Evolutionist's Embedded Historical Assumptions

Evolutionists do not usually talk about the embedded historical assumptions that are behind their claim that the Bible is wrong. When it comes to saying the Bible is wrong about the age of the earth, distant starlight is one of the top “evidences” they use.

This “evidence” shows up in many areas of American life—Hollywood movies, newspapers, magazines, technical publications, TV shows like the History Channel, textbooks on astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. People are exposed to such overwhelming media bias that they often forget the historical assumptions that scientists make when they talk about vast ages. The evolutionists control the media and education so thoroughly that they do not even defend their position; they just state it as if it is a proven fact.

They state as fact that the light from some distant galaxies took five billion earth-years to get to the earth.  They assume evolution is true, therefore the starlight traveled for five billion years.  And if you question (or test) their assumptions (even though science teaches you to put scientific ideas to the test) they attack your intelligence.  So let us examine their assumptions.  Let us put them to the test as science teaches and the Bible commands (1 Thess. 5:21).

What do we mean when we say, “How old is this object?” Actually, there are many different ways we can answer.  Let me illustrate one of the ways with a joke (by Gary Summers):

On day seven of Creation week, God said everything was “very good.”
But Eve was crying after looking at her reflection in a pond.
When Adam asked her why she was crying, she said,
“I’ve only been here one day and I already look 30 years old!”

Was Eve’s body really 30 years old on day seven?  Yes and no.  Every scientific measurement combined with the historical assumption that she was originally born as a baby, would give an “age” of around 30 years.  Her physical age was 30 years old.  Her apparent age was 30 years old.  But you might be saying, “She was only one day old on day seven!”  Right!

She was only one day old according to her real historical age. (Of course we do not know the actual adult age of Adam and Eve. We just chose 30 years old as a reasonable guess.)

Imagine you were on the earth on the 7th day of Creation.  If you took scientific measurements, what would you find for the age of fruit trees, chickens, river channels, ocean saltiness, distant starlight, etc.?  But remember, you only took scientific measurements based on assumptions.  Science cannot measure age without making certain historical assumptions.  If you make a historical assumption that the fruit tree came from a seed, you would say the scientific age was many years.

 If you assumed the chicken came from an egg, you would say the chicken was far older than one day.  You would assume the valley in which a river flowed took thousands of years to be eroded.  You would assume the ocean started as pure water (rain) without any salt in it and therefore was millions of years old (but less than 62 million years old according to the salt content we see today—see this technical article link).

[By the way, the oceans are not salty enough for evolution to be true. If the oceans started with no salt content, then they would reach their present state of saltiness in less than 62 million years. Evolutionists might assume the existing salt came from rain dissolving the earth and transporting the salt (and other minerals) in rivers and underground streams to the ocean. Science has measured the input and output rate of salt into the oceans and the data shows the age of the oceans have to be less than 62 million years. Yet evolutionists say it has been raining on this planet for over 3.5 billion years—over 50 times longer than is possible if you start with pure water (no salt)! Their conclusion of 3.5 billion years must be wrong; this is just one of many scientific measurements that show the theory of evolution to be in conflict with actual data. But this data will not show up in your child’s textbooks or the nightly news.]

How many scientific conclusions turn out to be wrong? Remember, the data we measure is rarely wrong, but the conclusions that scientists come to – based on that selected data – often turn out to be very wrong. Apologetics Press has a short article about astronomy’s miscalculations that includes two quotes from evolutionists talking about science in general. Pay special attention to what these evolutionists admit, and remember that scientific theories are based on many assumptions.  The public is rarely exposed to such honesty:

… the generally accepted idea that modern scientific “findings” trump every other source of information is simply false. In regard to scientific research in general, John Ioannidis stated, “Most published scientific research papers are wrong.... [S]mall sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false” (as quoted in Kleiner, 2005). Ioannidis concluded that about one out of two (50%) randomly picked scientific papers is wrong (2005).

More specifically, astronomical findings that relate to cosmology—the study of the origin of the Universe—contain an enormous degree of subjectivity and inaccuracy. Geoffrey Burbidge and his wife Margaret were honored with the Gold Medal for Astronomy, the British Astronomical Society’s most prestigious award. At the ripe old age of 80, Burbidge said: “As you get older, you realize that you really don’t know very much. Cosmology has progressed very slowly. Mainstream cosmological theory is like the emperor who had no clothes” (as quoted in Davidson, 2005, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Davidson, Keay (2005), “Galaxy Like a 3-Year-Old With Bodybuilder Physique,” San FranciscoChronicle,
[On-line], URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/10/MNGSEF 53O01.DTL.
 
Kleiner, Kurt (2005), “Most Scientific Papers are Probably Wrong,” New Scientist, [Online], URL:http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opin ion/dn7915.

Three Types of Age

We have already established that science measures age by combining measured data with certain assumptions. In order for us to keep track of what parts are assumptions and what parts are measured facts, let us examine what we mean by “age.”  We will use three terms: scientific age, apparent age, and historical age.

