Stellar Evolution, Distant Starlight and Biblical Authority

I am currently studying astronomy and stellar evolution (quite different from macro evolution) and have come to the conclusion that the Earth and the universe is not only 6000 years old. There are stars and galaxies that are billions of light years away that we can see. If the light traveling from the star travels one light year a year (the definition of a light year) and takes that much time to reach us, the universe has to be at least that old, if not more.

We also know that stars that begin as gas and are then compacted into protostars and then become full fledged stars on the mainsequence for millions of years. They then go supernova and spread all of their elements throughout space.

The proton-proton cycle turns hydrogen to helium in a star and then the triple alpha process turns helium into carbon-the same carbon that makes up human beings. The carbon is then sent through space along with oxygen and iron and numerous other elements made in a star. That is why hydrogen is the most abundent element, stars use it to make everything else.

What was God supposed to tell Moses? That he blew up millions of stars billions of years ago and fused their elements to make the Earth in an interstellar vacuum? It would be much easier for Moses to explain it in a parable that Moses could actually understand. The geneologies we have are true, but incomplete, as many generations were left out. Honestly, how were they supposed to remember that many names? They simply remembered the important figures. Adam, the first man, walked this Earth around 50,000 years ago, not 6,000.

What is a day to God? We created the 24 hour system based on the earth’s rotation. What is a day on Mars or Neptune or deep space where there is no sun. God is the God of the universe, not exclusively Earth, even though it is important. God created first and then came the definition of a day, not the other way around.

How can anyone say for certain that the universe is only a couple of thousand of years old when what is actually in the universe is not even known. Using high powered telescopes, we can see about 18 billion light years away, and then everything stops. What’s wrong? Is the telescope broken? Do we need to build a bigger one? No. The biggest telescope in the universe could not see what is 19 billion light years away. There’s stuff out there, but the universe is only 18 billion years old. The light has not had enough time to even reach us yet!!

I agree with you that we did not come from monkies (DNA science proves this) and that evolution is false, but to reject avaiable evidence that the universe is older than we want it to be is bad science.

S.D.
USA

I am currently studying astronomy and stellar evolution (quite different from macro evolution) and have come to the conclusion that the Earth and the universe is not only 6000 years old. There are stars and galaxies that are billions of light years away that we can see.

This just means that the universe is very big. It doesn’t indicate that it is old unless you make secular assumptions (as will be shown). I want to encourage and challenge you to really think about what your professor is teaching; learn to separate facts from interpretations. Learn to recognize the assumptions (especially anti-biblical assumptions) that go into various theories, and not just blindly accept everything you are taught in your astronomy class.

If the light traveling from the star travels one light year a year (the definition of a light year) and takes that much time to reach us, the universe has to be at least that old, if not more.

Let’s think through some of the many hidden assumptions in this line of reasoning. First, you have assumed that light has always traveled at the same speed. (Most creationists think this is probably a reasonable assumption—but it is an assumption, not an observable fact.) Second, you have assumed that the effects of gravitational time dilation are insignificant. Einstein tells us that time can flow at different rates under different circumstances. Under the right conditions, light from the most distant galaxies could have arrived at Earth in very short amounts of time. Yet you seem to have totally ignored this important principle of physics.

Third, you have assumed (without justification) a particular synchrony convention. The terrestrial equivalent of this fallacy would be assuming that noon in England is the same as noon in Cincinnati. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, you have assumed that the light arrived entirely by natural means. However, God created the stars supernaturally during Creation Week (Genesis 1:14–19) and made them to give light upon Earth. Since this happened during Creation Week, God may have used different means to get distant starlight here than the “natural” means by which He upholds the universe today. Such reasoning is no different than those who reject the resurrection of Christ because it cannot be explained by natural forces.

We would also point out that the big bang (the most popular secular alternative to biblical creation) has a light travel-time problem of its own (the horizon problem).

We also know that stars that begin as gas and are then compacted into protostars and then become full fledged stars on the mainsequence for millions of years.

This is not known; it is blindly assumed by those who reject biblical creation. Have you or anyone else ever observed a star form? It supposedly takes millions of years (in the secular model), so no one could actually observe it even in principle. Those who believe in the big bang and secular models of star formation have no observational evidence that these things have occurred nor is there any sort of recorded eyewitness account. However, Christians have a perfect eyewitness and His recorded account. God was there and He told us how and when He did it: Genesis 1:14.

They then go supernova and spread all of their elements throughout space.

We have observed supernova and so we would agree on that part. But whether or not supernova spread all of their elements throughout space is questionable. In the secular view, the central portion of the star (the “core”) has the heavier elements that it has produced from fusion. But the core is not blasted away in the supernova; rather it collapses to form either a neutron star, or black hole.

