Creationists: The universe is around 6,000 years old, right? And we can see objects 3 billion light years away

Question

How did the light from those distant objects reach us? I mean, being that far away, by definition the light would need 3 billion years to reach us. But apparently the universe hasn't had that long. Any answers?

In case you're wondering, AiG hasn't.
_

Some of you seem unfamiliar with those at the vanguard of Creationist thinking, backed up with scientific credentials of the highest order.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

Answer 1

And on the fourth day God created dinosaur bones and made them appear mighty old. Then cast them deep into the earth. He then said, "those stars are too close." and sent them further away from earth.

Answer 2

This teaching is not from the Bible. The Bible states in Gen 1:1, "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Thus the Bible does not limit the age of the Universe, the Earth, and our solar system. Christians are free to accept or reject the figures science gives us. Lately, that figure grew older, if memory serves me right. The Bible also specifies that a day for God is not a 24 hour day. In fact, the creative days mentioned in Genesis are much longer than a 1000 years each. Though we do not know how long each is, we do read that the seventh day began counting right after Eve's creation, and it still hasn't concluded! So, some information is not provided by the Bible's inspired word--intentionally so, I believe.

Answer 3

You are basing your assertions on something that man first created out of necessity in order to survive and then used in an attempt to organize things and prove postulations. Stop counting time and it no longer exists. Time has no meaning. "I can count up to 3 billion of the light years I created so that proves you are wrong"?

No one sees anything 3 billion light years away. What they see is light particles as they strike their retina which is not very far. Scientists have proven that light is bent by gravity. After passing billions of objects with gravity on its way to your retina, how can you be sure where anything is or how far away it is or even if it exists? If you can still see the same thing in 3 billion years, you will be able to say that it existed now, someplace. How can you attempt to use the speed of light as a unit of measure to prove anything when it is not traveling in a vacuum, no vacuum exists anywhere to test it, and there are billions of uncertainties? What is the speed of light relevant to? Time that you created?

If you removed all of the space between the nuclei and electrons in your body, you would not be visible to the naked eye. It's quite possible that what you think that you see and what you actually see are two different things. Science does not intend to prove or disprove the existence of a creator. It tries to determine how things were done. The question doesn't come up in true scientific study.

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details." - Albert Einstein

Answer 4

What does science actually tell us about …
1. …the origin of the universe? From the ancients until Einstein, people who had not been influenced by the Bible assumed that the universe has existed eternally, relieving them of the burden of dealing with ultimate origins. Today, overwhelming evidence has forced over 95 percent of cosmologists to subscribe to the theory of a big bang creation event. For those who care to think about it, this theory requires a mysterious, prior Cause beyond the universe. A universal beginning provides the most scientifically acceptable explanation for the observed expansion of the universe. As NASA satellite team leader George Smoot wrote in the foreword to my book on modern cosmology: “Until the late 1910’s, humans were as ignorant of cosmic origins as they had ever been. Those who didn’t take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning.”
2. …the purpose of the universe? Of course, scientists say this topic is outside the scientific domain; yet their observations have made it difficult for them to avoid acknowledging a mysterious phenomenon called fine-tuning. It turns out that the fundamental forces of nature — the universe’s expansion rate at the beginning, the ratio of the proton and electron masses, and so on — each have values that fall within extremely narrow parameters necessary for life. Many scientists, with no prompting from theists, speak of the “anthropic principle” as their best explanation. The values of nature’s constants can best be predicted when scientists calculate as if anthros, or humanity, is the purpose behind them. Psalm 66:5 tells us: “Come and see what God has done, how awesome his works in man’s behalf!”
3. …the origin of life on this planet? The theory of evolution has nothing to offer in explaining this event. Though origin-of-life study is an active field of research, no one has come up with a scenario, let alone a theory, that most scientists are willing to accept. One of science’s greatest unmet challenges has been to explain the origin of life’s DNA code, which information scientist Hubert Yockey calls “mathematically identical” to alphabetic language in its specificity and complexity. The most popular hypothesis speculates that RNA-based life provided an interim step, since RNA is simpler than DNA while also using a code to specify the production of proteins; but RNA would require a predecessor as well. Modern evidence exacerbates these problems by showing that life appeared on earth almost as soon as the planet provided the conditions for it. This leaves little time for what scientists had expected to be the most time-consuming stage of life’s history: the development of the cell and its genetic code. Modern theories of self-organization and chaos have explained how interesting patterns can be created without intelligence. No theory, however, has been able to overcome the impossible odds against any natural mechanism producing information, that is, meaning.

Answer 5

I have very little respect for people who put up a straw man argument like that. The very FEW who believe that will not be affected by you anyway. The rest of us realize, as apparently you can't, that the people who wrote that didn't have the same concept of time as we do. It was more linear for them. A thing happened, then something else happened. The intervening aeons do not figure into it. You are judging by the wrong criteria. Is it fair to judge Newton by modern physics?

Answer 6

If you lived on a planet farther away from the sun the days would be longer and you don't age when your out of sink in time.There is nothing of time in death and no time in ever lasting life.The world you live in is dual, physical and spiritual.In the end your wished across a sea of glass in spirit .To the other blue planet that takes forever to go around sun in world of no days and nights.IT is a holy world living on that day you are in your true form spirit.

Answer 7

Greeting brother in Christ. I am Motombo from church of fish and bread. Hubble telescope see thing from 13 trillion light year. Universe bigger than both of us.

Peace and blessings from Motombo

Answer 8

Now your Talking!
Lets get some Science to Back Up What GOD Said (it's in the Bible.)

Answer 9

He created the world with age. He didn't plant trees, He created them full grown. He didn't breed baby animals, He created them full grown. He didn't create objects so distant that we would never see them, He put stars in the sky already visible.

Answer 10

someone said, I've read, "anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Ideas about a 6000 year old earth seems, to me, to be blatant attacks against reason. What can possibly develp from that?