Scientific Age  This is usually what people think they are asking when they ask, “How old is that starlight? What is its real age?”  But science can only observe the present, and must make assumptions about the past (history).  Science cannot measure age without making historical assumptions.

Let us ask how old a fruit tree is scientifically.  In reality, science is only asking “Is this fruit tree similar to other fruit trees that we have directly observed growing?  If it is similar enough, then we assume it is approximately the same age.”  

If we imagine transporting today’s scientists back in time to the 7th day of Creation, they will say the chicken was older than one day.  Why?  Because their history (experience) with chickens says that chickens come from eggs and take much longer than one day to get to this mature size.  Are they right?  Yes and no.  Scientifically, using their assumptions about the past, the age of the chicken is far greater than one day.  But historically the chicken is only one day old.

Apparent Age   If I do not have any documentation or witnesses about this item’s historical past, how old does it appear to be?  Eve’s body appeared to be 30 years old on day 7 of Creation week. Some people use apparent age and scientific age interchangeably.

Historical Age   How much time has passed since this object began?  There are at least three types of historically derived ages: 1) Ages that can be observed over one person’s lifetime;  2) Ages that can be derived by combining the historical documentation over many people’s lifetimes;  3) And ages that have been witnessed by a credible witness who has existed from the beginning.

Candle Illustration

Let me illustrate the difference between historical ages versus scientific ages, by the story of the candle (by Garth Wiebe). Notice the assumptions made by Chris and Lucy:

Chris and Lucy entered a building looking for John.  In a room they found a note and a lighted candle.  Chris looked at the note and read it aloud:

‘Hi!  It’s 2:30, and I’m leaving to run some errands.  I’ll be back in a couple of hours.  BTW, the electricity is out, so I lit a candle for you. — John.’

Then Lucy said, ‘I know how we can find out how long it’s been since he left!  Look, the candle has been burning since he lit it and has a significant amount of wax that’s melted and dripped down.  If we figure out what the rate is which the wax is melting and measure the amount of wax that has thus far dripped, we can work backwards to find out how long it has been since he left.’

Chris said, ‘Why waste your time?  The note says he left at 2:30.’  Lucy said, ‘Don’t believe everything you read.’  Chris replied, ‘Look, I’ve known John for a long time, and this is his handwriting.  Don’t be ridiculous.’

Lucy replied, ‘Ah yes, but what does he mean by “2:30”?  A note like that is subject to interpretation.  Suppose he was talking about another time zone or something.’  And so a short philosophical argument ensued about the note.  However, Lucy prevailed and insisted on performing the measurement and calculations.

A few minutes later, Lucy announced: ‘Well, I’ve got bad news for us.  Based on the amount of wax that has melted and the rate at which the wax is melting, I can confidently tell you that it has been at least one whole day since this guy left.  He was probably talking about 2:30 yesterday.  And since he said that he’d be back “in a couple of hours”, we can assume that something happened to him and he’s not coming back at all.  So much for your “note”.’

Just then, John walked in. Lucy said, ‘Are you this guy “John”?  What took you so long?’  John replied, ‘What are you talking about?  I left you guys a note saying I’d be back in a couple of hours.  It hasn’t even been that long.’  Lucy said, ‘Never mind the note.  I measured the amount of wax that has dripped off your candle, and the rate which the wax was melting.  I know you’ve been gone since yesterday.’

John replied, ‘First of all, that candle isn’t burning anywhere near as brightly as when I first lit it.  Second of all, I didn’t light a new candle, but a used one.  And thirdly, I used another candle to light this candle and in the process the wax from that candle spilled all over this one.’

Lucy said, ‘So you set up that candle to deceive us, to make it look like you left the room over a day ago, when in fact it’s been less than a couple of hours.’  John replied, ‘Look, I left you a note telling you when I left.  I never intended for you to conduct some silly experiment measuring wax dripping off of a candle to figure out when I left.  I put the candle there so you guys would have some light.’

Lucy above is like people today who have never tested the Bible to see if it really must be a message from God. They have not examined enough evidence from nature—that shows we could not have gotten here without a Super-Natural Creator. Therefore, they question any message from such a Super-Natural Being. Chris is like the scientist who has studied the natural world’s evidences for and against Creation and discovered that the Bible’s account of earth’s history is the best fit to the evidence. Chris has read the Bible and determined that the text contains scientific and historical information that is impossible to have been written without God. See www.MiraculousBible.org.

Chris has determined that the God of the bible is reliable and he can trust His description of history more than man’s attempts at making up Hollywood like stories to explain away Creation. Therefore Chris knows he can trust God’s Word in other areas where he cannot directly test the content. Chris then knows the distant starlight must have gotten to the earth during creation week, less than 10,000 years ago. God’s Word says:

Exodus 20:11 [NKJV] For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. …
Genesis 1:14, 16, 19 [NKJV] - ¹⁴ Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; ... ¹⁶ Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night.  He made the stars also. ... ¹⁹ So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Psalms 19:1 [NKJV] - The heavens declare the glory of God;  And the firmament shows His handiwork.

Strong Delusion

Lucy refused to accept the final evidence and continued to be deceived by a “strong delusion.” Many scientists have refused to study the evidences and submit to where the data leads. They do not have a love for the truth when it comes to evidences for or against evolution. Evolution has become their religious faith— a blind faith, a strong delusion.

