I was just outside with my telescope looking at the stars and a question popped up in my head.
- New earth creationists believe the earth, heavens and all life on earth were created between 5 700 and 10 000 years ago.
- Light travels at 299 792 458 meter/second or 186 282 mile/second - So the distance of 1 lightyear is just under 10 trillion kilometers or 6 trillion miles.
If the earth and all the stars and galaxies were created 10 000 years ago, the max distance light could have traveled is 10 000 lightyears.
But the problem is that even the closest galaxy (Andromeda) is estemated to be between 2,4 and 2,9 MILLION lightyear away from earth. Even our own Milkyway galaxy is about 100 000 lightyear in diameter.
So it takes the light from the andromeda galaxy 2,4 million years to travel from there to here.
Thus 10 000 years isn't long enough for the light to travel that distance.
So the actual question:
How come that we can see all the other galaxies and stars in the nightsky (with or without a telescope)?
Shouldnt (by New Earth Creationism) we only be able to see the stars in a 10 000 lightyear orb around the earth?
(1) God created the light in transit. This means, of course, that when you see (for example) a supernova more than a few thousand lightyears away, you're watching something that hasn't actually happened, and the universe is literally one giant fake.
(2) The light ran most of the way, but then slowed down, because ... er ... look, a bunny! This would break a few laws of physics, but creationists don't really like the laws of physics anyway, look at their longstanding grudge against thermodynamics.
(3) The stars aren't really that far away. Of course, if you compressed all the galaxies we can see into a sphere only 6000 lightyears in radius we'd all be dead, but this is a mere detail.
It is of course possible to combine either of the first two with the third in a sort of belt-and-braces approach to reality denial.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the earth was 10,000 years old (which I'm fairly convinced it isn't) The light from the distant galaxies would have still been heading this way.
Biblical Creationism is always a topic that is an affront to science.
I have no problem with applying logic, reason, and reality to the things we can see and test. I also do not see why its an insult to my or anyone else s faith in so doing. Lets go beyond young earth creationism. Lets discuss creation in the context of the universe.
Cant we just assume, in a faith based metaphor and/or symbol, that the Big Bang occurred when God said "Let there be light?"
add by edit: I just read a few of the posts at the other thread, now being summarized. Rahvin had an excellent point here. Keeping in mind that we are in a Science Forum rather than a Faith/Belief one, there is not much more to be said in regards to this topic than what Rahvin eloquently pointed out in my link.
Assuming a singularity at one point, light would not have very far to travel.lots of things could happen at that exact moment of creation/expansion.
Philosophical speculation, however, takes us away from the science of the matter. All we have to work with is what we can test, quantify, and observe.
As far as God goes, assuming God to exist, and assuming that a relationship is possible, there are many more important things on the agenda than mere mathematics. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves if it is logical,reasonable, and realistic for a faith to question new earth creationism. Why limit a Creator to obey the rules He allegedly created? Would such a Creator, assuming He/She/It is relational, frown upon humans attempting to understand science? We were given a brain, after all. Moreover, should such a question not be in a philosophy/faith/belief forum?
OK, OK...I'll shut up already! The dude brought up new earth creationism. All I have done is state that such a philosophical question carries creationists to a faith/belief philosophy forum and carries those of us who want to learn further into this as a science topic.
I was not sure precisely what I Dont Know wanted to know.
He does bring up an excellent question which cannot be scientifically challenged.
The really funny part is that those who profess a young earth creationism seldom deal with the details, like the fact that if it were true, we would have direct and undeniable evidence in the millions of new lights that would appear in our skies every evening as the light from the stars that are 10,000 light years and one light day away pop into sight, followed the next night by the millions more stars that are 10,000 light years and two light days away and then the millions more stars that are 10,000 light years and three light days away and then ...
Somehow though, such direct evidence is never presented.
I wonder why?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
YECs don't necessarily believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Some postulate a young earth in an old universe. In that case, the size of the universe and a constant speed of light work out just fine.
As Dr. A points out, those who think the universe is just a few days older than the earth seldom believe that physicists are right about much of anything. I've heard more than one pastor claim that the Bible contains all of the science anyone needs to know.
Since creationism has no relation whatsoever to real world evidence, no quantity or quality of real world evidence can have any effect on it in any way.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist