Hyper velocity stars like LMC runaways ...

[oxmixmudd]

Saw this review of a paper today ( https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-fsi062817.php )

NOTE: the link in the article to to the paper is invalid, use https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...3/mnras/stx848

Summary: Data analysis of hypervelocity stars correlated with the orbit of the Large Magellenic Cloud (LMC) indicate this stars are more likely to have originated with the cloud and inherited a large component of their velocity as observed in the Milky Way from that satellite galaxy's orbit. This offers a more plausible explanation of their origin (previous explanations implied what appeared to be somewhat rare sources and conditions) and is consistent with a locality which appears to be isolated to a few constellations.

While the study itself is interesting in and of itself, in terms of the debates that tend to rage here on TWEB, it is significant in that:

1) This is an example of the DATA driving the conclusion. Nobody made up the fact these stars have a velocity that is hard to explain, nobody forced the stars to tend to be found in certain constellations, nobody made the physics of alternative explanations unlikely.

2) This is an example of a state with implications for a history of the universe that must be measured in millions of years, not thousands. The LMC is hundreds of thousands of light years away. Even at the hyper velocity of these stars (>500km/s = .0016c), this implies around 96 million years for these stars to cross from the LMC into the Milky way assuming its current distance of ~160,000 ly.

3) to explain this sort of thing in a young universe (i.e. YEC's 6 to 10,000 years) requires the theologically troublesome assumption God created the universe with a 'pretend' history* - one that didn't actually happen, but one for which the current state of the universe is 100% consistent.


Jim

*or the introduction of 'special physics' a la Humphrey's WHC

[TheLurch]

See, i already knew this, because i kept seeing their photos on milk cartons.

[Just Passing Through]

[stfoskey15]

3) to explain this sort of thing in a young universe (i.e. YEC's 6 to 10,000 years) requires the theologically troublesome assumption God created the universe with a 'pretend' history* - one that didn't actually happen, but one for which the current state of the universe is 100% consistent.

We already have things like radioactive dating and measurements of distances to stars and galaxies more than 6,000 light years away. If none of that convinces YECs, why would this be any different?

[oxmixmudd]

We already have things like radioactive dating and measurements of distances to stars and galaxies more than 6,000 light years away. If none of that convinces YECs, why would this be any different?

One never knows what will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. For me it was most notably first Stellar distances and ice layers, then paleo-rivers and Lake Suigetsu -but by no means was it just those. Eventually it all became just too much. Many YECs only read AIG/ICR etc and they have no idea the amount of evidence and its consiliency. Each random encounter with that data builds one after the other until perhaps it breaks through.


Jim

[rogue06]

Hi. When you brought up some of these points a couple years ago in a similar discussion I wrote a response that if you don't mind I'm going to re-post here:

This brings up a problem which is there is a difference between a world created with an appearance of age and one created with an appearance of history. In the former case these would include things necessary to function while in the latter they are unnecessary features that give a false indication of great age.

An appearance of age, as noted, may be necessary. A oak tree, to be fully mature, has to at least be fairly tall with a full spread of branches. An appearance of history, however, is not necessary and this is where creationists who propose it makes God out to be a deceiver. That tree would have no need of such things as annual growth rings, woody knots (which exist at the site where a limb had previously broken off and was grown over) or signs of healed damage. They are not necessary for the functioning of the tree and only serve as a record of the history of the tree's existence^[1][2], and this invitation makes no sense if we would arrive at the wrong conclusions doing so. Why would God tell us to go look at natural history to learn about His Godly nature and power if natural history didn't record real history? To put it another way, if God is a god of truth, then the creation should reflect this.

As I already noted, in Romans 1 we find that we are held accountable by the evidence of nature:

Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse --Romans 1:20

1.2.

Thanks.