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 [NKJV] - ¹⁰ and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. ¹¹ And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, ¹² that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

We can prove the Bible is miraculous. We can prove it must be from God. (again, see www.MiraculousBible.org) Therefore He has left us a more reliable message than anything written by man. But the evolutionists do not have a love for the truth (love means sacrifice). They are not willing to sacrifice their reputations for the truth.

Motivation to Bend the Truth

What motivates humans in their search for answers? Many people do not examine themselves to determine what their motivations are. They do not show any concern that their desires may be causing them to distort the facts. Evolutionists H. H. Lipson (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK) said,

“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”

Yet the public is lead to believe that scientists do not distort (bend) the evidences to fit evolution. We are told the evidence points to evolution, but I have found out that the only way to get the evidence to point in the direction of evolution is to “bend the pointer.” Professor Lipson also said,

“If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? … I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p. 138, “A Physicist looks at evolution”)

If the God of the Bible exists, then He sets to rules. If we evolved from an ape like creature, then man sets the rules. If you grew up in a society that used the Bible to determine what was right and wrong, would you be allowed to commit adultery, divorce your wife for just any reason, commit homosexual acts, dress up as the opposite sex, lie, cheat, steal, etc? Could you have consensual sex with anyone you wanted, even children (pedophiles)? No, a society that honored the Bible would rebuke such behavior. But a society based evolution has no reason to call these acts immoral, let alone illegal.

So what if you did not want to be rebuked for having sex outside of a committed marriage relationship? Famous evolutionists like Auldous Huxley have admitted that the reason they did not want the God of the Bible to exist is because they wanted sexual “freedom.” They did not want restraints on their immoral practices. They want to replace God’s moral standards with their human derived standards. The fruits of atheism are bitter (see this online article documenting this fact).

Even the United States' top evolutionist in the 1990s, Stephen Gould, admitted that Darwin’s ideas caused a dramatic increase in the use of science to justify the immoral practice of racism. Darwin’s writings fueled racism. It did not cause racism, but it “added fuel to the fire.”

The late evolutionist Stephen J. Gould stated: “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” (Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap-Harvard Press, 1977, pp. 127–128.)

The original title of Darwin’s first book included the idea of favored races and his second book stated it more clearly. Ironically, Darwin was an abolitionist, yet his theories allowed slave owners to scientifically justify their view of “lower” races. If one race has evolved further than another race, then why shouldn’t the stronger race kill off the weaker race or use the weaker race as slaves?

Some try to defend Darwin by saying he did not use the word race in the title of his Origin of Species book to mean different races of humans. Judge for yourself if Darwin taught and supported the idea that one race was superior to another and that the stronger race will kill off the weaker. In his follow-up book, Darwin’s Decent of Man (1871), he wrote:

At some future point, not distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

So how do evolutionists defend their theory’s inability to set a standard for morality which man should follow? What are the fruits of atheism? See the article “The Bitter Fruits of Atheism.”

How do evolutionists use distant starlight to justify removing God’s moral standards and replacing them with their human standards? They claim that the Bible lied about the age of the earth and therefore the Bible cannot claim an all knowing God has given us rules for morality. They forget why God made the stars.

According to the Bible, why did God make the stars? The purpose of starlight is to mark (Gen 1:14) days, seasons, years, and to show the glory of God (Psa 19:1).  Therefore Adam and Eve could look up in the night sky and see God’s glory. If the closest star is 4 light-years away, then evolutionists are saying Adam did not see the first star until 4 years after creation week.  They assume God is limited or is a deceiver (remember the candle story above).

Big Bang Has Its Own Light Travel Problem

Evolutionist object to God’s historical documentation, yet their Big Bang theory has its own light travel problem.  Their Big Bang model does not have enough time for the distant areas of the universe to exchange photons as required by their temperature measurements. Why do you think they made up a story called the “inflationary model” for their Big Bang theory? See part three of The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique which starts with the question, “CAN INFLATIONARY THEORY SAVE THE BIG BANG?”

Side note:
You might want to see this article on a Big Bang topic called the search for the Higgs Boson - The "God particle?" or this article explaining how a Big Bang could avoid being inside a black hole and therefore impossible.

These physicists believe in the supernatural. They believe in many gods. They just avoid using the term god or supernatural. Supernatural means superior to nature. Nature's laws cannot be violated without something or someone superior to nature causing a violation of nature's laws (a miracle). These evolutionists allow their theories to violate the known laws of science (matter from nothing - Big Bang, inflation, life from non-life, increase in information without a designer, etc.) but they will not allow the God of the Bible to violate these same laws. They only want their gods taught to children, not the God who will judge them one day.

God Is Not Superman

Then when they read about the God of the bible, they limit Him as if He were just a super-superman.  They think the God of the bible made the first star by creating it out of nothing, and then ignited it with His “BIC Lighter,” then travelled faster than the speed of light to the next location in space and made the next star. They assume God did not make the photons, but only the stars. He could make the mass of a star like our sun (a million times larger than the earth) in one location, but He could not make those tiny energy packets called photons in all the locations they should travel. They assume God is limited to doing one thing at a time (serially), but really fast like a super-superman.

