Let There Be Light Speed

The other day, I was thinking about what I see to be the biggest problem with the Young Earth theory. (Yes, I think about those things in my free time... but I also think about baseball statistics and ways to solve puzzles, so I think I've secured my geek status well before this posting.)

I don't have the expertise in biology or geology to comment on those aspects intelligently. However, I do have a good grounding in astronomy, and there's one problem I can't get avoid, any time I can look up at the sky on a clear, dark night. The problem is that I can see the Milky Way, and in especially dark areas, the Andromeda Galaxy. Why is that a problem? Well, because they are really far away. The Andromeda Galaxy, for example, is 2.5 million light-years away.

The problem is not in the size of the universe, but in the fact that we can see it. When we look at the Andromeda Galaxy, we not only see something 2.5 million light-years away, but 2.5 million years ago. The light we can see in our night sky was produced from the stars in that galaxy 2,500,000 years ago. That just doesn't jive with the Young Earth theory of Creation happening less than 10,000 years ago.

Here are some other false starts of explanations:

Light was created (Day 1) before the Earth was created (Day 2?). The problem with this is though light was created on Day 1, the stars were created on Day 4, after the Earth was created. Even if that weren't the case, the literal interpretation only places 24 hours between creation of light and creation of earth, not 20,000 centuries.

Light was created "on its way", such that we could see all that God had created. While this would explain it, it seems on par with God creating an afterimage of the risen Lord as the sign of his resurrection. We'd see it, but it wouldn't be what's really real. For instance, we can see a supernova go off in a far away galaxy, from which the light couldn't possibly have reached us (i.e. we're still seeing light created on the way). That would mean the supernova didn't actually happen, and yet we see it. In other words, this explanation makes God a deceiver. Not a good plan.

Last try, and the one I was fiddling with. Maybe at the Fall (or the Flood), God set the speed of light. Beforehand, along with other laws of physics being different, light traveled at a near-infinite speed. Then, as part of our restriction as a fallen race, God made sure we were limited to our solar system, and only had interstellar travel in the movies. The problem with that is that the light itself would be distorted on the change in speed. There might be a tremendous gap of darkness, with all the pre-fall light having already reached us and the post-fall light not getting here yet. If the light gradually slows, it would be stretched out and therefore drastically red-shifted. If the light was instead repeated to fill the interval, then we couldn't see any galactic variations, such as supernovae.

There's just no way I can see reconciling a literal reading of the 6 days of creation to the observations any person in a rural area can make. This still allows for creation to occur, but only if freed from, in my opinion, the totally unnecessary restriction that it all happens in under a week.

Ball Hogs

My new favorite baseball site, fangraphs.com, posted this article about the differences in team fielding between this year and last year. Here are the top 5 most improved teams:

Tigers 97.9
Pirates 89.8
Reds 89.7
Rangers 84.7
Mariners 69.6

Those numbers are what is called Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR). Other than being a very cool name, it indicates how many runs were saved by excellent fielding as compared to the average fielders. And since it is generally accepted that a difference of ten runs equates to a win, these numbers are fairly significant. It implies that the Tigers are on pace to win 10 more games than last year because of improved fielding alone.

And the bottom five:

Indians -51.0
Phillies -57.7
Mets -70.1
Red Sox -80.3
Nationals -81.7

The interesting thing from this is it's easy to point to certain acquisitions that make all the difference: Jason Bay from Pirates to Red Sox, Adam Dunn from Reds to Nationals, Raul Ibanez from the Mariners to the Phillies, Franklin Gutierrez from the Indians to the Mariners, and Endy Chavez from the Mets to the Mariners. (How about those Mariners upgrading the outfield!) Or new players coming up: Nyjer Morgan for the Pirates and Elvis Andrus for the Rangers.

And then there are my Orioles, at -40.7: losing 4 more games because of failing defense. Why? Well, because our outfield has fallen apart.

In 2008, the Orioles had Payton (+12.0), Jones (+9.9) and Markakis (+12.1).
In 2009, the Orioles have Reimold (-2.4), Jones (-4.8) and Markakis (-8.7).

Okay, fine. Switching out Payton for Reimold in left field cost us a decent bit. I'm willing to accept that to get a player 11 years younger (26 to 37) and 270 points higher in OPS (.908 to .637). But what happened to Adam Jones and Nick Markakis? Did someone install an obstacle course in right-center? Or is it simply one more reason for my favorite team to be the NotYankees?

Life, The Universe, and Everything

In the past ten days or so, two articles on Space.com appeared, one on Mars and the other on Titan (Saturn's largest moon). Both talk of lakes on the surface of the globes: Mars a past water ocean, Titan a current methane lake system. And then both then mention the possibility of life developing there. Why is that? Why not stick to the questions at hand rather than going to conjecture? I can think of several reasons.

