OK, maybe some of you can help me with this. (Forgive my lack of intellectual rigor.)

My problem is this: how can we reconcile the biblical account of the six days of creation with the modern scientific evidence for the great antiquity of the universe? Or can we?

In particular, if the universe is only thousands of years old, then how come we can see the stars, which are supposed to be millions of light years away?

(I know that some have said that it is possible that God could have created the rays of light "mid-way" between us and the stars, but this would seem to raise the problem that God, the source of all Truth, has created an illusion. The other explanation, that the speed of light has changed significantly over time, from my (very brief) research appears to have little evidence currently to support it.)



At first, I thought that I could simply reconcile these two things by dividing the first creation account in Genesis into two parts: the first describing the initial act of the creation of "heaven and earth" and the other describing the formation of the earth. However, two problems presented themselves:

(1) According to the first two verses of Genesis:

In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

it would appear that the earth as it is now already existed, but that it had not yet been "formed", i.e. fashioned for supporting life. This would mean that the earth would also have to be very old as well, which is not something I am sure is necessarily wise to hold (I realize that this is the established opinion among scientists today, but I have not had time to adequately research the arguments on both sides to come up with my own conclusions).

I know the Fathers have said that "heaven" was created first (e.g. God first created Heaven with all its angels, and then the material universe), but I'm not sure whether they would have supported the idea that "the heavens" (i.e. the material universe) would have been created a significant amount of time before the formation of the earth.

(2) Furthermore, according to Exodus 20:11:

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.

Therefore, it would appear that "heaven and earth", i.e. all of Creation, was created in six days.

I also find it hard to accept the argument of some that the days spoken of in the Creation account do not conform to our 24-hour days, but could represent larger periods of time. As it says in Genesis, God created light and darkness on the first day, so even though there were no sun or moon, God was still able to separate day and night. Indeed, the fact that the account states "one day" for the first day seems to imply that it is a normal 24-hour day, and this seems to be the opinion of the Fathers and St. Thomas Aquinas.


Note that I'm not having a crisis of faith or anything. In fact, I cannot see how the Catholic faith can NOT be true. But I also cannot see how I can deny the great age of the universe given the evidence supporting it. If it comes down to it, and the evidence of "science" shows itself to be in complete contradiction with the proofs of our religion, then I'll go with the latter every time.

But the question remains: is the great antiquity (i.e. billions of years) of the universe really at odds with Sacred Scripture and Tradition? If it is, what proofs can we use to support the young age of the universe, from both science and religion, without exposing ourselves to ridicule from all reasonable men? If it is not, how can we reconcile this fact with the account in Scripture?

Thank you for taking the time to read all this!!

What you are asking cannot be answered on a simple forum such as this.  If you truly want answers, you will have to do a lot of research.  The research isn't so much needed to learn the truth, but to UNlearn all the misinformation you have come to accept from modern-day scientists without a second thought.

Much of the evidence for a young earth and a young universe is precisely the same evidence that evolutionists use to declare the need for millions and billions of years to bring us to our current point.  Frankly, all that modern science has done is to replace God with their god, Time.

A good place to start would be The Kolbe Center weibsite:  http://www.kolbecenter.org/

Another good resource for this issue, although it is a Protestant organization--in regards to the issue of creation, it is quite exemplary, is Answers in Genesis:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/

We have seen over the years how often science has ridiculed what "they" believed in the so-called Dark Ages and then, when they stumble upon evidence that is consistent with those bad ole days they simply rename the concept and make it sound more "scientific".  Examples of this include:  Dragons vs. diosaurs and Ether vs. Dark Matter.  And then there is the outright frauds of evolution and man-caused global warming (which used to be global cooling when I was a child in the 1970s).

If, as I said, you truly want answers to your questions, then it is your responsibility to do the research.  Personally, I do not see the problems you are seeing.  As an example, you see a problem with stars and the light from those stars.  But scripture says that God created light.  How is this an illusion?  Modern scientists (and I'm talking about the atheistic, "Big Bang" kind) are today postulating that the speed of light may not be constant in the universe.  Perhaps the speed of light is diffenent in the ether where the universe revolves around the earth, which is the center of the universe.  I agree with you that the idea of a universe that is billions of years old IS at odds with Holy Scripture and Tradition.  But the problem is that the scientists who have abandoned any pretext of trying to explain God's creation often work overtime to come up with unprovable theories and theories that can never be proven in order to develop a universe that can exist without God.

This is from LordPhan on another thread, but I think its the same one Matthew posted as well:

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/index.htm

That was the original one LF, you found it. I think Matt cautioned us about his preachy side, but if you can get over that, he makes some valid arguments... I hope someone else can post what you're looking for. I'm sure it exists.

Funny you should mention this.

I just had a discussion with my brother in law about this very issue, and he provided me just another clip for my ammunition.

If God did all of creation in 6 days, that would include the dinosaurs. They're saying that dinosaurs lived before human beings, and that would be a lie, because...

NOTHING DIED UNTIL AFTER SIN. So, that would mean, if we believe the words that Moses penned in the Old Testament in Genesis, and ALSO in Exodus, that the dinosaurs were here WHEN MAN WAS ALREADY HERE.

The earth is under 10,000 years old, and no amount of "carbon dating" can change that fact. God canst neither deceive nor can He be deceived, so to say that the earth is "millions of years old" is to deny that God clearly told Moses exactly what He meant.

Think about the fact that God does things in the blink of an eye. He didn't need "millions of years" to create the universe. He did it exactly the way He explained--- TWICE!

We know GOD spoke these words because it says in verse 1:

Exodus 20:1 And the Lord spoke all these words:

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.

So, is God capable of deceiving us? He says in Matthew:

Matthew 5:37 But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

From the Mouth of GOD HIMSELF we have the account of creation. It wasn't just written down by Moses, he got it DIRECTLY from the Mouth of God.

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-press-scientific_conference_evolution.htm

The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

November 9, 2009 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. St. Pius V University (Rome)

In Response to Pope Benedict XVI’s Call for Both Sides to be Heard
The 150th anniversary of Darwin’s "Origin of the Species" in November 2009 will be the occasion for a unique conference at Pope Pius V University in Rome presenting a scientific refutation of evolution theory. According to Russian sedimentologist Alexander Lalamov, “Everything contained in Darwin’s Origin of Species depends upon rocks forming slowly over enormous periods of time. The November conference demonstrates with empirical data that such geological time is not available for evolution.” Recently returned from a ground-breaking geological conference in Kazan, sedimentologist Guy Berthault will present the findings of several sedimentological studies conducted and published in Russia. In one of these, the age of the rock formation surveyed was found to be 0.01% of the age attributed to it by the geological time-scale—instead of an age of 10 million years, the actual age was no more than 10 thousand years. “Contrary to the conventional wisdom,” Lalamov observed, “these rocks formed quickly, and the fossils they contain must be relatively young. This finding contradicts the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record.” www.sedimentology.fr

According to US biophysicist Dr. Dean Kenyon, “Biological macroevolution collapses without the twin pillars of the geological time-scale and the fossil record as currently interpreted. Few scientists would contest this statement. This is why the upcoming conference concentrates on geology and paleontology. Recent research in these two disciplines adds powerful support to the already formidable case against teaching Darwinian macroevolution as if it were proven fact.”

Participating scientists include:

--Guy Berthault, a renowned sedimentologist from France and experimenter in fundamental physics and sedimentology, member of the French Geological Society and the Association of Sedimentologists.

--Maciej Giertych, a population geneticist from Kornik, Poland, who holds advanced degrees in genetics, forestry and tree physiology.

--Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany with a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Munich

--Jean de Pontcharra, a physicist in France and director of the renowned research group CEA-LETI (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Laboratoire d'Electronique et de Technologie de l'Informatique).

--Josef Holzschuh, a geophysicist from Australia with a Ph.D. in geophysics from the University of Western Australia.

Abstracts of the presentations can be seen on-line at http://sites.google.com/site/scientificcritiqueofevolution/Home.

“The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution” conference is being held in direct response to Benedict XIV's request that both sides of the evolution controversy be heard. Thomas Seiler, a participant in the conference said:  “In the light of astounding new scientific breakthroughs, particularly in geology, we hope the worldwide scientific community will acknowledge the overwhelming evidence against the theory of evolution.”

The conference begins at 9:30 a.m. on November 9 in the auditorium of St. Pius V University (Via Cristoforo Colombo, No. 200). Entrance is free although the number of seats is limited. It is open to the public and members of the press and media, but reservations are recommended. Reservations can be made by email at noevolutioninfo@gmail.com; or Peter Wilders (Europe phone 377 93 50 88 34)
 

Well, I found an answer to my main question about the distance of the stars, and it's a pretty good one. It's funny, I never thought that the theory of relativity could be useful in providing an answer to this problem; not that it necessarily IS the solution, but it's certainly a valid possibility:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove

Of course, there are other articles that address this issue in greater depth, but that'll do for now, heh.