Ultimate Parallel Processor

But the Bible said God just spoke and it was so. God did not travel anywhere, since He is by definition everywhere. God is not limited in location or power.  Let me illustrate.  

Suppose you were given 1000 silver dollars and instructed to put one silver dollar every three feet on a 1000-yard line.  How much difference in time between when the first coin was laid down and the last coin?  Perhaps 30 minutes.  When God made the stars, how much difference in time was there between when the star created the photons (light) and when the photons reached the earth?  Four years for the closest star?  No.

The star could not show God’s glory, on the sixth’s day of creation, if the photons had not arrived on earth for Adam to see.  Let me illustrate using the same silver dollar example.  You still have 1000 silver dollars, but now you give one coin each to 1000 people who are standing on the 1000 yard line.  Then at your command you say, “Place your coin on the line when I say now.”  We ask the same question as before, “How much difference in time between when the first coin was laid down and the last coin?”  Now the answer is one or two seconds, not 30 minutes.  Why?  Because the process was done in parallel (all at once), not serially (one after the other).  Even today’s personal computer processors are using parallel processors.  The world’s fastest computers use thousands of processors all working in parallel.  God made the photons at the same time He made the sun, moon, and stars, all in parallel, all at the same time. God spoke, and it was so. God is the ultimate parallel Processor.

Think about those 1000 coins on that 1000 yard line. How could you tell if those 1000 silver dollars were laid down within two seconds or 30 minutes? You cannot. So why tell someone they are lying when they explain how they did it in parallel? You might call them a liar if you have been taught by others that it took 30 minutes, not two seconds (serial process, not parallel). Or perhaps you look for any way for them to be a liar because you do not like the rules of morality taught by that person.

Detecting a Miracle

One of the ways we know something must have gotten here by a miracle is that it happened faster than is physically possible. The chicken, river valley, Eve’s body, etc., on day 7 of creation week, must have all been a miracle because they could not have grown to such mature sizes in one day. If a scientist could have been present for the whole creation week, he would have been forced to conclude that many miracles had occurred.

The more we learn about science, the easier it is for us to detect a miracle. By definition, a miracle violates the laws of nature.  But God is not limited to the laws of nature and how we measure time. God not only created the universe, He created TIME.  He started the “clock of time.” He put the “hands” of His clock to start where they would show His glory.

Evolutionists often forget to tell you the assumptions they make when they accuse God of being a deceiver if distant starlight is only 6000 years old. Even many scientists who defend the Biblical account of creation also use part of the evolutionists’ assumptions and then propose other theories to avoid “calling God a deceiver.”

Here is an example. Evolutionists say that the starlight from a supernova explosion 168,000 light years away reached the earth in 1987 (called SN 1987A), and if God created the light 6000 years ago (as if it came from such an explosion) then the explosion never occurred and the God of the Bible is a deceiver.

Note:
1 light-year = 5.87849981 × 10¹² miles
1 light-year = 9.4605284 × 10¹² kilometers

Let me state it another way to make sure we all have this argument clear in our minds. If the light from that supernova has not traveled from the actual star that exploded, then that star never existed and its explosion never happened. We observe the photons (distant starlight) from that event as if it really occurred (the colors are correct—right wavelengths). Therefore we are deceived into thinking the distant starlight now reaching the earth came from a real star that really exploded (supernova). Therefore if the earth is actually less than 10,000 years old, as the Bible says, God has deceived us in His Creation. Therefore science has proved that God is a deceiver, or the age of the earth is much older than the Bible says.

But let us compare their objection to the previous examples we have covered. If a scientist could go back in time to the 7th day of creation they would say the same thing:

• If the chicken did not come from an egg, then the egg never existed and its growth never happened, so God is a deceiver. We are deceived into thinking the chicken we see came from a real egg. Therefore science has proved God is a deceiver, or the age of the earth is much older than one week.

• If the apple tree did not come from a seed, then the seed never existed and its growth never happened, so God is a deceiver. Therefore science has proved God is a deceiver, or the age of the earth is much older than one week.

• if the river valleys ... , if the ocean salt content ..., etc.

Other Young Earth Models

No Biblical creationists will accuse God of being a deceiver, so they try to find other ways for the distant starlight (such as from the 1987 supernova) to travel from the star to the earth in about 6000 “earth years.” Dr. Russell Humphreys and Dr. John Hartlett use the General Theory of Relativity (time dilation due to a gravitational potential “well”) and/or the expansion of space, and assume a location for the earth near the center of the universe (By the way there is some evidence for claiming the earth is near the center of the universe. PDF), to allow billions of years of light travel time to fit within 6000 years of “earth time.” And their theories allow all this to occur on Day 4.

