Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

aaronzig t1_j9n3lb7 wrote

No. If you say "God did it" then it simply raises the question of how God did it. Eg. Did they use dark matter as a mechanism to do it?

If you don't ask that follow up question, then you aren't really looking for an explanation of how the universe works, and that's the main question.

50

internetboyfriend666 t1_j9n3s8e wrote

If you're premise starts with "assume the specific god that I believe in exists" then you can hand-wave anything you want. What's the point of that? An all powerful god can literally do anything and be used to explain everything.

What exactly are you looking for here? What kind of answer were you expecting?

44

DrMilzie OP t1_j9n4uf4 wrote

I'm looking for a physical explanation that could disprove this theory if a "mature galaxy" was created only 6,000 years ago, that there is no dark matter and there hasn't been enough time for stars to be flung away

−32

hatersaurusrex t1_j9n5pe4 wrote

You're looking for scientific evidence to reconcile religious belief.

You might as well be asking if there's climate data which shows global warming might actually be caused by Apollo flying his chariot to close too the Earth.

17

doodcool612 t1_j9n5nr0 wrote

The whole idea of a “physical explanation” dissolves when we add in a supernatural element. For example, imagine God says, “The speed of light is temporarily no longer the fundamental speed limit of the Universe” and then speedy zoomies the stars far far away in just 6000 years. Is that a “physical explanation?” Yes, in that the physical bodies followed all the rules that existed. You could “explain away” literally anything.

10

internetboyfriend666 t1_j9n63y1 wrote

That's not a theory, that's a baseless claim that flies in the face of all known facts and basic logic. I have a "theory" that there's a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere out by Mars but it's too small to be seen with any telescope. How about you disprove that?

7

SharlStuffing t1_j9n70ft wrote

You do understand that doesn't make sense, right? Like. You're asking for physical proof that everything wasn't created instantly, already "matured". Where matured means old, but created old? Also I think you don't get what dark matter is either. Why do you think without it things would be flung away?? It's just matter that interacts with gravity and not light (as I understand). They have found galaxies full of it and they have found galaxies with little to none. I'm not trying to be rude here, but I honestly think you're asking questions without understanding what you're asking well enough to actually phrase it. You're looking for something that isn't there, unless you throw out everything this sub has ever talked about. You CAN believe in God and the universe expanding! But, you CANNOT ask us to come up with proof for something that has none. We can point you in the direction for how old the universe actually is and theories for what dark matter and dark energy is, but we can not show you proof for an already matured universe that was popped into existence 6000 years ago.

3

Xancrim t1_j9n5uth wrote

That's a hypothesis, not a theory

2

big_bro_joe27 t1_j9n5vlf wrote

Burden of proof rests on you to prove your theory. Other theories do not have the responsibility to disprove your theory.

2

[deleted] t1_j9n32he wrote

[removed]

34

[deleted] t1_j9n3boz wrote

[deleted]

9

nickkom t1_j9n3vhu wrote

What I want to know is how do they know the Bible wasn’t written by Satan to trick them? Did they just luck out?

7

hatersaurusrex t1_j9n59t5 wrote

Bill Hicks (paraphrasing) "People say - dinosaur bones? God put those there to test our faith. I think God put you here to test my faith, buddy"

4

JohnCena_770 t1_j9n397r wrote

As long as you don't assume that this being is also omnibenevolent.

1

QuercusCerris t1_j9n5m7d wrote

Except the question, who created god, remains unexplained even with said sky wizard.

1

Latyon t1_j9n8733 wrote

God did.

And because this universe is magic and there are no rules, it doesn't have to make sense.

0

hatersaurusrex t1_j9n3ybe wrote

Even if it did, the idea raises far more questions than it answers everywhere else.

Simple optical phenomena like rainbows seemed ominous and magical to the ancients, and so a story was written that God invented the rainbow as a covenant with Noah.

But we know now beyond reasonable uncertainty that rainbows are caused by reflection and refraction of light when passing through water droplets. It's observable, quantifiable, and definable.

So that would mean that God would have had to completely change the physical properties of light and/or water just to create a sign in the sky. Since we didn't know about those other things yet, we believed he just did it and we couldn't explain how. But now we know better.

To accept the idea of God as the architect of everything is to also swallow 1,000 other observable falsehoods like this example that we can see aren't true. One day we'll figure out the mysteries of dark matter and black holes, and the idea that God created them for mysterious reasons will seem equally silly.

