Andromeda

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This really just boils down to AV saying that the age of anything can be anything he wants it to be. That's the fundamental long and short of it.

 

[sjastro]

First off, I don't believe the universe is only 6000 years old.

It's as old as God willed it.

Could be thousands, could be millions, could be billions, could be trillions.



Second of all, I don't say everything in science can take a hike.

Only the science that contradicts the Bible, or tries to lower Its standards.

And speaking of standards, here are mine:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Now ... take a good long look at #4, and tell me if I'm saying "science can take a hike"?

I will however admit that I'm on record as saying there was not a lick of science involved during the Creation Week.

None ... zero.

BUT, it now looks like I'm appealing to theoretical science to explain how distant starlight shone on the earth before Adam was even created.

So in [pun] light [/pun] of that, I'll admit I may be making an exception. *

And if you want to crucify me for that, get to it.

I'm happy to know that GOD DID IT.

That's good enough for me.

* As I said before, He may or MAY NOT have used theoretical science (miracles?) to bring Andromeda's light to earth.

Every time you trot out this 'standard' you supposedly adhere to always leads to contradiction.

In this case does the Bible tell you anything about the Andromeda galaxy, how its distance is determined by the inverse square law of light intensity with distance? Does it say anything by knowing the absolute brightness of Cepheid variables in the galaxy and their apparent brightness when measured on Earth the distance can be calculated and is found to be around 2.5 million light years?

Of course not which means you are violating your standard No (4) by not accepting the distance and ignoring why wormholes are not the answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

Every time you trot out this 'standard' you supposedly adhere to always leads to contradiction.

I doubt that.

In this case does the Bible tell you anything about the Andromeda galaxy,

Nope.

... how its distance is determined by the inverse square law of light intensity with distance?

Nope.

Does it say anything by knowing the absolute brightness of Cepheid variables in the galaxy and their apparent brightness when measured on Earth the distance can be calculated and is found to be around 2.5 million light years?

Nope.

Of course not which means you are violating your standard No (4) by not accepting the distance ...

Is that why I believe it is 2.537 million light years away?

... and ignoring why wormholes are not the answer.

Don't tell me how it can't be done.

Tell me how it can be done.

Until then, I'll go with wormholes as a theoretical answer.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is that why I believe it is 2.537 million light years away?

But you don't though. You say that you do, but you twist the scientific facts to try and cram them into your very myopic and self-proclaimed interpretation that God created every 6,000 years ago, hence embedded age.

You will literally say anything and everything, as long as it doesn't contradict your interpretation of the Bible. That's what your 'Boolean standards' amount to in the end.

 

[sjastro]

I doubt that.



Nope.



Nope.



Nope.



Is that why I believe it is 2.537 million light years away?



Don't tell me how it can't be done.

Tell me how it can be done.

Until then, I'll go with wormholes as a theoretical answer.

OK I see you are highly confused, apart from confirming your contradiction of standard (4), isn't the whole point of this ridiculous thread to show how science can be reconciled with the creation date of 4004 BC through wormholes?

Do you understand the burden of proof is on you to show how this is done since you are making the claim. It's not up to me to do your the work as I cannot make it any clearer how this premise is absurd.

So it is over to you to explain how wormholes bridges the gap.

 

[AV1611VET]

So it is over to you to explain how wormholes bridges the gap.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you don't though.

Yea ... actually I do.

You say that you do,

Yup.

... but you twist the scientific facts to try and cram them into your very myopic and self-proclaimed interpretation that God created every 6,000 years ago, hence embedded age.

What scientific facts exactly?

God created everything some 6000 years ago via a series of miracles, not science.

You will literally say anything and everything, as long as it doesn't contradict your interpretation of the Bible.

I'll bet you would too, if you believed in the Bible.

You're a deist, aren't you?

Did God show up and part the Red Sea? feed the widow of Zarephath? send hornets ahead of the Israelite armies?

Before you accuse me of adding to the Bible, stop and take an inventory of how much you take away from It.

