Stars Went Billions of Years Back in Time When Created.

[truthman]

Anything travelling faster than the speed of light would go backwards in time according to special relativity.
Time travel is also proposed in General relativity. Why or why not could anything have gone backwards in time from the beginning of Creation?
(I edited the title to try and get some discussion)

[RickD]

Anything travelling faster than the speed of light would go backwards in time according to special relativity.
Time travel is also proposed in General relativity. Why or why not could anything have gone backwards in time from the beginning of Creation?
(I edited the title to try and get some discussion)

I believe it may be possible to travel back in time. All anyone needs is a Delorean with a flux capacitor . Your editing the title to "Stars Went Billions of Years Back in Time When Created", looks like you're trying to find a way to explain away the observed age of the universe(billions of years). I think it's much easier and biblically consistent to just believe in Old Earth Creationism. But, if you want to still believe in a universe that is 6,000 years old, I guess you'll just have to keep making up theories about time traveling stars. Why not just believe OEC? Give it a try. I guarantee you'll like it. It's simple, biblical, scientifically valid, and just plain fun!!!!

[truthman]

Well, Rick. If the stars went back in time billions of years, then they would be billions of years old now wouldn't they?

[RickD]

Well, Rick. If the stars went back in time billions of years, then they would be billions of years old now wouldn't they?

Sure, and if my job paid me $1,000,000 per hour, I'd have a lot of money. Wouldn't I? What have you seen to make you think that stars travel faster than the speed of light? I have never heard of stars that travel that fast. According to OEC, when God created everything in our universe at the big bang, He also set all the laws in the universe into place. Laws we still see today. It just seems like something that takes way too much blind faith to believe that stars traveled faster than the speed of light. OEC explains what we observe in the universe today. And, it explains it in a much simpler way, AND is backed by the Word of God. Why would I need to believe in some far-fetched science fiction theory about time traveling stars? Truthman, I just think you are grasping at straws. I don't mean any disrespect, but it just seems silly.

[truthman]

Thanks for the input.
I believe "silly" and "science fiction" are unnecessary. I might choose to label what you believe as silly science fiction. Why not have an open mind and seriously look at the hypothesis?
If God created the matter at a point in the universe, then dispersed it rapidly away from that point in some form of inflation as considered in the big bang theory, it would have far exceeded the speed of light causing it to go backwards in time. Then, the stars, galaxies etc. formed from that matter would have been formed billions of years before the matter was created.
That is not silly nor science fiction.

[RickD]

Thanks for the input.
I believe "silly" and "science fiction" are unnecessary. I might choose to label what you believe as silly science fiction. Why not have an open mind and seriously look at the hypothesis?
If God created the matter at a point in the universe, then dispersed it rapidly away from that point in some form of inflation as considered in the big bang theory, it would have far exceeded the speed of light causing it to go backwards in time. Then, the stars, galaxies etc. formed from that matter would have been formed billions of years before the matter was created.
That is not silly nor science fiction.

truthman said:

I might choose to label what you believe as silly science fiction.

What that I believe would you label as science fiction?

it would have far exceeded the speed of light causing it to go backwards in time.

I still don't understand why you believe it would have exceeded the speed of light. Isn't it true that the only thing that is known to go the speed of light, is light itself? Do we know of anything that exceeds the speed of light?

Then, the stars, galaxies etc. formed from that matter would have been formed billions of years before the matter was created.

If God created all space , matter and TIME at the big bang, then how could stars galaxies etc. have been formed billions of years before time. There were no years before time was created with the physical universe, right? God created time from outside of time.

[truthman]

RickD: thanks again for your thoughts.
The current big bang model although it does not exist in a fully working model, proposes inflation (rapid expansion far exceeding the speed of light) as an explanation of how the universe got to be what it is today. I didn't make it up.
If the matter went backwards in time, then when it slowed to less than the speed of light it would have gone forward in time, but its starting point would have been billions of years before it was created.
It might help if we think of it in terms of space. If you started a race and ran backwards for an hour and then turned around, it would take you an hour to run back to the starting line before you could proceed to go beyond the starting line.

[RickD]

The current big bang model although it does not exist in a fully working model, proposes inflation (rapid expansion far exceeding the speed of light) as an explanation of how the universe got to be what it is today. I didn't make it up.
If the matter went backwards in time, then when it slowed to less than the speed of light it would have gone forward in time, but its starting point would have been billions of years before it was created.
It might help if we think of it in terms of space. If you started a race and ran backwards for an hour and then turned around, it would take you an hour to run back to the starting line before you could proceed to go beyond the starting line.

