[Polka Dot]

As a Bible believing christian I believe that God created the Universe in 6 literal days less than 10,000 years ago. Because of this I often get questions from atheist about how distant starlight could reach earth in such a small amount of time.

Alot of the people who ask this question often don't realise that the Big bang (the most popular cosmology model in the secular science)itself has a similar problem:The Horizon Problem

"There are points in the distant universe which are today all at the same temperature, yet they are so far apart that there has not been anywhere near enough time for energy travelling at the speed of light (the speed limit of the universe) to cross that distance to equilibrate the temperature. So even though the big bangers’ model allows them billions of years, they need billions of years more time than that. Big-bangers have suggested all sorts of exotic solutions to their puzzle, including that the laws of physics must have changed, or that there was expansion faster than the speed of light. So they can hardly point the finger at creationists who propose similarly esoteric-sounding solutions to essentially the same problem. "


But regardless of this it is still a legitamate question to ask Creation Scientists and there have been a number of attempts by Creationists to address this issue.

Including:

Light-speed decay
Light created in Transit
Timing conventions
etc...

However when creationist analysed these they presented a number of theological and scientific problems and so do not really provide a good explanation for what we see.

However in 1994 a creationist Physicist Dr Russell Humphreys produced a cosmological model using General relativity that answers the problem.

Dr Russell Humphreys Humphreys graduated B.S. from Duke University and was awarded his Ph.D in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972.He has worked for General Electric and Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics where he received a patent and a science award. From 2001-2008 he was an associate professor at The Institute for Creation Research. He also managed to correctly predict magnetic characteristics of Uranus and Neptune (before Voyager measured them) something Big bang theorist were unable to do.

His intitial model was outlined in his book Starlight and Time but he has since expanded upon it. I will post links that explain the model in detail.


Explanation of Dr Humphreys Model

Semi technical

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3


Technical

New time dilation helps creation
cosmology -by Dr Russell Humphreys


How Humphreys believes the model helps solve the 'Pioneer anomaly:

pioneer-anomaly

Technical journal Publication Explaining Pioneer effect


Here is video where humphrey Explains his model it also has another similar model presented by Dr John Hartnett.

[Gofre]

I personally find that the starlight problem isn't particularly high on most people's "why young earth creationism is insane" lists. There are a lot more glaring problems in fields of study that we're a lot more certain on, the most obvious one being evolutionary biology.

[PandyAndy]

We know the Earth is 4.5 (ish) billion years old. There are a multitude of dating tools that have been used to confirm this. Now I'm no geologist, but the science seems sound and well backed up. To think that it's <10,000 years old is madness. Wasn't it some bishop/clergyman who came up with this figure by adding up the ages of everyone in the Bible?

[M'Ling]

Evolution seems a far more beautiful and complex and relevant means of getting where we are. Usually I can understand when Christians bring in the whole beauty of design argument, so it seems contradictory, to me, to miss out the beauty of Natural Selection.

If you've ever actually read Darwin (rather than read about), you'd know how stunningly complex our world is, certainly to be held in contrast to the simplicity offered in the Bible by writers who didn't know better.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Polka Dot)
As a Bible believing christian I believe that God created the Universe in 6 literal days

Why insist that they must be literal, 24 hour days, when the Hebrew word "yom" used in the Bible does not necessarily mean a literal 24 hour day?

less than 10,000 years ago.

Why? Does the Bible actually say so?

[Polka Dot]

(Original post by Gofre)
I personally find that the starlight problem isn't particularly high on most people's "why young earth creationism is insane" lists. There are a lot more glaring problems in fields of study that we're a lot more certain on, the most obvious one being evolutionary biology.

If by evolution you mean different breeds of dogs finches with different sized and shaped beaks then there is no problem their beause creationists accept these facts and agree that species as classified today do change.

However if you mean by evolution, that molecules developed into man, then you are wrong. The observational evidence I mentioned above (finches etc...) do not confirm this, all they do is confirm is that their is variation within "Kind" not that one "Kind" changes into another. Notice the emphasis i put on the word Kind which should not be mistaken for the word species. The bible says that God created animals to produce their own Kind now where we place the boundries for what a Kind is difficult to establish but however I think most would agree that although Pet Dogs and wolves are different species they are the same Kind of Animal (Canine) the same with Big Cats and House cats and the same with the many types of Finches, we see that although we observe great variation Finches are still Finches, Dogs are still Dogs and Cats are still cats.

[Polka Dot]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Why insist that they must be literal, 24 hour days, when the Hebrew word "yom" used in the Bible does not necessarily mean a literal 24 hour day?


Why? Does the Bible actually say so?

Yes it does a straight reading of the text ( Which is correct biblical hermaneutics) produces this conclusion.