The proton-proton cycle turns hydrogen to helium in a star

Although this is not directly observed, we do directly observe the neutrinos that are produced in the process. So we have good scientific reasons to accept this theory. However, much of the rest of what you have written is not well established by observation; it is instead assumed to be true based merely on secular beliefs.

and then the triple alpha process turns helium into carbon-the same carbon that makes up human beings. The carbon is then sent through space along with oxygen and iron and numerous other elements made in a star. That is why hydrogen is the most abundent element, stars use it to make everything else.

That’s the secular story. It is the atheistic/secular attempt to explain the abundance of the elements. We would like to point out that God tells us that the earth was created first and that Adam was created from the dust of the earth not the stars. Since the earth was created first then we are made from the carbon of the earth not of the stars. Also, all of the above statements are assumed without any evidence. Big bang supporters themselves acknowledge that the big bang could not have produced anything heavier than lithium, so the only way to explain the heavier elements, like carbon, is to say that the stars did it. Notice there is no observational evidence or recorded eyewitness accounts to support this, just man’s fallible opinions about the past.

The real issue is this: Do you place your faith in ideas about the past by men who weren’t there and are imperfect, or do you place your faith in God’s perfect Word, who eyewitnessed the past? Who are you going to trust first?

What was God supposed to tell Moses? That he blew up millions of stars billions of years ago and fused their elements to make the Earth in an interstellar vacuum? It would be much easier for Moses to explain it in a parable that Moses could actually understand.

The idea that Moses was not intelligent enough to understand how God really created (thereby forcing God to use a parable) is an example of what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery”. Genesis is not written as a parable, but as historic narrative. The frequent use of the Hebrew waw-consecutive, the specific names and places, even the Hebrew verb forms1 used, all confirm that Genesis is literal history. If God had used the big bang and billions of years, He certainly could have stated so in Hebrew in a way that Moses would have understood (see Genesis according to evolution).

The geneologies we have are true, but incomplete, as many generations were left out. Honestly, how were they supposed to remember that many names? They simply remembered the important figures. Adam, the first man, walked this Earth around 50,000 years ago, not 6,000.

How do you know that many generations were left out? Jude points out that Enoch was the seventh from Adam, giving clear testimony that the genealogies were accurate. The idea that there are gaps in the genealogies is refuted in the article Are There Gaps in the Genesis Genealogies?.

What is a day to God? We created the 24 hour system based on the earth’s rotation. What is a day on Mars or Neptune or deep space where there is no sun. God is the God of the universe, not exclusively Earth, even though it is important. God created first and then came the definition of a day, not the other way around.

You’re right about one thing: God is the God of the universe, not just the earth. But God did create the day in Genesis 1 and defined what it was: God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day (Genesis 1:5). Notice that day is defined two ways here: the daylight portion or one rotation of Earth with respect to a light source. It cannot be a day on any other planet, because the sun, stars and other planets were not created until the fourth day.

It would be very presumptuous of us as fallible, sinful human beings to tell a perfect God how He really created everything.

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell [Me,] if you have understanding, (Job 38:4)

We should be learning from God, not rewriting what He said He did.

How can anyone say for certain that the universe is only a couple of thousand of years old when what is actually in the universe is not even known.

God fully knows everything about the universe. He was there when it was created, so He knows exactly how old it is. And He has given us some of that knowledge through His Word. It would be folly to reject what He has told us, and instead rely on human speculations about the past when “the universe is not even known” (fully) by humans.

Using high powered telescopes, we can see about 18 billion light years away, and then everything stops. What’s wrong? Is the telescope broken? Do we need to build a bigger one? No. The biggest telescope in the universe could not see what is 19 billion light years away. There’s stuff out there, but the universe is only 18 billion years old. The light has not had enough time to even reach us yet!!

Actually, secular astronomers claim the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. They assume without any evidence at all that the galaxies go on forever, but that we can’t see them beyond a certain distance for whatever reason—perhaps because the light hasn’t reached us yet. But what if the reason we don’t see galaxies beyond a certain distance is because there are none beyond that distance. That’s at least as reasonable as any other explanation. And if true, it would mean that our portion of the galaxy is in a gravitational well—which causes time-dilation. This potentially would make starlight from the most distant regions of the universe arrive on Earth in only thousands of years Earth-time. See How can we see distant stars in a young universe?

I agree with you that we did not come from monkies (DNA science proves this) and that evolution is false, but to reject avaiable evidence that the universe is older than we want it to be is bad science.

S.D.
USA

But then evolutionists would say that rejecting their interpretation of a high level of human-chimp DNA similarity is bad science. The real issue is whether or not you are going to trust a perfect God’s Word about the past or fallible man’s ideas. S.D., I want to encourage you to trust God’s Word and not reinterpret it based on man’s ideas.

In His name and for His glory,
Dr. Jason Lisle and David Wright
AiG–USA