[oxmixmudd]

This one is a good bit to try to address it all. But I do applaud you attempting to engage and not just going off in some tangent. I have always said that the only self-consistent YEC position is 'appearance' of age. So from my perspective - the only way to approach the issue is not through science, which can only support the 13.7 billion years universe and the remaining conclusions, but rather to find some sort of sound theological reasoning that can approach these issues:

Why would God create such an appearance of age and more importantly such a record of false history?
How can God do so without violating fundamental principles of truth and trustworthiness?


Ah, but a universe that evolved over time also leaves room for doubt without introducing the issue of deceptions. The universe looks old because it really is old, not just because it appears to be. Secondarily, consider the difference between Adam created with a mature body (appearance of age) and Adam created with false memories of a lifetime from child to his current adult stature, complete with parents and grandparents. The first one could perhaps justify. The second - very, very hard to justify. Does it really make sense for God to ask Adam to just 'believe' he was created yesterday in spite of all those memories? The state of the universe is far more like the second state than the first. All those animals fossilized, many with forensic evidence of injuries from the events surrounding their death. Yet that is all false. Stars that explode and give us full information about their makeup and the products of their explosions - yet they never really existed. Light that - past 6000 or so light years is completely fictitious. And, as in the op, stars (some of whom which may not exist) that came from an object that itself does not really exist.


Same response for the most part. God is not a liar. If God lies, if He tricks us to test us, then we actually have just reason NOT to trust Him. Only if His character is true and pure, only if He has never been show to lie, or trick, or deceive can we have reason to trust Him. The issue in the Garden was that Satan tried to convince Adam and Eve God WAS deceiving them, He WAS tricking them. Their sin was in believing God would do those things. What appearance of age and history does is turn that on its head and say God DOES do that, but we are supposed to trust Him anyway?? That is not the message of scripture. Sometimes it may appear God has somehow not told us the truth, but our faith drives us to believe He has not really ever done that. And in the end we discover that is in fact the case - he was ALWAYS faithful and true. Appearance of age and history means that He actually did create a false universe, one that isn't what it appears to be. This is a real problem.

So here you are saying mankind's sin justifies being tricked into thinking the universe is one thing when it is in fact something else? And yet the Bible itself tells us that the heavens Declare His Glory. But how can that be if they are in reality a fiction, something not at all real? Then they declare something else. So the same scripture that by a certain interpretation can yield a 6000 year result tells us the heavens are not a fiction but rather a creation that declares His glory. For me I find it a more self-consistent realization of the text to recognize the elements of Genesis that make clear its purpose is not and has never been to allow for a derivation of the age of the universe.

... to be continued (wife needs my help :) )

Jim

[rogue06]

Ah, but a universe that evolved over time also leaves room for doubt without introducing the issue of deceptions. The universe looks old because it really is old, not just because it appears to be. Secondarily, consider the difference between Adam created with a mature body (appearance of age) and Adam created with false memories of a lifetime from child to his current adult stature, complete with parents and grandparents. The first one could perhaps justify. The second - very, very hard to justify. Does it really make sense for God to ask Adam to just 'believe' he was created yesterday in spite of all those memories? The state of the universe is far more like the second state than the first. All those animals fossilized, many with forensic evidence of injuries from the events surrounding their death. Yet that is all false. Stars that explode and give us full information about their makeup and the products of their explosions - yet they never really existed. Light that - past 6000 or so light years is completely fictitious. And, as in the op, stars (some of whom which may not exist) that came from an object that itself does not really exist.

Further, if Adam were indeed created as a fully mature human and he possessed things like worn teeth, calluses or scars, these things are not necessary for Adam to exist but only serve to indicate a history that he never experienced.

Likewise if Adam had a navel (which is a remnant of where a person was attached to his or her mother by an umbilical cord while they were in their mother's womb), this does not serve any real purpose to an adult, but instead only suggests a history he never experienced^[1].

They aren't features necessary for something to function but rather features that merely convey the impression of a history that never happened. Essentially a false history designed to deceive.









