewise, the floating axehead from Elisha's life was not meant to teach us about buoyancy, but to confirm a prophet's authority/authenticity. Imagine if the Scripture said that this Elisha passage was to teach us about buoyancy. We'd be drowning and losing much more of the things we set "afloat" given the ordinary properties of water. But, like you, I'm a complete layman. I'm not even completely for sure that light-in-transit charges God with "smoke-and-mirrors." Anyway, by "manipulation" you may mean something totally opposite to "light-in-transit." Lisle and other YECers suggest that that light was perhaps "sped-up" or traveled more quickly in other points in history or that aging on the edge of the universe is different that aging here on the earth and since those stars were created for our benefit/perspective, we calculate age based on "our end." This would allow for us to divine "signs" for marking time if we could find out the nature of the change of speed/edge of the universe aging techniques. But, even OECers and secularists have issues with their model (see my post above,) so we are not the only ones with heavy lifting to do on our end.


----------



## Peairtach

There are a number of "philosophical" issues that I've never sat down and got my head round. We know what we mean by a mature Adam, because we can compare a mature man with a child or baby, but what do we mean by a mature universe, since we have never seen a baby universe? What do we mean by a mature planet? Is Earth a mature planet and Mars an immature planet? What about the effects of the Curse? Are exploding stars and desolated planets part of the groaning of the Cosmos or part of the good creation?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647

Peairtach said:


> There are a number of "philosophical" issues that I've never sat down and got my head round. We know what we mean by a mature Adam, because we can compare a mature man with a child or baby, but what do we mean by a mature universe, since we have never seen a baby universe? What do we mean by a mature planet? Is Earth a mature planet and Mars an immature planet? What about the effects of the Curse? Are exploding stars and desolated planets part of the groaning of the Cosmos or part of the good creation?
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2



Yep, enough to cross the eyes! I confess that science in general and this in particular are my weakest suits.


----------



## RamistThomist

THE W said:


> total laymen here,
> 
> Why would the LORD not be able to manipulate the speed of light in the same way he made an ax float on water, made the sun and the moon stand still, made water gush from a rock, and birthed Jesus from a virgin?



This is a better response to the problem (and I just now realized your avatar, which made me laugh uproariously; my wife and I just started watching that show).


----------



## THE W

Cameronian said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> total laymen here,
> 
> Why would the LORD not be able to manipulate the speed of light in the same way he made an ax float on water, made the sun and the moon stand still, made water gush from a rock, and birthed Jesus from a virgin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a better response to the problem (and I just now realized your avatar, which made me laugh uproariously; my wife and I just started watching that show).
Click to expand...


Again, total laymen here..

It would seem some would want to deny the LORD the ability to manipulate the natural processes which He set in place.

BTW, the character in my avatar is rather similar to my personality, for better or for worse. cool show, minus the neo-feminist undertones.


----------



## arapahoepark

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/distant-starlight


----------



## lynnie

Google Barry Setterfield and the decreasing-decaying speed on light ( cDK) on a parabolic curve ( which we assume starts with the fall. Maybe start here:

Lambert's Library

Unlike theory, and going on facts, there are 22 measurement of the speed of light going back centuries that show a steady decrease. If you want to attribute this to instrument mistakes in older less accurate instruments, one would expect an average of 11 measurements off too high and 11 too low, give or take. But it is a steady decline. The ones the past decades are with good instruments. Setterfield takes his parabola back 6000 years If I recall correctly. 


Initial objections like with e=mc squared questions all work out. There is so much stuff out there on this. It actually makes scientific sense when you read it.

We underestimate the fall, and how much the curse and decay affected things. Everything. Total depravity, even the speed of light.


----------



## jwithnell

> "real" information or "apparent" information


 I am stumbling over this distinction. All that God created, he said was good. Revelation has come through two means: the giving of the scriptures and creation. Something is either real, or it is not.


----------



## Afterthought

Cameronian said:


> So, was the starlight at the original moment stars were created "real" information or "apparent" information?


It seems to me this precise question could only be answered as: Scripture does not give us enough information to know whether stars were created with real or apparent information, and empirical science wouldn't be able to answer a question concerning a miracle (Creation is known by faith). But to take the intent of the question as it has been discussed in this thread...

Appearances of history and appearances of age seem to me to be two different things. Appearances of age are easy enough to understand in terms of a miracle, but appearances of history are trickier because they seem to delve somewhat into the realm of ordinary Providence. With others in the thread, I think it is something that we simply cannot know--at least not with the information we currently have--and it is perhaps best not to speculate; it also is possible that something in the miracle of Creation was involved in allowing us to see distant stars.

It may be the case that this problem only arises because theology and empirical science are being mixed? Here is a short post I made (which I received no comments on, so I'm not entirely sure how acceptable a solution it is) in an attempt to resolve "appearances of history" by viewing it as a problem that arises when theology and empirical science are mixed, which problem otherwise vanishes into a state of reasonable ignorance on the matter.

"We can accept that we are seeing real stars explode. The problem of seeing non-existant stars only arises when we try to put theology into the realm of science. By keeping each to their own realm, we can make a good case for not knowing how God created things such that we could see stars, that according to our science never existed unless they were much more than a few thousand years old. And having made a justified appeal to ignorance (which is ignorance of the miracle of Creation and so can't be expected to be understood in natural terms anyway), we can with intellectual integrity simultaneously accept with the provisional certainty that science gives that we are seeing real stars explode and accept with the certainty that Scripture gives that the Creation is not as old as our limited, natural perspective would seem to suggest."



One thing about some of the models that attempt to solve the problem with time dilation is that they require that some place in the universe really is older than a few thousand years. Whether that is a problem with Scripture or not, I don't know, but it is something to keep in mind (I don't recall whether these billions of years are put into the Creation week or are put into the realm of ordinary Providence). Though in relation to these sorts of theories, I remember finding Wilhelmus a Brakel interesting on the matter, in describing the Creation miracle as the universe starting relatively small, then being pushed outwards, and then the light being gathered into the stars.


----------



## CharlieJ

Barry Setterfield's work has been thoroughly discredited both by creation scientists and by the scientific community at large. More than that, it shows a disregard for proper procedure that is reckless and perhaps even fraudulent. It is highly irresponsible to recommend him as a resource. Continue the scientific discussion, by all means, but not using this man's work.

A thorough rebuttal by the Institute for Creation Research: Has the Speed of Light Decayed?

An even more thorough discussion for TalkOrigins, an anti-creationist site: The Decay of c-decay

To be fair, a response by Setterfield: - Setterfield on cDK -

However, Setterfield's response is highly disingenuous. It doesn't cite any published research except for one paper published in Galilean Electrodynamics, a known fringe journal that takes kooky papers that won't pass peer review in mainstream journals. Saying that his work or the work of his colleagues has never been refuted is a humorous way to spin the fact that it was roundly criticized when it first appeared and since has failed to attract any attention.

To round things out, here's some recent science that suggests the speed of light may be *increasing*: Speed of light may have changed recently - physics-math - 30 June 2004 - New Scientist


----------



## Mushroom

^^Invasion of the body snatchers^^

This is beginning to adversely affect my eschatology. My optimism is fading...


----------



## lynnie

I may as well copy and paste thus whole thing. My respect for Malcolm Bowden ( author of several creationist books) is so high that I'll take his word for it.

THE DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT - AN UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENTS

THE DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT 
- AN UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENTS

by Malcolm Bowden

There have been many articles on the work of Barry Setterfield of Australia who has contended that the speed of light was faster in the past. This article is to try and put the record straight for there are many unaware of the confirmations that have arisen but which have had little publicity. It is to try and correct this situation that the following facts are presented.


1. The first point is that there is criticism of Setterfield's early work in which he - 

a) shows that the speed of light has decreased by listing numerous measurements of "c" made over many years, and 

b) attempts to determine the mathematical shape of the curve by which the decrease has fallen. Critics have sometimes slammed his attempts to find the right curve (b) and thereby tried to ignore the clear evidence of a definite fall (a). 
Since those early days Setterfield and Trevor Norman have produced an invited report for the prestigious Stanford Research Institute International in 1987 [1]. 

This gives much of the background material upon which Setterfield bases his claim of "c" decay (= CDK). This is 90 pages long and contains 377 references. 

The invitation to give this report came from Lambert T. Dolphin, (who was skeptical at first), a member of SRI, where it was given peer revue and also vetted by outside laboratories - all of them approving its publication. Dolphin also gave a lecture on the subject in 1988 to the Batelle Institute where it was well received. The SRI hierarchy tried to rescind the report on an administrative technicality when they realized its implications. Dolphin and his manager were made redundant. 

Setterfield is still being criticized for "not publishing his results in a reputable journal". What critics do not realize is that no journal is prepared to publish such a revolutionary concept, no matter how well researched it is. We then have the "catch 22" situation:- i) No 'scientist' will examine the paper unless it has been published. ii) Publishers reject it because their referees do not like the implications and fail it for trivial reasons such as no other journal has published it; iii) Therefore no scientist reads of it in a 'reputable journal', etc. etc. The acceptance by SRI was a major breakthrough that the hierarchy tried to rescind. See also 6. below. 
2. There has been much discussion of the paper by Goldstein et al. in which they claim that after analyzing Roemer's 1675 records of "c", it has not changed by any significant amount. What these critics seem to be unaware of is that these papers contains two huge errors that, when corrected, result in SUPPORT for Setterfield's claim. I give the following details.


In 1973 [2] Goldstein published in the results of his calculations on the possible variation of the speed of light based upon the measurements of Roemer. His conclusion was that the speed of light had not varied by more than 0.5% from the present value. This paper has often been quoted as contradicting the decrease in the speed of light by a number of both evolutionists and creationists in various articles. 

The errors the paper contained were pointed out my Lew Mammel in 1983 [3], [4]. He circulated his criticisms by means of the computer network linking the major astronomical centers of the world. What Mammel found first was that in making their calculations for the phases of Io (the moon of Jupiter used by Roemer), Goldstein and his co-workers incorrectly adjusted the average TIME of the observations, when they should have corrected the PHASES of Io. The result was that they obtained a value for "c" that was falsely close to the present day value, i.e. their value of not more than +/- 0.5%. After the figures had been corrected by Mammel, the result was that "c" was 8% SLOWER with an error of +/- 9%. 

His second discovery a few days later was that there was a major blunder in a simple series of subtractions. Instead of subtracting the calculated from the observed time, Goldstein had subtracted the observed from the calculated. When Mammel amended this error, he obtained a value of 6% HIGHER than today with an error of +/-8.6%. There is yet another error Goldstein seems to have made in dealing with his results. He wrote a letter in February 1986 to Vivian Bounds and Setterfield quoted from this in his S.R.I. report. The original letter said "..a light travel time 2.6% lower than the presently accepted value. The formal uncertainty is +/-1.8%". Now, with a travel time LOWER, i.e. shorter, the speed of light would be HIGHER of course. 

Humphreys contacted Goldstein, who admitted that he had (and I quote Humphreys) "...stated his results ambiguously, apparently misleading both Bounds and Setterfield. What Goldstein had meant to say was the speed of light according to Roemer's data was 2.6% SLOWER in 1668 to 1678 by 2.6% than it is now. Professor Goldstein has given me permission to quote the following from his 2 November 1987 letter to me: 'The new result is that the velocity of light was SLOWER in 1668 to 1678 by 2.6% than it is today. I do not think the difference is significant however.'"

I would suggest that his first statement is not simply "ambiguous" but is in fact very clear in its meaning - the transit time was less than today and therefore "c" was HIGHER. The wording cannot be interpreted in more than one way, and is simply a muddled expression on Goldstein's part. In addition, to dismiss a variation of 2.6% as "..not significant" when the whole subject hinges on a matter of a fraction of 1% is to try to gloss over the fact that his calculations DID show a variation from the present value, albeit lower (at that time at least). He still seems to be unaware that the second error discovered by Mammel makes the final result HIGHER than today. 

