Direct observations of an ancient universe.

[Barry Desborough]

Kanned Ham and other creationists insist that the subject of deep time is not based on "observational science". This article describes how direct observations in the here and now show that the speed of light has not changed significantly over vast stretches of time and that the idea of a young earth and a young universe is false. SN1987A and the Age of the Universe
"When the smoke blown about finally drifts away and the debate hall falls silent, the young-earth creationists find themselves back on square one. He is looking at stars many millions of light-years away, stars putting out light which takes many millions of years to reach us! Attempts to speed up the velocity of light or to shrink down the universe have come to naught. What does remain is the old age of our universe."

 

[timewerx]

To me, our theology on creation isn't solid. I'm also reading the non-canon scriptures and particularly the Book of Enoch yielded some pretty accurate description of our galaxy so it would be hard for me to dismiss it.

He particularly described the four-piece structure and extremely violent processes at the center of our galaxy right where the supermassive black hole is. This is where the Swastika symbol originated and interestingly, this knowledge is widespread among the ancients.

Enoch could actually be referring to our entire Galaxy as Earth or as the "Tree of Knowledge". Note the Nordics also referred to it as the "World Tree". The "Garden of Eden" therefore may not be a place on Earth (planet) but the entire Universe or the space outside Earth.

In that case then yep, we might as well be talking of millions, if not billions of years

 

[AV1611VET]

He is looking at stars many millions of light-years away, stars putting out light which takes many millions of years to reach us!

Except light has only been traveling through space for 6020 years.

God configured the stars in such a way that they convey the plan of redemption through Jesus Christ.

In short, the plan of salvation is found in the stars themselves (Psalm 19).

Mazzaroth ... called the Zodiac by Satan's lot ... attests to this.

Remember those ignorant, Bronze Age, goat herding, desert nomads?

They called it "Mazzaroth," until the educated Geeks Greeks came along and Satan made them change their perspective to what scientists like to use today.

By way of example, those IBAGHDN's knew Gemini ... not as twins ... but as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Leo the Lion was known by them as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

I could go on and on, but this stuff is probably anathema to academia.

 

[Barry Desborough]

Except light has only been traveling through space for 6020 years.

God configured the stars in such a way that they convey the plan of redemption through Jesus Christ.

In short, the plan of salvation is found in the stars themselves (Psalm 19).

Mazzaroth ... called the Zodiac by Satan's lot ... attests to this.

Remember those ignorant, Bronze Age, goat herding, desert nomads?

They called it "Mazzaroth," until the educated Geeks Greeks came along and Satan made them change their perspective to what scientists like to use today.

By way of example, those IBAGHDN's knew Gemini ... not as twins ... but as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Leo the Lion was known by them as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

I could go on and on, but this stuff is probably anathema to academia.

So how do you explain the observed lack of change in pulsar frequencies?

 

[AV1611VET]

So how do you explain the observed lack of change in pulsar frequencies?

I don't.

 

[Barry Desborough]

I don't.

Thanks for playing.

 

[driewerf]

Except light has only been traveling through space for 6020 years.

The Galactic center is at approximately 30.000 light years from the earth. Meaning that the light it emits needs to travel 30.000 years before reaching the earth. How do you explain that we can see the galactic center?
the Andromeda nebula is at 2.5 billion light years from the earth. So the light needs to travel 2.5 billion years? How do you explain that we can see the Andromeda nebula, if light travelled only 6020 years?

What ever your answer, follow up questions will come.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you explain that we can see the Andromeda nebula, if light travelled only 6020 years?

It's simple actually.

Suppose I held the sun right in front of you (humor me here), then blinked my eyes and that sun was one light year away.

According to science, you wouldn't be able to see that sun again until this time next year.

BUT ... suppose I wanted you to see that sun ... always.

So, when I blink my eyes and transport that sun one light year away, I create [its] light as it recedes from you.

Why would I want to do this?

Simple.

That sun has a story to tell you, and I don't want you to miss it; so I'm going to use my omnipotence to make sure you won't.

What ever your answer, follow up questions will come.

I'm looking forward to it.

Creationism is my major forté.

 

[Barry Desborough]

It's simple actually.

Suppose I held the sun right in front of you (humor me here), then blinked my eyes and that sun was one light year away.

According to science, you wouldn't be able to see that sun again until this time next year.

BUT ... suppose I wanted you to see that sun ... always.

So, when I blink my eyes and transport that sun one light year away, I create [its] light as it recedes from you.

Why would I want to do this?

Simple.

That sun has a story to tell, and I don't want you to miss it; so I'm going to use my omnipotence to make sure you won't.I'm looking forward to it.

Creationism is my major forté.

*Snorkle*

 

[AV1611VET]

*Snorkle*

Mike Nelson!?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

It's simple actually.

Suppose I held the sun right in front of you (humor me here), then blinked my eyes and that sun was one light year away.

According to science, you wouldn't be able to see that sun again until this time next year.

BUT ... suppose I wanted you to see that sun ... always.

So, when I blink my eyes and transport that sun one light year away, I create [its] light as it recedes from you.

Why would I want to do this?

Simple.

That sun has a story to tell you, and I don't want you to miss it; so I'm going to use my omnipotence to make sure you won't.I'm looking forward to it.