1. As an aside, there has actually been a great deal of debate throughout the centuries over the question of whether Adam and Eve had bellybuttons.

[Just Passing Through]

Ah, but a universe that evolved over time also leaves room for doubt without introducing the issue of deceptions.

Stars that explode and give us full information about their makeup and the products of their explosions - yet they never really existed. Light that - past 6000 or so light years is completely fictitious. And, as in the op, stars (some of whom which may not exist) that came from an object that itself does not really exist.

God is not a liar. If God lies, if He tricks us to test us, then we actually have just reason NOT to trust Him. Only if His character is true and pure, only if He has never been show to lie, or trick, or deceive can we have reason to trust Him.

The issue in the Garden was that Satan tried to convince Adam and Eve God WAS deceiving them, He WAS tricking them. Their sin was in believing God would do those things.

So here you are saying mankind's sin justifies being tricked into thinking the universe is one thing when it is in fact something else?

[oxmixmudd]

But again, this thing gets turned a bit on its head here. If the universe itself is a fiction, then what happens is that it's not that God appears to be lying, he IS lying. There is a big difference between the two. We trust Him even if it seems he has abandoned us because we KNOW he has not. The inverse case simply isn't the same. If we trust Him but in the end He has abandoned us ... that is not good at all. The Universe is 100% consistent with 13.7 billion years of history. Only God could make such an illusion to be so precisely accurate. And yet ... if It is all just an illusion ... why? How is God glorified by the creation of something that appears to be what it is not? I say let the lack of understanding be OURs. Let the scriptures be true, the universe real, and the apparent contradiction be simply our own misunderstanding and presumption in assuming we can derive the age of the universe from it.

To be fair, in a sense, that is what the YEC claim is as well, only the target of misunderstanding is reversed. They think we must be wrong in our understanding of nature. But Jesus indicates in His own words when he rebukes us for understanding nature but not God's word that it is the more likely case our hardness of heart keeps us from understanding the text much more often that it keeps us from understanding what nature is telling us.

Where we get tied up is in thinking that IF Genesis is not technically accurate, it isn't God's word anymore. But there are a lot of texts in the scripture that are not technically accurate in their description of nature. They use idioms and reflect the thinking of the people of the day. And the reason is simple. The truth being communicated in those texts have nothing to do with science. The references to nature are simply the 'language' being used to communicate the truth of the text. We don't think the Bible is not God's word because it has examples in it of poor Greek or Hebrew grammar. And why should we - those elements simply reflect the vessel used to create the prophecy, to write the message. The message itself remains perfect, God inspired.

Don't mix up Job's thinking and his friend's thinking. Job is written to help us understand this common misconception - that those that follow God do not suffer - is false. And to show us an example of a man that never denied his faith in God through a truly great trial. And you are right - I can not claim to know all and so I must allow it is possible that there is some way God might be justified in creating a false universe that I simply can't fathom. Likewise - however - so must the YEC then admit God could be justified in revealing Genesis in such a way that it is technically inaccurate while still His inspired word. In this case, the potential reversal of the application of faith is symmetric. In Both cases one trusts that in the end the scripture is exactly what God intended, and any apparent contradiction is found due to our limited understanding.

This is why I do not generally try to dissuade one who takes the 'apparent age' position. It is, as I said at first, probably the only self-consistent position that is YE. But the difficulty lies then in making sure one understands the theological problem and one has some what of reconciling the contradiction that involves faith and not some compromise of His truth. When YEC's try to say that science support the idea - they are compromising the truth. There is no proper application of science that yields the YEC position.

In a similar way the OE and TE positions must also reconcile the potential theological issues with death before the Fall and the Scriptural teachings on the fall and on sin. Both sides can be tempted to compromise or distort in trying to deal with the apparent contradictions.

