Light - Isn't it reasonable to consider the possibility that there may be different kinds of light?

I'm no scientist, so I don't know technical terms. So, please bear with me as I try to posit my question.

I see God created light on day 1. I see stars and planets created on day 4. We see galaxies far far away colliding in what would seem to be the distant past, if that light had to traverse the space in-between. If light and stars and objects that lights bounce off of (planets and such) were created on different days, then is it so unreasonable to consider the possibility that there are at least two different kinds of light? I know we said that if God had created the light between the stars and Earth, then events that appear to have occurred could not have since there has not been enough time that it would have taken for that light to reach us.

But what if there's another kind of light? One that maybe exists without traveling. One that is ever-present, so-to-speak. One that is transparent, that displaces the darkness, making it possible to see things of which the illumination of has not yet reached us. What if there is a kind of light that does not necessarily illuminate things, but instead only makes it possible for the light created on day 4 able to illuminate things? Couldn't it be possible that there is a yet to be discovered form of light that does not have the same properties of light as we understand it, that could make it possible to see distant things without needing to wait for the light from day 4 to travel to us? I mean after all, even using our great telescopes, if the light has not had enough time to reach us, what is it we are seeing through the lens? And what is it that the light on day 1 was lighting if it wasn't everything, including the darkness (sort of). We say Space is dark, but it's really not! The absence of something to see is not necessarily the same as the absence of light!

Which brings up another thought. If I stand at the end of a 186,000 mile long hallway, and someone turns on a light  at the other end of that hallway, I have to wait for that light to travel the distance of the entire hallway to be able to see the person at the other end. But, what if someone turns on the lights simultaneously between there and here; would I not be able to immediately see the person at the other end, or do I still need to wait that same amount of time before seeing them?

Views: 162


You need to be a member of Creation Conversations to add comments!

Join Creation Conversations

Comment by Dan on March 14, 2017 at 7:29pm

Ok, well either no one is seeing them, or else no one is interested in my questions. But I have to keep asking them.

So, I'm thinking about this expansion thing again, and the fact that they say the farther out in space the further back in time we are looking. Doesn't that imply that someone knows what direction they're looking in? If the universe exploded and we were looking back in time, shouldn't things be becoming more dense the further back we look? I mean the center of an explosion would have more "stuff" wouldn't it? I mean especially if we're looking back closer to the boom.

They say the farthest galaxies appear to be moving faster. Is that in every direction? And if so, how can they say we're looking farther back in time? Wouldn't only one of those directions be the past?

They say the farther out we look, we are looking at young galaxies only just forming. But we have galaxies relatively closer that appear to be forming. Likewise, it is my understanding that no matter how far out we look, there appears to be fully formed galaxies too. Can anyone verify that? And if so, is that too in every direction?

Comment by Dan on February 4, 2017 at 3:15pm

Another thing please. I was just rereading some of the responses from everyone (thanks to you all once again!), and something Derek said made me think. The farthest galaxy is said to be about 13.4 billion lightyears away. But the universe is expanding. That means there was a time when everything may have been really close to each other. Wouldn't the farthest galaxies have left a light trail behind them the whole way while traveling the distance to where they currently reside? And if so, doesn't that mean we shouldn't have to wait 13.4 billion years for light from them to get here because they were, in a sense, already here themselves and would have left the light trail behind them, and while continuously replenishing the trail the whole time they traveled to their current location? Shouldn't we be able to see them not because light traveled from there to here, but because they traveled from here to there?

Comment by Dan on February 4, 2017 at 2:37pm

What if the speed of light isn't a constant? What if it only appears to be a constant because in our current surroundings we have no way to detect any measurable difference in the speed? (I don't know Eistein's theory of relativity, so this may all just be gibberish, but...) From my understanding, we know it takes 8 minutes for light to travel from the Sun to Earth, and we can measure that using whatever tools we've been using to measure the speed of light with. (As a reminder, keep in mind that I'm obviously no scientist and don't know technical terms. I'm just tossing out ideas that come to mind that seem to me that to be reasonable enough to ask questions. And I wonder if anyone has considered them, so I ask. Also, keep in mind that I do not know theories such as Einstein's which I mentioned earlier, so I don't know if this has already been disproved. But I do know that I saw a YouTube video where someone was able to bring light to a stand still, so I'm guessing if it is a constant, that constant must be relative to something else).

We can only measure light in the hereandnow, and as far as I know only as far as the atmosphere surrounding Earth, or possibly if they did any testing when we were on the Moon, or our devices on Mars, or as far as our furthest Satellites if they are sending and receiving any light from them to Earth and vis-a-vis. 

