Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Astronomy & Cosmology and God » The starlight problem

The starlight problem

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 The starlight problem on Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:35 am


why do scientist say the universe is ~ 13 billion years old and we can see to the edge of the known universe. There are two problems here. One the edge of the universe is ~ 47 billion years away from us, making seeing light from that distance impossible. Yet we set exposers on the Hubble telescope to capture those images of those distance galaxies. The estimate of the time of the universe is off. Second the universe is transparent. Why? most of the universe is still gaseous. And all of it is ionized meaning it should be opaque. What it says in Genesis is that the light was created, then the stars on the 4th day. If this is true, then light was created to be in route like it was an eternal display. This seems to be the case if the diameter of the universe is 96 billion light years across and there is not enough time for light from the edge to get to us. Yet we see all of the universe at every angle and direction clearly.In order for this to still work they have come up with a theory to solve the problem. It is called "inflation". This explanation says that at one point in the early part of the Big Bang matter had to have expanded rapidly and I mean so rapidly it defied a law of physics. Going faster than light itself. We know that matter cannot go faster than light because the energy needed would be greater than all the energy of the entire universe. So, science doesn't know how all these things came about, yet to explain this away they come up with theories to explain theories because they are stuck. It's a theory which will fall by the wayside like Heckle's drawings (which were a fraud), the Genesis wave(featured in Star Trek), and junk DNA(which isn't junk but functioning code), and oh so much more that Darwinian evolution has predicted yet fails to answer. Your denial of the biblical account is not true to science.

Starlight issue:

The light from stars reach us at the speed of light, right? Wrong.
The universe is expanding. (Faster now than before) so starlight is reaching us at lightspeed + expansion speed.

The bible agrees with what science now informs us regarding starlight as far as how it is possible to see starlight from so far.

Isaiah 42:5 (KJV) 5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Remember, a lighthearted is a distance, not a timespan.

Last edited by Admin on Sun Jan 31, 2016 9:50 am; edited 2 times in total

View user profile

2 Re: The starlight problem on Fri Oct 16, 2015 5:29 am


David Caldarola - that works against you too. I have seen some videos reporting tests in the lab that shows fossilization can at least begin to occur in as little as six month. But here's a "kick-in -the-groin-" just for fun. A scientist calculated the quantum physics of an expanding universe to determine the fluctuations in the duration of time. Science will tell you that time is affected by gravity, and a minute on the moon is faster than on earth, and a minute on the sun is slower. So, making whatever calculations were needed, he came up with the notion that to "someone" outside of our time and space looking into the expanding universe, a process of almost 16 billion years to us, would seem like.... wait for it..... 6 days to him.

David Wilson Distant starlight, as you say, is not worth a thing in establishing an old earth, because gravity distorts time, and there is plenty of it in and between the island galaxies. And it is not just "how times is perceived", atomic clocks, as I mentioned, exposed to different degrees of gravitational force fall out of sync. Therefore, to know, or even have a reasonable suspicion that distant starlight can be used as a barometer for the age of the earth, you need at least two points of reference at enough of a distance, like between hundreds of galaxies, to even make a guess. But that does not mean that the mainstream scientific community won;t keep trying to have it their own way regardless of the facts----->

Charlie Wolcott You mentioned star light distance. That's a problem for Old Earth as well, not just YEC. That tells me there is something wrong with the measuring tools. There's no accuracy to any of those models. You can get precision, but no accuracy.

View user profile

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum