You Say You Want An Evolution!

[Sparko]

Did you realize that increasing the speed of light means that the universe is actually older than we think?

how is that? If we think it took 1,000 years to reach us, but it was traveling faster for most of the time, it might have only taken 500 years, which would mean it was much closer and the universe was younger, wouldn't it?

[Sparko]

See footnote #2 in my post #40

tl;dr

[mossrose]

how is that? If we think it took 1,000 years to reach us, but it was traveling faster for most of the time, it might have only taken 500 years, which would mean it was much closer and the universe was younger, wouldn't it?

Or, God could have made the light instantaneously appear here at the same moment He created the star.

Why not?

[rogue06]

how is that? If we think it took 1,000 years to reach us, but it was traveling faster for most of the time, it might have only taken 500 years, which would mean it was much closer and the universe was younger, wouldn't it?

I've seen a physicist explain it once on another forum unfortunately they have a habit of regularly deleting threads so it is now gone^[1], but another poster linked to a video that gave a shorter but less elegant explanation using SN1987a as the example (which is below).

To make a long story short, with a speed of light that was once much faster but has slowed down to the present rate, objects like SN1987a would be much further than 168,000 light years away so instead of having evidence for a universe at least 168,000 years old we have evidence for a universe at least millions of light years old.

The video is less than six and a half minutes long

1. I posted the original explanation here before but it must have been pre-crash since I can't find a trace of it.

[Sparko]

I've seen a physicist explain it once on another forum unfortunately they have a habit of regularly deleting threads so it is now gone^[1], but another poster linked to a video that gave a shorter but less elegant explanation using SN1987a as the example (which is below).

To make a long story short, with a speed of light that was once much faster but has slowed down to the present rate, objects like SN1987a would be much further than 168,000 light years away so instead of having evidence for a universe at least 168,000 years old we have evidence for a universe at least millions of light years old.

The video is less than six and a half minutes long

1. I posted the original explanation here before but it must have been pre-crash since I can't find a trace of it.

Pah! Deviltry and witchcraft.

[seer]

Pah! Deviltry and witchcraft.

So it isn't just me!

[rogue06]

So it isn't just me!

No. He was describing you.

[seer]

No. He was describing you.

[rogue06]

blame it on the cooties

[seer]

blame it on the cooties

[mikewhitney]

I've seen a physicist explain it once on another forum unfortunately they have a habit of regularly deleting threads so it is now gone^[1], but another poster linked to a video that gave a shorter but less elegant explanation using SN1987a as the example (which is below).

To make a long story short, with a speed of light that was once much faster but has slowed down to the present rate, objects like SN1987a would be much further than 168,000 light years away so instead of having evidence for a universe at least 168,000 years old we have evidence for a universe at least millions of light years old.

The video is less than six and a half minutes long

Video removed

1. I posted the original explanation here before but it must have been pre-crash since I can't find a trace of it.

Interesting. Thanks. That video provides decent evidence against that speed-of-light-change theory.

[Mountain Man]

Creating a world that looks old is one thing. A certain appearance of age may be necessary for everything to function. But creating a world with an appearance of history -- including features that speak of age but are not necessary to function -- is an entirely different matter. These unnecessary features serve to do nothing but give a false indication of great age.

IOW, if something is provided a false history it has been designed to deceive.

I don't agree with this premise. Again, it would only appear "deceptive" to those who reject the Bible, either in whole or in part.

Look, I'm not saying that the universe couldn't be as old as it arguably appears to be, but it also wouldn't be deceptive if God created it to merely appear that way since he openly tells us without ambiguity or artifice that he's the creator. It's right there in the Bible, and it's an open book test. The only way you could arrive at the wrong answer is if you don't open the book.

[rogue06]

I don't agree with this premise. Again, it would only appear "deceptive" to those who reject the Bible, either in whole or in part.