Could it be possible that light could constantly increase in speed, but that the increase is so minute that we have no way to reasonably detect it? What if the increase was so minimal that if we measured light from voyager 1 or 2 (I forget which is further out), if we were able to even detect a difference even at that distance, it might be so unappreciable that we might consider it to be within an error of margin, when actually the difference might be because light continuously increases in speed? Or, what if the increase was so minuscule that even from the Voyagers we still wouldn't be able to notice any difference at all, but that in such great distances as distant galaxies it could mean the difference between millions of years and 6500 years? Is it possible that, without anything influencing it in open space, and especially between galaxies, light would be unhindered to maintain a continuous increase of speed, but that when it does come within range of something that could influence it, the speed would be affected relative to the influence(s), but also such that it could explain why we can see things that, according to our current understand of what is, we shouldn't be able to see?

Is any of that possible? Thank you.

Comment by Charles Martin Jr on September 17, 2016 at 4:55am


Sorry for the (really, really long) delay in replying.  I wish I had a reasonable excuse, but I don't - it really just took this long for me to come back here and hit "reply."  :-/  I agree, in that I don't think we were meant to have to "wait" until they were visible in order to see the stars - Genesis gives every indication that on Day 4, the stars of the universe were visible on earth (at the very least, a good deal of them were immediately visible).  As far as how the mechanics of that go, and how God worked that out, I have no idea.  There are lots of theories and conjectures - some of them quite good - but without a clear statement in Scripture, that's all they are:  theories and conjectures, nothing more than educated guesses.  And we must always remember that an educated guess is still just a guess. 

Comment by Dan on July 11, 2016 at 7:54pm

Yeah, great answer! You may have finally satisfied what I have been pondering. I have to chew on it for awhile, and I'll probably have to come back and re-read from time to time before it finally sinks in. That may take some months with the way my mind works, or it may only take a short time. I never know when things are going to "click" for me. But you've given me a lot to consider; and you've also helped me see some things I was overlooking. Thank you for that!!

Something I will be considering, though, is your point about giving "light upon the Earth." That's a good point, but I'm not sure whether it satisfies my point about lighting the universe. And, just to be clear about "lighting the universe," I don't necessarily mean lighting up in the same sense as when the Sun shines on the Earth. Or maybe I do, I don't really know. haha. But when I read Genesis 1, I get the idea that God intended us to be able to see the whole universe (not necessarily unaided) without the need to wait for the light being emitted from the "Day Four light sources" to traverse the distance. I get the feeling he intended for us to be able to see them immediately. That just seems to be the context to me. That is what I mean by lighting the universe. Not necessarily light as we understand light, but the ability to see something on the other side of the universe that we shouldn't be able to see if we have to wait for the light that we do understand to reach us. Whatever we want to call that, I think that is what God is calling light on Day One.

But as I've said, you've given me a lot to ponder; so off to pondering I go......


Comment by Charles Martin Jr on July 11, 2016 at 5:44am

No, you're not conversing with yourself!  I know of at least one person who still gets updates!  :-) 

Okay, so you're trying to equate light with sources of light, and these are not the same things.  Light is its own entity, with certain behavior and certain characteristics.  The stars (including our sun) are sources of light, but they are not, themselves, light.  How do we know?  Because when the sun goes down, our homes still have light in them; it comes from something we call "lights."  These "lights" are not light in and of themselves, but sources of light that can be accessed whenever we choose. 

You stated that the stars don't light the universe, yet they do.  Why do we have light during the daytime?  Because of the sun.  Our earth is lit by the sun, because when whatever part of the earth you live on is facing away from the sun, it gets dark.  The sun is the primary source of light for our planet.  When God created "light" on Day One, He didn't create sources of light to light our universe, but the very entity of light itself, with God Himself as the most likely source of that first light (see, for example, Revelation 22:5).  

Just to restate:  God created light on Day One, but then gave us sources of light on Day Four, and these were sources of light designed specifically to "give light upon the earth" (Genesis 1:15).  The implication here is that, if we removed the stars (including our own star), there would be an absence of light in the universe, because God specifically appointed them for the purpose of giving light on the earth.  In fact, returning to Revelation, we see the removal of stars from the sky, and we see the earth darkened by one third (8:12).  

You're also ignoring part of Day One:  "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.  God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.  God called the light "day," and the darkness He called "night."  God didn't just "create light," He also created the absence of light - or, darkness.  If we were to somehow remove the sources of light in the universe, light itself may still exist, but we would no longer have access to it and would, therefore, be in the absence of light - or, darkness.

You're on the right track, but you may be overthinking all of this.  The plain, unadulterated teaching is that God created light, God created the absence of light, and God then handed the lighting of our universe over to individual sources of light.  Should those sources be removed or diminished, our access to light would also be removed or diminished.  Hope that helps!

