A Problem for the Creationists with a Limited Timetable: Supernova Starlight

[BibleReader]

pnewton:

FYI - While Catholics are free to differ on the nature of creation, the reality of Adam and Eve as our progenitors is a doctrine of the faith.

“Adam”? Who is “Adam”? Hey, isn’t he that guy as to whom the Bible, if literally read, teaches that God was stupid about? In fact, “Adam” is the guy as to whom the infallible Bible, if literally read, teaches that God at first *mistakenly *tried to match Adam up with animals, to sooth Adam’s loneliness, but finally God wised-up and created a woman for Adam. See Genesis 2:18-20.

Boy, it’s a good thing God stopped being stupid, isn’t it?

In case you haven’t noticed, I’m making a point: God wasn’t stupid because the story is fiction.

There are several problems like this.

Question, friend: Have you ever read a statement by the Church expressly saying, “All of the Adam and Eve story is true except Verses A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H I, J, K, L, M, N and O?”

If the Church said that, what would be its grounds for declaring SOME sentences to be fiction, but SOME sentences to be NON-fiction?

Could it be that when the Church teaches about “Adam,” it is teaching non-fictional theology with a fictional character, exactly the way the Bible does?

Could it be that the divinely inspired Church did not realize that it was doing that – much as the writers of 2 Samuel did not realize that Absalom’s death was a picture of Christ’s death?

 

[Liberian]

BibleReader:

You’re kidding! My dad taught me that, and I’ve taught that to my kids!!! I’ve got to correct myself on that?

Bible Reader,

Yup! Sorry.

• Liberian

 

[Genesis315]

One last thing on Adam:

Humani Generis–encyclical by Pius XII (which requires intellectual submission):

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

 

[pnewton]

“Adam”?

Boy, it’s a good thing God stopped being stupid, isn’t it?

In case you haven’t noticed, I’m making a point: God wasn’t stupid because the story is fiction.

From: catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp
It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction…

…“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

 

[trth_skr]

“Adam”? Who is “Adam”? Hey, isn’t he that guy as to whom the Bible, if literally read, teaches that God was stupid about? In fact, “Adam” is the guy as to whom the infallible Bible, if literally read, teaches that God at first *mistakenly *tried to match Adam up with animals, to sooth Adam’s loneliness, but finally God wised-up and created a woman for Adam. See Genesis 2:18-20.

…

Actually, I do not read Genesis 18-20 as God trying the animals for companions, then failing.

Let’s see the verses (plus a few more):

18 And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
19 And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name.http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
20 And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
21 Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it.http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
22 And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam.http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
23 And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.

scriptours.com/bible/bible.cgi?oldbook=1&book=1&chapter=2&reference=&x=24&y=8

God said he did not want Adam to be alone. The animals could have taken care of that. It is not clear (to me) why Moses put the naming of animals between the statement and Eve’s creation, but assuming God is dumb is the least likely explanation. He wanted Adam to have a companion -Eve. One does not need to assume God is dumb or that the account is fictional. Clearly the animals were not “like unto himself”. This obviously refers to Eve.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[jimmy]

BibleReader:

Many creationists maintain that the world is only a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of years old.

This assumption creates a problem for those creationists.

Though light travels fast – 186,300 miles per second – the Universe is so vast that starlight is slow compared to its size. It takes light, for instance, about 100,000 years to travel from one edge of our galaxy to the other – just our own galaxy.

If one looks in the southern quadrant on a clear night and looks a few degrees below Orion’s Belt, he or she will see a fuzzy white smudge. That smudge is the Andromeda Galaxy, which is “2 million light years away.” That means that what we are looking at is the light from Andomeda Galaxy which began the trip from where Andomeda was 2 million years ago (it isn’t even located there today) to where we are today.

When you look at Andromeda, you are looking at 2 million year old light.

Now, creationists with a limited timetable say that that is false – that that light from Andromeda is actually only a few thousand years old, and God created fake star light – starlight which didn’t *really *come from the star it seems to come from – in-place.

Now, here’s the new dilemma that position creates.

In 1987, astronomers saw a vast stellar explosion in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy orbiting ours, about 150,000 light years away.

