Here's a picture:

Hubble Ultra Deep Field


My question to creationists is: What is this a picture of?

Space.

Any other Questions?

jason78,
Nice picture.
Whats really interesting is that it represents a look at a very small portion of a fraction of the heavens.

There's something like 250 billion galaxies out there

My question is, how did they get all that stuff into a microscopic dot?

we dont know, we can only hypothesize about it. If anyone says they know how it happened, they are lying (or being intellectually dishonest) unless they have some evidence.

Why do you waste your time hypothesizing about something that defies all the laws of physics instead of just admitting that it never happened?

Hi Trilobyte,
As a creationist , may I ask how far away you think they are and how big they are? Some people suggest that the spiral forms are related to the fact that they are spinning. Is that acceptable? Or is there are different creationist theory? Thanks.




There are actually thousands of papers on such an issue and it is related to black holes. That whole stars can be swallowed up into a black hole compressing the entire star into a singularity is widely accepted. There is even evidence that the center of our own galaxy has a black hole that is swallowing stars.
However, we are likely to get over my head quickly in a discussion of general relativity.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
"According to general relativity, a black hole's mass is entirely compressed into a region with zero volume, which means its density and gravitational pull are infinite, and so is the curvature of space-time which it causes. These infinite values cause most physical equations, including those of general relativity, to stop working at the center of a black hole. So physicists call the zero-volume, infinitely dense region at the center of a black hole a "singularity"."

Until I see "evidence" that a liquid or solid can be compressed beyond numbers we cannot even calculate, at best it is all speculation. Has anyone been able to demonstrate how a liquid or solid can be compressed to a dot?

How about if we see a evolutionist take all the waters that exist in our oceans and compress them to a dot the size of a period on this page. If that can't be done, how can you expect a creationist to believe that the whole universe was done that way?

I like how physicist speculate what is found in a black hole, though it will never be proven. But we are supposed to believe (have faith) that they will always be right.

Another thing I find funny (not in a mocking way). That phycisists will work out all these formulations concerning gravity, but yet they do not know the source of gravity. Nor can they explain what gravity is. But yet the infinite gravitational pull of gravity causes a zero volume known as a singularity. It is accepted by the smartest minds in science. So that makes it true. Even though as best it is all speculation.

Just a warning about the thread. And the responses. A new rule about one liners was put up a few days ago. The thread itself borderlines on being a one liner to mock creationist. And the creationist responses are pretty much the same idea.

If the thread cannot get out of the one liner mode, I will close it. Either discuss like you have some interest, or don't post. I don't mind a little humor here and there from either side. But if humor is all you can post, then don't bother. We are trying to make threads more productive in discussing the debates between creation and evolution.

Ikester

I had the same thought, but I my ears really perked up at the mention in the previous post that a black hole's mass is "entirely compressed into a region with zero volume." Not a dot ... but a zero.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but zero, to me, sounds like nothing, no volume, a zero with a billion zeros after it stretching into eternity. I'll get back to that thought in a second.

Then, the same post stated, "These infinite values cause most physical equations, including those of general relativity, to stop working at the center of a black hole."

Now, that is a revelation! Can everyone see the importance of that statement? A singular moment of "nothing" but actually "something" which is beyond the laws of time, space and matter?

Gosh, it sure sounds like these greatest scientific minds are trying real hard to define the God of the universe, but not. Know what I mean?

I'm assuming that all this talk about black holes (there is a nothing, and it is beyond the laws of the universe) is a precursor to trying to explain the first alleged "singularity" that was "nothing" then it exploded, and voila, here we are.

But, you know what? The closer that these greatest scientific minds come to explaining the origin of the universe, the closer they come to the mind of God. And that explains why they so adamantly avoid discussion of origins. Gets too close to their conscience.

Very interesting.

Dave

Among other things, evidence that mature galaxies exist as far back in time as we can see. Not exactly a prediction of the big bang.

Much of science takes us in directions that go against our intuitions. Galileo fought with the church over the idea that the earth moved. Partly this was because a literal interpretation of Joshua implied that it was the sun that moved - not the earth. Secondly, all our intuitions say that it is the earth that is at rest. However, almost everyone - including the church - now accepts that the earth moves and that passage in Joshua need not be taken literally.