That's what your 'Boolean standards' amount to in the end.

Let's see yours.

 

[Tuur]

View attachment 369041

Wormholes we understand. How we're not seeing Andromeda through a wormhole we also understand.

First, if we were seeing the light through a wormhole, the measured distance would be the distance to the wormhole + distance from wormhole to Andromeda. A wormhole "skylight" doesn't help in that regard: Light still has to travel about 2.5 million years.

Second, if we were seeing the light through a wormhole skylight, the view would shift as the earth moves in its orbit. Next time you're under a real skylight that's clear, look up and move from one side of the room to the other. If you have a car with a sunroof, you can do the same with it. Notice how the view changes.

Third, if there's a wormhole skylight hanging around not far from the solar system, the observed angle as observed from earth is going to shift, allowing a calculation of distance. It's just like using an old fashioned transit to calculate the distance across a river using two observation points and the same target. You can even do it with a Brunton-type pocket transit held in your hand and a long steel tape. Andromeda is so far away the angles are so small that you can't do that, or couldn't, circa early 20th century.

Fourth, we see the entire galaxy, which isn't a point of light in the sky. If you live outside of a city or town, find a star map online, and on a clear night when the constellation Andromeda is visible, look in the area of the galaxy. You might have to use adverted vision, but it's possible to see a faint, fuzzy, glowing patch without any magnification. That's the galaxy. Note the size of it. Now consider how far away a wormhole would have to be from Andromeda to take in the entire view. That or it's huge.

Fifth, consider the size necessary for a wormhole not to show a parallax, a shifting view , and to take in the entire view of the galaxy. All of a sudden we're not talking about a wormhole anymore. We would have to have something much bigger.

Sixth, the distance to Andromeda is measured / first measured by noting the apparent magnitude of Cepheid stars, which can be calculated based on their cycle of brightness fluctuation, and figuring how far away they are based on the difference. Even if you were right, the light we see is traveling about 2.5 million light years. If there's a wormhole skylight involved, that would mean Andromeda is further away than thought.

And... I've just wasted my time typing this, didn't I?

 

[sjastro]

View attachment 369041

I asked how wormholes bridges the gap in other words supports a creation date of 4004 BC.

Furthermore your diagram is based on Flamm's visualization of a wormhole proposed in 1916 (refer to the table in post #95) which is not traversable. It highlights the dangers of referring to popsci sites were scientific accuracy is not guaranteed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fine.

1. Wormholes don't work as a theoretical explanation and this challenge is a bust.
2. God didn't use wormholes.

Suits me fine.

Should suit you guys fine as well.

Win-win situation.

You can take your charts and maps and whatnots and go home.

I can take my Bible and go home.

BUT ...

You're still left with explaining this:

1. God created the earth.
2. God created Andromeda 2.537 billion light years away.
3. Earth saw Andromeda just as soon as she was created.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Fine.

1. Wormholes don't work as a theoretical explanation and this challenge is a bust.
2. God didn't use wormholes.

Suits me fine.

Should suit you guys fine as well.

Win-win situation.

You can take your charts and maps and whatnots and go home.

I can take my Bible and go home.

BUT ...

You're still left with explaining this:

1. God created the earth.
2. God created Andromeda 2.537 billion light years away.
3. Earth saw Andromeda just as soon as she was created.

Why would I have to "explain" something that I think is patently false????????????????????????????????

Also, since you've never asked, I actually DON'T apply the same historiographical analysis to the rest of the Bible that I do the first 11 chapters of Genesis-------or especially of the first 3 chapters of Genesis, or even just chapter 1 alone. This means that while I might not think Adam and Eve were real, and while I might think it actually did take light from the Andromeda galaxy just over 2.5 million years to reach Earth, I may very well, at the very least, still see the Patriarchal narratives (e.g. Abraham and Sarah) as at least legendary representations (or even possibly more historical in nature than that).

I might even think that Moses was a real person who led a real group of Hebrews out of Egypt, walking between real walls of water at God's command rather than being a mere "story of tradition." All this I may think, even IF I don't think the Bible is a perfectly even collective set of 'records' of the past.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yea ... actually I do.



