The Distant Starlight Problem

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

(Revelation 22:5) "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever."

 

Hope it helps,

 

Iron sharpens Iron Brothers

 

I have a better question.

 

God is light.

 

So where did the darkness mentioned in vs. 2 come from? Why did God have to speak forth light?

 

I haven't the first clue.  However, the question is....where does light come from without the SUN?? .....

 

(Revelation 22:5) "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever."

 

Am I missing something?

 

Are you saying GOD would have no control over that Light?

 

 

I'm not saying anything!

 

I have no idea how to translate "Let there be light" scientifically anymore than the rest of Genesis 1 scientifically.

 

And that is why I cannot accept the YEC interpretation of Creation because it forces one into doing that. As we can see in this thread, it all leads to weird questions with even weirder answers.

 

Where did the darkness come from and why was it there? I don't know, but I can't brush the question aside.

 

Why was the eretz formless and void? Same.

 

Where, when and how was there water and "the deep"? Same.

 

If God is light, why did He need to speak light into existence? Same.

 

Where did that light come from without the sun? OK, that's the first time I heard a YEC position that put the creation of the sun first. But again, the same.

 

 

"Where did that light come from without the sun? OK, that's the first time I heard a YEC position that put the creation of the sun first."

 

What in the World are you talking about?  I have no idea how you came up with that from the question.  I didn't put the Sun first. 

 

The issue is "Let there be Light" on Day 1 then seemingly from the Word.... the Sun made on Day 4....see the Paradox?

 

Dwark and apparently every other position on here, except (me and Shiloh), is well.....You have "Light" on the first day = SUN

 

My position was that's not the case...... "Light" is just an Effect not a Cause or Source.  Then suggested that the "Light" could be coming from GOD (CAUSE/Source) and supported that view with another case in Scripture, which is quite obvious and deals with the subject of Where Light could've come from without the SUN.....

 

(Revelation 22:5) "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever."

 

Are we tracking now?

[Tristen]

 

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

 

 

Hi Enoch, Yes, I wrote this based on my knowledge of the issue studied as a creationist for several decades (so some of the concepts are obviously not mine).

 

Regarding whether scientific means falsifiable.

 

Science only works when it is founded upon and justified by logic. All scientific ideas and definitions are therefore subject to logical scrutiny.

 

In the 1930s, eminent science philosopher, Sir Karl Popper, proposed that to qualify as scientific, a claim must be falsifiable. This proposition is based on the idea that scientific confidence can only be legitimately attributed through a claim surviving direct observational scrutiny. One of the problems with this standard is that claims about the past are not subject to direct observational scrutiny. Therefore by this standard, all claims regarding the past are rendered unscientific; including Standard Cosmology (incorporating Big Bang theory), Common Ancestry and creationism.

 

Scientists work around this limitation by employing indirect investigation methods; namely by formulating models of the putative effects of their hypothesis, then testing the currently available evidence against the model (i.e. not the hypothesis itself). Consistency between the evidence and the model only legitimately increases confidence in the strength of the model – it does not logically contribute to confidence in the hypothesis itself. Any attempt to attribute scientific confidence to any past claim is to commit the logical fallacy known as Affirming the Consequent (because multiple causes can be responsible for identical outcomes – so it is impossible to determine the specific unobserved cause by observing the outcome alone).

 

So the claim that unfalsifiable means unscientific is indeed debatable (since a large portion of what is currently labelled science involves investigating unfalsifiable hypotheses). My only personal requisite is that terminology be used consistently. If unfalsifiable means unscientific, then all claims regarding the unobserved past are unscientific (including the secular models). And so long as there is no attempt to equate either unfalsifiable or unscientific with “untrue”, then logical consistency can be maintained.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

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

 

 

Hi Enoch, Yes, I wrote this based on my knowledge of the issue studied as a creationist for several decades (so some of the concepts are obviously not mine).

 

Regarding whether scientific means falsifiable.

 

Science only works when it is founded upon and justified by logic. All scientific ideas and definitions are therefore subject to logical scrutiny.

