Astronomic events that never happened?

[Enoch2021]

6 minutes ago, Sojourner414 said:

As I stated in my post: When Scripture tells us that God created the heavens and the Earth, the word used for "heaven" in Hebrew was ha·sha·ma·yim  or "heaven, sky".

(Genesis 1:1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Strong's:

Heaven: שָׁמֶה    שָׁמַיִם
shâmayim    shâmeh
shaw-mah'-yim, shaw-meh'
The second form being dual of an unused singular; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve): - air, X astrologer, heaven (-s).

 

Quote

So, I'm thinking that Genesis is beginning with the creation of the planet and it's atmosphere;

AND....: as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve.  <--- sounds like what we call "the universe" to me.

 

Quote

God didn't have to create the whole universe at once

What do you mean when you say the "Whole Universe" specifically...? 
 

Quote

but Genesis does describe the Lord bringing the planet from a state of lifelessness to a finished, working, viable ecosystem replete with a biosphere.

"planet"? Chapter and Verse for "Planet"/Ball please...?

 

Quote

(1.) That said, it is possible for the Universe to be that old (2.) and the planet to have been formed much later.

(1.) To be how old?

(2.) How can the 'plane' be formed "Much Later"??  And "Later" than what, when...

HE said HE made...

(Genesis 1:1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."  <--- The First Day.

(Genesis 1:16) "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars

also." <--- The Fourth Day.

The Earth and the Heavens -- (Including the Universe, SEE Definition above) established...THEN: The Sun, Moon, and Stars.

 

Quote

(1.) As for the "Sun, moon and stars", yes, those came about on the fourth day.  (2.) But what you're forgetting here is that before the universe existed, only God existed.

(1.) Yes.

(2.) I'm not forgetting it, it has Absolutely Nothing to do with your argument. 

 

Quote

If God is the beginning of all things, then He had to create the expanse called the Universe in order to put things into.

Exactly my point.

 

Quote

If God is the beginning of all things, then He had to create the expanse called the Universe in order to put things into.

Yes, The Expanse/Heaven = The Universe.

All of that created with the Earth on Day 1 ...

(Genesis 1:1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

 

Quote

Gets asbestos suit on and gets one for Morning Glory as well

Na, maybe just a Flak Jacket (and eye protection). 

 

regards

[Tristen]

Here I am somewhat quoting/adapting my own comments from an earlier thread ( https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/175434-the-distant-starlight-problem/?page=11&tab=comments#comment-2062110 )

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 photons of light as they are captured or viewed from Earth on their journey through space. The history of the universe is thereby modeled 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 subsequently changed to incorporate Inflation; a proposal that the initial Big Bang was contained to a small area followed by a massively rapid expansion (thousands of times faster than light), 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 an unobserved substance called Dark Matter was proposed. And even though Dark Matter has never been directly 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, as yet, 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 the historical aspects 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 (as Inflation reconciled the Horizon and Flatness problems). 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.

 

My preferred creationist model combines the Biblical claim that “God stretched out the heavens” with the implications on time of Einstein’s relativity (linking space to time). 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. In that model, claiming the whole "universe" to be "only ~6,000 years old" is overly simplistic. Stretched space is actually older than earth, even though it was created at the same time.

But there are simpler models; including models of God winding the universe forward independent of time at the creation, or God creating a mature universe. Neither of these models requires any deception (any more than God creating mature humans implies a deception about their childhood). God has explicitly revealed to us the timing and circumstance of creation; in Genesis. If we choose to override those details with secular interpretations of facts, that's on us, not God.