Einstein proposed that not all clocks tick at the same rate. Gravity slows down the passage of time. It has been shown that higher gravitational fields slow down our clocks. Therefore, if the earth were near a high concentration of mass (high gravitational field), its clock (“earth clock”) may only show a few days or years of time, while the clocks of stars farther away from the high concentration of mass would show many thousands to billions of years. This would allow the distant starlight, using these faster clocks, to get to the earth. There are far more details on distant starlight and time dilation than this overly simplified explanation. Here are just a few of their articles and books:

Dr. John Hartnett’s book, “Starlight, Time and the New Physics,” or DVD “Starlight, Time and the New Physics,” or the DVD by Dr. Hartnett and Dr. Humphrey called, "Distant Startlight, A Forum DVD."

Dr. Robert Newton (actually a pen name) article “Distant starlight and Genesis: conventions of time measurement”

Dr. Russell Humphrey’s article, “New time dilation helps creation cosmology,” (or its qualitative version “A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 1”) book “Starlight and Time,” or DVD, “Starlight and Time”

Dr. Jason Lisle tries to summarize these theories. See one of his many articles online, book “Taking Back Astronomy”, or DVD “Distant Starlight”

There does seem to be new data that supports the idea that the earth (and our solar system) is in a gravity well and we are experiencing time dilation. See Dr. Humphreys’ article “Creationist cosmologies explain the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer spacecraft.” Quote, “… the ‘Pioneer effect’, an apparent small Sunward anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft. If a large volume of empty space surrounds the matter of the cosmos, so that the cosmos can have a centre of mass, then the matter is in a deep gravitational potential ‘well’. … The magnitude of the anomalous acceleration implies the bottom of the potential well has not yet risen very far above the critical depth for gravitational time dilation. Thus the Pioneer effect supports the essentials of several creationist cosmologies: a centre of mass, expansion of space and recent time dilation. Big bang theorists, whose cosmology does not have a centre of mass, cannot use this explanation. As yet, they have no alternative theory upon which they agree.”

Warning: these scientists from Answers In Genesis, Institute of Creation Research, and Creation Ministries International do an excellent job on the subject of Creation. But they do not follow what the New Testament says about how to become a Christian and how to worship God without additions and subtractions. Our worship becomes vain when we add or subtract “small” parts to what God authorized (Mark 7:7). Galatians 1:6-9; 5:2-4 shows that adding one "small" thing such as circumcision, causes Christians to "fall from grace." See the websites www.WhyBaptism.org, denominations, WhatDoesTheBibleSay, World Video Bible School, or www.SpiritualPerspectives.org for what the Bible says about how to become a Christian and worship God. The most spiritually trustworthy site on the subject of "Creation" is Apologetics Press.

Could the speed of light have changed?

Here are a few of the many reasons why creationists should not use any model that requires a change in the speed of light. If the great distances estimated for some galaxies is correct, then scientists who postulate a change in the speed of light are claiming an increase of at least million fold -- 5 billion years divided by 6000 years, or divided by only one week for Adam and Eve to have been able to see those distance galaxies, assuming the light from those galaxies were available to Adam and Eve. Even if they only claim the speed of light was 1000 times faster in the past, here are a few of the many problems:

If the speed of light was 1000 times greater in the past, then the light hitting Adam & Eve's skin would destroy their DNA and constantly be sun burning them. The retina in their eyes would be burned out. The rods and cones in their eyes would have to be different to respond properly to the light.

Visible light (white light) is made up of wavelengths that only vary by a factor of two: about 400 nanometers (blue-ultraviolet) to 800 nanometers (red). If the speed of light was 1000 times higher, then the wavelength would be 1000 times shorter. Therefore 400 to 800 nm wavelengths would have been 400 to 800 picometers. Imagine all the changes needed for these shorter wavelengths to interact with life (plants, animals with eyes, pigments in skin to protect the cells from damage, etc.)

Unless there were localized changes in light speed, the energy in these photons would be destructive to all life on Earth. The plants would have to have different DNA instructions to convert this higher energy and ...

E = mc² would mean nuclear reactions would lose 1,000,000 (1000²) times less mass for the same amount of energy given off. So why bother with any models that require a significant change in the speed of light. Light speed has been constant. Unless someone is suggesting the higher speed was not higher energy, or Plank's constant was different by a factor of 1000, or .....

But then what about momentum (although the rest mass of a photon is zero.)? E = mc² for photons (But I think I remember being taught that this mass is supposed to be the rest mass, and therefore zero?) The photon also carries momentum, and therefore it has a relativistic mass. Therefore a 1000x increase in speed (c) leads to a dramatic increase in momentum, if I have not misunderstood the following.

Wikipedia says: In empty space, the photon moves at c (the speed of light) and its energy and momentum are related by E = pc, where p is the magnitude of the momentum vector p. This derives from the following relativistic relation, with m = 0: Since p points in the direction of the photon's propagation, the magnitude of the momentum is

The photon also carries spin angular momentum that does not depend on its frequency. But let us get back to the main point in this article.

Is God a Deceiver?

The men who developed these alternate theories said they were motivated by the same argument the evolutionists use against the idea of God creating the starlight, on its way to the earth, at the same time as He created the stars (all in parallel). Evolutionists say the distant starlight from a supernova explosion implies that God is a deceiver if the explosion never occurred. No, God created the universe to show His glory. How could He create a star 4.3 light-years away and have the light be seen by Adam and Eve on day 6? Could Adam (on day 6) have examined the light from that nearest star and claimed the information contained in the photons proved the star was created 4.3 years ago, and not 2 days ago?