That means that the starlight from the Large Magellanic Cloud is about 150,000 years old. Creationists with a limited timetable deny this – they say that the starlight we are looking at is fake, that we are still only looking at the fake starlight God created in-place in the sky a few thousand years ago, and that the real starlight won’t reach our eyes for, say, 145,000 years.

The problem with saying that, in the case of the 1987 supernova, is that that means that the star we now call “Supernova 1987A”…

antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020331.html

…never really existed.

Since the light of the star’s self-destruction was buried in the alleged stream of fake starlight, the pre-explosion fake light stream never showed a star that ever existed, since behind the pre-explosion fake starlight stream was the explosion fake starlight stream.

Voila: According to those creationists, God created a “lie in the sky.”

I have some relatives that are praying for my dad because he doesn’t believe the earth is only 4 thousand years old. My dad got into a big discussion with them about it and their reasoning was, “well, you just don’t believe in the power of God.”

God gave us common sense and a brain. He gave us the ability to think and He expects us to use that ability, not to just reject it.

 

[buffalo]

rossum:

To quote from the article:

I am aware that there is some evidence changes in the speed of light on the billion year timescale. In my post I was talking about the speed of light less than a million years ago. As I said The speed of light has changed, but not by much, and certainly not by enough to allow distant objects like supernova 1987A to be seen within the 6000 year timescale allowed by the YEC interpretation of the Bible.

Parenthetically I am glad to see that you accept your quoted site’s age of the universe in excess of 10 billion years.

rossum

Is the decrease linear or exponential. If it is exponential, what are the implications?

 

[rossum]

buffalo:

Is the decrease linear or exponential. If it is exponential, what are the implications?

I have not read the original paper in Nature so I do not know. On the information given I would doubt if the decrease is linear, exponential seems to me to be more likely. There are no implications just from exponential decrease, any implications would strongly depend on the rate of the decrease, which is not given. The rate would have to be consistent with current experimental measurements of the speed of light in the past, which would not make for any change in the last few million years. Any changes would be for about the first five billion years or so - long before supernova 1987A exploded.

Measurements of the speed of light millions of years ago show that the speed is constant (within a small experimental error) for that period. The new hypothesis will not change those measurements. The YEC timescale is still not supported by physics.

rossum

 

[hecd2]

rossum:

I have not read the original paper in Nature so I do not know. On the information given I would doubt if the decrease[imn the speed of light] is linear, exponential seems to me to be more likely. There are no implications just from exponential decrease, any implications would strongly depend on the rate of the decrease, which is not given. The rate would have to be consistent with current experimental measurements of the speed of light in the past, which would not make for any change in the last few million years. Any changes would be for about the first five billion years or so - long before supernova 1987A exploded.

Measurements of the speed of light millions of years ago show that the speed is constant (within a small experimental error) for that period. The new hypothesis will not change those measurements. The YEC timescale is still not supported by physics.

rossum

Indeed this is so - the Nature paper gives no comfort to YEC at all - in fact the reverse.

Quantum theory states that electrons in atoms can occupy only certain tightly constrained orbits or energy levels. In fact the roots of quantum mechanics lie in the solution to the classical dilemma that electrons with continuously varying energies would collapse in a tiny fraction of a second into the nucleus – the so called hydrogen disaster – which Niels Bohr resolved by proposing the angular momentum of electrons could come only in well defined packets or quanta.

The fact that electrons can occupy only constrained energy levels results in the fact that there are also tightly constrained energies between atomic energy states. The consequence of this is that light emitted or absorbed by atomic species show certain characteristic wavelengths – the spectrum of the particular element (the emission spectrum contains bright lines at particular wavelengths corresponding to photons of energy equal to the energy between atomic energy states; the absorption spectrum which is obtained by light passing through a medium containing the element has dark lines in the same positions).

Because the electrons behave in a manner that is more complicated (owing to quantum and relativistic effects) than a solid body (like a planet) orbiting another (like a sun), where the classical calculation would suggest a single sharp line, a more complex structure with two or three very close lines is observed. This and the separation in energy (and wavelength) between the spectra of different elements is governed by a dimensionless constant called the fine structure constant. The conventional algebraic notation for the fine structure constant is alpha.

alpha = e^2/hbar*c (where e is the charge on the electron, hbar is Planck’s constant and c is the speed of light). alpha is very close to 1/137.

alpha has been described as a constant which determines the strength of the interaction between light and matter (analogous to the gravitational constant which determines the strength of the interaction between matter and matter). Whether that is a good analogy or not, alpha bridges between relativity, quantum mechanics, gravitation and electrical charge.