 

Regarding the paper - There is nothing in the observations that are inconsistent with any of the above-mentioned creationist models. The observations are of various kinds of electromagnetic energy recorded at the end of their journey. One would expect secular researchers to assume a secular history of that energy, though, apart from the implications of their distance measurements, there is little direct mention of this in the paper. Some of the problems with claiming to be able to measure such distances are explicitly addressed in the paper - mentioned because the measurements actually ranged from around 178,000 light years to 250,000 light years (i.e. a range of 70,000 light years - which is quite substantial when compared to the estimate of 200,000 light years). The paper addresses the assumptions upon which their estimates are based. Either way, none of these claims violates any of the above-mentioned creationist models. The 'mature universe' model may imply that the observations are artifacts of creation (as opposed to actual events in time and space), but the other two have no issue with observing a real supernova 200,000 light years away.

 

" It is fascinating to learn about events like this and think about the size, scale, and energy involved in such events "

"The heavens declare the glory of God" (Ps 19:1)

[one.opinion]

16 hours ago, Tristen said:

" It is fascinating to learn about events like this and think about the size, scale, and energy involved in such events "

"The heavens declare the glory of God" (Ps 19:1)

Amen to that!

16 hours ago, Tristen said:

My preferred creationist model combines the Biblical claim that “God stretched out the heavens” with the implications on time of Einstein’s relativity (linking space to time). 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. In that model, claiming the whole "universe" to be "only ~6,000 years old" is overly simplistic. Stretched space is actually older than earth, even though it was created at the same time.

But there are simpler models; including models of God winding the universe forward independent of time at the creation, or God creating a mature universe. Neither of these models requires any deception (any more than God creating mature humans implies a deception about their childhood). God has explicitly revealed to us the timing and circumstance of creation; in Genesis. If we choose to override those details with secular interpretations of facts, that's on us, not God.

What evidence do you use to support these models?

[Tristen]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Amen to that!

What evidence do you use to support these models?

No facts "support" any model. But all of the facts can be interpreted to be consistent with all of the mentioned models.

A good recent example is the New Horizons information of Pluto and Charon. Given their distance form the sun, and the presupposition that they formed billions of years ago, the expectation was to find crater-potted, atmosphere-less, geologically dead bodies. Yet the facts indicate that Pluto and Charon are both young, geologically active bodies with atmosphere.

" the big surprise was mountains of water ice rising 3500 meters up from strikingly smooth, crater-free surfaces. The lack of craters—also seen on Charon, Pluto’s largest moon—is evidence for youthfulness, and geological activity that could pave over the surfaces in fresh icy materials. This was unexpected, because many thought that the internal heat sources within Pluto and Charon, leftover from their formation in a giant impact billions of years ago, would have dissipated long ago.

...

Pluto is the largest Kuiper belt object; Triton is thought to be a captured one. Both harbor smooth surfaces that suggest repaving driven by internal heating. But where that activity on Triton can be driven by the tidal pull of Neptune, scientists are scratching their heads over what could be driving it on Pluto. There are other differences between the worlds, Soderblom says: Triton lacks Pluto’s tall mountains and its rugged, ropy pits. “Everywhere we go, we’re surprised,” he says. “We should know better by now.” "

(http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/potential-geysers-spotted-pluto)

 

" “This terrain is not easy to explain,” said Jeff Moore, leader of the New Horizons Geology, Geophysics and Imaging Team (GGI) at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California. “The discovery of vast, craterless, very young plains on Pluto exceeds all pre-flyby expectations.” "

(https://www.nasa.gov/feature/frozen-plains-in-the-heart-of-pluto-s-heart)

 

"The new Pluto image reveals a portion of the planet with large mountains looming over a surface that looks relatively young—so young, in fact, that it suggests the planet is still geologically active.

“We have not yet found a single impact crater on this image,” says team member John Spencer. “Pluto has been bombarded by other objects in the Kuiper Belt. Craters happen. We think it has to be probably less than 100 million years old… it might be active right now.”"

(https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150715-pluto-flyby-photos-pictures-closeup-space/)

 

And this is not the first time scientists have been surprised by what they found. The discovery of geologic activity on Triton (mentioned in the above quote) was another find contrary to the expectation built on the assumption of a billions-of-years old solar system. Even our moon, long thought "a cold, dead, geographically inactive world" due to its size and mass (and presumed age) shows indications of geological activity (called "transient lunar phenomena").

