Starlight

It's threads like this that make me despair for humanity.

Originally posted by rwingett
It's threads like this that make me despair for humanity.

Play along, Ming. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Except that the 'meaning expressed' does not make sense, so you have no choice than to do some twisting.
There cannot be days without the sun, and even then, days, mornings, evenings are only relevant to a given time zone. So if God makes fish on a certain day, is there wall at the dateline with fish on one side and only 24 hours later fish on the other ...[text shortened]... less fish swims across the dateline and finds himself existing the day before fish were created?

You seem not to realize that the earth does a complete rotation in 24 hours. So there is no need for a fish to cross a date line. It is this rotation of the earth that determines a day. And God was the one doing the counting in the beginning. Man did not come along until the 6th day.

The Instructor

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why would God be limited to just creating a star and not the light as well?

As I have pointed out many times, that would then mean that the stars seen on day 1, would be fake stars, not real stars. I would also mean that 99.99999 of the stars we see today are also fake stars and not real.
You have in the past claimed that God would not create a fake history for the universe.
You can't have both.

Originally posted by Soothfast
S2) In the beginning the speed of light was something much greater than c.

If the speed of light was much greater than c, then we are totally wrong about most of astronomy.
Also it would mean our galaxy is not the nice spiral shape we think it is, but much larger and stretched out in a rather odd way.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I have pointed out many times, that would then mean that the stars seen on day 1, would be fake stars, not real stars. I would also mean that 99.99999 of the stars we see today are also fake stars and not real.
You have in the past claimed that God would not create a fake history for the universe.
You can't have both.

Nonsense.

The Instructor

This is the dilemma for YECers because indeed either all of the stars beyond 6000 Light years are fake or there has to be another answer. I can't accept that God would be deceptive and I believe the universe is truly as vast as we think it is. So there are only a few options beyond that. I think the stretching out of the heavens is a viable option but even Humphrey's said that his theory needed more investigation and there could be other models. He stated somewhere that indeed the universe appears to have expanded in steps it looks like from seeing the way galaxies have red-shifted in what appears to be stages. There would be left over evidence if indeed God did stretch out the universe as He created it. I think YECers are dishonest at times because there so desperate to prove 6000 year time scale correct. I admit I go back and forth on this subject but we know the universe is much bigger than 6000 light years across

Manny

http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-unraveling-of-starlight-and-time

and opposing view to Humphreys

Originally posted by menace71
I think the stretching out of the heavens is a viable option.

No, actually, it isn't.
- The stretching of space shows in redshift.
- If the stars were only 6000 light years away when the light left them, and then they were 'stretched' away from us, they would still appear to be 6000 light years from us and not where we see them today.

I admit I go back and forth on this subject but we know the universe is much bigger than 6000 light years across.
We only 'know' that because of astronomy. If someone believes in a 6000 year old universe, they must throw out most of astronomy and thus can't claim to know the size of the universe. The problem is that they can't even begin to figure out the actual size of the universe without immediately running into the problem of time.

[edit]I see Humphrey does not actually claim a 6000 year old universe at all, but instead claims the earth is 6000 years old and the rest of the universe is much older.
This of course highlights the problem of relativity that literalists must run into ie if God made something on a certain 'day' then by whose clock does one measure that 'day'?
(I believe Kelly resolves this by disbelieving in relativity).

Would we not see the effects of a stretched out universe ? In Red shift .....well we do see redshift but what would be the observed effect of stretching ? Maybe it's not a viable option but if it were then we should see the results of it I would think but my question I guess is what would be the results of a universe that was stretched out in stages or something ?

Manny

A young universe which obeys general relativity must exhibit very rapid present decreases in the observed redshifts of distant galaxies and
A young universe which obeys general relativity cannot contain visible objects which are more than a few thousand light years distant.

This was from the argument against Starlight & Time from Humphreys

Apparently Humphreys misunderstands relativity

Manny

Originally posted by menace71
This is the dilemma for YECers because indeed either all of the stars beyond 6000 Light years are fake or there has to be another answer. I can't accept that God would be deceptive and I believe the universe is truly as vast as we think it is. So there are only a few options beyond that. I think the stretching out of the heavens is a viable option but even ...[text shortened]... h on this subject but we know the universe is much bigger than 6000 light years across

Manny

You don't seem to understand that Humphreys uses Einstein's theory of relativity in his model so that the passing of time at creation was different on earth compared to outer space. The passing of time in space is still different than on the earth even today, but just not as great as it was at creation because of the gravitational change. So it depends on which clock is being used.

The Instructor

Your right I forget his theory is that the earth's Clocks stood basically still while millions of years went by out in the distance universe


Manny

There are major flaws in Humphreys theory apparently because of his misunderstanding of relativity


Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Would we not see the effects of a stretched out universe ? In Red shift .....well we do see redshift but what would be the observed effect of stretching ? Maybe it's not a viable option but if it were then we should see the results of it I would think but my question I guess is what would be the results of a universe that was stretched out in stages or something ?

Manny

If space is stretched, you get redshift. We do observe some redshift because space is being stretched. And we can measure exactly how much it is stretched.
But see my edit above, Humphreys is not as I first thought claiming that the universe was stretched from a 6000 light year radius to billions of light years across, but rather he is claiming the stretching has caused some weird time effects which make the Earth younger than the rest of the universe.