Einstein grappled with the odd notion that light appeared to travel at the same speed no matter what the speed of the observer. This is a VERY counter-inutitive idea but its solution led to the theory of relativity - and these were eventually confirmed. The theories of relativity led to yet more counter-intuitive ideas: the concept of black holes resulting from the collapse of large stars. The evidence for these is now quite strong.

Relatively leads to a notion that time and space are fundamentally linked. The collapse of space leads to collapse of time. Few people have an intuition for such an idea: how can time collapse?

And some of these ideas - along with evidence of an expanding universe, lead a Belgium priest to the idea that the universe had a beginning. As I mentioned elsewhere, the term "Big Bang" was coined by the atheist Fred Hoyle to mock the concept which he saw as a 'Christian' theory. However, the multiple lines of evidence for the "Big Bang" have convinced most of the scientific community despite the religious overtones.

However, any new theory is allowed if it can explain the available data better than the current theory. But it takes serious work to demonstrate that your theory does a better job. Simply noting that the current theory seems counter-intuitive will not have much impact.

Hi Trilobyte,
As a creationist , may I ask how far away you think they are and how big they are?

They are at all different distances...I don't understand the intent of your question.

Some people suggest that the spiral forms are related to the fact that they are spinning. Is that acceptable? Or is there are different creationist theory? Thanks.

Why would them spinning or not spinning matter? ....Once again I don't underdstand the intent of your question.

What happens when a black hole swallows up another black hole?

The problem is that Black Hole´s properties are only mathematical concepts, there is no empirical evidence about what really happens in the black hole, or if the time really can be collapsed.

Basically, you get a more massive black hole with a larger event horizon (the event horizon is region from which nothing - not even light - can escape).

Here is a nice story on collisions of supermassive black holes. However, although this is only a magazine science writer, I do wish they would not use the word proof. Nothing in science is really a "proof".

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace...ecbccdrcrd.html

Black Hole Death Match
What do you get when black holes meet? A really big black hole.

By Greg Mone | December 2002

Ravenous and unbelievably dense, a supermassive black hole is one of the most fearsome creations in the universe. With the mass of 100 million suns, these black holes swallow all the galactic material in their neighborhoods. But what would happen if two of these cosmic monstrosities actually bumped into one another? Astronomers David Merritt of Rutgers University and R.D. Ekers of the University of California, Berkeley, think they know.

Black holes meet when gravity pulls two galaxies together over billions of years, forming a gargantuan new system. Each black hole starts in the center of its host galaxy and drifts toward the middle of the new one. As they draw closer together, the black holes begin to orbit one another. In most computer simulations, this dance lasts indefinitely, with each black hole keeping its distance. But according to Merritt, in some cases the black holes can lose energy, gradually causing their orbits to shrink. Eventually, after hundreds of millions of years, the smaller of the two plunges inward, coalescing with its larger partner. Merritt compares it to the merger of two raindrops: Each black hole loses its original identity, forming a new, more massive whole.

Merritt and Ekers think they've found evidence of such mergers in a group of unusual X-shaped radio signals coming from distant galaxies. These X formations, they say, are proof of rapidly shifting plasma jets—streams of superheated gas shooting out from a black hole's center like sprouting palm trees.

Although a supermassive black hole is itself invisible, a plasma jet is one indication of its presence. Another sign is an accretion disc, a collection of swirling gas and dust sometimes likened to tree-swinging monkeys. The plasma palm trees extend out perpendicular to this disc, in line with the black hole's spin axis. Several light-years from the center, the superheated gas in the jet starts to cool and expand. As it does so, a radio beam shoots out from the jet, like a giant flashlight shining through space.

Astronomers were recently able to pick up some of these radio beams but were puzzled by their criss-cross formations. A movement of the jet seemed to be an obvious explanation. The problem was, a plasma jet—and its radio beams—should be extremely tough to move. A force acting gradually on the black hole, like a long-term gravitational pull, might produce an S-curved jet, but the X shape suggested rapid change. To produce that, you would have to knock around the black hole itself—and spinning objects that size are nothing if not stable.