 

[simplejeff]

3 minutes ago, Tristen said:

No facts "support" any model.

Or , as Yahweh Says,  ALL the facts (the true facts),  are evidence of Yahweh's Creating ALL THINGS, EVERYWHERE.....

People often believe the facts in national geographic, or scientific american, or medical journals, or history books.....

go figure.....  if those facts contradict Yahweh,  those facts are what is wrong,  not Yahweh - He is never wrong.

Mankind has always been an enemy of Yahweh, except for perhaps 2 times in history,  never repeated until Jesus returns.

(so the 'facts' mankind comes up with,  are notoriously and devilishly UNreliable)

[one.opinion]

21 minutes ago, Tristen said:

No facts "support" any model.

What should models be based upon other than evidence? If evidence is not used, there is no way to determine if a model is more or less accurate than any other.

22 minutes ago, Tristen said:

A good recent example is the New Horizons information of Pluto and Charon. Given their distance form the sun, and the presupposition that they formed billions of years ago, the expectation was to find crater-potted, atmosphere-less, geologically dead bodies. Yet the facts indicate that Pluto and Charon are both young, geologically active bodies with atmosphere.

" the big surprise was mountains of water ice rising 3500 meters up from strikingly smooth, crater-free surfaces. The lack of craters—also seen on Charon, Pluto’s largest moon—is evidence for youthfulness, and geological activity that could pave over the surfaces in fresh icy materials. This was unexpected, because many thought that the internal heat sources within Pluto and Charon, leftover from their formation in a giant impact billions of years ago, would have dissipated long ago.

...

Pluto is the largest Kuiper belt object; Triton is thought to be a captured one. Both harbor smooth surfaces that suggest repaving driven by internal heating. But where that activity on Triton can be driven by the tidal pull of Neptune, scientists are scratching their heads over what could be driving it on Pluto. There are other differences between the worlds, Soderblom says: Triton lacks Pluto’s tall mountains and its rugged, ropy pits. “Everywhere we go, we’re surprised,” he says. “We should know better by now.” "

(http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/potential-geysers-spotted-pluto)

 

" “This terrain is not easy to explain,” said Jeff Moore, leader of the New Horizons Geology, Geophysics and Imaging Team (GGI) at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California. “The discovery of vast, craterless, very young plains on Pluto exceeds all pre-flyby expectations.” "

(https://www.nasa.gov/feature/frozen-plains-in-the-heart-of-pluto-s-heart)

 

"The new Pluto image reveals a portion of the planet with large mountains looming over a surface that looks relatively young—so young, in fact, that it suggests the planet is still geologically active.

“We have not yet found a single impact crater on this image,” says team member John Spencer. “Pluto has been bombarded by other objects in the Kuiper Belt. Craters happen. We think it has to be probably less than 100 million years old… it might be active right now.”"

(https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150715-pluto-flyby-photos-pictures-closeup-space/)

 

And this is not the first time scientists have been surprised by what they found. The discovery of geologic activity on Triton (mentioned in the above quote) was another find contrary to the expectation built on the assumption of a billions-of-years old solar system. Even our moon, long thought "a cold, dead, geographically inactive world" due to its size and mass (and presumed age) shows indications of geological activity (called "transient lunar phenomena").

This is very interesting, but unrelated to how we can observe cosmological events hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of light years away.

18 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

Or , as Yahweh Says,  ALL the facts (the true facts),  are evidence of Yahweh's Creating ALL THINGS, EVERYWHERE.....

I agree with this 100%. However, even though God's Word is both inspired and infallible, there are a LOT of areas that are simply not addressed. God has given humans the ability to investigate our surroundings, and I believe this is even part of His mandate to subdue the earth.

[Tristen]

43 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

Or , as Yahweh Says,  ALL the facts (the true facts),  are evidence of Yahweh's Creating ALL THINGS, EVERYWHERE.....

