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

I think YEC's ultimately give-up on science. How can you trust your senses when you see a full-grown male, but he is really only 1 day old (if you met Adam the day he was made)?

Trees also bore fruit on day 1 (they did not take years to reach maturity). How many rings do you think those trees had? And I'd think they would need rings in order to be viable- but each ring would indicate a year of life. T-Rex was also a vegetarian, because there was no death before the fall.

But I never understood why T-Rex didn't get on the ark, or if he did, why he didn't survive afterwards. If other vicious animals could be saved (lions, bears, alligators, etc.), why not T-Rex?

By the way, I'm trying to set-up a mini-debate (YEC-OEC-TE) in the Portland Oregon area, and I'm having difficulty getting a YEC representative- anyone have any references or contacts for a YEC promoter?

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 1:20 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Near Starlight Problem; Adam would never see all of Orion's belt?

Bernie,
I think you are correct. The most consistent word I get from YEC's is
the light was made "in transit".

Its problematical. An implication is light from an object
supposedly 10,000 LY away, all such light received up until now
didnt actually originate from the object - instead it is light that
was made in transit. Only after the 10,000 year point in time
from the creation would actual light originating at the actual object
reach us.

This is riddled with phenomenological problems. Given that E&M
interaction the the way we know of any object's existence we would
have no way of knowing if distant objects really exist.

For example, an object 2,000,000 LY away is essentially undetectable
because we would never see light from that object.
The object might not even exist. And we would never know if it was
really there. It would be impossible to know. It would be as if the
entire universe had a radius of what? 6000 light years? I call this
the "Stars are painted on the sky" theory.
Who could believe in such a thing?

Just as bad are the theological problems introduced by a fake
universe. It sort of dings the truthfulness of the creator.

Obviously the "light made in transit" model is too simple to be of
any use. Gerald Schroeder wrote a book suggesting time dilation is
the better answer.

-Dave

On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Dehler, Bernie
<bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> My opinion, being formerly friendly to the YEC position and talking to YEC's, is that a YEC dismisses this problem with the "appearance of age" answer. For example, as soon as Adam is made, he appears to be fully mature- not at all like 1 day old. It is the same exact thing with the stars- of course the light from them would be here and it would look ancient, just as exactly in the Adam case. This is why science will always be frustrated. "What you see is NOT what you get."
>
> My stumper for them- a supernova explosion is observed in which it is located millions of light-years away. It is not simply an issue of starlight anymore- it is an issue of events (did they really happen or not). Did that explosion really happen? If so, the light from it would need that time to get here. If the explosion didn't really happen, then God is "showing us a movie" of something that never really happened.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Iain Strachan
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 6:58 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: [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.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 20 16:40:43 2009