26

sambes06 t1_j9n4sn9 wrote

Alas, faith. Stop questioning. Start believing. /s

6

Youbettereatthatshit t1_j9n4eyh wrote

The responses aren't angry or shallow, the answer is just no, it doesn't "explain" anything beyond 'God did it'.

24

I_Stabbed_Jon_Snow t1_j9n34d1 wrote

It invalidates the majority of all known science, but hey sure why not!

12

NomDePlume007 t1_j9n3d8i wrote

You're comparing magic (belief) and science (fact). If you believe in magic, you can make up anything you like, whether or not it's even internally consistent.

I think many scientists are also religious. But they know the difference between reality and a belief system.

11

smackmeharddaddy t1_j9n4v1a wrote

Well you see, the first flaw of your question was suggesting that the universe was 6000 years ago. We have enough evidence, thanks to background cosmic radiation from the big bang, to know for certain that the universe is around ~13.8 billion years old.

10

jadnich t1_j9n4hjd wrote

Can you explain the hypothesis? How does a young universe explain dark matter and galaxy rotation?

Is the idea that there just hasn’t been time? Since the galaxies were created 6,000 years ago, we just haven’t seen it yet? If so, does that mean the stars actually ARE flying away from the center?

7

DrMilzie OP t1_j9n5j1d wrote

Correct, that's what I'm asking

−3

jadnich t1_j9n6wh9 wrote

I think that assumes the Galaxy formation was God’s design, or maybe something much denser and he just spun it to begin scattering stars. But that would run up against all of the irregular shaped galaxies that do not take this form, or which have had events happen that take longer than 6,000 years.

Things like collisions that tear apart galaxies and reform them into new shapes. This requires a gravity interaction, and stars that were just slowly moving outward at a pace of {this far}/6000 years would just scatter like pool balls. Or more likely, nothing would happen at all, because galaxies are mostly empty space. In a galactic collision, most of the stars just pass by each other without contact. Nothing to stop the initial outward fling.

If we accept gravity is a force pulling things together, and that these stars have an initial outward momentum that is working against it, we have to assume the outward momentum is much stronger than gravity to keep the normal galaxies from collapsing. But gravity has to be stronger than the outward momentum to recombine collided galaxies into different shapes.

5

DrMilzie OP t1_j9n76dh wrote

Thank you for the first respectful objective response

−1

Grinagh t1_j9n4ps7 wrote

When Newton could not explain the motion of Mercury through his laws of Gravitation, he stated that maybe Jesus had come to Earth to adjust the Heavens.

Centuries later Albert Einstein showed that relativity explained the difference in motion because Mercury experiences time dilation close to the sun.

5

Financial-Entry-9280 t1_j9n4d1t wrote

It is presumptuous to think that God measures time the same way humans do.

4

DrMilzie OP t1_j9n5f49 wrote

I actually really appreciate this response. Yes, I am a believer, but I struggle with believing a 6,000 year old universe and I've just struggled with this question. Einstein showed us time is relative, and according to the genesis account of creation, earth wasn't even created until day 4. A day is a rotation of the earth, so what was days 1-3? How were they measured? For a 5th dimensional (or higher being) those 3 days could have been billions of years relative to us 4 dimensional beings

1

Anonymous-USA t1_j9n6q9b wrote

From my other answer, you can see how absurd I think the post is. However, I will say that time is the one thing that is relative to a person’s framework! So indeed, if God exists in a ginormous gravity well, what passes for His day may well be billions of years to us outside of it. Because gravity doesn’t just warp space, it warps time as well! 🍻

1

babyyodaisamazing98 t1_j9n5cj1 wrote

People seem very irrationally angry at your question.

The answer however is no it wouldn’t explain it away. Dark matter is used to explain why galaxy rotation doesn’t match expectation. It doesn’t matter how long ago the galaxy started rotating, dark matter is still needed to explain the rotation we do see.

In a similar vein the universe accelerating is explained by dark energy, which also doesn’t care about the age of the universe. The fact that it accelerating at all is where the explanation for dark energy comes in.

4

phunkydroid t1_j9n5uv9 wrote

>People seem very irrationally angry at your question

I don't see a single reply that looks angry and there are no hidden or deleted replies, what am I missing?

2

Anonymous-USA t1_j9n55dd wrote

That which can be asserted with no evidence may be equally dismissed with no evidence. - Hitchens's razor

How can you accept an assumption that is provably false? How can you choose to ignore carbon dating (which is based on isotopic half-lives as accurate as a watch) and 3.5B yo rock samples and many many other pieces of evidence that prove the earth let alone “the universe” is dramatically older than 6,000 years.