People often believe the facts in national geographic, or scientific american, or medical journals, or history books.....

go figure.....  if those facts contradict Yahweh,  those facts are what is wrong,  not Yahweh - He is never wrong.

Mankind has always been an enemy of Yahweh, except for perhaps 2 times in history,  never repeated until Jesus returns.

(so the 'facts' mankind comes up with,  are notoriously and devilishly UNreliable)

" if those facts contradict Yahweh,  those facts are what is wrong,  not Yahweh - He is never wrong "

I think I'd have to see an example of 'facts contradicting Yahweh' before I know if I agree with this statement (I agree that "He is never wrong"). I don't know that facts can be either right or "wrong". If they exist, they just are. It's how we interpret them that may be right or wrong - i.e. what we think the facts tell us about reality.

[Tristen]

47 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

What should models be based upon other than evidence? If evidence is not used, there is no way to determine if a model is more or less accurate than any other.

This is very interesting, but unrelated to how we can observe cosmological events hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of light years away.

I agree with this 100%. However, even though God's Word is both inspired and infallible, there are a LOT of areas that are simply not addressed. God has given humans the ability to investigate our surroundings, and I believe this is even part of His mandate to subdue the earth.

"What should models be based upon other than evidence?"

"Evidence" incorporates both facts and their interpretation. That is, facts are interpreted as "evidence" of a particular position. The facts themselves don't tell us anything beyond their own existence. Models of the past take current facts, then formulate a story of how those facts may have come to be, given a certain paradigm of reality. For example, the secular story of history assumes a reality in which no god interacts with the natural universe. They then interprets the facts as "evidence" of that presupposed reality.

 

"If evidence is not used, there is no way to determine if a model is more or less accurate than any other."

When it comes to models of the past, there is no way to determine this regardless - without Affirming the Consequent. Consistent facts could be incidental (i.e. we assume 1 cause when there could be varying possible causes). Contrary facts could simply mean we need more information to reconcile them to the model. Since we cannot perform experiments in the past, or make observations of the past, there is no legitimate way to generate mathematical confidence in past claims.

 

"This is very interesting, but unrelated to how we can observe cosmological events hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of light years away."

We are both dealing with stories of what might have happened in the past. All 3 creationist models I provided make logical provision such observations.

Note that we don't actually "observe" anything from the past. In this instance, what was observed was energy in different wavelengths as it passed by earth. Those energy readings are the only facts. The specifics of the "cosmological events" and their apparent distance from us are all speculations about the history of those facts, not facts themselves.

 

"even though God's Word is both inspired and infallible, there are a LOT of areas that are simply not addressed. God has given humans the ability to investigate our surroundings, and I believe this is even part of His mandate to subdue the earth."

I agree, but when you look at the facts you see an old earth, and when I look at the facts I see a young earth. So there is something other than the facts themselves influencing our conclusions. My argument is that the main influence on how we interpret the facts is faith presupposition. Whereas you seem to be convinced that the bias is only on my part - but you are being completely objective in your acceptance of the secular story.

[simplejeff]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I agree with this 100%. However, even though God's Word is both inspired and infallible, there are a LOT of areas that are simply not addressed. God has given humans the ability to investigate our surroundings, and I believe this is even part of His mandate to subdue the earth.

Mankind has violated and rebelled against all of God's "mandates"......  and the evil and wickednesses on earth are almost at the point that the world cannot survive any longer - and men are "accomplishing" that (the destruction of men, men's souls, and the earth) at a faster and faster pace every day......

[Enoch2021]

14 hours ago, one.opinion said:

What should models be based upon other than evidence? If evidence is not used, there is no way to determine if a model is more or less accurate than any other.

'models' are Demonstrable Pseudo-Science, which has been explained and demonstrated to you ad nauseam.

 

Quote

how we can observe cosmological events hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of light years away.

1.  "Light Years" is not a measure of time (or distance); this has also been explained and demonstrated to you ad nauseam.

2.  cosmology isn't "Science".  Crocheting is more "Scientific".

 

regards