This does call into question Goldstein's assessment of the whole subject, and whether his scientific objectivity is as impartial as it should be. The two major errors set out above require no further comment, except to wonder, as Mammel does, how his papers passed the scrutiny of the peer reviewers of the prestigious periodical in which they appeared. Questions remain, however, such as - why did Goldstein made so many errors in his calculations and then make misleading statements - all of them in a direction that opposed CDK. Did he know that, correctly calculated, the results actually supported a decrease in the speed of light? Was the article accepted in order to cast doubt on a decrease in "c"? 
4. Critics also refer to Aardsma's article [5] criticizing CDK as though it was a full refutation of Setterfield's poor maths. Here again, they are unaware that there is a major error in Aardsma's method of analyzing the results. I have pointed this out in a very simple way [6] as it was obvious even to me (and I am no mathematician) that Aardsma's method was unsuitable for a curve.


Trevor Norman, Setterfield's mathematical expert, also slammed his badly flawed analysis [7]. Briefly, Aardsma used one half of a statistical method which if used properly would have crashed the program. He therefore used the second half of another method to get the answers he desired. Norman wrote to him pointing out this gross mistake but Aardsma claimed that he never received it. The erroneous method was duly published by Aardsma as proving Setterfield's maths were wrong! Norman criticized Aardsma in very strong terms in his article. 
5. One of the most impressive confirmations of CDK is Setterfield's list of 17 physical 'constants' [8]. He obtained a number of past measurements of such values as the Gyromagnetic Ratio, Rydberg Constant etc. and found that 11 remained constant, 4 increased slightly and 2 decreased. He then showed that every single one had varied exactly as could be predicted from an examination of their basic formulas with a decrease in the speed of light. 

6. Quite independently of Setterfield, a Russian scientist, Troitskii, has proposed [9] that "c" was very much higher than it is today by an amount of 10^10 faster. This is within the order of the original change of speed that Setterfield had proposed which was between 10^7 to 10^11. Troitskii had based this entirely upon his examination of astronomical data, red shifts, superluminal jets etc., and not upon any direct measurements of "c" with laboratory instruments. The publication of this result in a professional journal is excellent confirmation of Setterfield's thesis.


The measurements of "c" have been made with very great accuracy; more than enough to determine whether it has decreased or not. The fact that virtually all the past measurements were above the present value should surely indicate that it could not have been due to "errors of measurement with inaccurate instruments" - which is the usual ploy used to dismiss them. *Michelson was a Nobel prizewinner in the subject and surely the fact that he believed that "c" had decreased is worthy of some recognition. *

There has been much ridicule and false mathematics directed at Setterfield's work, but those with qualifications in statistics agree that the evidence is FOR a decrease in the speed of light. Many readers of such diatribes will consider the case closed. Those that do are committing the crime of failing to listen to the case for the other side DIRECT; i.e. not a critics version of it which is then demolished as a 'straw man'. The information set out above is only part of the massive evidence that exists on the subject and I leave the reader to draw his own conclusions.


----------



## CharlieJ

There is a real scientific debate over whether the speed of light is variable. There have been several challenges to the majority view that it is constant. These challenges have been published in peer-reviewed journals. They have been discussed by scientists. They have not persuaded many, but it is a minority view that is hanging around because of some perceived value and at least somewhat convincing argumentation. 

That being said, the reason people like Setterfield can't get published in real journals is because they don't do real science. My thought upon reading Setterfield years ago was that his work was so loaded with arbitrary assumptions and data that it's just useless. He throws in a few "gimme" days for the Fall, but how does he know when the Fall occurred relative to the creation? This becomes a huge problem b/c his model needs him to be accurate to the day, unlike old cosmos models that can easily give or take a few thousand years. 

Another problem I have with this whole crew of "scientists" is their utterly disingenuous use of other science. For example, appealing to Troitskii for c-decay is entirely unwarranted, as his set of assumptions and parameters requires a very old cosmos and certain conditions to be true, which, if they were true, would rule out Setterfield's cosmology. One cannot simply speed up Troitskii's paper to fit a young-earth cosmology without destroying the mechanics. The same is true with other papers. Thus, it is wildly inappropriate for Setterfield to claim some of these papers as confirmation of his work when they owe nothing to and would contradict parts of his work, and moreover, are not even accepted by more than a handful of scientists.

There is a remarkably well-made Wikipedia page devoted to this issue in modern physics:
Variable speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are some links to abstracts:

Troitskii, V. S. "Physical constants and evolution of the universe" Astrophysics and Space Science 139 (2), 389-411 (Dec. 1987) 1987Ap&SS.139..389T Page 389

Youm. D. "Variable-speed-of-light cosmology and second law of thermodynamics" Phys. Rev. D 66, 043506 (2002) [hep-th/0203145] Variable-Speed-of-Light Cosmology and Second Law of Thermodynamics

Moffat, J.W. "Variable Speed of Light Cosmology: An Alternative to Inflation" [hep-th/0208122] Variable Speed of Light Cosmology: An Alternative to Inflation

Moffat, J. W. "Variable Speed of Light Cosmology and Bimetric Gravity: An Alternative to Standard Inflation" Int. J. Mod. Phys. A20 1155-1162 (2005) [gr-qc/0404066] Variable Speed of Light Cosmology and Bimetric Gravity: An Alternative to Standard Inflation

Ellis, G.F.R. "Note on Varying Speed of Light Cosmologies" [astro-ph/0703751] Note on Varying Speed of Light Cosmologies


----------



## au5t1n

THE W said:


> Why would the LORD not be able to manipulate the speed of light in the same way he made an ax float on water, made the sun and the moon stand still, made water gush from a rock, and birthed Jesus from a virgin?



This could definitely be what happened, since creation was a miracle. In light of this possibility, I don't think any other hypothesis (i.e., a scientific cause) can be demonstrated for certain to be the cause. I also like Heidi's point about the existing light being gathered to the light-bearers, but I would think information like supernovae would still need to have come from after the stars were made, and thus would still require the light to have been advanced in some way, whether by an "ordinary" physical cause as ordered by the Lord, or else miraculously.


----------



## Daniel Glover

As if there aren't enough posts answering this already, and because I don't presume to be able to answer it all in one post, here is a link that is extraordinarily helpful in the old earth/young earth debate, the old earth fellow being a Reformed, "Progressive Creationist". (Yes, I know that the young earth side is not well represented.)