Remember, on day 6 of Creation week we could say the same thing about the chicken. The chicken as an embryo never existed. The egg never existed. The chick never existed. We see the chicken and assume it came from an egg that actually never existed. Therefore God is a deceiver?

Many evolutionists (and many Creationists) say the light must have originated from the actual star because the light has characteristics that show it originated from the star.  (By the way this is also circular reasoning, they are assuming what they are trying to prove.)  They are saying 1) the light shows spectral spreading (due to passing through gravitational fields), 2) neutrinos preceded the SN 1987A by three hours as expected, 3) red shift is consistent with the Hubble law, etc. and this proves the light originated at the star and has travelled the vast distances which must take vast amounts of time (or time dilation, as many Biblical creationists would claim). 

What does all this mean? They are saying the color (wavelength) of each photon (light particle) is exactly what we would expect only if it really travelled great distances. But again, the same thing could be said by these scientists about the chicken on day 6. Every experimental measurement combined with the assumption that the chicken was not created but came from an egg, would show the chicken to be much older than one day. If God could get the chicken right, why couldn’t He get the color of the tiny photons right?

Just like a painter must get the colors right for us to appreciate their art work, the evolutionists say that if God got the colors right, then He would be a deceiver. Let me illustrate:

Think of God as a painter who paints a 4D (three physical dimensions plus time) painting. They are saying the Bible says God painted a 4D painting, but He cannot get the colors right without deceiving us. Imagine you were a 3D painter. An astronomer asks you to paint a picture of the moon. You create the moon on your 3D canvas, but you also create small points of light as if they were the stars around the moon. The following week you show your picture to the astronomer and he says, “You got the moon details correct, but you cannot put those small points of light (stars) there until after the stars you created have had at least 4 years to get their light to the earth.” Then if you tell him that you just made the photons from the stars he says, “But I measured the color of light from those stars on this painting and that proves they originated from the star and that is not possible in only a week. Either you painted a contradiction or you are a liar!”

Mature Creation

Many scientists, who have concluded that their science confirms the events recorded in the Bible, have documented that God made a mature creation. God made an “adult” creation. The trees, valleys, chickens, oceans, stars, galaxies, etc. were made in a mature “adult” form. Astronomers who want to believe in a universe billions of years old do not accept the idea that the distant starlight observations just indicate a mature universe. Evolutionists assume that when they look billions of light-years in space that they are looking billions of years into the past.

But evolutionists do not tell you that they have a problem with their Big Bang theory when they “look back in time.” Evolutionists say the universe is 13.7 billion years old. If God did not create a mature creation, and the Big Bang was the correct model of the universe, then starlight from 12 billion light-years away should be showing us young stars and young galaxies. If the starlight is 12 billion years old then the starlight should show us stars and galaxies that are young (only one or two billion years old) -- Young being defined by the Big Bang model of star formation, galaxy formation, and galaxy clusters formation.  

According the Big Bang and the laws of physics, it should take far more than one to two billion years for some galaxy structures and galaxy clusters to form. Black holes at the center of these distant galaxies should not have had enough time for their star to have evolved from the Big bang, then burn out, then form a black hole, then situate itself near the center of a galaxy of stars. See the article titled, “Distant Galactic Cluster Should Not Exist.” In this article Brian Thomas said;

• … but they (evolutionists) assume that "early" galaxies would look quite different from present-day ones.  Thus, they were shocked to find fully matured galaxies so far away from so "long ago."

• Texas A&M University astronomer Casey Papovich led a research team that discovered a cluster of 60 galaxies, one of which is a behemoth with 10 times the number of stars as the Milky Way.  The clusters looked similar to ones found in regions that are closer to the earth in much "older" regions of space.

• … Similar discoveries of "mature" structures in distant regions have plagued Big Bang theories for many years.  These anomalous findings, like many others, again illustrate mankind's dearth of knowledge about even some of the most basic features of outer space.  They also add to a list of astronomical observations that fly in the face of the Big Bang, which is at heart more philosophy than science.  This underlying philosophy denies that the supernatural (God) had anything to do with forming the universe.

• Although some stellar structures may seem like the result of vast ages of natural processes, this conclusion relies on the assumption that biblical creation never happened.  Just as Adam and Eve and their then-new earth home appeared "mature" after only six days, so also very distant galactic clusters look "mature."  Perhaps God, "which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever," placed the galaxies out there as signposts to point to Himself.