Look, I'm not saying that the universe couldn't be as old as it arguably appears to be, but it also wouldn't be deceptive if God created it to merely appear that way since he openly tells us without ambiguity or artifice that he's the creator. It's right there in the Bible, and it's an open book test. The only way you could arrive at the wrong answer is if you don't open the book.

Your objection, IMHO, is faulty in that it hinges on a presumption which is mistaken, namely you keep equating a particular interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself. They are not the same thing at all. While "All Scripture is inspired by God" (II Timothy 3:16), our interpretations of Scripture are definitely not.

You, as do most people, tend to read Genesis from the perspective of a modern person, which of course is very understandable. But when we read our understanding into the Bible -- through the lens of a historically sophisticated, scientifically influenced individual -- we then naturally tend to assume that the creation account is meant to present the material origins of the universe and is therefore explaining things in a scientific manner.

But it is highly unlikely in the extreme that the creation account is concerned with the question of origins that people ask in our time, namely the timing of creation, either directly or primarily, and maybe not even at all. So we need to try to adjust our perspective to read the text from Moses' standpoint instead of from ours lest we repeat the same kind of error that Christians made before Copernicus and Galileo.

To clarify, we all can agree that the Bible is God's word to us, but we must keep in mind that it was not given directly to us but rather was written to other people in other times with a different cultural framework meaning they had a different mind-set than we do. Now don't get me wrong here. It is unquestionably true that God intends to speak to us as well as is clearly evidenced by I Corinthians 10:11, yet our understanding of God's revelation must be understood through the original cultural and historical context.

Hence, it seems to me that the text was not written to answer the question of how long it took God to create but rather to convey the character and rule of the creator. That is what I see as the primary purpose of the creation account provided in Genesis 1 as being a polemic which I'll get into in my next post, which I believe is a biblical alternative that is faithful to the text and intention of Scripture.



Now returning to your post. I can not help but notice that you skipped the first paragraph where I responded directly to your statement that

I see it like this: people claim that God creating the universe with an appearance of age would be deceptive, but it would only seem deceptive to those who reject the Genesis account either in whole or in part.

by noting that even though roughly a quarter of the verses in Genesis 1 "describe the firmament in a fashion, that if taken literally, make it out to be a physical structure" and asked that if by rejecting that particular interpretation are we as you suggested earlier being given "up to their delusions and allowing them to believe the lies they so desperately want to believe." If not then why?

Moreover, you seem to have skipped over the issue of the difference between appearance of age and appearance of history all together and how the former may be necessary in order to make a functional universe but the latter serves absolutely no purpose other than to provide a false and misleading record for those looking at His creation.

[rogue06]

Personally, as I've made clear multiple times in the past, I see the creation account (especially the one provided in Genesis 1) as primarily being a monotheistic polemic against the various pagan cosmogonies and polytheistic myths of the people that surrounded the ancient Hebrews and were corrupting the ancient Israelis -- and that it still conveys powerful truths today. Theological truths that remain timeless. This is very similar to the view expressed by George Frederick Wright a century ago and by folks like Conrad Hyers and others today.

Such a reading is still a literal interpretation but one which doesn't rely on symbolism or a lot of poetic elements. While historical and scientific questions may be foremost in our minds it seems doubtful that it was foremost in the author’s. If it were then it would contain the answers to questions that have vexed theologians probably since the day it was written. If the text were primarily concerned with presenting history then it would have provided simple details such as who in the world Cain married, and the like.

This is why we need to be real careful about attempting to extract answers to questions the writer wasn't concerned with. We need to be on guard that we don’t get so distracted by our own interests that we fail to notice what the message about God here is.

The burning issues when the text was written had nothing to do with science or history but the temptations of idolatry and syncretism that threatened Jewish monotheism. Hence, the frequent invectives by the various prophets against altars in high places, the Canaanite cult of Baal, and "whoring after other gods” seen throughout the Old Testament. What appears to be emphasized at the start of Genesis is that God is the one true God who is responsible for the creation of and is Lord over literally everything.