Hugh Ross vs Kent Hovind - How Old Is The Earth? - YouTube

PS. The Old Earth/Progressive creationist, Hugh Ross, is also an Astrophysicist and his answer/argument is almost completely based on that we can see the stars and test the age of the light and photons emitted. Super interesting stuff, also a good incentive to worship the God whose glory is declared by these heavens, which we study.


----------



## RamistThomist

Thanks for the replies. My only concern in saying, "Well, science rests on many theories that aren't yet proven and many scientific theories are proved false," while technically true, that is simply not how we usually live our day to day lives. We use a lot of scientific stuff and presuppose not only that it works, but that the theory behind it is sound, whether or not is has fully mature epistemic status.


----------



## au5t1n

Cameronian said:


> Thanks for the replies. My only concern in saying, "Well, science rests on many theories that aren't yet proven and many scientific theories are proved false," while technically true, that is simply not how we usually live our day to day lives. We use a lot of scientific stuff and presuppose not only that it works, but that the theory behind it is sound, whether or not is has fully mature epistemic status.



Here we are concerned not merely with ordinary physical phenomena which can be repeated in a lab, but with immeasurable history, including a history of miracles. You can be confident that the speed of light in a vacuum in 3x10^8 m/s and that wine forms via a chemical process that takes time, all the while believing that Jesus turned water into wine and creation was miraculous. Even if our ability to see distant stars is not the result of a miracle at their creation, but rather has a scientific explanation, we would still be dealing with historical science, which is much trickier than observable, repeatable science. 

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## puritanpilgrim

I'm just a school teacher, not a scientist. But, I always wondered if we know for sure that the speed of light is consistent in space. Do we know for sure that the speed of light is consistent and not something that exponentially increases in velocity? This isn't something we can scientifically test, since we can only really test light from the sun or on earth.


----------



## au5t1n

puritanpilgrim said:


> I'm just a school teacher, not a scientist. But, I always wondered if we know for sure that the speed of light is consistent in space. Do we know for sure that the speed of light is consistent and not something that exponentially increases in velocity? This isn't something we can scientifically test, since we can only really test light from the sun or on earth.



It's just that there's no known physical cause that would account for such a difference. 

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GloriousBoaz

Daniel Glover said:


> As if there aren't enough posts answering this already, and because I don't presume to be able to answer it all in one post, here is a link that is extraordinarily helpful in the old earth/young earth debate, the old earth fellow being a Reformed, "Progressive Creationist". (Yes, I know that the young earth side is not well represented.)
> 
> Hugh Ross vs Kent Hovind - How Old Is The Earth? - YouTube


 I just watched this and read the CMI line by line response lol, it was soooo long. P.S. all of the debates I've seen on creationism on the Ankerberg show so far have been very unfairly moderated.


puritanpilgrim said:


> I'm just a school teacher, not a scientist. But, I always wondered if we know for sure that the speed of light is consistent in space. Do we know for sure that the speed of light is consistent and not something that exponentially increases in velocity? This isn't something we can scientifically test, since we can only really test light from the sun or on earth.


 Hugh ross in that debate (or another one) spoke about how light waves change when traveling a far distance, I think he said they turn redder the further they go and the ways spread out? Can anyone speak to this? is that true? and he said that this is what we do infact observe from distant stars, in making his argument for OEC, can anyone speak to this if it is true from a YEC perspective? Thanks.


----------



## Logan

GloriousBoaz said:


> Hugh ross in that debate (or another one) spoke about how light waves change when traveling a far distance, I think he said they turn redder the further they go and the ways spread out? Can anyone speak to this? is that true? and he said that this is what we do infact observe from distant stars, in making his argument for OEC, can anyone speak to this if it is true from a YEC perspective? Thanks.



Yes, that is true, there is a shift toward red in the spectrum the further the light appears to have traveled. I've usually seen this in support of the observation that the universe is expanding: a traveling light wave gets expanded a teeny bit at a time but over long distances become stretched enough to notice and gets a what we call a red shift (red is of a longer wavelength than the other visible colors).


----------



## GloriousBoaz

But does red shift change to a point that it is measurable in a way that the red shift increases as the distance increases? As far as I know our measurements of stars is fairly accurate and we know the universe is expanding, I'm still curious about the YEC perspective on the increase of "stretchedness" of waves as distance increases (red shift) in a young universe.


----------



## OPC'n

Baroque Norseman said:


> I'm not very good at science, so I might phrase this poorly, but the light from stars contains information of a sorts. Yet the light from stars takes a really long time to get here (light years or something). yet the world was only created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. So, was the starlight at the original moment stars were created "real" information or "apparent" information?



I feel *I* am missing something from your question since others seem to not be missing the "information" of which you speak. What "information" are you referring?


----------



## Mushroom

OPC'n said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not very good at science, so I might phrase this poorly, but the light from stars contains information of a sorts. Yet the light from stars takes a really long time to get here (light years or something). yet the world was only created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. So, was the starlight at the original moment stars were created "real" information or "apparent" information?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel *I* am missing something from your question since others seem to not be missing the "information" of which you speak. What "information" are you referring?
Click to expand...

Sarah (good to hear from you, BTW), one form of information Jacob is likely to be referring to are astronomical events such as supernovas & etc. that come to us from distances ascertained through current models to be more light-years away when they occurred than scripture describes as the age of creation. If we rely on current models of the speed of light, those events would tend to stand as a refutation of the biblical account.


----------



## JoannaV

It used to be that I read physics books for fun. Nowadays I don't, and it's possible my brain has lost much of its scientific capabilities. In reading this thread I've been thinking something similar to what Aaron said, that maybe we know a lot less about what space is like than we think.


----------



## OPC'n

Mushroom said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not very good at science, so I might phrase this poorly, but the light from stars contains information of a sorts. Yet the light from stars takes a really long time to get here (light years or something). yet the world was only created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. So, was the starlight at the original moment stars were created "real" information or "apparent" information?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel *I* am missing something from your question since others seem to not be missing the "information" of which you speak. What "information" are you referring?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sarah (good to hear from you, BTW), one form of information Jacob is likely to be referring to are astronomical events such as supernovas & etc. that come to us from distances ascertained through current models to be more light-years away when they occurred than scripture describes as the age of creation. If we rely on current models of the speed of light, those events would tend to stand as a refutation of the biblical account.
Click to expand...