God gave mankind His Word long before men measured the vast distances to these stars and galaxies. His Word (the Bible) has information that is miraculous (see www.MiraculousBible.org). Therefore man knew the Bible must be from God (see video “How We Got the Bible”) long before man tried to come up with distant starlight arguments to make the Bible wrong. The history of man’s attacks on the Bible, turn out to be a history of man’s mistakes. Man has always attacked God’s Word and found out later that God’s Word was correct and their pet theories were proven wrong. As many historians have said, “Unless we study and learn from our own history, we are doomed to repeat our mistakes.” Why do today’s evolutionists not learn from their own history? Probably because the only alternative to such a study is to conclude that given enough time, God’s Word will prove to be superior to any theory of man that tries to contradict God’s Word. And if God exists, then He sets the rules. Here is an online video showing the Bible's scientific foreknowledge and how man has been attacking God's Word for centuries, only to find out the Bible was scientifically correct and they were wrong.

Evidences for Miraculous Bible

The evidences for the Bible (see online video by Kyle Butt) are so great that scholars like Sir William Ramsey -- who initially said the book of Acts was greatly flawed and its author was a poor historian -- changed their minds once they examined the evidences for themselves. Mr. Ramsey finally concluded that the author of Acts (Luke - guided by the Holy Spirit) was one of “the very greatest of historians.” For details of what Sir William Ramsey found and how it changed his view of the Bible, read the historical account recorded in the free PDF version of the book online, “Sir William M. Ramsay:” by W. Ward Gasque. Even the world’s top debaters for atheism, Dr. Flew has given up on atheism (Article Atheist Finally “Sobers Up”  or Amazon book, "... How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind"). See how poor the world's top atheist’s arguments really are. See the top arguments used by Scientific American magazine (PDF) and this four night debate with the world's foremost atheist -video.

Here are some articles showing the history of man’s attacks on the Bible:

1. Archaeology and the New Testament

2. The Bible’s Buried Secrets

3. Bible Accuracy

4. In Defense of the Bible's Inspiration

5. The Incredible Accuracy of the Bible: An Argument for Inspiration

6. What Was that “Light” before the Sun (Genesis 1:3)?

7. Does the Bible Contain Contradictions?

8. 13 Online Video Lessons: History, Archaeology And The Bible

What would make the Bible a miracle?
What would be considered as evidence it could only be from God? 

Visit the website www.MiraculousBible.org for the evidence. Example: See the article or video called "Do Bible Believers Do Better Science?" (PDF or 640x480 video)

• Do Bible Believers Do Better Science?

• Did Most Of The Founders Of The Major Scientific Disciplines Defend The Bible's Account Of Creation?

• Did The Bible Reveal Scientific Facts Long Before Men of Science Discovered Them?

• The writings of mankind have always contained scientific errors. When the Bible was completed (2000 years ago), how did it avoid repeating the scientific errors of mankind?

If you could prove the Bible was from God, would you study it more? We can, and we do. Be like Isaac Newton. He studied and took notes from his Bible more than he ever did science. His personal papers showed that he wrote about 1.3 million words on Biblical subjects (about 20 standard size text books). He wrote strong papers refuting atheism and defending creation and the Bible.

If you like history, see the historical evidence that proves the Bible has recorded history more accurately than any ancient document that man has ever produced. Its historical record is beyond the capabilities of man.

In the early 1900s the French Academy of Science had a list of scientific “facts” that they said contradicted the Bible. Today, every one of those supposed facts have since been proven wrong by science.

So why should we expect anything different about the argument on distant starlight?

Creation-Miracle Means the Historical Age is Less Than the Apparent Age

Let us ask a fundamental question. How could God create anything out of nothing without its scientific age and apparent age, being older than its historical age? The definition of a miracle (creation out of nothing) requires the historical age to be less than the apparent age. Anything that is a first generation creation has to "look" older than its historical age. One of the keys to understanding this whole controversy is the idea of a first generation. When God created the first generation of fruit trees, animals, and humans He said they were to reproduce after their own kind.

 Reproduction means the second generation plants, animals, and humans would have their historical age match their apparent age. In other words, as soon as we measure the age of second generation items, third generation, fourth generation, etc., then the historical age should equal the apparent age.

So what about distant starlight? First we have to ask, “Is this distant starlight a first generation like substance?” Example: let us assume the age of a star is precisely equal to the earth's age, 6000 years old. (and for now, assume there has been no time dilation due to gravity slowing down our clocks.)  Let us assume we are seeing light from this star and this star’s distance from earth is exactly 6001 light-years. This means the light we are seeing did not originate at the star, but was created six trillion miles (one light-year) closer to the earth, traveling on its way to the earth—i.e. 6000 light-years away from the earth. One year later (the time for light to travel the extra light-year—six trillion miles) the light that originated at the surface of the star now reaches our telescope. Would we see any difference in the light? No. We would not be able to tell the difference between light created out of nothing (six trillion miles from the star) and the light from the surface of the star—that was also created out of nothing. The “information” in the light (photons) contains "apparent age.” The light is mature and the star is mature. The light and the star are first generation items. Since they are a first generation substance (created), their apparent age would be greater than their historical age. We had to wait a year for the photons from that star to have the same historical age as their apparent age.

If God did not create mature photons when He created the mature universe, then what would be the results? What would our night sky look like? There would not be enough time for any of the following to have matured, i.e. stars sending their light to earth.

1. There would be very few stars in the night sky. Adam would never have seen any stars to show God’s glory until 4.3 years after creation.