Merritt and Ekers argue that the only plausible explanation for this intense result is the meeting of two supermassive black holes. And these exciting events can happen quickly. According to Merritt, once the smaller black hole begins to dive into its partner, it takes only about a year for the jet to shift. Even more spectacular, when the two black holes finally coalesce, there is a huge burst of gravitational radiation that could last less than 2 minutes. Merritt hopes that NASA's proposed Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), a space-based gravity wave detector not yet slated for construction, could pick up one of these merger events every year. Aside from proving Merritt and Eker's theory, such evidence would constitute a solid proof of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.

What's wrong with a white hole?

Because Joshua could not peer into space to see how things worked. His observation was correct as far as what he could see. So no he was not wrong at the time that he said it. plus the knowledge of man at that time also confirms. So yes it still can be taken literally but with the knowedge that he wrote about what he observed, and what he knew. But not what really happens.

For how can a lie be a lie if the knowlege of truth is not known?

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Which also means that the flip side of the verse applies as well. Because if good is not known (truth), then how is it sin? For judgement to be just, God is not going to be throwing people into hell because they had no access to the truth. Knowledge of sin makes the sin action a sin. The prime example of this is the first sin. God made sure they knew it was sin to partake of the tree because ye shall surely die. And upon them knowing good, but choosing to have knowledge of evil. They were judged.

Have you ever pondered what could have happened if Adam would have confessed his sin and asked for mercy instead of blaming it on Eve? Adam and Eve refused to confess what they did, and tried to say their sin, that they committed was someone else's fault. But they knew better because God warned them. So their attempt to not own up to their sin failed. And we all paid for that one.



I have a question. How can time expand? And if space and time are connected as you say. When space expanded, so did time.

ps 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

is 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

is 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein

Except time for a day was already set as done in Genesis 1. So when space was expanded, what could expand that would not affect the passing of time, but after the first sin became a part of time? Age. So when the heavens were expanded, age was expanded as well. But time remained the same. So the expansion of space aged the stars beyond our solar system according to their distance from us. Why? Earth is considered the center point in which all the light from stars had to shine.

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Why create things we are not able to see? This is why God put light into the firmament to give light upon the earth. Stretching the heavens stretches the light that comes from thos stars he created. If the light did not stretch when the heavens expanded, the reason light was created (to give light upon the earth) would not longer be in play. And when light is stretched, as the heavens were expanded. Gave light a red shift.



Yep, remove God, steal the theory.



It's a known fact that if a Creator is included, the theory is not allowed.

What do you think was the driving force behind the removal of the 10 commands? Evolution.

What was the driving force behind the removal of creation from schools? Evolution.

What was the driving force of the removal of prayers in school? Evolution.

And what is the current driving force behind eliminating all Christians in 10 years? Evolution.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV_UFaoNbhg

The you tube video link shows where the evolutionist at RRS want to rid the world of Chriatians in 10 years.

And if you don't think evolution is behind it, then explain this page:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/KentH*vind

Wow,
That is quite a set of comments for a discussion of what is seen in that picture of galaxies. I see you are a moderator. Shouldn't we be staying on topic?

As far as the question of prayer in schools, I once had a chance to ask Jerry Falwell about that when he came to my university. I asked him if it was ok with him if kids classes had hindu prayers, muslim prayers and even devil worshipping prayers if that was the religion of the students (or the parents). He implied that they could take turns. Personally, I wouldn't want my kids go through the prayers from odd religions simply because the community had a significant number of such people, so I am happy for the separation of church and state.

And shouldn't we avoid discussions of Kent H*vind here?

As far as the Big Bang theory, are you implying that the scientific community 'stole' the theory from Christians? Most physicists I know, are aware of who first came up with the theory. However, it is the evidence that won over the scientific community.

,

Every scientist wants their theory to be accepted. It takes hard work to show that the theory is consistent with all the different lines of evidence. The Big Bang is a theory that is consistent with a number of different lines of evidence. But there is no proof. And a new theory with better explanatory power will be accepted if it really accounts for more data.