We don't disagree in principle here - except that for me, for my conscience to be clear - it is our understanding of Genesis that needs correcting, and through that our understanding of what it means for the scripture to be inspired and true. I see clearly in Genesis that the description of the world is wrapped up in A.N.E. conceptualizations of the world that are simply not scientifically accurate. The dome of the sky, the floodgates of heaven, the birds flying before the face of the sky, the separation of light from darkness in the sky itself. Over and over again, the scriptures reflect this ancient view of the world. And so my faith becomes focused on recognizing God's 'right' as it were to reveal the truth of His sovereignty, the truth that the things worshiped by pagans are simply things He made, through the language and culture of that period of time - which includes conceptualizations of the world that are not scientifically accurate. This is consistent with His revelation in that He works through us in spite of our weaknesses, our limitations. And so what I see is that we should drop the expectation that God is trying to tell us scientifically accurate things about how he Created in Genesis. It is clear to me that if that was the intent, it simply would have been written very differently than it is.

Jim

[Just Passing Through]

[Just Passing Through]

We don't disagree in principle here - except that for me, for my conscience to be clear - it is our understanding of Genesis that needs correcting, and through that our understanding of what it means for the scripture to be inspired and true.

[rogue06]

If God created the world in an instant, then every single rock, every single lake, every single landform had to have both appearance of age and appearance of process.

No it would not. Trees could be created without any growth rings which serve no purpose in the tree. In fact, IIRC, there are a few species that don't have them. The only thing they are useful for is enabling us to make a determination of their age.

Rivers could be created instantaneously but there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why it would already contain dirt from its headwaters at its estuary. All that would do is give a misleading appearance of a history that it didn't have.

Likewise there is utterly reason for things like buried river channels, cosmic impact craters, ancient long extinct volcanoes... to be found deep underground and showing signs of having experienced erosion.

Multiple more examples can be provided but I'll stick with just one more -- starlight.

Source: The Distant Starlight Problem

Some older creationist works propose that God may have created the light in transit^[4]If God weakened the strong nuclear force (greatly speeding up alpha decay)4) Jonathan Safarti: , page 189, Master Books, Inc., P.O. Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72639 (2004), ISBN: 0-89051-411-9.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

Norman Geisler also addresses this issue briefly in his When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidence

One of the biggest problems for the young earth view is in astronomy. We can see light from stars that took 15 billion years to get here. To say that God created them with the appearance of age does not satisfy the question of how their light reached us. We have watched star explosions that happened billions of years ago, but if the universe is not billions of years old, then we are seeing light from stars that never existed because they would have died before Creation. Why would God deceive us with the evidence? The old earth view seems to fit the evidence better and causes no problem with the Bible.

To pick a nit with what he wrote, current indications are that the Big Bang took place approximately 13.7 billion ago, but the number varies to approximately 15 billion. Most stars in existence are 1-10 billion years old, though some are over 13 billion years old. Still his point remains valid.

And just for kicks, here is an article about a supernova (SN1997ff) spotted by the Hubble Space Telescope some 10 billion light years away.

[Just Passing Through]

[oxmixmudd]

Again - the issue here is that to be where you are and remain truthful, one must accept some form of deceptiveness in the creation itself. As long as you are good with that, then there isn't much that I would say - except that I don't believe the case you find acceptable for justifying that deception is convincing. There is also a bit of a problem here in that in scripture God requires of those who follow Him what was required of the Nazi soldiers at their war crimes trials. That is, we are not excused by "I was just following orders" in that if we KNOW what we think we are 'supposed' to believe is wrong, we are held accountable to make the effort to yield to that and be responsible with that. Over and over again Jesus rebuked the pharisees for just going along with dogma when the consequences of doing the produced injustice or additional evil. Having faith isn't just about unquestioned, blind obedience to some dogma, it is about struggling with and finding a faith based solution to known paradoxes and conflicts. The fellow that takes his talent a buries it because he knows the master would be angry if he lost it is NOT the fellow that gets rewarded.

Jim