Posted on 09/09/2026 5:56:34 PM PDT by Red Badger
Most Christians believe the universe is billions of years old. Some treat the six days of creation as a metaphor. Others latch onto explanations such as Gap Theory or Day-Age Theory to reconcile. But there is one theory that I’ve found after years of on-and-off research that has legs. In fact, it has fewer scientific and mathematical holes than the Big Bang Theory itself.
The distant starlight argument is the favorite club skeptics swing at Genesis. Light from a galaxy ten billion light-years away cannot reach Earth in six thousand years if light crawls at 186,000 miles per second. Therefore, they say, Moses was wrong, the genealogies are poetry, and the universe is old enough to make God unnecessary.
Most young-earthers replies try to fix the numbers by rewriting the physics. Slow the speed of light in the past. Stretch clocks with a gravitational well. Declare that incoming light is instantaneous by convention. Each of those has been tried. Each one runs into measurements that refuse to cooperate.
There is another way to think about it. It does not require a new constant. It does not invent a private relativity. It takes the first chapter of Scripture as a description of a real physical event and then follows general relativity where the energy density of that event would have to go.
The Problem They Think Settles the Matter
Andromeda is about 2.5 million light-years away. The farthest galaxies in the Hubble and Webb deep fields sit billions of light-years out. If the universe is only thousands of years old by earthly clocks, the light should not be here yet. That is the distant starlight problem in one paragraph.
The same critics rarely mention that the Big Bang has a twin embarrassment. The cosmic microwave background is almost the same temperature in every direction. Regions of the early sky that could never have exchanged light under standard expansion somehow thermalized anyway. That is the horizon problem. Inflation was invented to paper over it. Creationists did not invent special pleading. Cosmology did.
Answers in Genesis has pointed this out for years. Light-travel time is not a one-way weapon. It cuts both directions. The question is which account of origins is allowed to propose a mechanism and which one is shouted down for even trying.
The Patches That Did Not Hold
Barry Setterfield’s decaying speed of light looked promising until supernova 1987A and the rest of the spectroscopic record refused to play along. A million-fold drop in c would have wrecked atomic energies, orbital mechanics, and the mass-energy relation that every clock in the universe depends on. Jason Lisle walked through the wreckage. The numbers do not work.
Light created in transit solves the travel time by putting finished photons in the beam already aimed at Earth. It also puts finished supernovae, finished galaxy collisions, and finished histories into the sky that never happened. That is not mature creation. That is a painted backdrop. God does not need to fake a war in heaven so Adam can enjoy the view.
Russell Humphreys’ white-hole cosmology was the most serious gravitational attempt. Earth near the center of a bounded cosmos. Time crawling on the inside while the outer universe aged. The qualitative picture is beautiful. The quantitative picture is not. Given the mass we actually see, including dark matter, the dilation is a rounding error, not a factor of a million. Stronger dilation would have painted a blueshift across the sky. We see redshift instead. Humphreys himself moved on to later models. Creation Ministries International has catalogued the lineage without pretending any of them is finished physics.
Lisle’s anisotropic synchrony convention is a different animal. It is a choice about how to stamp clocks, not a claim that photons sprint toward Earth at infinite speed as a physical law. As a convention it is allowed by relativity. As a substitute for a creation mechanism it leaves the reader holding a definition instead of a cause. Useful. Not the same thing as “God spoke, and spacetime answered.”
Take the First Verse as Physics
Genesis 1 does not open with a metaphor. It opens with an act. God speaks a universe into being from nothing. Whatever else that means theologically, it describes a moment of energy density that makes every later explosion look polite. The earliest instant of any cosmology, secular or sacred, is a state so compact that the ordinary distinction between energy, mass, and geometry collapses.
General relativity already knows what happens there. Clocks run slow where energy density is high. Not a little slow. The dilation factor grows with the square root of the density ratio. Push the initial density toward the Planck scale and the factor lands near ten to the sixtieth power.
That number is not a magic wand pulled from a study Bible. The present age of the cosmos, measured in Planck times, is itself on the order of 1060. Dirac noticed large-number coincidences like this a century ago. Creation at Planck-scale density is exactly the regime where a few thousand years of proper time on a forming Earth can sit beside what distant clocks would record as billions of years of cosmic process.
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
If the verse is true, the opening state was not a quiet garden with a slow fuse. It was a spoken singularity. Relativity does not get a vote on whether God may do that. It only gets a vote on what clocks do afterward.
Expansion Does the Rest of the Work The useful feature of this picture is that it does not need a second miracle to unscrew the dilation. As the universe expands and cools, energy density falls. The dilation factor falls with it. Earth clocks do not require a separate catch-up device. The same expansion that stretches space bleeds off the extreme curvature that was freezing time in the first place.
Early on, a day on Earth can correspond to an enormous interval of process in the thinning outer cosmos. Later, the two timelines converge. Today they run in sync, which is why GPS satellites need only the ordinary, tiny relativistic corrections and not a factor of a googol.
That is the difference between a patch and a consequence. A patch adds a new law because Genesis is inconvenient. A consequence starts with the event Genesis describes and asks what Einstein’s field equations do when the density is that high. You can reject the premise. You cannot say the inference is smuggling in a rewritten speed of light.
The Objection That Has to Be Faced
This framework predicts something specific if Earth occupied a privileged density peak at the beginning. The cosmic microwave background should carry an anisotropy pattern tied to that position. The data we have do not show it. The CMB is astonishingly smooth aside from the dipole caused by our motion through the rest frame. That is a real problem and, transparently, I have no certain solution for it.