2. No old stars. All the stars would look like they were less than 6000 years old.

3. Our sun would be producing only 70% of the energy we have today. The ocean waters would be frozen.  (Evolutionists say the early sun only had 70% of the output that it has today.)

4. There would be no stars old enough to burn out and show us their explosive power. No supernovas, no neutron stars, no white dwarfs, no black holes, etc.

5. We would see only the stars in a small portion of one of the arms of the Milky Way in which we exist.

6. We would not know that galaxies existed. We would not have even discovered our own Milky Way galaxy.  (The Milky Way is 100,000 light years across)

7. Even if we could travel and observe the galaxies, they would not have formed yet.

8. There would be no spiral arms in our Milky Way galaxy yet. By the way, these same spiral arms on many galaxies show that they cannot be billions of years old as evolutionists claim. If they were, their arms would be far more wound up (even if you take into account gravity waves, dark matter, and dark energy). See Evidence for a Young World, Dr. Humphrey, Ph.D. Physics

9. But the main difference is that we would not be able to see the heavens declaring the glory of God (Psalms 19:1).

So what can we conclude? Distant starlight is consistent with everything else God created. God created everything in its mature from and it shows His glory. It has shown His glory since the day it was created. Remember our example of a scientist today being transported back in time to the 7th day of creation. Science cannot measure age without making certain historical assumptions. If these scientists make a historical assumption that the fruit tree came from a seed, they would say the scientific age was many years. If they assumed the chicken came from an egg, they would say the chicken was far older than one day. If they assume the distant starlight originated at the surface of the star, they would say its scientific age is billions of years.

Conclusion

1. We have seen the embedded historical assumptions that evolutionists do not tell us about. Determining the historical age of anything older than the age of the observer requires making many historical assumptions.  One of the historical assumptions that evolutionists make is to deny creation by God (yet they allow miracles like the creation of the universe from nothing by their Big Bang god).

2. There are at least three types of ages.  By definition, anything that is miraculously created requires the historical age to be less than the apparent age.

3. The story of the candle illustrates the evolutionists' bias.

4. Those who are unwilling to love (surrender to) truth, God will allow to have strong delusions (2 Thess. 2:10-11).  Evolution is one of those strong delusions.

5. We saw what motivated many famous evolutionists to believe there is no God.  The fruits of atheism are bitter.  Man’s emotions can cause him to select only the facts he wants and ignore the facts that contradict his theories.  Evolutionists who accuse God of being a deceiver have not read their Bibles properly.  Unfortunately, most people who call themselves Christians also have not read their Bibles properly (rightly divide - 2 Timothy 2:15). See www.WhyBaptism.org.

6. Evolutionists do not inform the public that they have a light travel problem.  Even with 13.7 billion years, they do not have enough time.

7. God is not Superman.  God is the ultimate parallel processor.

8. Other young earth models use time dilation to explain the distant starlight.

9. A mature creation does not mean God is a deceiver.  God told us when He created everything.  And we have had this message from God long before man discovered how to estimate those vast distances to the stars.

10. There are many evidences for the miraculous Bible (www.MiraculousBible.org).  The Bible contains information that man could not have known thousands of years ago, and there were many famous scientists who defended the Bible.

The Bible says God created the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them in six days (Exodus 20:11). Anything originally created must, by definition, be younger than its apparent age. When evolutionists ignore the historical testimony of God, they make up “just so” stories that may sound good, but their “just so” stories have failed the test of time, for thousands of years. Man has always attacked God’s Word. The majority of the world’s “smart people” have always believed these attacks (1 Cor 1:26, 2 Peter 3:5-6). As evolutionists have modified their theories, they have had to change their attacks on God's Word.

Let's take the age of the earth for example.  Evolutionists kept changing their minds on the age of the earth, yet failed to realize their past mistakes indicate that their present theories are questionable. Starting just 300 years ago, they claimed the earth was 75,000 years old, then 75 million years old, then 200 million, then 800 million, then 4.6 billion.  It would be nice to hear them to admit their errors like this:

“We evolutionists were wrong. 300 years ago, we thought we could prove the earth was 75 thousand years old. But now we know it is 75 million years old."

"Oops. We were wrong again. We used to think we had proved the earth was 75 million years old, but now we know for certain that it is about 200 million years old."

"Oops. We were wrong again. We used to think we had proved the earth was 200 million years old, but now we know for certain that it is about 800 million years old."

"Oops. We were wrong again. We used to think we had proved the earth was 800 million years old, but now we know for certain, without a doubt, that it is about 4.6 billion years old."

"So you can trust us when we say that distant starlight proves the Bible is wrong, or God is a deceiver.”

Here is what we should remember. In just the last 300 years, man’s anti-biblical theories have been proven wrong time after time by the evolutionists themselves. So why should we believe their latest figure?

Man’s collective wisdom has yet to imagine a consistent, testable reality without the God of the Bible. (Societies who try to live without God have terrible results: See Hitler; Liberal, Missouri; and more.)  So who are you going to listen to: man’s anti-biblical theories that have a history of being proven wrong century after century, or God’s Word that has withstood the test of time?