All #ourCOG News 5.0
Scientific explanation of How we could see very distant galaxies if universe is only thousands of years old, not billions, supports young earth creation
Discussion
18 comments
-
God didn’t not put it out there just because he could ut so we could see his glory and power and marvel and learn, we see it because he wanted us to. Science is not the end all and be all, God is.
-
One of my favorite ideas is that the speed of light has changed.
Scientist at the below link thinks it has slowed.
-
As a Christian, can anyone give me one good reason to dispute/ disbelieve the biblical narrative of creation?
What are the consequences of just simply believing what God says? -
The oldest versions of Genesis that have been found do not say creation took seven days. The best translations say, “By periods of time, these are the things which God has created.” The actual periods are not defined in those texts.
-
Another case of Creationism verses Science which has been ongoing since the dawn of Charles Darwin. Who report do you believe, God or man?
-
Interesting!
-
Did God create the stars before he created
1. the heavens and the earth (before the first day)
2. light (first day)
3. sun, moon and stars (fourth day)
? -
a priest made the big bang
-
Very cool video
-
I have an uncle that works on a nuclear power plant and when he started studying nuclear physics it’s what lead him out of young earth creationism.
Here is the challenge: The institute for creation research did the RATE project and there findings pointing strongly against any young earth.
Under a 6,000 year old Earth Uranium 238 decay rate would be 760,000 larger than the actual current rate. This would mean the planet releases about 8.5 times more radiation that Fukushima did every square mile, every second for the past 6,000 years. This would make life on Earth literally impossible
That is being generous since not only did I not take into account that there is more uranium and therefore MORE radioactivity. But I made the assumption that the young earth decay rate was constant before changing to its current value. This is a generious assumption because any non-contant assumption like if the nuclear decay rates were accelerated by a factor of approximately one billion on the first two days of the Creation week and during the Flood then it would have lead to even more catastrophic results.
You should also remember that this is only uraium 238. If I did the same calculation for every other nuclear isotope then it’s catastrophic for creationism.
-
The age of the earth is a trivial matter
-
Not really
-
An 11-minute clip from a longer video with a rational explanation for distant starlight:
-
Ridiculous.
First thing God did was create effect before source.
He created a mature creation.It’s like you’re arguing he created Adam an infant just sitting in a field for years till he became a toddler… Waiting around for all the seeds to turn into trees bearing fruit.
Total lack of reading comprehension.
-
A visible star moving at .9999999 the speed of light would be visible from the very beginning, and never becime invisible.
Tha atheist claim that the size of the universe proves the Big Bang is a false claim
-
Both sides have problems here if scientists are correct.
Let’s assume they are.
Creationist. 2 days for light to travel 14 billion light years
Equal 14 billion difference
Non creation ists…
Universe is 14 billion years old verses known visible universe of 45.6 billion years away
Non creationists have 31 billion light year discrepancy.
Only explanation from scientists is we don’t really know or actually its because universe is expanding or space time has changed.
All explanations more easily explain a shorter time discrepancy.
-
Unpopular opinion: The universe is smaller and closer than we’ve been led to believe.
Popular opinion: The speed of light is not a constant and thus cannot be used as such. This making an expansive massive universe entirely possible. (Note: This theory is about just as justified has most accepted SECULAR theories)
-
[…] Scientific explanation of How we could see very distant galaxies… […]
Comments