It may be that the dilation was global rather than geocentric, a property of the initial energy state rather than a well with Earth at the bottom. It may be that later expansion washed the signature below what current instruments can isolate. It may be that the model is wrong. Honesty is not optional just because the text of Genesis is non-negotiable.
What is optional is the sneer that biblical chronology has no physical hypotheses left. It does. This is one of them, and it’s by far my favorite. It uses the same relativity the textbooks already teach. It refuses to change c. It refuses to paint fake supernovae into the beam. It treats “Let there be” as the highest-density event the cosmos will ever know, and then it lets clocks behave the way clocks behave in that regime.
What the Heavens Are For
The point of the sky was never to give materialists a calendar they could use against Moses. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Distant galaxies are not a lawsuit. They are a sermon. The question is whether the sermon was preached over six days of Earth time or over fourteen billion years of nobody’s particular purpose.
Exodus 20:11 still sits in the way of every attempt to slide eons into the week. The same Lord who carved the tablets said He made heaven, earth, sea, and all that in them is in six days. We must take the Word of God literally when it is being literal. It is the reason the Sabbath exists. If the creation week was a metaphor, the Fourth Commandment is a metaphor, and we are back to inventing religion after the fact.
None of this requires pretending that every creationist cosmology is finished. Humphreys was incomplete. Setterfield was incomplete. Lisle’s convention does not replace a dynamical history. The energy-density argument is incomplete too, and the microwave sky is the first place critics will look. Incomplete is not the same as impossible. The Big Bang is incomplete in a dozen places and still gets treated as liturgy.
God spoke. The universe answered with energy dense enough to bend time. Expansion cooled the bend. Earth clocks and cosmic clocks found each other. That may not be the final word. It is a better word than “Moses could not have known about Andromeda, so ignore him.”
The light got here. The text says the light was for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. It does not say the light was for giving skeptics a veto.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Time was slower back then Ping!............
Or, God is a lot more capable than man and able to do what man can’t even begin to imagine.
That’s what I’m sticking with.
Eisegesis is the interpretation of a text—especially Scripture—by reading one’s own ideas, assumptions, or biases into it, rather than drawing out the author’s intended meaning.
Case dismissed.....
Psalm 147:4: “He determines the number of the stars; He calls them each by name.”
Isaiah 40:26: “Lift up your eyes on high: Who created all these? He leads forth the starry host by number; He calls each one by name.”
I do not know if this is true but I can say that I feel that time is speeding up as I grow older. I swear that sometimes it feels as if a week has only four days.
Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
I noticed that, too..........
Same for me.
Can you imagine being asked that question by the LORD?
So many people will be shocked in His presence. “Every knee!”
It informs me of the importance of our Commission and my meager response.
How long does it take to make a bed of coal? Think of all the leaves falling off of a tree in a swamp. Then, bury them at least 5,000’ deep if you want bituminous instead of lignite. How long does it take for a droplet of oil to migrate with his buddies from a source rock to a trap?
Can’t go wrong with that theory. There Isa video on YouTube discussing time slowed at creation. It’s many years old now. Many on yt of course scoffed, but like you said, my God is capable of incredible SUPER-NATURAL doings. One scientist told folks he had the answer to how blood clotting could arise naturally, without any supernatural interference. I read his whole argument entirely, and it was chockerblock full of SUPERNATURAL sequences and tightly controlled processes. In otherwords, he made the argument FOR intelligent design.
Demski, a reknown scientist in mathematics did the calculations (as did a group during the 1960’s Chicago science convention, that macro-Evolution at the cellu,ar level is so far beyond the bounds of probability that it is essentially zero... can’t happen. (Demski as far as I know still believed though that ,acroevo,union was possible. How he calcu.ated it to be impossible, then not accept his own results, I’ll never know. He had some weird explanation why that did not make sense). Even the group of mathematicians in the Chicago group all believed evolution possible,,but also said that mathematically it was not possible. And that was just for one mutation alone, let alone billions needed in quick succession in order for the myriad species we know today!
Anyways. Yeah, we serve an awesome God!
Interesting read. Thanks for the ping!
When I die and GOD allows me to ask HIM a question:
How come cows have 4 teats but typically only have 1 calf, why do nanny goats only have 2 teats and regularly have triplets?
Hfor context, we have raised both, but triplet goats usually require bottle feeding, which is not fun.
I don't understand the math, but understand the logic. I like it.
The author is too bog-ignorant to understand that "slowing time" is the very definition of "changing physics" because time and space are interwoven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
Gibberish.
Dr. Humphrey's approach described in Starlight and Time (as updated by Dr. Hartnett's revisions) is more promising, but the whole topic became a moot point when Dr. Jason Lisle brought up the fact that the notion that the speed of light is c in both directions between two points is an arbitrary convention, not a fact.
It turns out it is entirely impossible to test and distinguish between a range of states, from the idea that the speed of light is infinite from A to B but only c/2 from B to A, to the opposite extreme. No one has come up with a way to test whether there is a "preferred" state or not, meaning that all states from infinite speed in one direction to infinite speed in the opposite direction are equally capable of explaining all data.
So the idea that the speed of light is an argument against a young creation rests entirely on an arbitrary convention that light travels at c in both directions. This may be emotionally or aesthetically pleasing to some, but if your argument rests on emotions or aesthetics without observable data to back you up, you have no argument. An arbitrary convention is a poor foundation for the supposedly "rock solid" argument that evolutionists and old-earth creationists like to imagine they have.
Ask a photon about the “passage” of time.
Our finite and generally Newtonian perspective is convenient for us, but completely inadequate for the rest of the universe.
To a photon, the universe is standing still............
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.