I’m not foolish enough to try to argue for or against the existence of a Devine being here — you are welcome to your faith — just an assumption about a 6,000 yo earth or universe.

3

deja_geek t1_j9n5qwz wrote

Because to accept this assumption, it would require dismissing all other evidence that proves the earth and the universe is more than 6000 years old

2

Makaneek t1_j9n5upq wrote

Holding bible history as true still would give us no reason to think the universe is so young. We tend to focus so much on the physical and material process of creation with that we don’t tend to consider whether the Israelites would have cared about that much, and really why the revelation given to them should be expected to address it. Some clues in the text like the word “bara” connoting the bringing of order and function (as in “create in me a clean heart”) and the purpose of the sun and moon (signs and seasons) being prioritized over their names implies the text of Genesis 1 isn’t the construction of a building, but the furnishing of a home or temple, where God can commune with His human creation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R24WZ4Hvytc

2

Anonymous-USA t1_j9n7tx8 wrote

If you want a serious answer, here:

We know the speed of light is constant. We know the luminosity of certain stellar masses is constant (specifically type 1A supernova). Since light intensity decreases proportionally to the square of the distance, we can calculate exactly how far away they are. And since we know both how far away they are and the speed of light, we know how long ago that light left that type 1A supernova. And guess what, it’s a lot longer than 6,000 years ago.

And before you hand wave and say “well maybe those things aren’t constant”, that would disagree with Einstein’s field equations which are among the most robust scientific theories in history — every test has proven them. Every one. And any hand waving that contradicts that contradicts every experimental observation and does so without any evidentiary support.

So it’s not worth delving into your conclusions based upon a provably incorrect assumption of the age of the universe. You’re asking “let’s assume 2+2=3”. It’s a non-starter.

That’s my serious answer. Is it shallow?

p.s. I’m disappointed you deleted your post (out of frustration perhaps) without reading any well argued rebuttals. I hope you think about this response before dismissing it.

2

DrMilzie OP t1_j9n95z5 wrote

No, not shallow, but it is heavy with emotion and thus bias. I agree with you, I don't believe a god, or the God, created light waves in transit of an event that never happened, such as a type 1a supernova, I think the star truly did explode. The problem is you are not answering my specific question

0

Anonymous-USA t1_j9n9t78 wrote

I am answering it well. I actually would prefer you learn. You are asking a question based on a provably wrong assumption. It’s non-sensical. A hypothetical at best.

I’m not being emotional about it. I am well aware how comforting faith can be and would never argue against someone’s faith. But if you say the sky is pink, I can argue that a spectrometer pointed at the sky will tell you otherwise. The sky isn’t pink and the earth is much older than 3.5B years (the earliest dated rock samples on the Earth’s surface) and the universe is older than 13.7B years (the farthest/oldest type 1A supernova detected).

So any statement asking “if we assume A, can B be true” is no, not when A cannot be true. This is a valid answer.

1

hatersaurusrex t1_j9nao9w wrote

You're not being emotional at all. Projection is a hell of a drug.

1

bop999 t1_j9n95fw wrote

You lost me at “honest question”. Take this young earth creationist bullshit to another subreddit and let us talk about actual science.

2

Bad88jack t1_j9n515c wrote

If you think the existence of the universe binary , one or zero, yes or no. There has to be one yes but how many nos were there ?

1

N01_Special t1_j9n58w4 wrote

It's very hard to give a scientific answer to "accept an assumption". That's not the way scientific answers come about.

1

DrMilzie OP t1_j9n5zfk wrote

Our current standard model of cosmology has many assumptions....

−1

Bearpoints t1_j9n59y5 wrote

It amazes me that people still don’t grasp what science seeks to understand regardless of whether God exists or not.

1

ImAMindlessTool t1_j9n5gq5 wrote

“Explain to me why this thing (stars, dark matter) could not have happened (flung) if we assume the universe was created 6,000 by something or someone.”

No.

1

wholelatteballs t1_j9n61v9 wrote

Assume Simpson did it in 1996, how does that explain Quantum particles and the rotation of Uranus?

There is so much data that exists to disprove the 6000 year old universe, why even bother with a real answer to the fake question?

1

Belostoma t1_j9n79vk wrote

A hypothesis that could explain literally anything explains nothing. No matter how crazy the universe is, it’s always within the capabilities of an omnipotent being because that’s the definition of omnipotent. You don’t even need a being; you can just say it’s all magic. But you can say that about anything you don’t yet understand no matter what it is. There is no possible way the universe could be that you couldn’t explain by saying it’s magic. That makes the explanation meaningless.