Yup.



What scientific facts exactly?

God created everything some 6000 years ago via a series of miracles, not science.



I'll bet you would too, if you believed in the Bible.

You're a deist, aren't you?

Did God show up and part the Red Sea? feed the widow of Zarephath? send hornets ahead of the Israelite armies?

Before you accuse me of adding to the Bible, stop and take an inventory of how much you take away from It.



Let's see yours.

Twisting this back to me to try and deflect from the fact that you add so much to the Bible to try and justify your own claims is noted.

You should go into making pretzels.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would I have to "explain" something that I think is patently false????????????????????????????????

Then don't.

Take my challenge as bogus and just walk away.

It won't bite.

But even if I was wrong, I'm sure some of you could have come up with "wormholes," then told me it was wrong.

I mean, what other wrong choices were there within the realm of theoretical physics?

 

[AV1611VET]

Twisting this back to me to try and deflect from the fact that you add so much to the Bible to try and justify your own claims is noted.

You should go into making pretzels.

Are you suggesting a partnership?

If so, no thanks.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then don't.

Take my challenge as bogus and just walk away.

It won't bite.

But even if I was wrong, I'm sure some of you could have come up with "wormholes," then told me it was wrong.

I wouldn't have come up with "wormholes." And not because I've somehow never heard of them already. It would be because despite the fact that I'm not a practicing scientist, I've read quite a few who are, of many kinds.

I mean, what other wrong choices were there within the realm of theoretical physics?

.... other choices might be the same ones I've been citing for years when I've referred to Lee Smolin's already aged book, The Trouble with Physics.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are you suggesting a partnership?

If so, no thanks.

Not in the slightest was I suggesting a partnership.

 

[Jerry N.]

I’ve been following this thread, and I see everyone is having fun. I hope you don’t mind my two-bits. I think that you might be looking at the problem in the wrong direction. God created light in Genesis 1:3 and set the stars in their places in Genesis 1:16. So the light was made first and then the stars, including Andromede, were put in their places. So the light we see is the light from Andromede as the star move to its place. The present location has no effect. I can’t prove it, but it’s my take. I might add that it fits a little with the Big Bang.

 

[AV1611VET]

I’ve been following this thread, and I see everyone is having fun.

Yes indeed!

I hope you don’t mind my two-bits.

Not at all.

I think that you might be looking at the problem in the wrong direction.

So do I now -- kinda.

God created light in Genesis 1:3 and set the stars in their places in Genesis 1:16.

Yup.

So the light was made first and then the stars, including Andromede, were put in their places.

That's what our church teaches, and I love that explanation.

God made the lights first, then He made the source of the lights.

So the light we see is the light from Andromede as the star move to its place.

Yes indeed.

The present location has no effect.

I agree.

I can’t prove it, but it’s my take.

I love that explanation.

It shows the power of God in action.

I might add that it fits a little with the Big Bang.

Nah.

It might.

But only on paper.

 

[sjastro]

BUT ...

You're still left with explaining this:

1. God created the earth.
2. God created Andromeda 2.537 billion light years away.
3. Earth saw Andromeda just as soon as she was created.

Points (1) and (2) are unfalsifiable which should provide you with a strong hint why Christians can be scientists along with atheists.
Point (3) is definitely falsifiable, the science shows this premise is wrong as explained in this post.

 

[Jerry N.]

Points (1) and (2) are unfalsifiable which should provide you with a strong hint why Christians can be scientists along with atheists.
Point (3) is definitely falsifiable, the science shows this premise is wrong as explained in this post.

I reread your post, and I must say that I haven’t done calculus for over 40 years. However, I would say that point 3 is also unfalsifiable. It assumes that God could not move light or solid objects faster than the speed of light, but God determined the speed of light. I might add that the days in Genesis might not be 24 hour days, since the sun wasn’t created or put in its place until day 3 or 4. Anyhow, the original creation light may have been well past the earth at that time.