The Distant Starlight Problem

[Guest shiloh357]

 

IMO, the days of creation are just prose used as a literary device and are probably no more literal than the apple that symbolizes our disobedience to God.

 

From a literary standpoint that simply isn't true.  Genesis 1 is not prose.  It is a literal historical event and means to be understood that way.  It uses the same narrative style that is present in the other historical accounts in Genesis. 

 

The forbidden fruit in the Garden was not symbolic of anything.  There is NO symbolism employed in the first eleven chapters of Genesis.  When symbolism is employed, the text will let us know.   We are not permitted by the Author of the Bible to arbitrarily assign "symbolism" whereever we want.  You are demonstrating some very poor exegesis.

[OldSchool2]

 

 

 

 

Except that God didn't make the stars on "day" 3, He made visible what was already in existence.  The word that is translated as "made" or "created" is not the same word used in earlier verses. This word means to "accomplish, bestow, or bring to completion".

But aren't there two creation stories: Genesis 1 and 2?

It's commonly held that both chapters are retelling the same event, but from different point of view; however, some consider the chapters to be consecutive with a considerable interval of time in between (from The International Bible Commentary).

 

There are not two stories.  This is a story technique that is repeated in the bible, i.e. animals in the ark.  But this is off topic.  There are all kinds of opinions about the different kinds of creation stories, but what is important is how the people that lived in those times understood how it was suppose to be interpreted, and this is a literal 6 day creation.

 

But if "a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:8) to the Lord, how literal could  a "6 day creation" be?

 

No, old school... You are misapplying the passage in Peter.   Peter is not offering up a formula for how God tells time.  His point had to do with God's faithfulness to His word.  The creation account in Genesis is one account stretched over two chapters ...

 

IMO, that account is a parable to simply, but profoundly explain creation to an audience that doesn't hold advanced degrees in geology and astrophysics, for what good those temporal degrees have done for the atheists who hold them.

And for the record:

I don't think God needs to tell time: He is well beyond that constraining dimension and

Prose is the ordinary language used in speaking or writing.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

IMO, that account is a parable to simply, but profoundly explain creation to an audience that doesn't hold advanced degrees in geology and astrophysics, for what good that does atheists who actually hold those degrees.

 

Well your "opinion" is wrong.   There is no literary basis for claiming that the creation account is a parable.  Parables are a specific literary genre in Scripture and this does not read like parable at all.   You need to study hermeneutics and learn the difference between literary genres.  

[LookingForAnswers]

 

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm

 

The word used in verse 1 is "bara"

The word used for day 4 ( and others) is asah

 

They have different meanings.

Yes, they have different meanings.  But it is clear that God made the stars on day 4.   That the word "create" was not used is irrelevant.  The word "asah" means to build, and it carries the connotation of giving a meaning or purpose to the thing which was/is made.

 

So regardless, it is clear to anyone who reads the text honestly, that it is claiming that God made the stars on Day 4.

 

 

Interesting, according to you a simple conjunction can have multiple meanings based upon verb placement but a totally different word cannot me something different.   If the meaning was not supposed to be different, why use a different word?   And what purpose does your last statement hold? why bring up the implication that people are being dishonest?  How does that help the discussion and how does that display the love of Jesus.  This sort of statement is classic debate strategy, it puts into the audience (in this case those reading the thread) that those that don't agree with you are dishonest people.  It is, forgive the pun, a very dishonest way to do business.

[Spock]

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm

 

The word used in verse 1 is "bara"

The word used for day 4 ( and others) is asah

 

They have different meanings.

Yes, they have different meanings.  But it is clear that God made the stars on day 4.   That the word "create" was not used is irrelevant.  The word "asah" means to build, and it carries the connotation of giving a meaning or purpose to the thing which was/is made.

 

So regardless, it is clear to anyone who reads the text honestly, that it is claiming that God made the stars on Day 4.

It is clear in Job 38:7 the stars sang at the creation of the earth. The angels are also referenced later in the same verse. They are not the same word. In Hebrew, the word "kowkab" means a blazing star, a sun. There is a different word for create and made in Genesis 1. The fact that create was not used is VERY relevant. On day 4 in Genesis he is calling the stars forth, not creating them. They already existed. Stars singing are indicative of nature singing forth God's praises and works. Read through Psalms, etc.

[Guest shiloh357]

Interesting, according to you a simple conjunction can have multiple meanings based upon verb placement but a totally different word cannot me something different. 

 

Huh?  What are you talking about.   Asah means to make, to build or construct.  I don't see what the problem is.