Comment by Dan on July 10, 2016 at 9:47pm

Ok, so I'm not sure if anyone will see this if I post another comment, or if I'm only discussing with myself at this point, but a thought just occurred to me that I'm not sure has been taken into consideration. I suppose in a sense we've been discussing the nature of light as we understand it.

It is interesting to note that as I was re-reading the posts I noticed someone mentioned the absence of light. Well the reason I logged in tonight is because I started reading Genesis 1 again and I didn't make it past verse 2 before another question was raised in my mind. Day One - Light is created. Day Four - stars are created. Doesn't that imply that if we remove all the stars we do not have the absence of light? This is what I have been asking about the whole time. Everyone discusses the light that gets knocked about the universe from start to star, but what lights the universe? It isn't stars!

Comment by Dr. Derek P. Blake on February 21, 2016 at 6:00pm

Hi Dan, this is one of the most difficult parts of the creation to explain scientifically.  Most creationists will immediately say that the light between days one and four was the presence of God, because God is light.  As glib as this sounds, it may well be the answer, especially if we think of God as pure energy.  However, it may be best to lay out some properties of light.

Firstly, light as we know it is radiation, basically a stream of particles, in this case photons, but light is not that simple.  Light has the properties of both particle and a wave, which complicates things rather.  As you rightly say photons travel at c186,000 miles per second (300,000 kps), but only in what we call a vacuum or through the spacial fabric at it present consistency.  We also know that light travels at slower speeds, through water for instance, or through air, in fact scientists have recently stopped light for several seconds before releasing it again.  Consider luminous paint (phosphorous) light travels very slowly through it, light hits the substance and is slowed down so much that when we turn off the light we can still see it being reflected.  As to your problem of a 186,000 mile hallway, almost stretching to the Moon, I'm afraid that you would have to wait longer if the light was switched on half way between you and the person at the other end.  Why, because what we see is reflected light (photons bouncing of od the objects around us) at different wavelengths (the wave element that provides the colour).  In fact we would see the light before we saw the person, because the light needs to travel 93,000 miles to the person, and travel the 186,000 miles back to your view point, a total of 279,000 miles taking 1.5 seconds.  We would see the light after only half a second and the man a second later.  I hope this makes sense.

Secondly, the speed of light ('c') is a constant, that does not mean that it always travels at the same speed no matter what, as I have said above.  It means that it is a constant no matter how fast the emitter (the light source) is traveling.  So if we have a space ship with a huge spotlight on it pointed at you, and the ship is traveling towards you at half the speed of light, the light will still travel at 'c', in short we cannot add to or subtract from light's speed.  This is one of the basic properties of light, yet it is completely ignored by secular science when it comes to calculating the age of the universe.

Thirdly the wave property of light.  Like all waves the wave-length is variable, and the wave length determines the colour of the light.  You may have heard of the term 'Redshift', this refers to the wavelength of stars and how we know if a star is moving toward or away from us.  This is also called Doppler Effect (like the change in tone as a railroad train passes you with its siren blasting) if a star (light source) is moving toward you the wavelength is short and the light is blue, if it is moving away from you the wavelength is longer and the light colour is red, because the waves are stretched out.  Because most of the stars are in Redshift, it suggests that the universe is still expanding, just as the Bible told us three thousand years ago.  Because the universe is expanding and always has been, the fabric of space must have changed in its consistency, which almost certainly would have had an effect on the speed of light. 

As to the first three days of light, what we are talking about is some form of radiation, which could be anything from gammarays through to the Extremely Low Frequency (this is called the electromagnetic spectrum) everything in between is a part of the light spectrum, of which only a small part is visible light.  The very creation of matter (what science calls the Big Bang) caused huge amounts of radiation, and it is this that may have been created on day one, with the visible light from our star only reaching the Earth on day four.

I hope this has helped.

Comment by Dan on February 20, 2016 at 6:24am

Ok, I have to attempt to ask this question one more time because I feel like there are still questions pending, and or that the answers given do not really do justice to the questions asked.

There were two questions that were asked.  Basically, and to rephrase one of them, if the universe was lighted on Day 1, then according to my understanding, God intended us to be able to see everything in the universe at the moment light was created without relation to distance or time. So why are we approaching this problem of distant starlight with the presupposition that we have to wait for the light from those objects to reach us for them to be seen by us, and the implied presupposition that we are looking back in time? All the events we see in the Cosmos could are ALL relatively current events. Maybe we are seeing them in real time - so to speak. Maybe there is a light, or a property of light, or something about light that is already in our eyes making those things seeable now!

