They say it's god's kaleidoscope.
2007-04-30 08:48:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by Resident Heretic 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Creationists do have theories about this but in no way claim that their theories are 100% scientific fact. I have heard the idea that time is faster in space than on earth due to gravity and other factors. I would look it up on answersingenesis.com but their website is currently down. It is the best argument against a young earth because they don't have a great case against it only some theories that could possibly explain it. I have pondered this idea too and I guess I don't quite understand light because to me the light from those stars don't actually reach the surface of the earth and all we see is the light at it's source because of it's greatness. I could be going down a 4 lane road and have another car coming at me well down the road and even though the lights of the car don't reach to where I am I can still see the lights at their source. It seams to me that when I look at a photograph of stars their light only projects so far into space (which varies depending on the luminosity and size of the star) and the light of the star does not actually project to the earth. So I don't exactly understand what it is that I am missing or don't understand about the starlight problem, but I have never actually looked in a telescope or anything to see what starlight is actually like. I do know that on a cloudy day you have a hard time seeing the stars at night but the light from the sun still gets here on a cloudy day, although not at the same intensity. It seems to me that the light from the stars do not actually project to the earth so I don't know if they can actually calculate how far the starlight is from the star itself or not. It would be nice if someone could explain to me what I am missing or don't understand that could complete my comprehension of why the light from stars is either understood to project to the earth or known to project to the earth.
2007-04-30 09:19:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by wiley16350 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
A. Because the earth is millions of years old.
B. Because shift happens, I mean, of course redshift happens, the universe is expanding, just as you would expect if God continued to have children, populate worlds, etc.
Edwin Hubble demonstrated that all galaxies and distant astronomical objects were moving away from us ("Hubble's law") as predicted by a universal expansion. Using the redshift of their electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space, he showed that all objects are moving away from us, and that their speed is proportional to their distance, a feature of metric expansion. Further studies have since shown the expansion to be extremely isotropic and homogenous, that is, it does not seem to have a special point as a "center", but appears universal and independent of any fixed central point.
To add to the befuddlement, the expansion of the universe now seems to be accelerating, a process with truly mind-stretching consequences
2007-04-30 08:53:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by Someone who cares 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
The Bible was written with a point of view of the earth. From that perspective, light from sun and stars would come only after clouds and debris cleared away.
The big bang is not against the way God created matter.
There is no conflict.
2007-04-30 14:00:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by grnlow 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Almost nobody believes the universe is 6,000 years old. The Bible doesn't say that it is. Only fundamentalist Christians and orthodox Jews believe that 6,000 year old stuff. Most Christians are cool with a figurative interpretation of the creation story in Genesis, after all the writer was not there.
2007-04-30 08:52:45
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
How do they explain conjecture?
Why would you expect a creationist to explain what someone thinks?
Is that a fair question?
No one has any idea how far the stars are away from earth or each other. Angular units and parsecs are assumptions based on conjecture. These are nothing more that very big measuring sticks that are not very accurate, just real big.
EDIT: astronomical units I meant.
2007-04-30 08:56:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by Desperado 5
·
0⤊
3⤋
The usual answer is that god created the universe in the middle of the time line. You know, he made it look like it's billions of years old, but it's really a few thousand because of a book.
2007-04-30 08:48:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by The Bog Nug 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
I'm not a creationist, but I am well versed in their logical framework. They can respond to this in the same way that they explain carbon dating in fossil records millions of years older than mankind: God made everything how it looks right now, possibly as a test for Christians to refuse implications of a secular worldview for faith in God. God made the redshift and the universe the way it is right now ...'pop!'...and we can choose to read it as something billions of years old, or we can choose to have faith in spite of evidence that God just made it appear this way.
2007-04-30 08:52:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by cwecksrun 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yeah dudes hit us with your best shot on that question...
Oh yeah but all we'll get is bible verses (prob c&p from some bible website, because they don't know their own doctrine of faith) or some nitwit typing in his search bar "the christian view on parsecs and redshift"
2007-04-30 08:49:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by Sheriff of R&S 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
They actually say God created the light in mid journey so the Cosmos would look ancient.
I swear I am not making this up. I've actually read that crap, along with the theory that Satan planted the fossils to deceive us.
I remain suspicious of the death of rocker Prince's baby for this reason. The child was supposedly born without a brain and so couldn't survive. Utter nonsense. Creationists survive every day without their brains.
2007-04-30 08:52:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
"The usual answer is that god created the universe in the middle of the time line. You know, he made it look like it's billions of years old, but it's really a few thousand because of a book. "
Do they really answer that way? That is the dumbest load of Crock I have ever heard.
2007-04-30 08:49:29
·
answer #11
·
answered by Pilt Down McMahon 2
·
1⤊
1⤋