[Gofre]

(Original post by Polka Dot)
If by evolution you mean different breeds of dogs finches with different sized and shaped beaks then there is no problem their beause creationists accept these facts and agree that species as classified today do change.

However if you mean by evolution, that molecules developed into man, then you are wrong. The observational evidence I mentioned above (finches etc...) do not confirm this, all they do is confirm is that their is variation within "Kind" not that one "Kind" changes into another. Notice the emphasis i put on the word Kind which should not be mistaken for the word species. The bible says that God created animals to produce their own Kind now where we place the boundries for what a Kind is difficult to establish but however I think most would agree that although Pet Dogs and wolves are different species they are the same Kind of Animal (Canine) the same with Big Cats and House cats and the same with the many types of Finches, we see that although we observe great variation Finches are still Finches, Dogs are still Dogs and Cats are still cats.

You need to stop watching Ken Hovind.
A) "Molecules to man" is abiogenesis, not evolution.
B) Kind is a completely empty term, not even the young earth creationists who use it can come up with a coherent definition of it in the context of biology.
C) We do have evidence directly confirming the common ancestry of the entirety of kingdom animalia at the very least.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Polka Dot)
Yes it does a straight reading of the text ( Which is correct biblical hermaneutics) produces this conclusion.

A straight reading of the text in translated English, or original Hebrew?
Can I ask which part of the Bible states that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, according to a "straight reading of the text"?

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by Polka Dot)
If by evolution you mean different breeds of dogs finches with different sized and shaped beaks then there is no problem their beause creationists accept these facts and agree that species as classified today do change.

However if you mean by evolution, that molecules developed into man, then you are wrong. The observational evidence I mentioned above (finches etc...) do not confirm this, all they do is confirm is that their is variation within "Kind" not that one "Kind" changes into another. Notice the emphasis i put on the word Kind which should not be mistaken for the word species. The bible says that God created animals to produce their own Kind now where we place the boundries for what a Kind is difficult to establish but however I think most would agree that although Pet Dogs and wolves are different species they are the same Kind of Animal (Canine) the same with Big Cats and House cats and the same with the many types of Finches, we see that although we observe great variation Finches are still Finches, Dogs are still Dogs and Cats are still cats.

Surely if you can accept that there is variation within a "kind" (whatever that is) which produces the wide range of cats within the cat family, then it isn't too much of a leap to believe that this kind evolved from a completely different kind by the same mechanisms that causes the variation within the kinds themselves.

[Martyn*]

The Earth is a lot lot older than 10,000 years. Using Bible data to reckon the time of Creation is just stupid.

[Polka Dot]

(Original post by Gofre)
You need to stop watching Ken Hovind.
A) "Molecules to man" is abiogenesis, not evolution.
B) Kind is a completely empty term, not even the young earth creationists who use it can come up with a coherent definition of it in the context of biology.
C) We do have evidence directly confirming the common ancestry of the entirety of kingdom animalia at the very least.

A) Evolution is a naturalistic attempt to explain the diversity of life on earth. How do you belive that life got started naturalistically if you don't accept abiogenesis.

B)The same could be said for the term species where we place the boundries is partially arbitary but it is clear that there are boundries.

c)Name them

[Gofre]

(Original post by Polka Dot)
A) Evolution is a naturalistic attempt to explain the diversity of life on earth. How do you belive that life got started naturalistically if you don't accept abiogenesis.

I don't know how life started, Zeus could have put it here. That has no baring on evolution whatsoever.

B)The same could be said for the term species where we place the boundries is partially arbitary but it is clear that there are boundaries.

Actually it couldn't, biologists the world over have the same definition of species; a population capable of interbreeding under natural conditions and produce fertile offspring.

c)Name them

The most damning evidence is endogenous retroviruses in my opinion.

[rcummins1]

Anyone who believes in Creationism, despite the over-whelming amount of evidence against it, because it says so in a 2000 year old book is an idiot.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by Polka Dot)
c)Name them

Human chromosome 2.

[Gwilym101]

(Original post by Polka Dot)
If by evolution you mean different breeds of dogs finches with different sized and shaped beaks then there is no problem their beause creationists accept these facts and agree that species as classified today do change.

However if you mean by evolution, that molecules developed into man, then you are wrong. The observational evidence I mentioned above (finches etc...) do not confirm this, all they do is confirm is that their is variation within "Kind" not that one "Kind" changes into another. Notice the emphasis i put on the word Kind which should not be mistaken for the word species. The bible says that God created animals to produce their own Kind now where we place the boundries for what a Kind is difficult to establish but however I think most would agree that although Pet Dogs and wolves are different species they are the same Kind of Animal (Canine) the same with Big Cats and House cats and the same with the many types of Finches, we see that although we observe great variation Finches are still Finches, Dogs are still Dogs and Cats are still cats.

