Stars Went Billions of Years Back in Time When Created.

[Gabrielman]

Well, Rick. If the stars went back in time billions of years, then they would be billions of years old now wouldn't they?

Wouldn't that contradict your own belief? How could stars go back in to a time that never existed to begin with? If the universe is 6,000 years old, then the stars traveled back before the creation of the universe and time itself, which isn't possible since that time doesn't exist. So wouldn't the stars be outside of time then? Which would make them ageless, that is until they entered time, which was when they would begin to age, which would make them only 6,000 years old, and therefore only seem 6,000 years old. Right? Also, light travels at the speed of light, and nothing goes faster than the speed of light. So how would the light producing stars go faster than the light they produced in order to travel back in time? Just some of my thought while reading this through.

[cslewislover]

Even if it were possible, how would stars do that on their own?

[Canuckster1127]

I wish I had more to contribute. It's certainly a possibility that something in the "singularity" (which is the term used by Physicists to describe the beginning of the universe) when and if it is ever adequately captured and understood might well demonstrate that what we perceive as age in terms of the universe is illusary.

Things physically in terms of the age of the universe estimate given today are determined by science by extrapolating things out of what we perceive to be constant such as the speed of light. Observations such as the universe seemingly expanding from a single point and then observing red-shifting of light to confirm that the time and distance indicated so rely on these things.

Now, I think it's also important to note that this type of conversation, to my understanding, is talking about the micro-seconds immediately following the singularity. In terms of consistent observations, etc. etc. confirming the age of the universe there's overwhelming evidence to support those claims. In terms of the beginning times of the earth and our specific galaxy, we're not talking about the singularity. That lies about 10 billion years before what the current examined physical evidence shows.

I have no problem with anyone looking at this and without a high-level of familiarity with the evidence noting that we don't know everything and so perhaps we should be careful about stating more than we know. What bothers me when it happens is when people hold out that kind of statement but then they haven't gone to the minimal effort of examining what the evidence is. When some group, and I'll be the first to admit that it's a very small minority of YEC proponents, tosses these types of arguments out, then what it looks to me like is they're not really engaging in the conversation in a respectful manner objectively looking at the evidence and possibilities. What happens in some instances, is that the statement is made to cast doubt on the scientific worldview with regard to the age of the earth but there's nothing to replace it with that puts the same effort and respect for the evidence. It's no wonder that some in the scientific community look upon some religious people and decide that if that's the basis of their religion, they want nothing to do with it.

The introduction of these thoughts then are simple used as a debating technique to cast doubt, but then they provide certainty from their perspective based upon, and the example we saw earlier was a small King James Only group that basically proclaims that because of the doubt they've presumed to cast upon science because of what is not known, that allows that their interpretation of Scripture (and I intentionally emphasize interpretation because they aren't open in acknowledging that this is an interpretation on their part and not necessarily the clearly given word of God.)

There's a lot we don't know. There's been a huge amount of recent information such as the presence and nature of "dark matter", the nature of black holes (until very recently it was not known what really happened to the matter sucked in and if and how it ever came out) and there will undoubtedly be more discoveries made that will redefine what we think we know now.

I have no problem with that. I freely admit as an Old Earth creationist that my belief is rooted in Scripture first and what I believe to be a progressive understanding, like YEC, that has somewhat changed and morphed as other understanding have been forwarded.

Does the doubt that rightly exists within science (and to some extent too within hermeneutics which are also subject to change although more slowly and often time reluctantly) mean that it's possible that there will be some understanding come out that provides an answer that somehow reconciles these views of science and affirms what the bible has to say in terms of time spans (at least under one interpretation as held by YEC) and that it might have something to do with relativity and the perception of time? Yes, I have to admit that's one possibility out of a myriad of others. A little humility is called here I think for believers on all sides of the question to back off absolute statements.

If that's your point, even where I may disagree with you as to what's more likely, I have no problem with that.

[truthman]

Well, Rick. If the stars went back in time billions of years, then they would be billions of years old now wouldn't they?

Wouldn't that contradict your own belief? How could stars go back in to a time that never existed to begin with? If the universe is 6,000 years old, then the stars traveled back before the creation of the universe and time itself, which isn't possible since that time doesn't exist. So wouldn't the stars be outside of time then? Which would make them ageless, that is until they entered time, which was when they would begin to age, which would make them only 6,000 years old, and therefore only seem 6,000 years old. Right? Also, light travels at the speed of light, and nothing goes faster than the speed of light. So how would the light producing stars go faster than the light they produced in order to travel back in time? Just some of my thought while reading this through.

If matter went backwards in time then, then it would create the time before creation, just as matter going forward in time creates the time as it goes forward. The universe would then be billions of years old, not thousands.
Nothing goes faster than the speed of light, true, yet it has been proposed as a possibility and general relativity describing time as a 4th dimension allows for the possibility. Then, in the development of the big bang theory, it is essential that there was a period of inflation when space expanded exponentially (faster than the speed of light).
I didn't make it up. I am just trying to look at some of the implications.