Also, parenthetically, why would God put signs in the sky for us to see and then make us wait billions of years to be able to see them? It just doesn’t seem Scripturally accurate to me to assume that just because of the properties of light we are familiar with, that there isn’t more to light than we currently are aware of. And so, we force our understanding of light to dictate something other than what God’s word seems to be indicating; that is, that we presuppose that we have to wait for who knows how far/long (or distance/time) before we can see most of the signs God put in the sky that he told us he lighted in the very first place (the beginning) and intended us to see! Sorry if someone thinks I’m twisting Scripture here, but that just doesn’t add up! It only takes us 3 verses to begin to interpret God’s word from our presuppositions, instead of allowing God’s word to form them! Day 1 – God lighted creation! What could be any simpler than that? Day 4, God put stuff in the expanse for us to see. Why are we surprised that we can see them? That was rhetorical; I know why. It’s because of what we’re presupposing! Well, maybe we need to reexamine our presuppositions and consider whether there is more to light than we currently understand!

You know, telescopes don’t take us out to meet the light that hasn’t reached us yet. Yet, with the help of telescopes, we can see the most distant objects no matter how far out they are! Either the universe is really that old, or else there’s something else about the light on Day 1 that we’re refusing to consider.

The second question was a little different, and I think it was misunderstood because of poor analogy on my part. I’ll try again to give a hypothetical that hopefully will better ask what I was trying to ask. I’m going to use some pretend figures that are not true to reality, but only for the purpose of trying to get the meaning of what I’m trying to ask across, and not for the purpose of trying to say that is the way I think things actually are.

Say there is a star that is that is 99 light years from Earth. From what I understand to be the current presuppositions, we have to wait for the light from both Earth and that star to meet in order for anyone on Earth to see that star. And so that means that we have to wait for light from the Earth to travel half the distance to that star, and for the light from that star to travel half the distance to Earth, and the two meet in the middle to make it possible for us to see that star. But what if there was a star half way in-between.  Wouldn’t the light from that third star cut the time needed to wait for us to be able to see the furthest star from Earth down? Wouldn’t we then only have to wait a fraction of the time we would otherwise have to wait without the presence of the star in-between? If Earth is A and the further star is Z, then we would have to wait until the light from each reached MN in order for anyone on A to see Z. However, if there was a star at MN, then shouldn’t we then only have to wait until the light from A and the light from Z each to have traversed half the distance to MN so that each of the light from A and Z would only have to travel one third of the distance to the other for anyone from A to see Z? Furthermore, if that is the case, then isn’t it possible that we don’t have to wait for the light from the furthest galaxies to reach us because of all the galaxies in-between? Of course, that still doesn’t do us much good, because the closest galaxy is millions of light years away. So then, my first question still stands as the dominant one that I think we should be asking ourselves.

Any further light that anyone can shed on this would be greatly appreciated! (Sorry, that was too much fun to pass up the pun). Thanks!

Comment by Dan on April 9, 2015 at 7:38am

"As far as your "dark-room" analogy, we can't see in a dark room because there's an absence of visible light, but because the levels or too low for our unaided eyes to pick it up.  So night vision goggles don't detect a different light, they just - for lack of a better phrase - magnify the existing light, allowing our eyes to register it. "

Oh, umm..... I see? haha pun intended

"I'm not trying to put you down, just caution you on wild speculations."

No, not at all. That's exactly why I was asking the question, because I didn't know if I was crossing any kinds of boundaries such as what you have pointed out. Thank you for that. However, these are questions, and not necessarily assertions, or even theories. I'm just asking if it is a possiblity, not trying to make any kind of definitive statement like a "thus says the Bible."

However, if you'll permit me, I might push the boundaries  just a bit longer for my own clarification, or satisfaction, or I don't know what. But you mentioned that a kind of light that may not need to travel through space to make it possible for us to see things is a physical impossiblity, but isn't that based on the presupposition of how we understand sight related to the kind of light (physical light?) that we do know about? It's not a great analogy by any means, but if such a thing did exist, it would be something that would be outside the norm of how we understand vision or sight to work, kind of similar, in a way, to the way we can see things on the other side a clear plastic bag, or clear plastic container. (Granted, we see things on the other side because light travels through them - that's why I said it's not a great analogy).

Now, I'm not trying to force the issue, and I'm certainly not trying to make the Bible say something that it is not. I'm just wondering if there might be reason to rethink our current understanding of light. It's probably just foolishness, but that's why I need to ask, because I don't know these kinds of things, and I'm just trying to learn.

And you do not need to apologize for answering my questions; I never thought for even a moment that you were trying to put me down in any way. I really don't know how things work, so maybe it's kinda like the innocence in a child's question, but that's my only motivation for asking. Thank you so much!

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms

Homeschool Curriculum


Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service