I find that in order to be a true Christian you become a target from both sides of the divide. Scientist imply that you are stupid and creationists imply that you have no faith. In my experience, the people who I have met that believe science and follow the scientific method also by far believe in creation and the people who believe creation also accept science, but those who claim to represent these communities see themselves as adversaries and want us to choose sides. I examine that issue here but there is much more to be said on the subject of creation.

God gives a principle that was followed by the Bereans. It says that we should dilligently examine information and then accept the facts. Do not allow any organisation to blinker you or turn you into a fanatic. Get the evidence from both sides. Scrutinize it and come up with a position that recognises ALL of the facts.

Some arguments are not as simple as that for some people to to pick apart and search the Bible for. Let us take the supernova argument that is credited to creationist.

Creationist supernova argument simplified

1..

Supernovae are stars that have ended their lives by blowing up. Supernovae produce supernova remnants (SNRs) that are the expanding cloud that results from the explosion.

superhovae have three stages. The first stage should last about 300 years and one SNR should occur every 25 years in this galaxy. This means that we should now have 300/25 first stage SNRs in our galaxy, or about 12. Astronomers calculate that only about 19% of SNRs should be visible, that is about two of the 12. We know of 6.

2..

The second stage SNR is expected to expand for about 120,000 years. After this, it starts to cool down and begin the third stage. Now, if the universe was billions of years old, there is nothing to limit the amount of SNRs in our galaxy but our size. Within the most recent 120,000 years we use our 1 per 25 year estimate and predict (120,000 / 25) = 4,800 supernovae. Now we must subtract the 12 that would still be in the first stage (4,800 - 12) = 4,788 about 4,800. But if the universe has only existed for about 7000 years, then there would be only enough time for (7000/25 12)= 268. Astronomers calculate that 47% (about 1/2) should be visible, so evolutionary theory predicts about (4800/2)= 2,400 second stage SNRs, while the Biblical Creation theory predicts about (268/2) = 134.

There are actually only 200 second stage SNRs observed in our galaxy. The Biblical creation results are closer by far.

3..

The third stage would theoretically only start after 120,000 years, and would last about one million to six million years. If one million years was available there would be tens of thousands of third stage supernovae: (1,000,000/25) less the 2,400 second stage and the 12 first stage SNRs. Of these, about 14% should be observable, producing a result in the thousands.

There are actually no third stage SNRs observed in our galaxy hence again the creationists prevail.

4..

This proves that the universe is only about 7,000 years old.

Critique

You will know that the oposing scientific argument is that the univere is billions of years old but until you actuallly check it out there are some things that you will not know. Let us examine it as the Bereans would.

The age of the milky way does not determine the age of the universe. Galaxies are transitory: they are created merge and grow and die. The shape of the milky way does not put it in the class of the oldest galaxies.

Having said the above, based on the argument for the milky way alone the creationists (meaning those who only accept that the universe came into existence 6,000 years ago) seem to produce closer results than the evolutionists. The official rate of supernovae was about 1 every 100 years and revisions have more recently dropped it to 50 not 25 to my knowledge, but that does not affect the conclusion.

We cannot observe all nebulae (another name for super nova remnants) across the visible universe or even across our entire galaxy. I do not know how accurate the percentages quoted from "astronomers" above are but I have seen alternate figures. What I have read indicates that supernova sightings in the Milky Way are very rare and do not nearly correspond to the estimate of how many they should be. I have seen estimates of 200 but I only know of 10 recorded SNRs which are on wikipedia, and I cannot determine which stage they are at. The shape of our galaxy presents a problem to finding SNRs. It is a disc and we are peering through the disk from the edge. We can see other disks (galaxies) much clearer because our angle of vision is more top-down or bottom-up. Problems arise because of dust and objects in the way (like the very material that the disc is made of) and because SNRs become more diffuse with age. From what I have read, the limit for being an observable remnant is 10,000 light-years. The galaxy is about 100,000 light-years across and based on the calculation of area of a disk this would make the actual SNRs 25 times more thatn the observable.

If we accept the rate of 1 supernova each 25 years and we use the 200 we have about 50 * 200 = 10,000 years for this galaxy. We then need to multiply our 10,000 years by 25, giving us 250,000 years for the age of the galaxy. The problem is that absence of observations do not prove absence of existence. If we use the 10 recorded in wikipedia we get 50 * 10 * 25 = 12,500 years which means it definitely is older than 6 or 7 thousand years but as I said I do not know the stages of the ones on wikipedia and I do not believe that it is necessary for this approach to the calculation.

It is believed tha the number of observable supernovae in the galaxy is stable because as one set dissipates new ones replace them, so regardless of how old our galaxy actually is there will be the same amount.

Deceitfulness

When it is set out in the second manner then we can immediately see that nobody knows how many SNRs are in the galaxy so the first step in the argument is fraudulent and hence the whole argument is invalid. You do not pick it up because of how it is phrased.  What could be accepted is we know that they are x SNRs because we can see y and there is a law that shows that if we can see y then there must be x. If there is no law or extremely strong evidence then any attempt to go further and make a claim is an attempt to deceive.

The Berean approach

The Bereans would not be able to search the scriptures for anything conclusive here. By combining the information I conclude that since both sides base their conclusions on estimates of the existing SNRs with no conclusive support for the final tally used, then I cannot come to a reliable conclusion on the precise age. What is certain from either argument is that the galaxy is more than 6,000 years old. Once the SNR exists then it has to be at least 10,000,000 years before it became the supernova. I have never seen the age of the universe stated in the Bible. There were seven days of creation but it does not say that it was referring to the whole universe.