Our own galaxy is around 100,000 light years across and there are many lines of evidence to support this. Our neighboring galaxy, the andromeda galaxy is 2 million light years away, and there is lots and lots of evidence of that. It has stars just light those in our galaxy and by knowing their size, we can estimate the distance. It is really quite straightforward.



So a theory that requires the universe to be just 6,000 light years across would really require a lot of juggling. Since just about every line of evidence goes against that. But hey, if you think you can make such a theory work, go for it. I would love to hear it.

Maybe we can start with an account of the Andromeda galaxy - since that is close to the topic here. We know a lot about it since it is our neighbor at a mere 2 million light years away. How big do you think it is. How far away is it?

How big is it according to the Creation Theory of the universe? What do you think we should tell a kid in school if they ask?

I think you'll find that Black Hole's are real world objects Deadlock. If you look at the Schwarzschild solution for General Relativity you'll see that t can be exchanged for r inside the event horizon.

Yeah, sorry about that I just can't help myself sometimes.

I think it falls into the strategy of debate, where you ask a simple question to get a predicted answer and use that to somehow prove a point.


Anyway, Jason, where were you going with this thread? You'll have to put the question strategy aside and just lay it out.

A picture of space, what is the context there?

Of course Black Holes are real objects.But , Noone entered into a Black Hole or sent a probe to get data about what happens there. All we have are mathematical models based on assumptions.

i think its very pretty a true tribute to the Glory of Gods Creation

It's God's paint brush in space.

The reason I posted this, is because with a creationist time scales these are not real objects. This is a picture of objects that do not exist and never will, due to the limited (10,000 year?) duration that creationists give the universe.

I wanted an insight into how someone could rationalise this. Also, it is nice to know that we can agree that it is a very beautiful picture.

Oh... yeah man, there is a thread three or four down about the same thing.

Creationist have a few explanations (theories)

The one I stick to is that God created the light with the stars. i.e. God said let there be light.

Plus the bible says that god stretched out the heavens about 7 times in the bible. I take that pretty literally.

I know a lot of creationist like to believe that, but it is rejected by other creationist as it paints the god as deceitful.



Yes it does, but what does that really mean?

No offense man, and I really mean that. But I've only heard atheist say that. And it just doesn't make sense. for God to be deceitful about something means he would have to lie.

What is there to lie about.?

"Let there be light" What else could that possibly mean? If the man says he made light, why would making light be deceitful?

God isn't really responsible for leaving an explaination of HOW he did everything. But he did leave plenty of evidence proving that he DID create everything.



I take it to be literal. He expanded space, he took the edges and stretched them in every direction

whether that is true, or if he just added to the edges is really debatable in christian circles. But the fact that it is mentioned 7 or so times is pretty significant, at least it is to us.

God isn't really responsible for leaving an explaination of HOW he did everything. But he did leave plenty of evidence proving that he DID create everything.

Canned answers.



Well let's see.

1) Stretched: extended or spread over a wide area or distance; "broad fields lay stretched on both sides of us".

2) Heavens: The heavens are the sky, the celestial sphere, or outer space. Indeed, sky is the original meaning of the word.

Might be the reason the universe is shaped like a football.
http://www.isa.org/Template.cfm?Section=Co...ContentID=23393

Because light in the physical universe is emitted from objects like stars and supernovas. That means that the light we detect from events more than 6,000 years away depict events that did not actually occur. It would be like me telling you that I built my house in two days and then actually showed you a time stamped home video of me taking two months to do the job. How is that not deceitful? Additionally, light is not the only thing we can detect from distant events, those same supernovas also emit radiation, did god fake that as well?




Even metaphysically, that doesn't really provide an explanation of what we observe. And technically, god made himself responsible for how his universe looks when he made the claim that we can learn about his nature by studying it. What would you learn about my nature from the above example? Would you put me down as a pinnacle for morality? A bastion of truth? A halberd of honest? An acropolis of awesome? My examples are getting out of hand, but I trust you get the idea.

How does this take into account the observed isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation?

Can God break His own laws that were created to work in our time-line? No.