Over the last three years a team of astronomers led by John Webb (Webb et al, Phys Rev Lett 82, 884 – 887; Webb et al, Phys Rev Lett 87, 091301) have been measuring the light arising from very distant quasars more than 12 billion light years away filtered by clouds of gas more than 6 billion light years away. This is very ancient light that that was emitted more 12 billion years ago and which passed through the gas cloud more than six billion years ago. Webb et al have studied the spectra produced by iron, magnesium, silicon and other metals in the gas cloud absorbing light from the different quasars. They have found a remarkable thing: after correcting for red shift, the separation and structure of the spectral lines suggest that at the time the lines were formed more than six billion years ago, the fine structure constant was very slightly different from what it is today. The effect is absolutely tiny: it is less than one part in 100,000 (delta alpha/alpha = 0.72x10^-5). Nevertheless, it seems to be there.

Look at the identity for alpha. If the fine structure constant has
changed in the last 12 billion years, then either the charge on the electron or the speed of light seem to have changed. There is no way from this earlier work of telling whether the change in the fine structure constant is caused by a change in e or c
*
To be continued*

 

[hecd2]

Continuation

At last we get to the paper in Nature (Davies, Davis and Lineweaver, Nature 418, 602 –603). Their argument goes like this: The area of the event horizon of a black hole is a measure of its entropy (the event horizon is that surface inside which nothing, including light, can escape from the black hole). This was postulated by Bekenstein, and the serious difficulty that a body with entropy must also have a temperature and emit radiation, even though a black body is not supposed to emit anything, was solved by Hawking who developed the theory of the Hawking radiation in the 1980s (Hawking radiation arises from quantum fluctuations just outside the event horizon, whereby matter/antimatter particles are created; the matter particles escape and the antimatter particles fall into the black hole reducing its mass, area of its event horizon and entropy). The area of the event horizon can only decrease (ie the black hole shrink) if there is a corresponding increase in the entropy of the surroundings of the black hole (according to the second law of thermodynamics).

Davies et al then use the formula for the area of the event horizon of a black hole of charge Q and mass M and calculate the entropy of the black hole as a function of Q and M. They discover that if the change in the fine structure constant is due to a change in charge on the electron then the area of the event horizon of the black hole will reduce, whereas if the change is due to a change in the speed of light then the area of the event horizon will increase. The former condition is disallowed by the second law of thermodynamics (a reduction in the area of the event horizon would lead to a reduction in the entropy of the black hole with no corresponding increase in the entropy of its surroundings). So Davies et al suggest that the correct interpretation of an increase in the fine structure constant is a corresponding reduction in the speed of light of less than one part in 10,000 - a tiny change over 6 billion years and one that has no bearing on the trigonometric demonstration that SN1987A is 167,000 light years away.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm

 

[TPJCatholic]

Why do so many people get tied in a knot about this stuff?

 

[hecd2]

TPJCatholic:

Why do so many people get tied in a knot about this stuff?

Not sure what you mean TPJC.

Do you mean ‘why are so many people obsessed by the idea of biblical inerrancy and the deep need to defend the indefensible Young Earth Creationism?’ In which case the answer is that these people lack the breadth of vision that would lead them to realise that a universe 13.7 billion years old and at least 40 billion light years across is a far greater testament to the glory of a creator than their mean little world.

But if you mean ‘why are so many people interested in figuring out how the universe works’ then the answer is that revealing the workings of the universe is a noble undertaking of which there are few finer available to mankind.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[TPJCatholic]

hecd2,

I do not agree that a billions year-old universe is a more significant testament to God…

However God did it, the universe is to His glory, not ours. No matter how long it has been around.

My question goes to why people get so emotionally bunched in a knot about these matters. God did it, whether it took 10,000 years or 14 billion is not important. What’s matters is that God did it–not how.

 

[hecd2]

TPJCatholic:

hecd2,

I do not agree that a billions year-old universe is a more significant testament to God…

However God did it, the universe is to His glory, not ours. No matter how long it has been around.

My question goes to why people get so emotionally bunched in a knot about these matters. God did it, whether it took 10,000 years or 14 billion is not important. What’s matters is that God did it–not how.

Whether the universe is 10,000 years old or 13.7 billion years old is very important to me as a scientist and others who care about these things including many devout Catholics. That’s what scientists do, figure out the what and the how. The world is an immensely richer place for it, unless you’d rather wallow in ignorance and superstition. It might not be important to you, but that’s your loss.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Bible reader,

Is our spiritual God bound by physical time in any way? Time is the measure of change between mass, energy and empty space. God is spiritual, Omni Present to the whole of physical time and all Powerful. Have you ever thought of infinite physical past time and infinite physical future time flowing out from our All Powerful, Omni-Present to the whole of physical time, God’s hand? Could this not have happened thousands or tens of thousands of years ago? Does not the past of physical time have to bend to the Power or God’s hand?

God’s focus is on the creation of a free willed being who has the capacity to choose to love Him. God does not have to sit around for fourteen billion years waiting for this to happen.

If God chooses to destroy a city with meteorites, can God put meteorites on course for the city somewhere thousands of years previous to that time? Can He not again remove meteorites headed to the city for tens of thousands of years to where they never existed should the city repent?

Not only does God know the whole of physical time and reveal what we see as future time through the prophets, God is Omni Present to the whole of physical time.

The whole of physical time past and present must bend to the All Powerful Hand of God which is spiritually out side of physical time.

Creation

 

[TPJCatholic]

hecd2,

It is not my loss because I do not care about such matters. However, I am glad that you find fulfillment in such pursuits. My point is that people should not be getting so bunched-up about these matters. IMO, scientists should continue their pursuits without worrying about what creationists think, and vice versa for the Creationists.

 

[Steven_Merten]

TPJCatholic:

hecd2,

It is not my loss because I do not care about such matters. However, I am glad that you find fulfillment in such pursuits. My point is that people should not be getting so bunched-up about these matters. IMO, scientists should continue their pursuits without worrying about what creationists think, and vice versa for the Creationists.

I agree TPJ,

One line of thought does not elliminate the other line of thought if we realize the tremendous Power of God who exists out side of the physical time which He created.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Steven,

I agree completely.

 

[rossum]

TPJCatholic:

IMO, scientists should continue their pursuits without worrying about what creationists think, and vice versa for the Creationists.

In an ideal world, yes. However, the creationists are using their political clout to try and get creationism (i.e. ID) added to the science curriculum in schools. That means that scientists have to take notice of what the creationists are thinking and doing. If it affects the future of science then scientists have to take action.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

God and Matter: The Evolution of the Evolution Debate

Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna Christoph Schönborn has stepped into the confused controversies surrounding evolution, and added some much needed clarity.

Just enough clarity, mind you. Not too much. Not too little.

In a recent op-ed for The New York Times, “Finding Design in Nature,” Cardinal Schönborn issued a crystal-clear warning to proponents of Darwinism: Stop misusing Pope John Paul II’s words as blanket support for neo-Darwinian beliefs that go directly against Church teaching.

In 1996, John Paul stated that evolution was “more than a hypothesis.” But that was not all that he said, by any means. As Cardinal Schönborn stated, that string of four words — taken out of the context of his entire speech, and worse, of his many other statements about evolution — has been taken up by proponents of Darwinism as a ready-made, unambiguous stamp of approval by the Catholic Church of evolutionary theory.

Enough is enough. Neither John Paul II nor the Catholic Church ever gave unambiguous assent to the entire doctrine of neo-Darwinism precisely because, even while it has uncovered some important truths, its fundamental assumptions are in direct contradiction to the fundamental assumptions of faith. Witness Cardinal Schönborn’s wise words:

“The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things. Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection — is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

Now witness John Paul II’s other words, words conveniently left unquoted by proponents of neo-Darwinism: “It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity.”

At its heart, neo-Darwinism is materialistic, and affirms evolution guided only by mere chance and necessity. God is entirely unnecessary. That is why Richard Dawkins, chief spokesman of today’s evolutionists, states smugly that “although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

The Cardinal had become increasingly angry because evolutionists, including Dawkins, argued that evolution proves that God doesn’t exist, and no one should fear teaching evolution as a fact because the Roman Catholic Church affirms it as “more than a hypothesis.”

more…