Genesis, Creation and Astrophysics

[Anonymous]

Having stumbled across this message board completely by accident, I thought it might provide the answers to a few questions I have had for a long time.

Firstly, let me state that I am an agnostic. I am interested in the take of all beliefs, particularly in relating it to my professional career - astrophysics.

Many sites have answered various curios I've had about the Christian viewpoint, but here are a few questions I would like to put to anyone who has experience in such matters. These questions are addressed specifically to Creationalists. It seems to me that either our Big Bang model for the Universe's creation is correct (whether it was seeded by Divine or other causes), or Someone has gone to a lot of effort to make it look that way. My reasons for this are thus:

1) The Universe appears to be expanding.
2) The Cosmic Microwave Background (and its polarisation) have been observed.
3) We see light from objects that we have measured geometrically to be significantly over 6600 light years away (assuming that the Universe is supposed to have been Created only 6600 years ago).

My question is this: is there any argument which can sufficiently disprove all three of these points?

[Kurieuo]

These questions are addressed specifically to Creationalists. It seems to me that either our Big Bang model for the Universe's creation is correct (whether it was seeded by Divine or other causes), or Someone has gone to a lot of effort to make it look that way.

I assume this is directed to those believing in a young earth? I frankly believe the evidence is so good for an expanding universe that to deny such would be like denying the Earth is round. I'd like to also point out that the Bible refers to the heavens as being stretched out many times.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

Thanks - yes, the post was directed at Young Earth Creationalists.

[Felgar]

The YEC theory on expanding space and celestial distances is basically that things have been emerging from a white hole, where light that now appears so far has actually only been travelling to us for 6000 years because of the distortion of time around that point where things come into existance. I'm not very well versed on the theory, (certainly not enough to teach it) and it looks like the page that hosted the best explanation I've come across is down - I know a YECist quite well, so I'll ask him if he has a backup link. Stay tuned on that.

Ultimately the evidence showing an old universe is ever-growing and we're coming to the point that it's almost lunacy to ignore that much evidence. Sure YEC has some ok theories, but ultimately they seem too complicated for me to buy in to - they remind me of the old solar system models with the Earth at the center - so complicated and far-fetched compared to the simple reality of Earth and planets orbiting the Sun.

Now please note that my position differs from most on this board who ascribe to 'Day-Age' creation theory. They actually do a reasonable job of integrating the old universe, but in doing so abandon the literal and obvious interpretation of Genesis which is that God created the Earth in 6 days. I'd prefer to hold onto the simple interpretation with a little more furvor... To that end, the gist of my creation theory to explain our apparently old universe is basically the 'light on the way' theory...

My position is this: In 6 literal days (24-hour time-periods) God created a universe that is xxx Billions of years old (15-20, but not even scientists know yet). He created an Earth that is approximately 4 Billion years old. This happened about 6000-10,000 years ago. How does that make sense?

Science seeks to understand our physical world. So that when we have pretty reliable methods that point to an age of 4 Billion years, science is probably right. But God can create it in whatever state He wants. Just like the Bible indicates that Adam was made an adult, so too was the Earth made as if it had begun naturally and become so old. Science cannot explain the creation date, but only how old it appears to us now.

The universe has certain rules (passage of time, laws of physics, gravity, etc.) that don't seem to change and that explain our physical world in its entirey. Let's assume for a second that science has it right about planets and solar systems forming from supernova remains. When God makes the Earth, why not make it how it would appear if nature had taken its course? I believe God did make it like that - how it would have formed had it formed naturally. If He didn't, we would get things that make no sense at all, but we don't. Like, why would the planets be orbiting and rotating all in the same direction if God paid no attention to how things should behave according to nature?

Basically God knew what a 4-Billion year-old planet would look like and made Earth like that. In the same way He made animals already old. He made Adam already old. He made trees already old. Even the sun being in full nuclear-heat producing mode was created old. And before you reject my argument consider this: At what age would you consider the Earth young? When it's still magma? When it's totally flat? Because even a molten magma planet might still be 1 Billion years old...

Same with the Moon... Was it created craterless and just rock? I doubt it; why haven't we been witnessing many impacts for millenia now? Even if the moon was created as bare rock it still must then be a certain age, otherwise we'd expect it to be just magma.

Gubbins, you mentioned 'Someone has gone to a lot of effort to make it look that way.' Basically I'm agreeing and saying that God was that Someone. It just makes sense to me - the Earth needs to be about this old to be hospitable for life, so why not make it like that? I don't see it as a big deception, because it literally IS x billion years old, even though it's only existed since God created it about 6K years ago.

[hermitville101]

1) The Universe appears to be expanding.
2) The Cosmic Microwave Background (and its polarisation) have been observed.
3) We see light from objects that we have measured geometrically to be significantly over 6600 light years away (assuming that the Universe is supposed to have been Created only 6600 years ago).

My question is this: is there any argument which can sufficiently disprove all three of these points?

As my knowledge of physics only extends into 20% of cal-based physics II please forgive my ignorance and allow me to ponder out loud a bit.

What does the expansion of the universe prove? God could create an expanding universe, or the Big bang theory could be accurate. Also I have heard somewhere that the universe is actually accelerating outward, which intrigues me because F=ma; acceleration implies force... I don't know. Just something I heard and thought you might be knowledgeable of.

Cosmic Microwave Background: If you could explain the relevance of this also. (I have so much to learn and so little time <shrug> )

I personally believe straight 6 day literal creation and such. One reason for this is that I haven't been convinced of the age of the universe. On this topic I have actually done some research, but not exhaustive. Everything I have seen seems to assume that certain things do not change. One of those being the speed of light. (I love Einstein, but I don't know sometimes) Not to say that I necessarily think that the speed of light isn't constant, but I have heard pieces of arguments from both Christian and secular physicists on the matter.

Interesting things...my mind will munch on these I'm sure.

[Tash]

Felgar wrote

Same with the Moon... Was it created craterless and just rock? I doubt it; why haven't we been witnessing many impacts for millenia now?

This has a simple explanation, all the extra debris flying around from the creation of the solar system have either collided with stuff, (Eg the moon) been sucked up by the sun or fallen into the asteroid belt ot the oort cloud, there isnt that much left to hit it significantly, (small pieces of rock but not much else)

[Felgar]

Felgar wrote

Same with the Moon... Was it created craterless and just rock? I doubt it; why haven't we been witnessing many impacts for millenia now?

This has a simple explanation, all the extra debris flying around from the creation of the solar system have either collided with stuff, (Eg the moon) been sucked up by the sun or fallen into the asteroid belt ot the oort cloud, there isnt that much left to hit it significantly, (small pieces of rock but not much else)

That makes sense for Day-Age theory but not YEC theory. YEC's give only 6000 years for that debri to have been cleared. So my moon argument is against YEC not Day-Age.

Scientifically I have no problem with Day-Age at all... My problem with Day-Age is that it is a less-obvious interpretation of scripture (esspecially with Morning and Evening each day), and our 'default' interpretation should be the literal one IMO.

The main argument against Apperance of Age seems to be that it's perceived as a deception by God. I just don't see that line of reasoning...