O.K. I see what you're getting at, but I'm a simple guy, and I tend to go with the simple things as long as they make sense to me. OEC makes sense to me. The theory you put forth doesn't make sense to me. It may be only because my simple mind can't understand your theory.

[RickD]

truthman said:

I might choose to label what you believe as silly science fiction.

What that I believe would you label as science fiction?

Still holding my breath , and waiting for your answer.

[truthman]

may be too complicated
please, don't hold your breath.

[RickD]

may be too complicated
please, don't hold your breath.

Turning blue now. Seriously, if you're referring to OEC, I'd love to hear why you don't believe it. I'm not afraid to hear different opinions. It helps me make my decision about something. I tried to honestly look at both sides(OEC & YEC) before I started leaning towards OEC.

[truthman]

Please, just look at the current topic, seriously consider it and if there is a scientific or biblical reason why it cannot be true, then post it. It helps if we get input from different people. You may well see things wrong with it that I don't see, but let's give it a real effort if we can.
(P.S.) I am afraid the YEC position is not welcome on this board and I am scared of being attacked and banned from the forum

[RickD]

Please, just look at the current topic, seriously consider it and if there is a scientific or biblical reason why it cannot be true, then post it. It helps if we get input from different people. You may well see things wrong with it that I don't see, but let's give it a real effort if we can.
(P.S.) I am afraid the YEC position is not welcome on this board and I am scared of being attacked and banned from the forum

If you're honest and not dogmatic, and not arrogant, then you won't have to worry about being banned when talking about YEC. I've seen quite a few discussions between YECs and OECs that have gone very well, and both sides were pleasant. If someone comes across like Kent Hovind when debating, then expect a big fat ban stick to whack him/her across the noggin. And also, If you're honest, whatever side you're debating from, any attack would not be merited. The mods would be just as quick to ban an OECr who attacked a YECr, as they would the other way around.

[zoegirl]

truthman, the frustration that we feel sometimes comes from the stance that seems to be taken in some Christian circles that investigation a physical phenomena MUST follow a certain Biblical interpretation.

For instance, in the case of geocentric models, because they INTERPRET scripture a certain way, EVERY conclusion must conform to that or e considered wrong. And that can lead to, at the least, denial, and at the worst, data manipulation and bad calculations.

Take your stance for instance...you feel you MUST come up with some unusual explanation simply because the current data does not conform to your preset idea. Is this what God wants us to do with our curiosity? with our minds that He Himself has given us? to refuse to explore? Just examine there statement of faith and you have a pretty good idea....to paraphrase..."we know what *we* think the KING JAMES bible (and only the KJ) says and therefore we will do everything to find data that supports our view"....Is this "loving God with all of our minds?"

At the heart of this rests a premise that I am uncomfortable with, that we inherently cannot trust God's creation and must make the data fit. And there are Many many Christian scientists who have no ulterior philosophical motive for finding the data to support an old earth. They love God and the Bible just as much as those that support YEC do. Trust me, I know many engineers, biologists, chemists, and certainly read of many of them who earnestly want to search for answers in the God's creation. They are not kowtowing to science or atheists, they have, many of them, a deep love of investigating God's creation.

Now I am comfortable with the idea that in 20 years, 50 years, or 100 years, the discoveries that we make will demand us re-examining age of the universe. And I am even okay with saying "we don't really know, so I will believe in YEC and have faith" (in fact, I view that as a valid worldview) but it seems disingenuous to disregard some pretty basic observations, visual observations, mathematical models, gravitational, and on and on, that support an Old earth model.

I would suggest you examining some of the main articles on the main website http://www.godandscience.org that particularly discuss Biblical creation to see if that answers any questions...

[truthman]

Zoe,
I started this topic because I want to discuss this particular question. I am interested in others input.
I have read Hawkings "A Brief History of Time" and other books putting forward ideas of cosmology that I find interesting. I have read Einstein's explanation of special relativity, studied general relativity at a layman's level and participated on a physics forum that was quite interesting.
As far as Bible, I got my degree in Theology in 1974 and have been studying ever since. I am not totally ignorant. I am convinced the Bible is the inspired, infallible word of God. I accept it for what it says.
I am interested in honest, open discussion, but I am not interested in closed minded argument.
I believe that what I am proposing to discuss here is legitimate. If you are not interested or have nothing to contribute to this particular thread that's OK. If you have something, I would love to read what you have to say.