This whole not causing debate thing is going to be much harder than i think i anticipated. I hope this doesn't turn into a major debate, but i wanted to answer Jewish Atheist's question brought up at the end of the comments to my last post
JA comments, "I've always wondered what people who believe in a young Earth think of how starlight has reached earth from millions of lightyears away."
Hopefully, i can answer that question without starting a major debate. As soon as i read this comment my initial reaction was, "what's to stop a God that can instantaniously create the stars from instantaniously threading that light all the way to earth?", but i've always hated answers like that. It somehow seems like a cheap and un-thought-out answer to a serious question. I've heard people use this kind of answer to this kind of question as well as in dealing with the fossil record and other arguments. It may be true and possible, but it doesn't really answer the question. It more says i have no idea, but i have to answer somehow so this is my go to answer. It's possible, it's accurate, but it's also very cheap. That doesn't mean that it isn't right though. Anyways....
This time as i was thinking about the threading thing, it seemed like someone was whispering something in my ear (i love it when that happens as it usually means that what comes next totally changes how i view a problem or situation). It was something that reminded me of some recent contemplations i had had about the creation story. The more i thought about it, the more sense it made (actually i didn't need to think about it for very long before it made complete sense). Oh, boy, i could go in so many different routes with this. Which one do i choose? If i talk about the poetic nature of the creation story it brings some real beauty and structure to it but will greatly extend an ever longer post. If i talk about my current contemplations about the uniqueness of the passages concerning day's one and four, it could provoke some real thought and fun (maybe not so debating) conversation....
I think for space and time's sake i will have to go the simplest route. So this will be a simple answer but hopefully it will clearly answer the question. Light (day 1) was created before the sun, moon, and stars (day 4). It existed and can exist outside of their control (but it currently doesn't). The sun, moon, and stars give light it's charge. It has direction and flow as directed by these celestial bodies. Thus it did not necessarily have to travel from them. The light existed. The celestial bodies gave it direction. So it doesn't necessarily have to have origionally come from the stars, it is just following the path led by them. I don't know if that answers your question or not, but that was as simple answer to the question as i could make it. Hope it helps.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Well, i just read my post to my wife, and she said that even she would debate this with me to some extent. So, we'll see what happens.
:)
The problem with your answer is that you are assuming a lot of things which aren't in evidence. For example, you are assuming that light can exist without a source, and that a source can somehow give direction to (or create a path for) pre-existing light from behind. All because an old book says that light was created before the stars, moon, and sun (which the book didn't recognize as a star, of course) and because you believe the Universe much, is much younger than millions of years.
Let's suppose you'd never seen the Bible, nor heard the Creation story, but you were aware in a basic sense of these three facts:
1) Light emanates from sources of light.
2) Light moves at the speed of light.
3) The stars are millions of light-years away.
You would of course assume that the light must have been travelling for millions of years.
And yet, because you believe so literally in this book, you are willing to assume all sorts of mysterious processes which are completely untestable in order to make the story fit the facts. It starts sounding like some wild conspiracy theory which barely holds together.
As it is, you are forced to believe in a God who created a Universe which appears to be way, way older and way, way bigger than it sounds in the Old Testament. How did He make it so that the stars are so far away and look like they are expanding from a Big Bang which happened billions of years ago? Why would he make it look that way if the Universe is only a few thousand years old? Why did he age all those dinosaur bones to make it look like they ruled the earth for millions of years way before we ever got here? Why do we look so much like monkeys? Why are whales mammals? Why are there platypuses in Australia but not in South America? Why do human fetuses have a tail at one stage? Why do all living things appear to be related as deep as their DNA? Why did animals which were assumed to be closely related before DNA was even discovered turn out to in fact have very similar DNA?
If there is a God, and He did create the Universe a few thousand years ago, He's a heck of a practical jokester.
You asked how someone who beleives in a young earth can explain how light from stars can reach earth. Well there's your answer. Just because it hasn't yet been proven by your model of science doesn't mean that's it isn't/can't be true.
Of course. There are an infinite number of things which MIGHT be true. I just find it strange that you choose to believe in such far-fetched stories when explanations which better fit the facts exist.
JC, have you ever read anything from Dr. Kurt Wise? He is a Creationist Paleontologist from Tennessee. His PhD is from, yes, Harvard. I went to a seminar a couple of years ago that he gave and it was fascinating. I became a "young earth" believer from that point on.
JA, unfortunately, the explanation of the facts is limited by the individual explaining the facts. As with good exegesis of the Bible, what the facts are and how people interpret the facts can be very different indeed.
You exclaim that there are better explanations to the facts, but in order for those explanations to be unbiased, you need unbiased people to identify those explanations. Which is something that simply does not exist.
By the way, Michael, i was a little confused by your question. What do you mean by "how does the current book correspond to the origional written by the roman age profets?" Are you asking about the Bible? If so, what do you mean by "the roman age prophets"?
JC, there's a concept in science called Occam's Razor, which basically states:
"When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. For example, a charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions."
As for starlight, your explanation (The light was there first, then the stars were created and gave it direction, which is why it looks much older than it is) is like the landing alien ship and mine (the light looks old because it is old) is like the lightning strike. Nobody can prove that the charred tree wasn't caused by a landing alien ship, but everything else being equal, it's safer to assume that it was caused by lightning.
If we used your form of argument for law, nobody could be convicted of everything, because anybody could claim "God (or the Devil) pulled the trigger, I didn't do it!" and nobody would be able to prove him wrong.
As i said before, the explanation is defined by the individual thus may have nothing to do with the facts. Your example of Occam's Razor is limiting because, the two explanation are lightning or space ship. When in reality a person could have set the tree on fire and burned it down. The lightning approach my be simpler, but that doesn't mean that it is most accurate.
Michael, actually, the Christian Bible consists of the old testament which is what most Jews consider the scriptures (unless of course they only accept the Torah as devinely inspired). Plus the New Testament written by a group of individuals, most of whom were jews, consisting of apostles of Christ and other disciples. The person that wrote the most books was Saul/Paul who had been a disciple of Gamalial (sp?) and was expected to become a great one of the great Jewish writers. Saul (to become Paul) attempted to purge Judism of what he believed was a destructive sect by imprisoning and killing all who followed the Christ. To make a long story short (too late) on the road to Damascus he was struck by a vision from Christ (Acts 4-5 i believe), after that he became a leader in the Christian church writing most of the letters contained in the New Testament.
Thus my confusion about the Roman Nobleman (although Saul/Paul was a Roman citizen)
Post a Comment