He isn't merely yet another tribal deity or the ruler of a nation, but the creator and ruler over the Sun, Moon and stars, which (as Deuteronomy 4:19-20; 17:3; cf. 29:25; 32: 8-9; II Kings 21:2-3; 23:5; Jeremiah 8:2; 19:13; Zephaniah 1:5 demonstrate) were seen by many as deities themselves. In Genesis the heavenly bodies are denied any divine character or potency. Their primary duty is to bestow light at their appointed times, thus restraining the darkness in an ordered fashion. Notice how in Genesis 1:16 the sun and moon are deliberately not named but are merely referred to as "two great luminaries" or "two great lights." That is because the sun and moon were deified by the neighboring people and in the Semitic languages the words "sun" and "moon" are also the names of gods. But here they’re reduced to nothing more than lamps that light the Earth and along with the stars regulate the calendar in service of humanity (as opposed to the belief the stars control our lives).

The same thing goes for the other things mentioned in Genesis 1. There were sky gods and earth gods (in some myths the earth was made from the body of a dead god) and water gods. There were gods of light and darkness, rivers and vegetation, animals and fertility. Water and darkness themselves were often characterized as forces with which the deities in pagan lands had to struggle with and overcome. Yet all are relegated to the status of merely things that God created and commands. Everything worshiped by the Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians or any other Mesopotamian people are shown by Genesis 1 to be creations of God, effortlessly brought into existence.

God is not one of the forces of nature like so many of the neighboring deities represent. Not even the supreme fertility or Nature with a capital “N.” Instead God is the sovereign creator of the world and source of everything in it – but not identifiable with it. He is wholly other, the transcendent God. God is, well God. Absolutely nothing lies outside His creative power^[1].

There isn't the slightest indication here that God is bound or restricted by Chaos or merely some demiurge working with a resisting material that wasn't of His own making and that somehow places limits on His will. The plants and animals reproduce after their own kind to stress that they remain plants and animals and don’t become deities – not some scientific declaration. And mankind isn't like the Pharaohs of Egypt, divine in our own right, nor are we merely some afterthought as depicted in the Babylonian Enuma Elish.

Further, it is made clear that while nature is "good" it is not divine and shouldn't be worshiped, and by declaring it good God informs us that the view that physical things are inherently evil is also to be rejected. Our problem is sin, not physicality.

Look at what the author chooses to open the Bible with: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." We can see for ourselves how God's existence is outright assumed, and how His transcendence is plainly proclaimed in that opening sentence. It is clear that God is not part of the created order, and as I've noted above how God is the God who made everything else. This is a declaration being made to a people who already knew God as the one who delivered them from bondage in Egypt where they had been surrounded by a culture that worshiped many false gods and idols. Afterwards they found themselves still surrounded by cultures that continued to worship them. So the fundamental purpose of this part of Scripture then was to inform God's people more fully of who their God is: the almighty God of the universe, the God who redeems his people, and the only God worthy of worship. IOW, God is God.

For me, the intent of Genesis 1 is crystal clear; it serves to glorify God the Creator, not those things which He created. All of creation, the entire universe and everything within it, owes its existence to the creative power of God (cf., Acts 17:24; Romans 11:36). God has absolute sovereignty over creation and everything in it. There are just too many elements suggesting (to me at least) that history is being used here more as a literary device or framework for presenting the completed work of creation.

Moreover, it seems a good idea to keep in mind that even when presenting historical events that they’re theological representations of the historical events. IOW, essentially, biblical history is more concerned with transmitting significance over exact statistical detail^[2].

Finally, we must keep in mind that the entire concept of reconstructing and recounting events in exact statistical detail (as it actually happened) is in fact a relatively modern development owing a lot to the ideals of the 19th century positivists. The point is that it is ridiculous to hold Genesis, or other parts of the Bible for that matter, to modern standards of scholarship that were unknown to it.

Paul tells us what the purpose of the Bible is, and it is not to tell us how nature functions or came about. Rather, it is "to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (II Timothy 3:15). It is "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (vs. 16-17).