Good to see you all too, Brad! 

I'm a poor scientist, but I like to speculate with examples. One that comes to mind is the throwing of a ball. When at first it is thrown the speed of it is greater than the speed of it when gravity finally has its way. 

Keeping that in mind, I turn to a question of my own to which i have little answer. If the light from a street light is bright as you stand under it but begins to dim the further you move away from it, is that a culmination of the human eye's inability for long distant vision plus outward obstacles which blocks the light from our sight? And/or does light fade into nothingness within the element of darkness? If all three of these disadvantages hinder us from perpetually seeing the light from a street lamp no matter how far away you stand from the street light, could it be that the three obstacles I mentioned above are within the universe to some degree (perhaps something along the lines of gravity, meteors, planets, etc) which could disadvantage starlight's approach to us? Whereas starlight might start out at a speed unknown to mankind than the "speed of light" (a measurement we use with the knowledge we presently have which does not make it perfect for who knows what knowledge is to be had on this subject that mankind has not learned?), but because of unknown forces within the universe along with physical object, could it not be possible that starlight "slows" down in speed to the speed of light (a speed that we can then measure within the confines of our galaxy because the light has been brought close to our reach whether it be within the reaches of our instruments or within our "grasp" as it were), we measure such light, then say to ourselves, "Ha! This is the speed of light!"? Does anyone question the accuracy of "speed of light"? I think it's imperfect for there might be atmospheric variances or other types of variances within the whole of the universe to turn our measurement of light on it's head. 

But this is all fanciful thinking on my part! I only know the Bible is correct and somewhere in mankind's understand he has landed upon failure.


----------



## CharlieJ

A quick clarification: the scientific measurement "c" refers to the speed of light in a vacuum absent inertial forces. THAT is what is constant and what is tied to several other variables in physics. Changing that constant would drastically affect other things in the universe. The constant could not fluctuate more than an infinitesimal bit without us knowing it. Actual traveling photons do in fact change speed depending on various situational factors. Speed of Light in Gravity

As a parallel case, take gravity. Gravity is felt much more strongly on earth than on the moon. However, the formula that determines the effect is the same for both cases, therefore, constant. If one were to tweak the gravitational constant, then mass and distance would also interact differently. The universe would not be anything like we know it. Gravitational constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sarah, you see light sources more dimly as you increase distance because fewer photons are reaching your eye. If you take a piece of paper and put a dot in the middle, then draw lines equally spaced radiating out from that dot, the lines get farther apart as they stretch toward the edge of the page.


----------



## Logan

OPC'n said:


> If the light from a street light is bright as you stand under it but begins to dim the further you move away from it, is that a culmination of the human eye's inability for long distant vision plus outward obstacles which blocks the light from our sight? And/or does light fade into nothingness within the element of darkness? If all three of these disadvantages hinder us from perpetually seeing the light from a street lamp no matter how far away you stand from the street light, could it be that the three obstacles I mentioned above are within the universe to some degree (perhaps something along the lines of gravity, meteors, planets, etc) which could disadvantage starlight's approach to us?



As Charlie said, this is due to energy dropping off as the reciprocal of the distance squared (inverse square law). Imagine a small box with a candle in it. The candle lights it up fairly well because there is less area for the light to spread on, or the light hitting the walls is "denser". Now put the same candle in a huge room and it won't even noticeably light up the corners at all. The candle has not grown dimmer, it's just that the light it gives off is spread much more thinly every where because of the distance and size. If you cut a hole in the box and put your eye there, your eye is "soaking up" perhaps 1/100 of the total light, so it looks very bright. If you cut a hole in the huge room and look in, your eye is perhaps soaking up 1 billionth part of the light in the room, so it will be dimmer.

This is indeed observed with starlight too. Starlight radiates in every direction and the further we are from it, the smaller the portion of it which will hit our eye. We use telescopes with very giant mirrors to essentially create an eye with a bigger area to try to capture more light and make distant stars visible.



GloriousBoaz said:


> But does red shift change to a point that it is measurable in a way that the red shift increases as the distance increases? As far as I know our measurements of stars is fairly accurate and we know the universe is expanding, I'm still curious about the YEC perspective on the increase of "stretchedness" of waves as distance increases (red shift) in a young universe.



Yes, the longer the light has to travel through a stretching medium, the more of a red shift it has, and this has indeed correlated with our calculations of distant stars and the father it travels, the more red it becomes. This does not mean that all light becomes red necessarily but that blue light shifts down toward green and yellow, and red would perhaps shift down into infrared. The most natural explanation of this is that the universe is expanding (if it was contracting there would be a "blue shift").

Now one thing I don't think is certain is the rate at which it is expanding. One could assume a constant rate, or perhaps it could have been extremely accelerated at first and now has slowed down. Just going off the cuff and speculating but there could very well have been an exponential decay of expansion rate, which would account for a red shift from distant stars without requiring a very, very long time to get here.


----------



## GloriousBoaz

Logan said:


> Just going off the cuff and speculating but there could very well have been an exponential decay of expansion rate, which would account for a red shift from distant stars without requiring a very, very long time to get here.


 That's actually exactly what I was thinking thanks! I would like to read some technical papers on this if anyone has come across any links would be great!


OPC'n said:


> could it be that the three obstacles I mentioned above are within the universe to some degree (perhaps something along the lines of gravity, meteors, planets, etc) which could disadvantage starlight's approach to us?


 My first thought is space dust, I think there is 1000 particles per square mile (don't quote me on it), They have done studies already on how this effects light travel and how this fits into the young earth timescale.


----------



## littlepeople

This is a fascinating discussion, and below is my only real contribution. Cold weather and clear nights make for awesome skies. I appreciate the concern with starlight containing fictitious data; but is that really different than the data contained in rocks or Adam's bones and teeth. The appearance of age/maturity implies a history which never occurred. Did Adam have a belly button, or was his stomach flat? Did Jesus have paternal DNA? What about the grapes used to make the wine at the feast in Cana?

I understand that God is not a creator of fictions, but maybe we are putting too narrow a definition on it. just my thoughts. BTW it is an excellent point that first God made light with no astronomical source.


----------



## Mushroom

Brandon, you are our resident Mississippi Hippie. Even with the new do.