 

 

If the meaning was not supposed to be different, why use a different word?

 

  I said the meanings are different, hence the use of a different word.

 

 

And what purpose does your last statement hold? why bring up the implication that people are being dishonest?

 

 I wans't claiming anyone was being dishonest. I used honest in the sense of plain and forthright.  To read the text as written by the author in an honest straightforward manner.   The first step in interpretation is recognizing the plain wording of the text and not coming to the text with an attempt to force the text to conform to what I want it to say.

How does that help the discussion and how does that display the love of Jesus.  This sort of statement is classic debate strategy, it puts into the audience (in this case those reading the thread) that those that don't agree with you are dishonest people.  It is, forgive the pun, a very dishonest way to do business.

 

Nonsense.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm

 

The word used in verse 1 is "bara"

The word used for day 4 ( and others) is asah

 

They have different meanings.

Yes, they have different meanings.  But it is clear that God made the stars on day 4.   That the word "create" was not used is irrelevant.  The word "asah" means to build, and it carries the connotation of giving a meaning or purpose to the thing which was/is made.

 

So regardless, it is clear to anyone who reads the text honestly, that it is claiming that God made the stars on Day 4.

It is clear in Job 38:7 the stars sang at the creation of the earth. The angels are also referenced later in the same verse. They are not the same word. In Hebrew, the word "kowkab" means a blazing star, a sun. There is a different word for create and made in Genesis 1. The fact that create was not used is VERY relevant. On day 4 in Genesis he is calling the stars forth, not creating them. They already existed. Stars singing are indicative of nature singing forth God's praises and works. Read through Psalms, etc.

 

No, what is clear to someone who actually knows how to handle  the text is that the verse 7 is a synonymous parallel that refers to angels as stars in the first half and that the second half of the verse parallels the first but in different words.  They are not same word, but stars are often represented in this kind of poetic genre as angels, because stars don't sing and do not have the capacity for joy. Angels can sing and shout for joy.  But stars do not.

 

A little commonsense goes a long way, Spock.

[Enoch2021]

Whilst secular cosmologists like to romanticise our observations of the universe as “looking back in time”, the scientific reality is that we only actually, directly observe are photons of light as they are captured or viewed from Earth on their journey through space. The history of the universe is thereby modelled based on assumptions (logical extrapolations) about the unobserved history of those photons.

 

All models of the universe (including the secular Standard Cosmology model) are therefore necessarily formulated around layers of hypotheticals. For example; the original Big Bang theory was a mathematical reversal of our observations of an expanding universe. But the original mathematical model didn’t fit subsequent observations of uniform cosmic background radiation. So the model was changed to include Inflation; a proposal that the initial Big Bang was contained to a small area followed by a massively rapid expansion, and subsequent slowing down, of the universe (without any proposed cause for either expansion or slowing or any direct observation of the event – but fits the math and is therefore now part of the model). Then it was discovered that around 83% of the matter in the universe needed to hold galaxies together by gravity was missing. So a scientifically unobserved substance called Dark Matter was proposed. And even though Dark Matter has never been scientifically observed (a necessary condition of legitimate scientific confidence), proponents of this model constantly tell the community that “we know it’s there”. Due to the gravitational effect of all this matter, scientists expected that the expansion of the universe would be slowing down. However observations indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. We now call the scientifically unobserved energy driving this acceleration Dark Energy.

 

Now this model may be completely correct, or completely false (or perhaps some of each). We cannot go back in time to make the necessary observations required to verify any aspect of this model. And that makes it unfalsifiable. No current observation could necessitate the complete rejection of the model. Any seemingly contrary observation could be rendered impotent by the claim that “we haven’t figured out how this evidence fits our model yet”. And if we are fair, there does exist a logical possibility that some future discovery or idea may reconcile the evidence to the model. But it is this very possibility that allows us to set aside seemingly contrary observations/facts and renders the model unfalsifiable. This applies equally to both secular and creationist models of reality.

 

The claim that unfalsifiable means unscientific is debatable. However, neither unfalsifiable nor unscientific mean “logically impossible” or “necessarily untrue”. Any accusation of unscientific or unfalsifiable only speaks logically to our capacity to test a claim - but not in any sense to the possible truth of a claim.

 

The foundational source of the creationist model is the Bible. The current favoured model of creationists combines the Biblical claim that “God stretched out the heavens” with the implications on time of Einstein’s relativity. Simply; as space was “stretched”, so was time (called time dilation) such that the space stretched away from the Earth is actually older than space on/around Earth. That is, as stretched space results in more space, stretched time results in more time.

