Is Starlight real?

Discussion in 'Natural Revelation and God's Creation' started by BayouHuguenot, Dec 29, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. CharlieJ

    CharlieJ Puritan Board Junior

    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.
     
  2. GloriousBoaz

    GloriousBoaz Puritan Board Freshman

    Here is a quote from Jason Lisle Astro~Physicist
     
  3. Peairtach

    Peairtach Puritan Board Doctor

    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
     
  4. Afterthought

    Afterthought Puritan Board Junior

    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.)


    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).
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2014
  5. ZackF

    ZackF Puritan Board Graduate

    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?
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2014
  6. David Shedlock

    David Shedlock Puritan Board Freshman

    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.
     
  7. au5t1n

    au5t1n Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    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
     
  8. tleaf

    tleaf Puritan Board Freshman

    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.
     
  9. David Shedlock

    David Shedlock Puritan Board Freshman

    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
     
  10. Afterthought

    Afterthought Puritan Board Junior

    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."
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page