Genesis isn't an attempt to grapple with or answer technical scientific questions, but instead deals with matters beyond the realm of science. It seeks to bring us in touch with the eternal God and to reveal the sacred meaning of His being, His purpose and His dealings with us as He works out His holy will. Simply put, the Bible is not trying to tell us exactly HOW or WHEN God did this or that but rather, it is telling us WHY God did this.












1. And God is responsible not just for the origin of all that there is but the entire being of all that is (As Thomas Aquinas wrote in "De potentia dei" (On the Power of God), the only cause of being is the power of God and all natural causes act as instruments of that power).

2. Like other sections of the Bible, Genesis 1 appears more concerned with great Truths rather than mere chronological exactitude which while so important in much of our Western writing is not such a big deal in the Hebrew literary tradition. Topical arrangement or rearrangement is not infrequently found.

For instance, the Temptation accounts recorded in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 provide different orders which are only contradictory if you feel that the authors were concerned with getting the order of the temptations correct rather than emphasizing the fact they took place. Likewise with Psalm. 78 which is intending to stress God’s care of the Israelites but places the smiting of the rock (78:15) before the manna from heaven (vv. 24-25) in contradiction to the account in Exodus 16 and 17. Even the ten plagues are summarized as seven, and in a different order, in Psalm 78:42-51; 105:24-37.

If the author of Genesis 1 was interested in stressing the fact of creation and wasn't overly concerned with its exact chronological sequence of events, then many difficulties are eliminated.

[Mountain Man]

Your objection, IMHO, is faulty in that it hinges on a presumption which is mistaken, namely you keep equating a particular interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself. They are not the same thing at all. While "All Scripture is inspired by God" (II Timothy 3:16), our interpretations of Scripture are definitely not.

You, as do most people, tend to read Genesis from the perspective of a modern person, which of course is very understandable. But when we read our understanding into the Bible -- through the lens of a historically sophisticated, scientifically influenced individual -- we then naturally tend to assume that the creation account is meant to present the material origins of the universe and is therefore explaining things in a scientific manner.

But it is highly unlikely in the extreme that the creation account is concerned with the question of origins that people ask in our time, namely the timing of creation, either directly or primarily, and maybe not even at all. So we need to try to adjust our perspective to read the text from Moses' standpoint instead of from ours lest we repeat the same kind of error that Christians made before Copernicus and Galileo.

To clarify, we all can agree that the Bible is God's word to us, but we must keep in mind that it was not given directly to us but rather was written to other people in other times with a different cultural framework meaning they had a different mind-set than we do. Now don't get me wrong here. It is unquestionably true that God intends to speak to us as well as is clearly evidenced by I Corinthians 10:11, yet our understanding of God's revelation must be understood through the original cultural and historical context.

Hence, it seems to me that the text was not written to answer the question of how long it took God to create but rather to convey the character and rule of the creator. That is what I see as the primary purpose of the creation account provided in Genesis 1 as being a polemic which I'll get into in my next post, which I believe is a biblical alternative that is faithful to the text and intention of Scripture.



Now returning to your post. I can not help but notice that you skipped the first paragraph where I responded directly to your statement that

by noting that even though roughly a quarter of the verses in Genesis 1 "describe the firmament in a fashion, that if taken literally, make it out to be a physical structure" and asked that if by rejecting that particular interpretation are we as you suggested earlier being given "up to their delusions and allowing them to believe the lies they so desperately want to believe." If not then why?

Moreover, you seem to have skipped over the issue of the difference between appearance of age and appearance of history all together and how the former may be necessary in order to make a functional universe but the latter serves absolutely no purpose other than to provide a false and misleading record for those looking at His creation.

I don't see a meaningful difference between "appearance of age" and "appearance of history" because age implies history, and history implies age.

You seem to have the mistaken impression that I necessarily hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis. I don't.

As for whether or not you're believing a delusion, you at least accept the first four words of the Bible, so you're in better shape than someone who approaches the question of origins from the opposite end.