Creationism is my major forté.

 

[AV1611VET]

 

[driewerf]

It's simple actually.

Great. I love simple things.

Suppose I held the sun right in front of you (humor me here), then blinked my eyes and that sun was one light year away.

Which is impossible, according to all our understanding of physics. But I will suspend my disbelief for a while.

According to science, you wouldn't be able to see that sun again until this time next year.

Correct. Well, keeping in mind that according to the same science you are referring to to you wouldn't be able to move the sun a light year away in the blink of an eye.

BUT ... suppose I wanted you to see that sun ... always.

So, when I blink my eyes and transport that sun one light year away, I create [its] light as it recedes from you.

Why would I want to do this?

Simple.

That sun has a story to tell you, and I don't want you to miss it; so I'm going to use my omnipotence to make sure you won't.I'm looking forward to it.

But since you have none of these powers, and since there is no reason to believe that the Galactic Center or the Andromeda Nebula moved somehow instantly to there nowadays place, you explained nothing. You produced a lot of text, avoiding even the simplest referrence to the objects (the Andromeda Nebula and the Galactic Center) I mentioned originally.
So I will repeat my questions:
The Galactic center is at approximately 30.000 light years from the earth. Meaning that the light it emits needs to travel 30.000 years before reaching the earth. How do you explain that we can see the galactic center?
the Andromeda nebula is at 2.5 billion light years from the earth. So the light needs to travel 2.5 billion years? How do you explain that we can see the Andromeda nebula, if light travelled only 6020 years?

Creationism is my major forté.

Then I 'm looking forward to your answers.

 

[Astrophile]

the Andromeda nebula is at 2.5 billion light years from the earth. So the light needs to travel 2.5 billion years? How do you explain that we can see the Andromeda nebula, if light travelled only 6020 years?

No, it's 2.5 million light-years. 2.5 billion light-years is approximately the distance of the quasar 3C 273.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Kanned Ham and other creationists insist that the subject of deep time is not based on "observational science". This article describes how direct observations in the here and now show that the speed of light has not changed significantly over vast stretches of time and that the idea of a young earth and a young universe is false. SN1987A and the Age of the Universe
"When the smoke blown about finally drifts away and the debate hall falls silent, the young-earth creationists find themselves back on square one. He is looking at stars many millions of light-years away, stars putting out light which takes many millions of years to reach us! Attempts to speed up the velocity of light or to shrink down the universe have come to naught. What does remain is the old age of our universe."

Sigh, I am so tired of people that dont really understand. Even Einstein tried to tell you that only in frames traveling with the same relative motion were the laws of physics the same, and that in frames not traveling with the same relative motion were the laws of physics different.

Lets see how much you really understand. Since we know acceleration causes clocks to slow and rulers to shrink, then explain how someone traveling faster than you can with his shorter ruler and slower clock, measure the exact same speed for light. He is neither measuring the same distance as you - his ruler is shorter - nor is he measuring the same elapsed time - his clock ticks slower.

When you decide no one has the answer to that except to say light just always travels at c, then maybe I will tell you exactly why light travels at c in every frame regardless of velocity.

And then we will discuss your flawed interpretation of time without adjusting for time dilation......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Edit to above: And then we will discuss their flawed belief in what cosmological redshift actually is, and why they have to ignore all the matter we have found in space in just the last 20 years alone. And then when we are done you will realize half your beliefs about the universe are no longer on the solid footing you think they are. Unless of course you are going to ignore all the discoveries since the space age....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So how do you explain the observed lack of change in pulsar frequencies?

How do you explain pulsars? Oh, strange matter to keep stars spinning faster than a dentists drill from flying apart, sorry about that........ Something is strange, but it aint the matter that's the problem.....

I would try using electromagnetic principles, since that's how we do it in every lab with relaxation oscillators. But why worry about the lab when you can fantasize about "strange matter".....

 

[driewerf]

No, it's 2.5 million light-years. 2.5 billion light-years is approximately the distance of the quasar 3C 273.

*quick check*

you are correct.
My point stands though.

 

[Barry Desborough]

Sigh, I am so tired of people that dont really understand. Even Einstein tried to tell you that only in frames traveling with the same relative motion were the laws of physics the same, and that in frames not traveling with the same relative motion were the laws of physics different.

Lets see how much you really understand. Since we know acceleration causes clocks to slow and rulers to shrink, then explain how someone traveling faster than you can with his shorter ruler and slower clock, measure the exact same speed for light. He is neither measuring the same distance as you - his ruler is shorter - nor is he measuring the same elapsed time - his clock ticks slower.

When you decide no one has the answer to that except to say light just always travels at c, then maybe I will tell you exactly why light travels at c in every frame regardless of velocity.

And then we will discuss your flawed interpretation of time without adjusting for time dilation......

Um, how do you explain why pulsar frequencies are observed not to vary, just as we would expect if c was constant?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sigh, I am so tired of people that dont really understand. Even Einstein tried to tell you that only in frames traveling with the same relative motion were the laws of physics the same, and that in frames not traveling with the same relative motion were the laws of physics different.

It's not that they don't understand.

They're willing to set general relativity and other sciences aside, if it'll make the Bible or us look bad.