The Starlight Paradox

[Matthew]

One of the most devastating arguments against Genesis is the famous "starlight paradox". Simply stated, we see light from stars that are millions and even billions of light years away. We see galaxies such as the Adromeda as well as supernova explosions and resulting nebulae. We see strong evidence of black holes in outer space which are much older than any star. The obvious question is how can such a universe be reconciled with the biblical account of creationism.? I doubt it can.

 

I have read many solutions and they seem very problematic. I have heard everything from the dishonest "light-in-transit" to the "mature-creation theory" to "curved-space" idea. All of these ideas have been refuted but I reason that if biblical creationism is valid, there would never have arisen any paradox in the first place. Even creationist-scientists, feeling the pinch of modern data, have had to abandon most of these attempts. The most clever "solution" I have seen yet comes from Dr. Russel Humphries. Humphries' solution is based on trying to apply general relativity to the biblical creation myth. Humphries argues that there was gravitational time dilation and that time was slowed down here on earth while billions of years of stellar and galatic evolution took place in the heavens.

 

I regret that I lack the expertise and specialized training in general relativity to combat Humphries' idea but it seems to me that some Christian scientists seem more interested in debunking this idea than do most secular physicists. Hugh Ross' organization seems intent on debunking this hypothesis and going so far as to call Humphries' scientific integrity into question. I would be very interested in seeing their response to Humphries.

 

My objection to Humphries' idea is more of a philosophical one than a scientific one. I happily leave it to scientists who are more technically and mathematically inclined to refute Humphries' "relativistic model" but it seems rather odd that a paradox would arise in the 18th or 19th century and then have to wait until the 20th century to find a solution. Indeed , this solution not only had to wait until after Einstein developed his theories of relativity, but also had to wait until the implications and consequences of this theory had to be worked out and for a creationist in the later half of the 20the century to realize something that God should've revealed centuries earlier.

 

One can ask why didn't a Christian discovery special and general relativity? Why didn't God reveal relativity to Christians before Einstein? Why didn't God inspire or cause Christians to propose relativity before the paradox was ever realized in the first place?

 

What's really strange these days is this kind of "solution" illustrates the often warped methodology of creationists. Creationists loathe the Big Bang with a passion. It's not that the Big Bang is simply unfeasible as a scientific theory; on the contrary it's part of the dishonest, misotheistic paradigm of evolution-worshipping naturalists who want to evade God and not surrender their lives to Christ. It's odd how they will use arguments against an expanding universe if that will refute the Big Bang but then they will use an expanding universe if that helps to explain the "starlight paradox". I have seen a creationist like Jonathan Sarfati appeal to Halton Arp's arguments against an expanding universe ( based on "intrisic redshift") as powerful ammunition against the Big Bang, and yet turn around and appeal to Humphries' cosmological arguments which involve an expanding universe to explain the "starlight paradox".

 

What gives? I have a simple question for Creationists: has the universe been expanding or not? If so, how so? If not, why not?

 

Matthew

[Thurisaz]

Dear Matthew,

 

unless I got you perfectly wrong, you might be interested in reading through this page of the precious talk.origins archive where you can find a nice refutation of the idea you describe.

[Matthew]

Dear Matthew,

 

unless I got you perfectly wrong, you might be interested in reading through this page of the precious talk.origins archive where you can find a nice refutation of the idea you describe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for the link. One thing that I found most interesting was this:

 

Humphreys's theory assumes that the earth is in a huge gravity well. The evidence contradicts this assumption. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted.

 

This piques my curiosity. Why should they be blue-shifted?

 

Matthew

[Thurisaz]

Thanks for the link. One thing that I found most interesting was this:

This piques my curiosity. Why should they be blue-shifted?

 

As far as I understand it, if earth would be at the center of a powerful gravitational field which makes the universe outside appear older than it is, then all that gravity would have quite the opposite effect of a black hole that red-shifts light around it. You know, black hole attracts light, seemingly slows it down... the hypothetical gravity well centered on earth would kind of "accelerate" the light, thus blue-shifting it.

 

I admit that I didn't think it through in the last few months, but I'm sure "Dr" Neil will be able to explain all that much better than I can.

[Celsus]

Matthew,

 

I have said this many times. The creationist's beef with evolution is the least of their problems. The overwhelming amount of creationists are scientifically illiterate, but evolution is such a simple concept that even a child can understand its implications. However, heavy duty physics is not something that most people do or can understand. The creationists do not perceive the impact that the theory(s) of relativity, cosmology, gravitation, particle physics, etc, have upon their primitive belief system, so they are not perceived by most as a threat. The very few that do understand, go to absurd lengths and present contradictory explanations to try and retain their beliefs. Hiroshima deals a much deadlier blow to creationist claims (particularly young creation), then evolution could even come close to.