 

In the 1930s, eminent science philosopher, Sir Karl Popper, proposed that to qualify as scientific, a claim must be falsifiable. This proposition is based on the idea that scientific confidence can only be legitimately attributed through a claim surviving direct observational scrutiny. One of the problems with this standard is that claims about the past are not subject to direct observational scrutiny. Therefore by this standard, all claims regarding the past are rendered unscientific; including Standard Cosmology (incorporating Big Bang theory), Common Ancestry and creationism.

 

Scientists work around this limitation by employing indirect investigation methods; namely by formulating models of the putative effects of their hypothesis, then testing the currently available evidence against the model (i.e. not the hypothesis itself). Consistency between the evidence and the model only legitimately increases confidence in the strength of the model – it does not logically contribute to confidence in the hypothesis itself. Any attempt to attribute scientific confidence to any past claim is to commit the logical fallacy known as Affirming the Consequent (because multiple causes can be responsible for identical outcomes – so it is impossible to determine the specific unobserved cause by observing the outcome alone).

 

So the claim that unfalsifiable means unscientific is indeed debatable (since a large portion of what is currently labelled science involves investigating unfalsifiable hypotheses). My only personal requisite is that terminology be used consistently. If unfalsifiable means unscientific, then all claims regarding the unobserved past are unscientific (including the secular models). And so long as there is no attempt to equate either unfalsifiable or unscientific with “untrue”, then logical consistency can be maintained.

 

 

"My only personal requisite is that terminology be used consistently."

 

Oh you can be sure I will.  If you follow these threads,  My prediction is that you'll be seeing this over and over again

 

Also Scientific and Unscientific are too Ambiguous IMHO and just muddy the waters.  "Scientific Evidence" is what I'll be using and the definition leaves no Ambiguity whatsoever.

 

And I'm glad you brought the subject of these Logical Fallacies.  Ironically, I was reviewing many right before this response.  95% of the posts on this thread are "begging the question".

 

Haven't had a chance to review the rest of your post but will get to it @ some point.

 

Welcome to Worthy

[nebula]

"Where did that light come from without the sun? OK, that's the first time I heard a YEC position that put the creation of the sun first."

 

What in the World are you talking about?  I have no idea how you came up with that from the question.  I didn't put the Sun first. 

 

The issue is "Let there be Light" on Day 1 then seemingly from the Word.... the Sun made on Day 4....see the Paradox?

 

Dwark and apparently every other position on here, except (me and Shiloh), is well.....You have "Light" on the first day = SUN

 

My position was that's not the case...... "Light" is just an Effect not a Cause or Source.  Then suggested that the "Light" could be coming from GOD (CAUSE/Source) and supported that view with another case in Scripture, which is quite obvious and deals with the subject of Where Light could've come from without the SUN.....

 

(Revelation 22:5) "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever."

 

Are we tracking now?

 

Like I said, the attempts to interpret Genesis 1 scientifically is leading to weird solutions. Because that correlation was brought up, I simply commented on it; I didn't mean to direct it at you. Sorry about that.

 

 

But still, God is light, yet there was a darkness He had to speak light into. I still find this quite odd.

[Enoch2021]

 

"Where did that light come from without the sun? OK, that's the first time I heard a YEC position that put the creation of the sun first."

 

What in the World are you talking about?  I have no idea how you came up with that from the question.  I didn't put the Sun first. 

 

The issue is "Let there be Light" on Day 1 then seemingly from the Word.... the Sun made on Day 4....see the Paradox?

 

Dwark and apparently every other position on here, except (me and Shiloh), is well.....You have "Light" on the first day = SUN

 

My position was that's not the case...... "Light" is just an Effect not a Cause or Source.  Then suggested that the "Light" could be coming from GOD (CAUSE/Source) and supported that view with another case in Scripture, which is quite obvious and deals with the subject of Where Light could've come from without the SUN.....

 

(Revelation 22:5) "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever."

 

Are we tracking now?

 

Like I said, the attempts to interpret Genesis 1 scientifically is leading to weird solutions. Because that correlation was brought up, I simply commented on it; I didn't mean to direct it at you. Sorry about that.