[truthman]

Even if it were possible, how would stars do that on their own?

They wouldn't.

[cslewislover]

Even if it were possible, how would stars do that on their own?

They wouldn't.

Why or why not could anything have gone backwards in time from the beginning of Creation?

You asked about anything doing this, and you're talking about the stars doing it, so now you're not saying the stars are doing it? What is, then? Please be clear.

If matter went backwards in time then

How could it do this? By what motive?

[Gabrielman]

If matter went backwards in time then, then it would create the time before creation, just as matter going forward in time creates the time as it goes forward. The universe would then be billions of years old, not thousands.
Nothing goes faster than the speed of light, true, yet it has been proposed as a possibility and general relativity describing time as a 4th dimension allows for the possibility. Then, in the development of the big bang theory, it is essential that there was a period of inflation when space expanded exponentially (faster than the speed of light).
I didn't make it up. I am just trying to look at some of the implications.

Why would they go back in time? If the stars created time then wouldn't that mean that the universe is ~14 Billion years old? Also, if the stars created that time, then wouldn't that mean that the universe started to exist at the very moment in time in which they stopped moving back in time; and if not then does that mean the universe started way later, after it was made? Which would mean that the universe was started that long ago, right? What would be the point of God allowing the stars to do so when He could have just created the universe that long ago to begin with?

[cslewislover]

Bart, do you know much about Schroeder's theories? Do they relate to this at all?

[truthman]

Does the doubt that rightly exists within science (and to some extent too within hermeneutics which are also subject to change although more slowly and often time reluctantly) mean that it's possible that there will be some understanding come out that provides an answer that somehow reconciles these views of science and affirms what the bible has to say in terms of time spans (at least under one interpretation as held by YEC) and that it might have something to do with relativity and the perception of time? Yes, I have to admit that's one possibility out of a myriad of others. A little humility is called here I think for believers on all sides of the question to back off absolute statements.

If that's your point, even where I may disagree with you as to what's more likely, I have no problem with that.

Thank you: with that decent attitude we might welcome you back to Canada some day.
So, can we look seriously at the proposition, what is possible and what is not, etc.? I am most happy that you seem to have something to contribute. I value your input.

[Canuckster1127]

Bart, do you know much about Schroeder's theories? Do they relate to this at all?

I'm pretty sure it does. August knows more about it than I do. But Schroeder is certainly a main proponent of the idea the relativity allows for some divergent understandings that might reconcile a Young Earth Position hermeneutically with physical evidence that is possible but not confirmed yet.

Schroeder doesn't cleanly fall into an OEC or YEC position but he's usually cataloged by others as a form of OEC as OEC has a broader base than YEC overall.

[cslewislover]

Truthman, you want good attitudes, right? I asked you seriously, and I didn't expect such an answer (the two word answer seems very trite to me). Will you please answer me? I wouldn't have asked if I didn't want to know.

[Gabrielman]

So is it just me or is physics weird?

[cslewislover]

Bart, do you know much about Schroeder's theories? Do they relate to this at all?

I'm pretty sure it does. August knows more about it than I do. But Schroeder is certainly a main proponent of the idea the relativity allows for some divergent understandings that might reconcile a Young Earth Position hermeneutically with physical evidence that is possible but not confirmed yet.

Schroeder doesn't cleanly fall into an OEC or YEC position but he's usually cataloged by others as a form of OEC as OEC has a broader base than YEC overall.

Thanks. I really need to read a book or two of his.

[truthman]

Why would they go back in time? If the stars created time then wouldn't that mean that the universe is ~14 Billion years old? Also, if the stars created that time, then wouldn't that mean that the universe started to exist at the very moment in time in which they stopped moving back in time; and if not then does that mean the universe started way later, after it was made? Which would mean that the universe was started that long ago, right? What would be the point of God allowing the stars to do so when He could have just created the universe that long ago to begin with?

Any matter travelling faster than the speed of light would go back in time: that is why.
Yes, it would mean the universe is billions of years old, although it wasn't created that long ago.
God does not live in time. Time means nothing to God. We want time to be simple, neat, straightforward: start at point A, go forward equally everywhere in a nice neat line and arrive at point B. However, time turns out to be much more complicated than that. God could allow things to go backwards in time if he wanted to, and it may well fit into a workable big bang theory (equations that describe how God did it).

[truthman]

Truthman, you want good attitudes, right? I asked you seriously, and I didn't expect such an answer (the two word answer seems very trite to me). Will you please answer me? I wouldn't have asked if I didn't want to know.

Sorry. I didn't mean to be trite. I was simply acknowledging that you were correct. I typed it with a smile if that helps.