So for us to understand how our time-line works, as we research it, age was added. So that we would know how old it would have been if it had all happened naturally. By doing this, God was not being deceptive. But giving man a choice on what he wants to believe.

Just because God is God, and we think He can do anything, He may have some limitations. And what I mean by limitations is that there are things He cannot do and still remain Holy. Not creating a whole universe that totally looks less than 10,000 years old maybe one of those things.

Example #1: If a black hole takes said amount of time to form, and for them to exist in less than 10,000. God has to add age. You might think, why even have the black hole if it is not going to happen in that amount of time (10,000 years)?

In the equation of the creation of our universe, black holes may be one of the parts that is required for it to work the way that it does. Leave them out, and the universe may not work at all. Understand? So in order to have them, along with every thing else that makes the universe work. God had to add age. The laws of this time-line require this in order to work.

Example: Because this is a natural physical universe, all things must abide by the natural physical laws contained in it. So to create something that does not go, would destroy such a universe because breaking the laws don't make the laws work.

This is also why there are things that don't seem to fit. Such as objects that do not date back to their origins (the big bang).

But the laws of creating a workable universe require that the laws of this time-line not be broken. Explains why things are the way they are. The equation of how the universe would work, along with the laws of this time-line, had to be followed in order for this time-line to ever work. Can laws of this universe be broken without repercussions? I think not.

Being that time (In the beginning) was the first thing created. All things created after this had to abide by the laws of time in this time-line.

Example #2: If a black hole was going to exist in this time-line, it has to have the age required in order to keep all the laws of this time-line in working order. The repercussions of breaking such time-lines may have been the destruction of this whole universe.

Example #3: Let's say you were doing an experiment in a lab. This experiment required certain chemicals to be added at certain times in order to get desired results. What you were waiting on is break down of certain chemicals, and reactions of chemicals that were combined. Now if you keep breaking the laws of the formula, the end result would not be the desired result. So you have to follow these laws. Why? Because those are the laws of this time-line.

So God created the universe abiding by the laws that allowed this universe to exist. And in order for it to exist, the formula required that black holes be there. Other galaxies, etc.... But for all this to work, these things had to have a time-line of their own (part of the time-line law). Not adding this age to each object would make the end desired result not work.

So God creating time already set the laws of this time-line into motion. Laws that more or less created a formula that had to be followed in order for everything to work.

These laws may be:

A black hole cannot date less then 10,000 years old because this time-line has laws that require it to take much longer (time laws have to be followed just like a formula does in a lab). So to keep from breaking that law, which may destroy this time-line, God has to create the black hole as if it has been around for billions of years (adding age to it). Without this age adding, these time-line laws would be broken and this time-line would cease to exist.

The same thing applies to all other things in the created universe.

Edited: To make clearer.

It's only said to be millions of years old because they measure how long it would take for light to travel from point A to point B. Thats it. Just a constant speed of light.

But I do agree that God created with age, Adam proves this.

Thats it? lol . Astronomy 101 Yoda recommends for you. Besides, has anyone ever measured light exceeding c? If nobody has why would a good scientist assume that it does?

And has anyone seen something come from nothing on it's on?

If so, then you could answer where the first matter came from without invoking or implying the supernatural, or a god did it type answer. Can you?

Age dating is a measurement of age only. It cannot prove that the actual time required to produce that aging effect ever happened. Now when you guys come up with time dating, and a way to prove that this amount of time actually passed, then you will see me listen.

This is because science cannot prove that time and age were "always" two processes that "always" worked together and were never separate processes (one did not control the other). Even though science will try and imply that a process we see today was always the same in past time. Science has also twisted this claim to make their own ideas work, and only imply to deny other ideas that work against their own.

Example: Creationists came up with the idea about the magnetic field of the earth weakening through time. which also menas it became stronger back in time. And because we relied on the idea that things stay the same through history as we see now (as science told us). The old earthers came up with the polar flip idea (twisting things) so that what was claimed did not have to be applied. And then used some type of lame evidence to prove that this happens when there are other explainations for the same type evidence, but were ignored.

While not taking into account that our magnetic field deflects solar wind. And in order for the poles to flip, the strength of the magnetic field would have to weaken at some point which would allow the solar wind to strip away parts of our atmosphere. Some lame excuses were given about this as well as if a polar flip had been observed and they know exactly what would happen.

All of this was thought up as an "excuse" as to why the magnetic would never become to strong to support life. An excuse is a lie that is cloaked in reason to explain away the truth that exists.

So where did the matter come from for the big bang? Will you use science, or reason to answer such a question?

You are going to have to explain a lot of these concepts in detail. I've never even heard of this theory.

Are these mainstream creationist ideas?

Yes depending on what is nothing. Particles and anti-particles pop into existence all of the time. If they do so in external fields they separate and do not annihilate. So we had nothing and now we have two renegad particles.

However, the claim that Scott is making is that c could have changed. So lets not move the goal posts.

Indeed thats it, and the constant speed is your base, and your base are belong to us.

Well I measured the speed of light nearly 100 years ago and it was c. Then I measured nearly everyday since and it is always c. I have an incredibly consistent theory that tells me that no matter how I measure c it will always be the same. But I say screw you Einstein and I keep measuring but I always get c. Why would I introduce a value larger than c just to appease young earth creationists when that doesn't agree with reality? To do so is the very definition of bad science.

Uh huh, and the speed of lights number is 299,792,458 m/s. Now, how exactly was this number derived. Was it simply guessed, and now its the number used in all distance equations concerning light speed?

I want to know HOW this number was derived. If the number is changed to 399,892,558 for istance, how would that change anything with the equation? It wouldn't. You would always get answers based upon that number. All I want to know is where this number came from.

Do not avoid what I am asking for it is all that I am asking. No further input past that point is necessary. If the number was assumed, then I shall firmly disreguard any and every theory based around that number.

The speed of light is trivially derived from relativistic electrodynamics. Starting with maxwell's equation for a E-field in a vacuum:

curl(E) = -mu_0*H_t

where H_t is the time derivative of H. If I take the curl of both sides and use a basic vector identity I find

Laplacian(E) - (epsilon_o * mu_o)* E_t = 0

Noting that wave mechanics tells us that (epsilon_o*mu_o) is just the inverse of the propagation of the wave squared we see that

c = [epsilon_o*mu_o]^(-1/2)

Vacuum permittivity (epsilon_o) is just the ratio of D/E in free space, and the magnetic constant (mu_o) is just the ration of B/H in free space. Plugging in these values we get a value for c.

The derivation of c is not arbitrary. If you just decided to change the speed of light you are really changing the fundamental relationship between B and H and D and E. I think this would require some new physics. Considering that special relativity has been shown time and time again via any test we throw at it to make correct predictions you would need a lot of evidence to overturn it. However, changing the speed of light wouldn't just be bad for classical relativity but it would prove worse for other areas of physics. I am not saying that there isn't new physics that would show that the speed of light was slightly slower or faster at some point in time, however, my scientific sensibilities would be shocked to discover the kind of drastic changes needed by some creationists.

What is nothing? I hate to laugh but that is a oxymoron statement if you think about it. You are basically trying to invoke a god like situation to make what you want to happen, happen. That's not science. Twisting the definition of nothing does not make a new reality.



I believe this also. But not in a sense that most would ponder this and here's why:

I believe the first 6 days of creation were in eternity. This is because sin did not happen until towards the end of the 6th day.

Now for eternity to be eternity, would the laws of that time-line be the same as we now understand our own time-line? Of course not. Different laws allow for things to work differently.

Eternity basically deals with time and age. It separates the two processes where one does not control the other. So time passes, but age is not a part of the passage of time. That is how eternity would work being that time was a part of it.

Which raises the questions:

1) How do you measure the speed something travels, if time is separated from age so that it can be eternal?
2) How does something age in an age-less time line unless age is added upon it's creation?

So it's not that speed of light not being a constant, it's that the timeline was different. And therefore the laws were different as well. Light from stars billions of light years away reached the earth because eternal time laws allowed them to until man sinned and changed them. So the reason it seem impossible in our time-line is because it would be. But not in a sin-less time-line where the laws are not the same.

