Guest shiloh357 Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 So why is hard to accept that an all knowing all powerful God created all of the stars at the instantly at the same time, including the ones that are 10-14 billion light years from earth whose light we will never see with the naked eye? The assumption by some creationists is that the stars had to be visible on the fourth day, but that is not the case. The simply had to be made on the fourth day. God did not create the universe with the appearance of age. He created the universe functionally mature. Another Way, Even Peer Reviewed Yet Seldom Considered And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. Genesis 1:6-7 http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-unraveling-of-starlight-and-time-2 Lol. This is the classic example of the Christian who HAS TO believe in the young earth model grabbing any article from IRC or AIG and running with it before checking out what do the real scientists, the guys and gals who do the research and leg work think about such preposterous theories. Hard to believe Humphrey thought he knew more than Einstein. "any article from IRC or AIG" Is this the fallback form answer for everything?? .... It's just an Ad Hominem. And who's IRC? That's the way they can blow off anything we say that they really don't have an intelligent answer to. ICR is the "Institute for Creation Research." With all due respect Shiloh, I've not seen an intelligent rebuttal on this thread. I went through the rebuttals and they all are quite weak In my opinion. With all due respect, there is been a ton of intelligent responses from myself and Enoch2021 in a lot of threads that had nothing to do with AIG or ICR. But it seems that all you can do is reduce everything we say down to an appeal to AIG or ICR. That way you can mock what we say without actually having to actually make a serious response. It is just an intellectually lazy way of responding to what we say. You were making an immature, mocking post about it just the other day that you tried to pass off as "humor" (as if anyone was dumb enough by that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 No, he is not lol. What he is talking about is commonly understood. A conversion is easily and automatically made in the way that nebula pointed out, that I pointed out, and Spock has also. http://earthsky.org/space/what-is-a-light-year A light-year (symbol: ly), sometimes written light year or lightyear is an astronomical unit of length (not time) equal to just under 9.5 trillion kilometres (or about 6 trillion miles).[note 1] As defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a light-year is the distance that light travels in vacuum in one Julian year.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Well, this is interesting. I especially enjoyed the difficulty these "Scientists" had with publishing they're research..... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733 The problem with posting things like this - The article is full of manipulative speech in support of this man and his efforts. When one searches for either affirmation or confirmation on this, one finds rebuttals that are likewise filled with manipulative speech against the man and his efforts. Of course, unless one has a better handle on what these people are talking about, one has a hard time discerning which angle is the most accurate. So unless someone here is able and willing to run through the number crunches themselves (surely there must be a way to find what he published which would have the data presented for one to run through the numbers with?), one needs to be careful about jumping on any bandwagons just because it sounds to the lay person like it supports what they pre-believe to be true. I've been through enough of these debates with critical thinkers to get too exited too fast over something that seems to shatter the mainstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 24, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 24, 2014 No, he is not lol. What he is talking about is commonly understood. A conversion is easily and automatically made in the way that nebula pointed out, that I pointed out, and Spock has also. http://earthsky.org/space/what-is-a-light-year Yes? How do you think that negates the point? The taking into consideration of corrections due to the expansion of the universe? That wouldn't help your case. Taking into account the expansion of spacetime, it is true, the universe is larger than you'd naively guess if you are talking only about how long it has taken light to go from here to there. Locally this isn't going to matter as much, and it won't for gravitationally bound systems like the local cluster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 No, he is not lol. What he is talking about is commonly understood. A conversion is easily and automatically made in the way that nebula pointed out, that I pointed out, and Spock has also. http://earthsky.org/space/what-is-a-light-year Yes? How do you think that negates the point? The taking into consideration of corrections due to the expansion of the universe? That wouldn't help your case. That is just one website that makes the point that a light year is not a unit of distance. I have posted two already and can post more. The fact is that Spock is simply wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Spock is completely right with the use of light years. It as a unit of distance only makes sense when we consider it is how long it takes for a photon to travel through a vacuum (which space approximates) in a year. Hence if we can see an object that is 10,000,000 light years away it is from 10,000,000 years ago (as nebula explained already...). No, Spock is completely wrong. One of the more difficult concepts for people to grasp is thinking in 4th dimensional physics, which is what one has to do when viewing the cosmos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 24, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 24, 2014 No, he is not lol. What he is talking about is commonly understood. A conversion is easily and automatically made in the way that nebula pointed out, that I pointed out, and Spock has also. http://earthsky.org/space/what-is-a-light-year Yes? How do you think that negates the point? The taking into consideration of corrections due to the expansion of the universe? That wouldn't help your case. That is just one website that makes the point that a light year is not a unit of distance. I have posted two already and can post more. The fact is that Spock is simply wrong. Is Spock arguing *that* or merely that you can make a conversion? If I give you a velocity, and a distance, you can extrapolate the time. The complicating factor here looking at distant cosmic reaches and including the cosmological constant, is that what you had in mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted January 24, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 597 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,116 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,847 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted January 24, 2014 Spock is completely right with the use of light years. It as a unit of distance only makes sense when we consider it is how long it takes for a photon to travel through a vacuum (which space approximates) in a year. Hence if we can see an object that is 10,000,000 light years away it is from 10,000,000 years ago (as nebula explained already...). No, Spock is completely wrong. One of the more difficult concepts for people to grasp is thinking in 4th dimensional physics, which is what one has to do when viewing the cosmos. Not to even mention upper dimensions that we really don't know enough about to understand how they effect our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 24, 2014 No, he is not lol. What he is talking about is commonly understood. A conversion is easily and automatically made in the way that nebula pointed out, that I pointed out, and Spock has also. I'm thinking people do not grasp that the distance measurement involves time such that one tells us the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Well, this is interesting. I especially enjoyed the difficulty these "Scientists" had with publishing they're research..... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733 The problem with posting things like this - The article is full of manipulative speech in support of this man and his efforts. When one searches for either affirmation or confirmation on this, one finds rebuttals that are likewise filled with manipulative speech against the man and his efforts. Of course, unless one has a better handle on what these people are talking about, one has a hard time discerning which angle is the most accurate. So unless someone here is able and willing to run through the number crunches themselves (surely there must be a way to find what he published which would have the data presented for one to run through the numbers with?), one needs to be careful about jumping on any bandwagons just because it sounds to the lay person like it supports what they pre-believe to be true. I've been through enough of these debates with critical thinkers to get too exited too fast over something that seems to shatter the mainstream. "The article is full of manipulative speech in support of this man and his efforts" Manipulative Speech? How so? @ least there's actual Tests and Data from actual measurements!! LOL It also explains Red Shift and other phenomenon However; As I noted in a previous post, his extrapolations from that data...cannot be verified, so it's Speculation. Just like every other "Theory" out there, because again....You can't do experiments on the past. It's UNTESTABLE! And I'm not Jumping on any BandWagon..... unless it's the LORD'S Bandwagon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts