The Distant Starlight Problem and Young Universe

A forum for discussion and criticism of specialized topics relevant (pro and con) to Creation Science - fossil dating, flood geology, C14, K/Ar, radio metric dating, diffusion dating, racemization dating, DNA dating, stellar and planetary evolution, erosion dating, fast stratification, interpretations of the geological column, baraminology, distant starlight problem, Y-chromosomal Adam/Noah/Aaron/Abraham, mitochondrial Eve, Tower of Babel, Proton-21 laboratory, Sodom and Gomorrah, OEC,YEC, Progressive creation, white hole cosmology, Carmeli cosmology, VSL theories, alternate electrodynamics, mantle plume theories, folding rock theories, RATE work, planetary magnetism, faint young sun paradox, moon recession, ocean mineral saturation, astrometry and proper motion surveys, very long baseline interferometry, CMBR, moon evolution, cosmological vs. non-cosmological red shifts, polonium halos, Hydro Plates and Castastrophic Plates, varves, tree rings, noah's ark, over thrusts, lithification, hydrologic sorting, canopy theory, crater theory, planetary heating, ancient civilizations, Atlantis, trophical trees in the arctic, woolly mammoths and tropical trees in Siberia, UFOs and creationism, comets and orbital mechanics, planet satellite capture problems, planetary rings, origin of folded rocks, the Grand Canyon, the Green River valley, the Three Sisters, mountain formation, seafloor formation, tectonics, etc.

The Distant Starlight Problem and Young Universe

Postby stcordova » Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:25 pm

Once upon a time I was a Christian Darwinist/evolutionist. Then I became a OEC, then a YLC/OEC, then a YEC. I respect all my Christian Brethren who hold different views about the history of the universe than I do.

One thing I realized however, that if the entire universe is young, then this affirms the genealogy of Christ. It would be strong scientific evidence in favor of the idea that the Bible is inspired and that all nature is constructed such that "the scriptures are fulfilled."

The universe is considered old because of the distant starlight problem, but below I argue what I believe is the strongest evidence that our understanding of the physics of distant starlight is totally wrong.

When I considered this, I came to believe, for scientific reasons alone, that the universe is likely far younger than we are told.

The evidence of the universe's youth, like the miracle of life, should be so blatantly obvious it's almost funny. Here is what I mean:


If you want a picture of your grandmother when she is young, the picture itself is "old" but it shows her when she was young. Ok, so "old" light should be like an old photograph of something when it was young. Are you confused enough. Think about it.

We have supposedly "old" light from distant stars that give a picture of the stars when they were young.


If the speed of light is constant and the universe is 13.5 billion years old, or so, then the farther we look out with our telescopes we see "old" light and we see stars when they were supposedly young. We should see how things looked 13.5 billion years ago when we see stars 13.5 billion light years away.

A consequence of Big Bang theory is that we should see an evolutionary progression of stars and galaxies that is analogous to this:

Image

Figuratively speaking, the young looking girl as the most distant star, and the old looking woman as the closest star. So I put a picture of the hubble telescope up and it is looking at the various galaxies in the universe represented by the 3 ladies of various ages. The oldest lady is on the left and nearest to the hubble telescope (around a distance of 0 light years), the youngest lady is on the right (around a distance of 13.5 billion years, at the beginning of the universe). Figuratively speaking this is what Old-Universe, constant speed of light theory predicts we should see, and evolutionary progression (going from right to left) of the younger more distant stars to the older closer stars.

Image


But, figuratively speaking, this is what we actually see. All the stars and galaxies are about the same age no matter how far we look out:

Image

This is evidence the universe is young, that our understanding of the speed of light and the evolution of the universe needs to be seriously revised.
stcordova
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am

Return to Creation Science

cron