 

 

Regarding the alleged creationist models presented in the article.

 

Models 1 & 2: As a creationist for over 2 decades, I don’t ever recall hearing either of these arguments. To present these as typical creationist models therefore employs logically fallacious Strawman reasoning. As presented, model 1 itself is an example of the logical fallacy called Unsupported Assertion. No effort is made by the author to provide the supporting arguments for the claim – so the article immediately demonstrates a lack of rational objectivity. The rebuttal of both models heavily incorporates Innuendo and Unsupported Assertion (both logical fallacies). Unsupported counter-claims do not constitute a rational rebuttal of any position.

 

Models 3 & 4: Creationists once considered the Cdk issue to be a possibility. However this argument is now broadly rejected by creationists because it raises more problems than it solves. Note the Innuendo in the statement “the velocity of light was infinite or at least millions of times faster than it is now, then slowed down and conveniently stabilized at the current value” – Yet replace “light” with “space”, and you have the secular concept of Inflation (which has been readily incorporated into the secular model).

 

Model 5: This is a valid attempt by a Physicist to model creationism. Dr. Humphreys freely admits that the model is imperfect. The secular model also contains many imperfections; none of which have warranted a wholesale rejection of secular cosmology. The main rebuttal used by the author is that the some concepts utilised by Dr. Humphreys lack direct observational support. Have they considered that the same is true for the Big Bang itself, as well as Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy (i.e. the entire secular model)? All cosmology models are highly speculative and therefore subject to legitimate scrutiny and criticism.

 

Model 6: Oddly, the author himself points out that this model does not represent the informed creationist position and that the problems with this model are essentially theological – not scientific. Even though I don’t subscribe to this model, I think this model is logically viable in the sense that God could have created a mature universe without any deception involved. The inconsistencies stem from our interpretations of the observations – not from what the Bible claims. God creating mature people is not a deception about their lack of infant history; even though contemporary observations of adults would indicate a childhood. God creating mature (fruiting) flora does not represent a deception about the history of the plants.

 

Another model that would reconcile these potential problems would involve God winding the physical universe forward independently of time - In the same way that winding a clock forward represents a physical change, but doesn’t actually alter time.

 

The author then concludes with Innuendo; “Even though creationists claim they have the truth, they contradict each other as well as science” – seemingly unaware that both the Christian belief and the scientific method explicitly permit consideration and debate of all ideas. Our claim to “have the truth” is a faith claim about the Bible – not a scientific claim about models formulated around it. So this statement represents yet another Strawman fallacy.

 

Model 9: (not really a model - but a claim demonstrating a logical weakness in the presentation of scientific confidence beyond what has been scientifically observed). Every claim regarding the history of the photon prior to its observation is assumed; how far and fast it has travelled, what lies between the vast amount of space between its origin and the Earth, assumptions regarding how the properties of light are impacted over such large amounts of distance and time, and how those properties should be interpreted. We extrapolate several hundreds of years of observations to billions of years of history. Any hypothesis beyond observation therefore necessarily employs assumption. Assumptions are common in science. They only become problematic when they are ignored; resulting in exagerated levels scientific confidence. Assumptions may be rationally justifiable - but until claims are verified through observation they remain assumptions.

 

Models 7, 8 & 10 do not represent the informed creationist position.

 

The author of the presented rebuttal demonstrates that they have not given fair or objective consideration to the actual creationist position - and therefore should not be considered a reliable source of information.

 

Enjoyed reading this....did you come up with this?  Just a cursory look....busy this morning, so I'll give it some attention later.

 

 

"The claim that unfalsifiable means unscientific is debatable."

 

No it actually isn't debatable @ ALL.....

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

That means it has to satisfy these 4 Tenets:

 

Observable

Measurable/Testable

Repeatable

Falsifiable

[Guest]

Observable

Measurable/Testable

Repeatable

Falsifiable

 

 

None Of The Dogmas Of Scientism

 

But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward. Jeremiah 7:24

 

Meet The Definition

 

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

 

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

 

Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Job 38:1-5

 

Of Science

 

Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 2 Corinthians 10:5

 

Of Knowledge

 

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

[Dwark]

OK, but the Sun for that solar day wasn't created till Genesis 1:16-19.

 

 

No, the sun was created on day 1.

 

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

 

If you have a child handy, go ask them "What do we call the thing that gives us light during the day?"

 

They will tell you "Sun" straight away.