You clearly know nothing about evolution. True dogs and cats are not inter-changable, but at some point in their history (in their case likely very far back) they had a common ancestor. The populations of this ancestor in different parts of the planet came under different selective pressures (such as temperature, availability of food and water, risk of predation) and adapted over time through natural selection. These adaptation meant that over thousands or millions of years they diversified into canines and felines. Another examples is chimpanzes and humans, we both share a common ancestor and which then diversified to the point the two species were no longer able to reproduce together and were no longer morphologically similar.

A better example for how much a population can change given enough time, dinosaurs, 65,000,000 years ago most dinosaurs were giant lizards, their name literally translates to terrible lizard. The last survive clade of dinosaurs today are birds: hawks, falcons, eagle etc.

We know this because we've found a number of fossilized creatures that possess traits belonging to both lizards and birds, examples include Archeopteryx, which possessed both teeth, clawed fingers on its forelimbs similar to most dinosaurs but also possessed feathers, these feathers were more suitable for gliding or insulation than sustained flight. Another example is called gigantoraptor, a large beaked feathered dinosaur that exhibited nesting behaviour, this was found as a number of fossils were discovered on fossilized nests.

You are technically correct in saying observational studies don't prove the total of all evolution to happen, which is why we looked at fossils, genetic markers and other forms of evidence and experimental studies to confirm it. Don't feel you can comment on something if you clearly don't understand it.

Now i'm a zoologist not a physicist so I have relatively little knowledge on the Big Bang model but I have heard of cosmic inflation which apparently solves the "Horizon Problem". Plus given the largely accepted view of the scientific community that the universe is several billion years old, I'm willing to bet you've overlooked some major pieces of evidence, that contradict your theory that was written in a book 1700 years ago.

[jordanosborn]

This is ridiculous how anyone can believe the earth is 10,000 years old is beyond me. First of all we have evidence of human history that dates back to before this point. I also have another problem if the earth is 10,000 years old then how come christianity was only invented 2,000 years ago and judaism was invented around another 2 thousand years before that. Your going to tell me that your "god" created his religions 6,000 years after he first made humans? So all of the humans who were around before these religions were invented had no knowledge of this "god" kinda shows that religion is an invention of mankind doesn't it.

[Maker]

(Original post by Polka Dot)
As a Bible believing christian I believe that God created the Universe in 6 literal days less than 10,000 years ago. Because of this I often get questions from atheist about how distant starlight could reach earth in such a small amount of time.

Alot of the people who ask this question often don't realise that the Big bang (the most popular cosmology model in the secular science)itself has a similar problem:The Horizon Problem

"There are points in the distant universe which are today all at the same temperature, yet they are so far apart that there has not been anywhere near enough time for energy travelling at the speed of light (the speed limit of the universe) to cross that distance to equilibrate the temperature. So even though the big bangers’ model allows them billions of years, they need billions of years more time than that. Big-bangers have suggested all sorts of exotic solutions to their puzzle, including that the laws of physics must have changed, or that there was expansion faster than the speed of light. So they can hardly point the finger at creationists who propose similarly esoteric-sounding solutions to essentially the same problem. "


But regardless of this it is still a legitamate question to ask Creation Scientists and there have been a number of attempts by Creationists to address this issue.

Including:

Light-speed decay
Light created in Transit
Timing conventions
etc...

However when creationist analysed these they presented a number of theological and scientific problems and so do not really provide a good explanation for what we see.

However in 1994 a creationist Physicist Dr Russell Humphreys produced a cosmological model using General relativity that answers the problem.

Dr Russell Humphreys Humphreys graduated B.S. from Duke University and was awarded his Ph.D in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972.He has worked for General Electric and Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics where he received a patent and a science award. From 2001-2008 he was an associate professor at The Institute for Creation Research. He also managed to correctly predict magnetic characteristics of Uranus and Neptune (before Voyager measured them) something Big bang theorist were unable to do.

His intitial model was outlined in his book Starlight and Time but he has since expanded upon it. I will post links that explain the model in detail.


Explanation of Dr Humphreys Model

Semi technical

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3


Technical

New time dilation helps creation
cosmology -by Dr Russell Humphreys


How Humphreys believes the model helps solve the 'Pioneer anomaly:

pioneer-anomaly

Technical journal Publication Explaining Pioneer effect


Here is video where humphrey Explains his model it also has another similar model presented by Dr John Hartnett.

The OP's argument is standard "god of the gaps" silliness which basically says people can't explain X so it must be god that did it. Problem is every time people explains whatever X is, god gets smaller or it makes religious people stick their heads in the sand and put up nonsense arguments like creationism.

I think its rather lame that religious people use this argument because its makes them seem ignorant of the futility of the argument and pointlessly blinds them to the wonders of science.