 

Bruce

[Mr. Neil]

I have said this many times. The creationist's beef with evolution is the least of their problems.

I've said that a few times myself. Evolution takes all the heat for this, that, and the other thing, but the creationists actually have to contend with nearly every field of modern science. Not just evolution. They don't seem to want to admit that.

[KenneyVTX]

General realitvity is based on your perspective. A good example uses sound. If you are standing near a railroad track that a train is approaching on you will hear the pitch of the horn change as it passes. This is due to the sound waves compressing and elongating as it passes you. Now, another person arrives at a different point in time. For them, the pitch doesn't change. Eventhough you are both observing the same train, the results are relative to your position. The pitch goes from high to low, short to long. In visible light, short waves are blue violet while long waves are yellow-red. If we had a magic car that could travel close to the speed of light, a bystander (ignoring the obvious problems with mass and gravity of an object traveling near the speed of light) were to observe this car approaching it would have a blue shift this is again due to compression. On departure from your vantage point, it would have a red shift. Doppler effect.

What I would like to see is the particle-wave duality discussed from a christian perspective.

[Slamdunk]

 

What gives? I have a simple question for Creationists: has the universe been expanding or not? If so, how so? If not, why not?

 

[slam] Red shift and background microwave radiation indicate that the universe is expanding. This is consistent with the Bible which says that God "stretches out the heavenly bodies like a curtain." BTW, did you know there are some blue-shifted galaxies, like Andromeda, that move towards us?

 

Is it possible that a Creator God could have brought the universe into existance through a cosmic singularity that might have resembled a big bang? Could it be that man is only observing what God has done? Could the "stretching out" be the expansion that astronomers observe?

 

[Guest]

 

Is it possible that a Creator God could have brought the universe into existance through a cosmic singularity that might have resembled a big bang? Could it be that man is only observing what God has done? Could the "stretching out" be the expansion that astronomers observe?

 

 

Then why dosen't the bible say that? Didn't god realize that one day humans would become smart enough to begin to figure out how the universe is set up, and that knowledge would lead to the crumbling of his worship and adoration? If he truely wanted everyone to believe and go to heaven, he would have made sure the bible was scientificly sound in all aspects beforehand, don't ya think?

[Dark Helmet]

 

[slam] Red shift and background microwave radiation indicate that the universe is expanding. This is consistent with the Bible which says that God "stretches out the heavenly bodies like a curtain." BTW, did you know there are some blue-shifted galaxies, like Andromeda, that move towards us?

 

Is it possible that a Creator God could have brought the universe into existance through a cosmic singularity that might have resembled a big bang? Could it be that man is only observing what God has done? Could the "stretching out" be the expansion that astronomers observe?

 

 

Yeah it's normal Andromeda is blue-shifted, it's in our galaxy's gravitational field and we're due for a collision somewhere in the next two billion years iirc. But overall if you sample the speed and direction of the galaxies in the visible universe you'll find that not only are almost all of them moving away from us, but the farther they are the faster they are doing so. If the movement of the galaxies were random we would expect to see about a 50-50 distribution of red and blue shifts. So yes the universe is expanding

 

As for the idea that the stretching in the verse refers God pushing the expansion of the universe, read the chapter again and tell me if that really makes sense. God is boasting there his ability to make the sun rise (rofl!) and make earthquakes. In the context I think it would more likely refer to the way the stars seem to cover the day sky like a drape at night as it's so often presented in the bible, rather than refer to a concept that Job couldn't understand, having not even discovered what a wavelength is or even the telescope.

[neverclear5]

 

[slam] Red shift and background microwave radiation indicate that the universe is expanding. This is consistent with the Bible which says that God "stretches out the heavenly bodies like a curtain." BTW, did you know there are some blue-shifted galaxies, like Andromeda, that move towards us?

 

 

 

I'm sorry, stretching out like a curtain? That is not what the universe is doing, not close. it is expanding in all directions at all times, the objects in it are getting farther away from each other ()spreading out) not stretching. Also they didn't have lycra then, stretch out like a curtain would mean, he had the bodies and then pulled them across the sky like....a curtain! The universe is expanding so in general things are mocing away. The items in it are not stationary. Andromeda is moving towards us, imagine walking the wrong way on a conveyor belt. The conveyor is going very slowly so andromeda is still coming this way, but slower moving things, or things that are not moving on the belt, will continue to move away from us.

 

Would God, the almighty teacher have not, at least said blowing up a balloon? or even if he didn't want people to know that they were going to be invented, he could have said blowing up a sheeps bladder (which the romans used for football). Even people who didn't know what that looked like could have gone and tryed it out. He could have said expanding like a growing bush. Plenty of things would be a better description, not to forget he's apparently doing this after he'd made the earth which is the wrong way round.