1

Rpmmaster2010 t1_j9n7rik wrote

Smh you bible thumpers are everywhere these days you're delusional if you believe that the universe is 6000 years old when the planet itself is nearly 14 billion years old making the universe likely 10s of billions if not trillions of years old we don't actually know how old the universe is unlike some people in the comments thinking we do and we likely won't know for a few hundred years nor will we probably be able to put an exact date on creation because we don't know how large the universe really is nor do we know exactly where in space did the universe start from the universe is always expanding and everything seems to be moving in one direction so the likelihood of us ever discovering the beginning is very low not impossible just unlikely

Also dark matter likely doesn't exist tbh but just because we haven't found it doesn't mean it doesn't however antimatter is real and disintegrates/cancels out/destroys matter but it can also pass through solid matter like how it constantly flows through us throughout our lives

Oh and fyi stop tryna discredit science with your fairytale stories the bible is completely made up sure there probably is a god but we'll never know for sure and why would he ne considered benevolent and supposedly care about what happens to us when millions of innocent people die regularly every year the quote on quote gods plan is just y'alls way of ignoring the harsh reality of our world

1

HoverboardViking t1_j9n8vfn wrote

Not really. Dark Matter and dark energy are hypothetical forms of matter and energy that we assume must exist to make the universe function the way it is.

IMO (not an educated explanation) either we lack the ability and understanding to explain where these forms of matter and energy come from or where they are; or there is some underlying mechanics with gravity and matter that we just don't understand that causes dark energy and matter.

Since these are hypothetical terms that "should exist", even saying god did it (sorry Richard Dawkins) doesn't actually explain anything or make sense. Like what exactly did god do? My point is, even if we assume an omnipotent being did it all, it doesn't explain anything other than "miracles". Nothing falls into place assuming god did it. What we need to do is figure out exactly where these hypotheticals are, how they exist and hopefully use that knowledge to create a deeper unified field theory.

For thousands and thousands of years the mysteries of the universe could only be explained with god. Now, as we unravel the universe, people have the power to answer questions that once seemed divine. That's the power of humanity.

1

hatersaurusrex t1_j9nbp42 wrote

>Dark Matter and dark energy are hypothetical forms of matter and energy that we assume must exist to make the universe function the way it is.

Similar to the old concept of 'phlogiston'

When early scientists created a reaction that gave off invisible CO2 (like the baking soda and vinegar volcano of our childhoods) they couldn't figure out why the resultant material weighed less than the inputs. So they formulated a working theory that there was an invisible substance called phlogiston that had negative mass, and it allowed them to continue quantitative experiments while using that as a placeholder.

I look at the concepts you outlined the same way. We don't know what they are, we can only describe some of their properties. When a new breakthrough comes along that properly accounts for them the way the discovery of CO2 accounted for mass loss in chemical reactions, the theory will rectify and we'll move forward.

But skeptics then, as now, like to point out these failures as a failure of science - but the truth is these are just placeholders for science to stick a working model until they can understand what's in the black box.

1

Egg_Custard t1_j9nahil wrote

Modern science is based on the findings is experiments conducted according to the scientific method. Observations made by science are trusted because they are the result of unbiased data that can be replicated anywhere with the right equipment. Modern science is not based on assumptions. You can assume that God exists, or that the universe was created 6,000 years ago, or that a younger universe wouldn't need dark matter to have some of the the physical characters that ours does (I think that's what your getting at?) None of these assumptions mean anything because they are not accepted as scientific fact, and at least one of your assumptions (the 6,000 year thing) has been definitely disproven dozens of times by various scientific fields. I could assume that God is real and gives us all challenges to overcome, and that He guided you to make this post because He wanted you to understand creation through a scientific lens rather than a scriptural point of view. Judging by your edit that's asking too much.

1

space-ModTeam t1_j9ns1cc wrote

Hello u/DrMilzie, your submission "Honest question, what if we accepted the assumption that God created the universe 6,000 years ago, could this explain away dark matter and galaxy rotation?" has been removed from r/space because:

  • It is not related to space.

Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please message the r/space moderators. Thank you.

1

nine8whatwhat t1_j9n55wt wrote

why don't you come up with a theory and work it out

0

Tr1pline t1_j9n5oyy wrote

Can you have a world where the idea that God create the universe as a fact and science co-exist though?

0