Not sure exactly what you want explained in detail.



The bases of the ideas are. I just took them a lot further than most creationist would.

What? I am saying that I don't know what nothing is. That is a very appropriate scientific position. How would you scientifically describe nothing? I know somewhat what a vacuum is but that isn't nothing. Defining nothing is for philosophers and theists really.

Looks like creation, but is that the answer you wanted Jason?

What?!? Not real objects.... Where do you get the rationale for such a silly statement? Show the time scale that says these aren’t real objects.

If these objects are 10-12 billion light years away, and if light is not known to vary in speed, and we can see these objects, that means that the universe is at least 10-12 billion years old. If this isn't the case the question is why can we see these objects? The two answers commonly given by creationists are:

1. Light was faster in the past. Light would have had to be way faster in the past. So fast in fact that it would cause other problems in physics theory. Besides that, it is unscientific to assume things to make the conclusion. We have no evidence that light has ever had a varying speed in a vacuum to the extent that Creationists need to make their universe young. Until we have that evidence (look for it by all means) we can't really make a model that includes it.

2. God made the light already on its way. To some this seems to make God a deceiver because what would be the point of creating apparent age? However, I don't invoke characteristics of God to argue against God. If this is your answer then I accept it as an appeal to the supernatural and can't say anything scientific against this anyway because science doesn't have the ability to study the metaphysical. I am happy in a debate if I can push a Creationist to this answer because my goal is not to convert the opponent to my side but to get them to admit that Creationism is not science but an attempt to supernaturally account for reality. In court, say like in Kansas, if I could push the Creationist to admit that what they want to teach in school is supernatural then I have won because under the same definition astrology is astronomy and parapsychology is psychology.

Technically the correct answer is old stars and galaxies. I wasn't looking for a right answer, I was just asking. That's all. Trying to spark a healthy debate. For what it's worth it looks like it was successful

Why not? Dark Energy and Dark Matter are supernatural entities included in models. As are imaginary spatial dimensions. And the Öort Cloud.

And light is known to travel at different speeds, for what that's worth. But the same person who will say there's no such thing as information is likely to repeat the goofball assumption (I started to say conclusion, but a conclusion requires a basis) that when light travels too fast it can't carry information.

These are all hypothesis waiting confirmation or rejection. They provide means to experimentally test them which is what is being done now. How does one go about testing whether or not light was faster in the past? A hypothesis must provide a means for testing.



Light effectively slows down when it travels through a medium due to interaction delays. However, a photon never slows down. A simple example, picture a gas made up of hydrogen atoms. When a photon travels through this gas it can be absorbed by an electron and the emitted again. There is a delay between the absorption and the emission which causes the effective speed to slow. However, the speed of the photon between emission and the next absorption is still c. This gets more complicated when our medium is structure of molecules but it amounts to the same thing. Delays cause light to appear to slow down.




Who said there is no such thing as information? Me? When? What do you mean if light travels too fast it can't carry information?

Ah. The old double standard. The past isn't subject to experiment, yet evostories get a pass and are deemed "scientific". Nothing new here - keep moving, folks. This standard won't be applied to big bangs, abiogenesis, etc. by those who keep trotting it out like it means something.


Not keeping up with the official "party line"? Tsk tsk!

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Superluminal.html

http://www.wbabin.net/science/faraj8.htm

http://www.iitk.ac.in/infocell/Archive/dir...ence_light.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/...ature02586.html

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2000/split/pnu495-2.htm

That's a few links that sort of talk about it. Light has been accelerated to 100's, even 1000's of times faster than Einsteinian c. The "out" they've chosen is to claim that when light travels faster than the cherished limit, the information it carries still pokes along at c. The "causality" argument is classic circular reasoning. I think they have some other junk, but I haven't bothered to wade into it all. Should be good for a laugh or three, but I prefer humour that's a little easier to share.

Of course common sense'll tell a person if light is detectable, it can carry information just fine. "One if by land and two if by sea", you know. No need to wait around until the priesthood says enough time has passed and you have permission to know you've seen the signal.