Great pics, brother.


----------



## littlepeople

lol thanks. As they say: southern by the grace of God


----------



## GloriousBoaz

littlepeople said:


> I appreciate the concern with starlight containing fictitious data; but is that really different than the data contained in rocks or Adam's bones and teeth.


 I think the problem comes if you were to carbon date Adam's teeth you'd find they are only a day old (when he was created) and though he appeared to be about 30 yrs old he still appeared brand new, i.e. his cholesterol was perfect, no chipped teeth, no wrinkles, etc. And rocks when dated are young. Maybe tree rings might make a better case but the bible doesn't say whether the trees God created ex nihlio already had rings in them or not, plus they were all wiped out at the flood. 

I used to think the starlight was exactly the same as Adam's "appearance of age" but it turns out they are similar, but not the exact same case. Distant start light has the problem of factoring in how it could have traveled to us (assuming a constant rate, which is the problem for YEC to figure out, and the problem for OEC because they arbitrarily assume this) and still be young, but only appear old. Well if the rates are constant it would have taken billions of years to get here, or it wouldn't be visible to us, since it is visible it must have taken billions of years since our measurements are accurate. Now this could be taken into account rather easily by saying God created the light in transit but the anomaly then is, what about supernovas and other historical data/information which we have discussed already. How this information then sets distant starlight apart from Adam with the "appearance of age" argument is that starlight has this "information" in it where as Adam doesn't. If you look at Adam's cells they would be brand new. Whereas lightwaves are redshifted. Jason Lisle when people say to him: "well how do you explain that the universe looks old" he says something like: "I don't, because I think it looks young." With Adam I can see that because he would have been brandnew (though fully formed) with starlight its a bit trickier since this is the magic bullet OEC are currently using against YEC, but this is why there is a lot of good research happening now on this subject and ultimately the scriptures are king and they portray a YE, once our scientific models catch up in sophistication to the scriptures we will see how they completely agree, just like tons of other science that have previously taken us a while to observe and test and model out to finally see how it all works together, even past magic bullets that OEC have used against YEC and research now stands firmly on the YEC side now that "all the facts are in" as it were.


----------



## CharlieJ

Tree rings are a good example of why YEC is troubling to so many, including myself. We have learned how to read tree rings for specific climate data, allowing us to reconstruct conditions in many places regions of the world. These reconstructions are extremely accurate in every place where we can cross-check them with recorded data.

Now, there are some very old plants out there. Several have tree rings going back 5,000+ years, right through when usual estimates of the flood would have occurred. But trees rarely live more than 5,000 years. However, one can actually establish sequences of tree rings to extend back farther than any one tree. That is, if you have 3 or 4 trees that each partially overlapped in their lifespans, you can find the points of intersection between them and then add them together to create a continuous sequence. These sequences have been extended back over 10,000 years. 

So, the YEC position requires a magic wall. All the years back to the creation year, the tree rings give us real data about climate and its effect on the the tree. But then suddenly and without any indication of change, the tree rings stop referring to real events and simply evidence whatever fake history God inscribed in them. And since we don't know the exact year of creation, we can never tell where the line between real history and random creation-data is. 

Tree rings are just one example. Others include ice cores, coral reefs, geographical strata, etc. What's so spectacular about these methods is that when one cross-checks one dating mechanism (say tree rings) against others (carbon dating, strata), they almost always yield consistent information. It's almost as if they contained data about real historical events...


----------



## Dearly Bought

CharlieJ said:


> Tree rings are a good example of why YEC is troubling to so many, including myself. We have learned how to read tree rings for specific climate data, allowing us to reconstruct conditions in many places regions of the world. These reconstructions are extremely accurate in every place where we can cross-check them with recorded data.
> 
> Now, there are some very old plants out there. Several have tree rings going back 5,000+ years, right through when usual estimates of the flood would have occurred. But trees rarely live more than 5,000 years. However, one can actually establish sequences of tree rings to extend back farther than any one tree. That is, if you have 3 or 4 trees that each partially overlapped in their lifespans, you can find the points of intersection between them and then add them together to create a continuous sequence. These sequences have been extended back over 10,000 years.
> 
> So, the YEC position requires a magic wall. All the years back to the creation year, the tree rings give us real data about climate and its effect on the the tree. But then suddenly and without any indication of change, the tree rings stop referring to real events and simply evidence whatever fake history God inscribed in them. And since we don't know the exact year of creation, we can never tell where the line between real history and random creation-data is.
> 
> Tree rings are just one example. Others include ice cores, coral reefs, geographical strata, etc. What's so spectacular about these methods is that when one cross-checks one dating mechanism (say tree rings) against others (carbon dating, strata), they almost always yield consistent information. It's almost as if they contained data about real historical events...



So that I understand your frame of reference, are you willing to accept 800-900 year life spans for men such Methuselah?


----------



## CharlieJ

I am not tied to the position that the biblical chronologies are literal reckonings, but I am not opposed to it either. Is it relevant?


----------



## Peairtach

CharlieJ said:


> Tree rings are a good example of why YEC is troubling to so many, including myself. We have learned how to read tree rings for specific climate data, allowing us to reconstruct conditions in many places regions of the world. These reconstructions are extremely accurate in every place where we can cross-check them with recorded data.
> 
> Now, there are some very old plants out there. Several have tree rings going back 5,000+ years, right through when usual estimates of the flood would have occurred. But trees rarely live more than 5,000 years. However, one can actually establish sequences of tree rings to extend back farther than any one tree. That is, if you have 3 or 4 trees that each partially overlapped in their lifespans, you can find the points of intersection between them and then add them together to create a continuous sequence. These sequences have been extended back over 10,000 years.
> 
> So, the YEC position requires a magic wall. All the years back to the creation year, the tree rings give us real data about climate and its effect on the the tree. But then suddenly and without any indication of change, the tree rings stop referring to real events and simply evidence whatever fake history God inscribed in them. And since we don't know the exact year of creation, we can never tell where the line between real history and random creation-data is.
> 
> Tree rings are just one example. Others include ice cores, coral reefs, geographical strata, etc. What's so spectacular about these methods is that when one cross-checks one dating mechanism (say tree rings) against others (carbon dating, strata), they almost always yield consistent information. It's almost as if they contained data about real historical events...



You've got to to remember, of course, that some (many?) YECs i.e. creationists who believe the Days of Creation were approximately 24 hour periods, don't necessarily believe that the world was created in 4,004 B.C.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CharlieJ

I know that, Richard. As far as I can tell, though, once YECs give up the strict biblical chronology, any date they set is completely arbitrary. When old universe cosmologists estimate the age of the universe based on cosmic microwave background radiation, they may or may not be right, but they're offering a scientific explanation, an inference based on observed data derived according to an accepted paradigm. YECs that don't calculate the age of the earth through biblical chronology can't offer an alternative scientific explanation, because the "young looks old" thesis vitiates all inferences. 

But all that aside, adding a few thousand years doesn't change the magic wall problem. Ice core data goes back over 100,000 years. http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php


----------



## Peairtach

Thanks for your scientific input, Charlie.

I know there are problems with YEC, as there are major problems with the current long-age evolutionary hypothesis and theistic evolution, and with OEC also.

People have to choose what problems they want to live with in the light of what Scripture says.

Increased knowledge and understanding will hopefully resolve the problems at some point in history.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GloriousBoaz

CharlieJ said:


> So, the YEC position requires a magic wall. All the years back to the creation year, the tree rings give us real data about climate and its effect on the the tree. But then suddenly and without any indication of change, the tree rings stop referring to real events


 But this assumes uniformitarianism, that these life cycles were all uniform, that isn't observable data, it is historic science. 


CharlieJ said:


> What's so spectacular about these methods is that when one cross-checks one dating mechanism (say tree rings) against others (carbon dating, strata), they almost always yield consistent information. It's almost as if they contained data about real historical events...


 Which they most certainly would be because they all experienced the same catastrophic event (like the flood) or other event, that changed the Constants, for instance the flood changing the atmosphere etc and its connection to the fossil record being created (mostly) and life span of humans changing.




CharlieJ said:


> Others include ice cores, coral reefs, geographical strata,


 How Long Does a Coral Reef Take to Grow? - Answers in Genesis 
Search


----------



## CharlieJ

I'm not really sure what the point is that you're making, but let me further explain my own intention. I was merely trying to expand on the thread topic. Starlight is not the only natural phenomenon that both "appears" old and contains specific information. Tree rings do not just make trees "appear" old; they give us specific information on climate. Likewise, ice cores contain air bubbles trapped in the ice. Scientists examine these air bubbles to measure the composition of the atmosphere at various times. These, as well as several other types of natural phenomena, provide specific historical informational data. Furthermore, even young earth creationists believe that these phenomena provide real, specific historical information for the period of history that they believe really existed. Thus, at some point they must lay down an absolute barrier, saying that the same inferential processes that yield accurate information for recent times suddenly switch to not yielding information at all, because God just put that data there to make the universe appear old. That is what I refer to as the magic wall.


----------



## GloriousBoaz

Here is a quote from Jason Lisle Astro~Physicist


> Uniformity is distinct from uniformitarianism. The former asserts a consistency in the way the universe operates (if conditions are the same, one can expect the same outcome). In other words, the laws of nature are constant, but conditions and specific processes may be quite different in time or space. Conversely, uniformitarianism asserts that there is a consistency of conditions and processes. Uniformitarianism, as it pertains to geology, asserts that the geological past must be understood in light of present conditions and processes.
> As an example, consider canyon formation. Today, in most cases, canyons are gradually deepening as water slowly erodes the surrounding rock layers. A person holding to uniformitarianism would assume that this has always been the case; he would believe that a canyon has formed by water slowly eroding the surrounding rock layers since “the present is the key to the past.”
> 
> However, this need not be so. A number of geologists believe that many canyons (such as the Grand Canyon) were not formed (entirely) by the slow and gradual erosion from the river they now contain. Rather, some canyons were formed quickly under catastrophic conditions. So, the present is not the key to the past in these cases. Yet, the laws of nature presumably have been the same. Therefore, this is an example of uniformity, but not uniformitarianism.


----------



## Peairtach

CharlieJ said:


> I'm not really sure what the point is that you're making, but let me further explain my own intention. I was merely trying to expand on the thread topic. Starlight is not the only natural phenomenon that both "appears" old and contains specific information. Tree rings do not just make trees "appear" old; they give us specific information on climate. Likewise, ice cores contain air bubbles trapped in the ice. Scientists examine these air bubbles to measure the composition of the atmosphere at various times. These, as well as several other types of natural phenomena, provide specific historical informational data. Furthermore, even young earth creationists believe that these phenomena provide real, specific historical information for the period of history that they believe really existed. Thus, at some point they must lay down an absolute barrier, saying that the same inferential processes that yield accurate information for recent times suddenly switch to not yielding information at all, because God just put that data there to make the universe appear old. That is what I refer to as the magic wall.



I think if something is made by miracle, de novo, like the wine at Cana, it is bound to be presumed to be old, the result of long processes, without being told otherwise.

Would that be the same for the universe and Earth? We know how long it normally takes to make wine, but do we have anything to compare with our Earth and universe as to how long God should take in making them.

The question is, also, whether certain features of age are so necessary for the function and form of the finished created product to be perfected that they would have to be incorporated into a miraculously produced item?

Or are some features of age in a miraculously produced item superfluous to its form and function, but the Lord might put them there for some other purpose like a railway modeller adding age to his trains and stations?

E.g. Did Adam have a belly button? Did the trees in the Garden have rings - maybe such she rings are necessary for the proper function of a tree, anyway? Did the rings have a record of climate?

There is also the question of the Curse and the fact that the "whole creation" has been affected by this, and how that affects the appearance of the creation.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Afterthought

CharlieJ said:


> Tree rings do not just make trees "appear" old; they give us specific information on climate. Likewise, ice cores contain air bubbles trapped in the ice. Scientists examine these air bubbles to measure the composition of the atmosphere at various times.