• Journalistic appeal: an article on a far away lake is not interesting. The discovery of life outside of the Earth is.
• Scientific longing: the desire to find something mind-blowing and paradigm-shifting.
• Biological practicality: just like in the jungles of the Amazon, finding diverse life teaches us more about the life we know, and can grant us cures we couldn't get otherwise.
  
• Historical genesis: if basic life is forming on other worlds, that would fill us in on how things may have come about here on earth.
  
• Philosophical ache: one of the basic questions of this generation is, Are we alone in the universe?
• Mythological debunking: if we find life on other planets, especially in the early stages, it puts a dent in the claims of a Creator God making a special Earth filled with fully-developed beasts.

This last one intrigues me especially, considering what the Bible says about life on other planets. What does it say? Oh yeah, nothing. Genesis talks about God's creation process on Earth, and it is only a weak inference that leads us to believe that life cannot be elsewhere. Furthermore, even if we hold to a special creation happening here on Earth (which I don't believe is strictly necessary according to Scripture), that does not preclude life developing naturally, does it? If Jesus heals a blind man, does that mean we cannot do the same using natural means?

In the same way finding other planets expanded our horizons of the grandeur of God's creation, so too the finding of life will open our eyes to the vastness of God's plan. Who knows? Other sentient life may exist in this vast universe, and it may be the call of our descendants to be witnesses to the end of their worlds, too (Acts 1:8).

Bracket Time

We're rapidly approaching the end of the playoffs for two major sports leagues: the NBA and the NHL. Each league accepts 16 teams into their playoffs, and each matchup is a best-of-seven series. This, combined with a good number of off days explains why these playoffs last two months.

This makes me wonder why Major League Baseball can't involve more teams. Why do they only invite 8 teams to "the dance" where the other leagues invite 16. The NFL even invites 12 teams. Why not have best-of-seven series matching up more teams in baseball.

Then I realized, this pretty much already happens. It just happens during the regular season. What if, instead of playing another set of games at the end of the season, we just take the games already played, simulate a bracket, and have the "winners" play in the World Series? So, that's what I did, at least for the past five seasons.

Here are the rules:
All teams are seeded (per league) based on win-loss record. Ties are broken based on expected win-loss (which is based on runs scored and allowed). The 1 and 2 seeds in the AL get first-round byes, since there are only 14 teams. Each round is then "played" by looking at how these teams did head-to-head. If they tied (often teams play 6 games), then the team with the most runs scored wins. The winner of the AL bracket meets the winner of the NL bracket in the Bracket World Series.

For example, the 2008 American League bracket looks like this:
1 LA Angels (100-62) Bye
8 Cleveland (81-81) vs. 9 Texas (79-83)

4 NY Yankees (89-73) vs. 13 Baltimore (68-93)
5 Chicago Sox (89-74) vs. 12 Detroit (74-88)

2 Tampa Bay (97-65) Bye
7 Toronto (86-76) vs. 10 Oakland (75-86)

3 Boston (95-67) vs. 14 Seattle (61-101)
6 Minnesota (88-75) vs. 11 Kansas City (75-87)

In the first round,
Cleveland beats Texas, 6 to 4 [their season head-to-head record].
New York beats Baltimore, 11 to 7 [why do the O's always seem to stink against the Yanks?]
Chicago beats Detroit, 12 to 6
Toronto beats Oakland, 6 to 4
Boston beats Seattle, 6 to 3
Minnesota beats Kansas City, 12 to 6

In the second round,
Los Angeles beats Cleveland, 5 to 4
New York beats Chicago, 5 to 2
Tampa Bay beats Toronto, 11 to 7
Boston beats Minnesota, 4 to 3
There are still no upsets in the bracket, though real-life playoff team Chicago is ousted by the team with the better record, New York.

In the third round,
Los Angeles beats New York, 7 to 3
Tampa Bay beats Boston, 10 to 8
No Yanks and no Red Sox in this imaginary Series... it's a happy ending after all.

And for the AL crown, Tampa Bay beats Los Angeles, 6 to 3.

Again, these are the records these teams had head-to-head during the season. Is it really fair to discount that New York beat Chicago 5 out of 7 games, even if those games weren't in October?

I'll sum up the remaining brackets with the World Series matchups, then a few comments about how it played out.

2008 : #2 Rays vs. #2 Phillies
Surprisingly, this is the same matchup as the actual World Series. The Cubbies made it to the Finals, though, before losing to the Phillies, 5-1. They almost didn't, as they split their series 3-3 with the lowly #16 Nationals, only to be saved by scoring 7 more runs. Upset special: #12 Atlanta (72-90) knocks out #5 Astros (86-75) and #4 Mets (89-73) before getting eliminated by the Cubs.