 

 

But still, God is light, yet there was a darkness He had to speak light into. I still find this quite odd.

 

 

OK. 

 

Agreed

[a-seeker]

I confess I am getting tired of these types of questions; not because they are not good questions, but because there seems to me to be something below the surface....a sub-floor.  The issue is the nature of Scripture and what it means for Scripture to be inspired, yet we make it a scientific question.  It is not.  No one here would give a wit about the scientific claim that the earth is old if Genesis did not tell us it was made in 6 days--no one gets fired up about scientific claims regarding digestion, or diabetes, or how to get a rocket on the moon!

 

So, if someone can help me out, I will present my position (not a scientific one, but a matter of faith) for scrutiny.

 

I believe Scripture is inspired.  I believe the earth to be very, very, very old.  I am a OEC.  According to many people this is a contradiction.  I do not think it is.  Tell me how I am contradicting myself.  Don't appeal to science.  Science is not the issue. The issue is "the inspiration of Scripture" and what it means to be "inspired".

 

Perhaps this is a topic of its own, but I do not know how to start one and doubt (since I am still deemed a seeker) I could start one.

 

clb

[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.

 

Perhaps I do, but talking snakes and magic apples that impart wisdom remind me of Aesop's "parables".

 

The problem is that story isn't true, then there was no fall from sin.  The Bible uses the incident in the Garden as the basis for Jesus' death on the Cross.  The Bible doesn't treat that as fable, but as actual history.  Paul references Adam's disobedience in the Garden the very thing Jesus came rectify through His obedience on the cross. If the event in the Garden didn't really happen the death of Jesus makes no sense

 

So once again, your unbiblical opinions run headlong against the infallbile truth of the Word of God. The Bible says that Adam ate of the fruit God told him not to eat of.  You can believe the truth of God's word or you can be like Adam and Eve and believe the lies of the enemy that it never happened.

[OldSchool2]

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.

Perhaps I do, but talking snakes and magic apples that impart wisdom remind me of Aesop's "parables".

The problem is that story isn't true, then there was no fall from sin.  The Bible uses the incident in the Garden as the basis for Jesus' death on the Cross.  The Bible doesn't treat that as fable, but as actual history.  Paul references Adam's disobedience in the Garden the very thing Jesus came rectify through His obedience on the cross. If the event in the Garden didn't really happen the death of Jesus makes no sense ...

Although Aesop's tales aren't literally true, they impart a very real truth about ourselves nonetheless. And I don't recall Paul saying anything about an apple when he wrote that in Adam's disobedience all have sinned, but in Christ's obedience we are made acceptable to God.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Although Aesop's tales aren't literally true, they impart a very real truth about ourselves nonetheless. And I don't recall Paul saying anything about an apple when he wrote that in Adam's disobedience all have sinned, but in Christ's obedience we are made acceptable to God.

 

The comparison to Aesops' fables is spurious and frankly it is intellectually lazy.    The Bible treats the fall of man as literal history.  Paul doesn't need to recount the story. Any competent reader of the text who is even rudimentarily familiar with the Scriptures knows as exactly what Paul is referring to. It is the ONLY act of disobedience recorded in reference to Adam.  To assert that Paul was not referring to Adam's disobedience in eating the fruit is simply a laughable assertion.  Paul references the disobedience of adam more than once in the NT and so your attempt mythologize the story in Genesis 3 is without any intellectual or biblical credibility.

[nebula]

I confess I am getting tired of these types of questions; not because they are not good questions, but because there seems to me to be something below the surface....a sub-floor.  The issue is the nature of Scripture and what it means for Scripture to be inspired, yet we make it a scientific question.  It is not.  No one here would give a wit about the scientific claim that the earth is old if Genesis did not tell us it was made in 6 days--no one gets fired up about scientific claims regarding digestion, or diabetes, or how to get a rocket on the moon!

 

I think you make a good point here, Connor.

 

But just to let you know, I push these questions because to me they show there's something wrong with the traditional interpretation.