It's been a while since I looked into these things, but can trees and ice survive a global flood? If not, this problem isn't limited to YEC but to any who hold to a relatively recent global flood. If they can, there may be some considerations of speedy growth for plants (and perhaps ice cores too) during Creation (first heard of this from Danny Faulkner; don't know if he would extend that idea to tree rings), which may or may not have been correlated with speedy changes in climate and atmosphere? For it says the plants sprung forth from the ground, not created ex nihilo. (edit: Just remembered the existence of trees which may have died before or during the flood. They can be handled by the "speedy growth" possibility. That limits the kinds of trees that can be affected by the initial question.) In which case this problem is similar to that of the distant starlight. Not that I would definitely advocate such theories myself, even if I had the knowledge needed concerning ice cores and trees.


@OP: I also recalled some stuff that gives another opinion: that the history is fake and there's no problem with deception on God's part. They avoid the "magic wall" (as it has been termed in this thread) in various ways. One, If I recall correctly, is that the history is true hypothetically, and so useful for scientific purposes. Here's one source on this idea: bylogos: On Mature Creation I also recall seeing that sort of idea somewhere on the Triablogue. The analogy there was that of a story. In a story, the character comes with his or her own history, events, and surroundings already made. The story begins in the middle. Likewise, Creation was started somewhere in the middle, with its own histories coming along for the ride, so apparent histories are expected and not deceptive. (edit: I just realized Richard above me has given this sort of idea. My mistake, but at least this paragraph somewhat builds on what was already said.)




Peairtach said:


> Would that be the same for the universe and Earth? We know how long it normally takes to make wine, but do we have anything to compare with our Earth and universe as to how long God should take in making them.


Time requires a metric to measure it, so this is true so far as it goes. Those who advocate older ages are saying the universe is old with respect to the things we use to measure days, months, and years. Those who advocate apparent age (or actual age, as the time dilation theories do) admit this to be true if the clock is turned back far enough but then claim that the metric cannot be used to correctly measure actual time that far back for various reasons, e.g., the miracle of Creation; time dilation; and so the actual time for the universe to be created is six ordinary days (or six ordinary days for our planet and from our planet's perspective, in the case of time dilation theories).


----------



## ZackF

CharlieJ said:


> I'm not really sure what the point is that you're making, but let me further explain my own intention. I was merely trying to expand on the thread topic. Starlight is not the only natural phenomenon that both "appears" old and contains specific information. Tree rings do not just make trees "appear" old; they give us specific information on climate. Likewise, ice cores contain air bubbles trapped in the ice. Scientists examine these air bubbles to measure the composition of the atmosphere at various times. These, as well as several other types of natural phenomena, provide specific historical informational data. Furthermore, even young earth creationists believe that these phenomena provide real, specific historical information for the period of history that they believe really existed. Thus, at some point they must lay down an absolute barrier, saying that the same inferential processes that yield accurate information for recent times suddenly switch to not yielding information at all, because God just put that data there to make the universe appear old. That is what I refer to as the magic wall.



Speaking of widening the conversation.... I'm not going to be surprised if we find evidence of life now or before on Mars. How then would one explain that from a YEC chronolog? There certainly has not been an impact event of size enough in the past 6.5ky to cause transpermia. We can also throw Europa, Titan and a couple other candidates in for good measure. Would such a discovery be just the "appearance" of life elsewhere?


----------



## David Shedlock

You start with a flawed premise. Man was created with the appearance of age. Even if he were created as an infant, he would have had 9 months under his belt.


----------



## au5t1n

David Shedlock said:


> You start with a flawed premise. Man was created with the appearance of age. Even if he were created as an infant, he would have had 9 months under his belt.



The question is why God would include history like supernovae in light if it were created in transit (i.e., did those supernovae never exist?) For my part as a strident 6-day, 24-hour creationist, I am not fond of theories which posit fake history of supernovae and stars. For this reason I don't think "appearance of age" is the right answer for distant starlight. I am content to say we don't need to know everything about how the miracle of creation worked, any more than we know everything about the wine Jesus made from water. However, to the extent that I am willing to speculate, I prefer theories which involve real supernovae while accepting the Bible's infallible account of creation in 6 days. 

It also isn't clear to me from your post what flawed premise he started with or how you would answer the question that he asked. 

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## tleaf

I must confess to not reading all the previous posts here - subject matter is too deep.

But, let me posit two things: (1) our Sun emits starlight that makes life possible here, and (2) God created time, which is simply a method for measuring change. Without any change at all (strictly speaking) time is meaningless.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## David Shedlock

Let's see if I have this straight.

1. Light travels at a certain speed, measured in light years (I agree)
2. Certain stars are millions of light years away. (I agree)
3. Ergo, those stars must have been created millions of years ago, lest God gave the universe the appearance of age (Doesn't follow)

1. Men age at a certain rate. (I agree)
2. Adam was a grown man when he was created. (I agree)
3. Ergo, man must have been actually created at least 9 months or perhaps many years before, lest God gave the universe the appearance of age.

The syllogism is the same


----------



## Afterthought

Afterthought said:


> It's been a while since I looked into these things, but can trees and ice survive a global flood? If not, this problem isn't limited to YEC but to any who hold to a relatively recent global flood. If they can, there may be some considerations of speedy growth for plants (and perhaps ice cores too) during Creation (first heard of this from Danny Faulkner; don't know if he would extend that idea to tree rings), which may or may not have been correlated with speedy changes in climate and atmosphere? For it says the plants sprung forth from the ground, not created ex nihilo. (edit: Just remembered the existence of trees which may have died before or during the flood. They can be handled by the "speedy growth" possibility. That limits the kinds of trees that can be affected by the initial question.) In which case this problem is similar to that of the distant starlight. Not that I would definitely advocate such theories myself, even if I had the knowledge needed concerning ice cores and trees.



Matthew Poole, Commentary on Genesis 8

"*Quest. Whence was this leaf, when trees had been so generally overthrown and rooted up by the deluge? *

*Answ.* 

1. Many trees might be preserved by an advantageous situation, between the rocks or hills which broke the force of the waters. 

2. It is probable that God, by his powerful providence, preserved the plants and trees for future ages; and therefore there is no mention of any of their roots or seeds preserved in the ark. 

3. The olive-tree especially will not only stand, but live and flourish under the waters, as Pliny, 1. 13. c. 25, and 16. 20, and Theophrastus, 4. 8, observe. Add, that the word here rendered leaf signifies also a tender branch."


----------