2007 : #4 Angels vs. #4 Padres
The NL champ is the one who in reality was eliminated in a one-game playoff with the Rockies for the NL wildcard. The Angels beat #13 Orioles, #5 Tigers, #1 Indians in a tie-breaker, and #3 Yankees, 6-3. The Padres squeak by thanks to #8 Brewers defeating the top-seeded Diamondbacks, 5-2.

2006 : #6 Angels vs. #1 Mets or #2 Dodgers
Whoops! My tiebreakers wasn't breaking enough! In the first round, the mighty Mets (97-65) played the #16 Cubs (66-96) to a tie, 3-3, in which they managed each to score 35 runs. If the Mets "win" that match, they go all the way; if not, the Dodgers go in. As far as the 89-73 Angels go, they earn their bid. After dispensing with the #11 Mariners, they beat the #3 Tigers, the #2 Twins, and the #1 Yankees. They had a winning record against the top three AL teams (all playoff bound), yet missed the playoffs entirely. It goes to show you have to beat the bad teams, too.

2005 : #3 Red Sox vs. #2 Braves or #8 Brewers
Argh! Failed again! Milwaukee ended dead even with the Mets in the 3rd round, with 3 wins and 40 runs each. If they win, they beat the Braves for the title. If not, the Braves beat the Mets. This was the year of the upset. Besides the Brewers, the 67-95 Devil Rays take out the #4 Yankees, #5 Indians, and #9 Rangers (who beat the top-seeded White Sox) before succumbing to the Red Sox. But the bigger upset came when 67-95 16-seed Colorado beat the 100-win, top-seeded Cardinals by one run in the tiebreaker, 34-33.

2004 : #1 Yankees vs. #1 Cardinals
The first time a top seed makes it outright, though this year is not without excitement. #6 Texas makes it to the finals before losing 5-4. And a Dodgers/Brewers tie in the first round trickles into the finals before St. Louis ousts them all. The 71-91 Mets also make it to the third round by beating #5 Giants and #4 Astros.

So, what did I learn from this exercise, other than I have way too much time on my hands? Well, first, that I don't have enough time, for if I did, I'd have made a program that would download these records and compute the bracket for me. This way, I could tweak the tiebreakers, tweak the seedings, and even decide whether to re-order the winners based on seed or keep them in bracket (e.g. if a 16 beats a 1, do they play the #8 or the #2 next?)

And why doesn't MLB go to something like this? Well, other than the loss of revenue from playoff games and selling October as the big-time games, I can think of one really good reason. I can imagine a scenario in this bracket system where the last day of games determines the seeding. And, I can imagine that based on matchups, a lower seed may actually be better for a team. So, the worst-case scenario is if two teams are playing each other on the final day, and the LOSER will end up in the World Series. Imagine two teams each trying to throw the game. That's why this will only ever be an exercise for stat geeks like myself.

A Desert Plant in Suburbia

Then God said to Jonah, "What right do you have to get angry about this shade tree?"

Jonah said, "Plenty of right. It's made me angry enough to die!"

God said, "What's this? How is it that you can change your feelings from pleasure to anger overnight about a mere shade tree that you did nothing to get? You neither planted nor watered it. It grew up one night and died the next night.
-- Jonah 4:9-11 (The Message)

I was reading through Jonah this morning, and got God's holy 2x4 of conviction smacked across the back of my skull. I've had that uncomfortable sensation before, but this time it felt like a shade tree from the deserts of Assyria.

Here I sit in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., in one of the richest counties in arguably the richest nation in the world. I'm a computer programmer for a defense contractor. I have a beautiful, intelligent, and loving wife, and an adorable, fun daughter. A nice comfortable house, two cars, and more old electronics equipment than I'd care to admit.

And time after time I find myself in grumbling mode. Grumbling to God that something isn't the way I want it. Termites crawling around out back. Grumble. Daughter gets a cold. Grumble. Two-hour meeting. Grumble. Then God gives me perspective.

A blog entry: Great Ways to Become Poor and Stay Poor, Item #8 : Be born in the third world.
A news article: Swat Refugees Facing Dire Hardships. Pakistani civilians are being severely affected by the war on terror.

There is no running water, no electricity, and food is scarce. There is no fuel left for generators and most medical facilities in the district are no longer functioning.

I must ask myself. What did I do to be born in the U.S.? To be raised in northern Virginia? I'm worried about inconveniences when there are millions in real need.

God, thank you for the blessings you have given me, from your grace alone. I deserve none of this. Thank you more so for humbling me. Carve out that grumbling heart and mind of mine and replace it with one of gratitude, and generosity.

