[asa] Near Starlight Problem; Adam would never see all of Orion's belt?

The distant starlight problem has often been used as a way of
challenging the YEC viewpoint, but I'm wondering if the problem has
ever been addressed as to what happens to nearby stars as well. This
idea arose from a conversation I had with a YEC colleague who asked me
to explain all about the age of the universe. I explained about the
distant starlight problem; how, for example, multiple independent
techniques could confirm the distance to our nearest galactic
neighbour (Andromeda) as 2.2 million light years, and that when we
observe things happening in Andromeda ( e.g. variable stars, or
supernovae) we are witnessing events that happened over 2 million
years ago). I then pointed out that as the Bible says the stars were
created on the fourth day that this could therefore not be interpreted
literally.

His response was not to question the science that gave the 2.2 m LY
distance to Andromeda, (and he agreed that speed of light decay
sounded like bad science). He suggested instead that the statement
that God created the stars on the fourth day was only referring to the
stars near the earth, and not to the distant ones. I then suggested
that this mean that he was not interpreting the Bible literally;
Genesis 1:1 says God created the heavens and the earth in the
beginning, not just the bit of the heavens that was close to the
earth. He then said he'd go off and take advice from other
creationists on dating!

However, it occurred to me that even nearby stars being created on the
fourth day doesn't solve the problem (though it doesn't prove the
universe is > 6000 years old). If one sticks to a "literal" (in the
YEC sense) view of creation (stars on Day 4, man on Day 6), and with
the YEC view that it was Adam who was created on Day 6, that this
raises all sorts of starnge observations for Adam right at the start.
The logical conclusion of all this, and the finite speed of light
would be that when Adam looked up at the night sky on Day 6, all he
could see would be the planets and the moon.

Light from the nearest star in the Northern Hemisphere would not reach
the earth for six years, and even then it would be a feeble start, as
the nearest star in Northern Hemisphere is from the tiny red-dwarf
Barnard's star which is not visible to the human eye. The first
clearly visible star (Sirius) would pop into the sky in around 3995
BC, or 8.7 years after creation.

The Pleiades (mentioned in Job 38:31) would not have appeared till
just under half way into Adam's lifetime (440 light years). Orion's
belt (also mentioned in Job 38:31) would never be completely visible
to Adam, as the distances are 900, 1300, and 800 light years; hence
Adam never got to see the middle star ( epsilon Orionis, or Alnilam),
and only the other two stars when he was well advanced in years.

All of this is a logical consequence of a completely literal
interpretation of the Biblical text, and the assumption that Adam
really did live 930 years.

I'm wondering if this would be a way of providing a gentle challenge
to YEC friends; I am sure most people of the YEC persuasion would like
to believe that Adam could see all the stars on Day 6.

Any thoughts as to whether it has been looked at in this way?

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.