You Got Your Peanut Butter God in My Chocolate God!

As is my normal Sunday morning routine, I read the comics. Something just jumped out at me when reading Doonesbury. Now, if you know me, you know I don't fit very well into the stereotype that evangelical Christians are conservative Republicans. So, I'm not especially bothered by quips at the expense of the previous administration. But, it does irk me when someone continues a misconception about Scripture.

Whenever you read from the Old Testament, God is always crabby and snarky to everyone... but the New Testament isn't about anger at all -- it's about love.

Now I know the point of this was to make a (rather amusing) jab at the banking industry, so I excuse them (especially since they never claim to be knowledgeable on the Bible). But to show how wrong they are, here are a few passage of Scripture, for you to guess OT or NT:

Doom to you, Chorazin! Doom, Bethsaida! If Tyre and Sidon had seen half of the powerful miracles you have seen, they would have been on their knees in a minute. At Judgment Day they'll get off easy compared to you.

Snakes! Reptilian sneaks! Do you think you can worm your way out of this? Never have to pay the piper? It's on account of people like you that I send prophets and wise guides and scholars generation after generation—and generation after generation you treat them like dirt, greeting them with lynch mobs, hounding them with abuse. You can't squirm out of this: Every drop of righteous blood ever spilled on this earth, beginning with the blood of that good man Abel right down to the blood of Zechariah, Barachiah's son, whom you murdered at his prayers, is on your head. All this, I'm telling you, is coming down on you, on your generation.

I'll sing a ballad to the one I love, a love ballad about his vineyard: The one I love had a vineyard, a fine, well-placed vineyard. He hoed the soil and pulled the weeds, and planted the very best vines. He built a lookout, built a winepress, a vineyard to be proud of. He looked for a vintage yield of grapes, but for all his pains he got junk grapes.

And now, here's what I'm going to do: I'm going to start all over again. I'm taking her back out into the wilderness where we had our first date, and I'll court her. I'll give her bouquets of roses. I'll turn Heartbreak Valley into Acres of Hope. She'll respond like she did as a young girl, those days when she was fresh out of Egypt.
...
And then I'll marry you for good—forever! I'll marry you true and proper, in love and tenderness. Yes, I'll marry you and neither leave you nor let you go. You'll know me, God, for who I really am.

So, as you probably guessed, the fire-and-brimstone quotes are from Jesus himself (Matthew 11:23-24, Matthew 23:33-36) and the love passages are from Old Testament prophets speaking for God (Isaiah 5:1-2, Hosea 2:14-15, 19-20). [All from The Message translation, so us NIV readers won't instinctively know who's saying it.]

So, what's up with this anger-and-love God? Does he have a split personality? Is it a good cop-bad cop ploy to get us to follow him? Yeah, maybe. But I think the real answer is he isn't a God who spreads a sanitized love around. He's a passionate God who wants to be our Lover. So, he does try to woo us, but he also does rightly get upset when we:

1. Cheat on him with other loves, be it golden calves or other primary interests.
2. Treat other parts of his bride (i.e. other people) with contempt.
3. Try to keep his bride from finding him.

As a husband, I know I'm be ready to explode if any of those things happened in my marriage. And I'm sure my wife would feel the same way. But in our culture that sees God as distant, it's easy to forget how intimate He wants to be with us.

---

I just discovered a hilarious and ironic twist to this comic. The quote they start with to make the point:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven

Well, that's actually Romans 1:18, from the New Testament.

Hope against hope

God is love. -- I John 4:8

[Love] always hopes -- I Corinthians 13:7

But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. -- Romans 8:24b-25

Wait, what? Does that say what I think it says? If God is love, and love always hopes, then I guess God always hopes. But hope is by definition for something that is not seen. So, God must not see something in order for him to hope for it? Is that right?

It's certainly possible that hope means something different for the one omniscient Being in the universe. It's clear that God waits patiently for us, and you could make the argument that until we accept him as our Savior, he doesn't "have" us yet. It might also be that since God isn't constrained by time, hope means something entirely different. And there may be some subtlety in the phrasing that gets us out of this scenario.

But maybe, just maybe, it is true that God hopes for us, and in doing so has to somehow forget that he knows the future. While it may be figurative, God does claim to stop remembering our sins. And Jesus was able to give up traits of his deity to become man. Jesus (at least while on earth) stated there were things the Father knows and he doesn't.

So maybe, just maybe, while the Father stays sovereign and omniscient, the Son continues to give away and "forget" just enough of his foreknowledge so he can hope. He can time and time again come and show us his grace and mercy. And each time, he can think to himself: Maybe, just maybe, they'll choose Me this time.