light years

[KerrMetric]

I agree completely that light is a good way to tell how far an object is. But it is not a good tool to measure how old an object is.

But no one is saying this. You are arguing against something that isn't being said.

 

[USincognito]

Exactly. And that's the key truth most people are missing - facts are relative. Scientists say the Earth is billions of years old, that's their belief. I prefer to say that the Earth is about 10,000 years old, and that's my belief. I also like to think that gravity is really 5 m/s^2 at sea level and 2 plus 2 equals 3. The "experts" don't agree, but that's because they don't undertand how facts work.

Ugh, the Atheists Gambit and now the Post Modernist Gambit. This hasn't been a good week for YECs has it Hydra?

I can't, for the life of me, comprehend the cognative dissonance of people like John and YECs who claim they know the absolute "TRVTH," in one breath, and in another claim that we can "interpret mountains as being 4000 or 20,000,000 years depending on "perspective."

 

[shinbits]

But no one is saying this. You are arguing against something that isn't being said.

Well, that was what was said in the OP:

"light from the most distant objects currently visible in telescopes may take several billion years to reach us...therefore give us an image of what the universe looked like billions of years ago"

 

[KerrMetric]

Well, that was what was said in the OP:

"light from the most distant objects currently visible in telescopes may take several billion years to reach us...therefore give us an image of what the universe looked like billions of years ago"

Which is not what you were arguing against. If it was you need to improve your writing skills.

 

[shinbits]

Which is not what you were arguing against. If it was you need to improve your writing skills.

I wasn't arguing against the method used to measure a stars age?

 

[Lucretius]

And as far as telling the age of the star, there's no way to tell that a star has been around for billions of years. What we can tell, is how much longer a star will be around for.

Again, science says otherwise.

If a star is in the black dwarf stage of it's life, we can conclude it has been around for several billion years, seeing as it was once in the other listed stages.

 

[Merlin]

> How can I be confident that the distance travelled "is" several billion light years?

You take it on faith.

 

[Dannager]

> How can I be confident that the distance travelled "is" several billion light years?

You take it on faith.

Or the empirical observations and conclusions outlined in this thread. But if you're more comfortable with faith, then by all means take it on that.

 

[shinbits]

Again, science says otherwise.

If a star is in the black dwarf stage of it's life, we can conclude it has been around for several billion years, seeing as it was once in the other listed stages.

Again, they can't know for certain how old a star is. They assume that they do know, because stars have enough energy to burn for billions of years. So when they see a red giant, they assume it's been burning for billions of years, because of a red giant is at the end of it's life.

Makes sense, right?

But that's assuming the universe is millions of years old. It would basically be like estimating a candle's age based on how much of the wick is left---but without knowing how long it was to begin with.

What if the universe was created? If was created, say, 10,000 years ago, there's no reason why stars of differing sizes couldn't have been made, as well as differing levels of fuel in order to add color variation in the stars.

I honestly have no guess whatsoever as to the age of the universe. For all I know, it could be millions, it could be thousands. But we still can't know for certain how long a star's been in existence. We can know how much longer, but not how long it's already been there.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Again, they can't know for certain how old a star is.

science doesn't do certainity it does something like the legal idea of beyond reasonable doubt.

But that's assuming the universe is millions of years old. It would basically be like estimating a candle's age based on how much of the wick is left---but without knowing how long it was to begin with

again, it is not an assumption, it is a conclusion based on the evidence of the current composition of stars and knowledge of the chemistry and physics going on with them.

spend a few minutes googling secondary and tertiary stars. it is important for the CED debate since our sun is a secondary star therefore we have transcarbon elements on earth. and that is a big deal for this conversation. *grin*

a candle is a bad example, because the products of combustion go into the atmosphere. however a candle in a sealed jar is an ok example because then you can analyze the atmospheric changes, the remnant wax flowing down the side etc. just as we (actually scientists) can analyze the stars' contents and composition.

 

[KerrMetric]

Again, they can't know for certain how old a star is. They assume that they do know, because stars have enough energy to burn for billions of years. So when they see a red giant, they assume it's been burning for billions of years, because of a red giant is at the end of it's life.

Makes sense, right?

Nope, you have it wrong.

But that's assuming the universe is millions of years old. It would basically be like estimating a candle's age based on how much of the wick is left---but without knowing how long it was to begin with.

Nope, poor analogy.

What if the universe was created? If was created, say, 10,000 years ago, there's no reason why stars of differing sizes couldn't have been made, as well as differing levels of fuel in order to add color variation in the stars.

Nope. If you magically made them this way they wouldn't appear as they do.

I honestly have no guess whatsoever as to the age of the universe. For all I know, it could be millions, it could be thousands. But we still can't know for certain how long a star's been in existence. We can know how much longer, but not how long it's already been there.

But the fact we see things a great distance puts a lower limit on the age of the universe. This has nothing to do with a single object but it does put a lower bound on the age of the universe.

 

[Dannager]

Again, they can't know for certain how old a star is. They assume that they do know, because stars have enough energy to burn for billions of years. So when they see a red giant, they assume it's been burning for billions of years, because of a red giant is at the end of it's life.

Makes sense, right?

But that's assuming the universe is millions of years old. It would basically be like estimating a candle's age based on how much of the wick is left---but without knowing how long it was to begin with.

What if the universe was created? If was created, say, 10,000 years ago, there's no reason why stars of differing sizes couldn't have been made, as well as differing levels of fuel in order to add color variation in the stars.

I honestly have no guess whatsoever as to the age of the universe. For all I know, it could be millions, it could be thousands. But we still can't know for certain how long a star's been in existence. We can know how much longer, but not how long it's already been there.

shinbits, you are half correct in your assumptions. We won't be able to tell exactly how old a star is based on light-years away. That's fine. Science isn't big on certainty anyway. But what we can be certain of is that the objects we view, based on their distance, must be at least a certain age. We don't know how old they are, but we know how the minimum amount of time they could have been around for.

 

[shinbits]

Nope, you have it wrong.

Then explain it, please?

Nope. If you magically made them this way they wouldn't appear as they do.

why?

But the fact we see things a great distance puts a lower limit on the age of the universe. This has nothing to do with a single object but it does put a lower bound on the age of the universe.

That's why I used the example of a flashlight powerful enough to be seen from billions of miles away. Let's say I shined such a flashlight from the ground; the light just got there, right? But if I kept moving backwards away from the ground and kept shining the light on it, and was able to say within two weeks move millions of light years away, the distance I'm at would not mean that I am millions of years old.

See, the universe is expanding; this means that the light from the stars could very well have started hitting us much earlier, and moved "backward" from us, or away from us. So just like with the flashlight example, judging a stars age by this method is unreliable.

 

[KerrMetric]

Then explain it, please?

A stars lifetime is dependent on its mass. A massive star can be in the red giant phase after just a few million years. A solar mass star takes about 12 billion years to get there. Though there are other factors such as the composition that effect the lifetime as well.

why?

OK - if you create them superaturally then yes they could appear anyway you want I guess. But then you can argue the universe was made last week suprnaturally.

But if you want them 10,000 years old but naturally so and for them to appear the way they do today then you have problems. Just varying their fuel content isn't enough (and explaining how they vary so again really needs an appeal to the supernatural.)

You would also have to explain why trends of rotation rates appear as they do which implies age. You would have to explain why stars in tightly bound clusters are not randomly "aged" but exhibit a clear pattern we expect from their masses and evolutionary states.

As I said - you can have God do this supernaturally but then maybe he made everything 4 hours ago and gave us false memories too.

That's why I used the example of a flashlight powerful enough to be seen from billions of miles away. Let's say I shined such a flashlight from the ground; the light just got there, right? But if I kept moving backwards away from the ground and kept shining the light on it, and was able to say within two weeks move millions of light years away, the distance I'm at would not mean that I am millions of years old.

Er... how are you moving at millions of times the speed of light?

See, the universe is expanding; this means that the light from the stars could very well have started hitting us much earlier, and moved "backward" from us, or away from us. So just like with the flashlight example, judging a stars age by this method is unreliable.

NO. The expansion is taken care of in the calculations.

 

[notto]

See, the universe is expanding; this means that the light from the stars could very well have started hitting us much earlier, and moved "backward" from us, or away from us. So just like with the flashlight example, judging a stars age by this method is unreliable.

This shows a complete lack of knowledge of physics.

The light that is hitting us now could only have originated from the star millions of years ago unless the star is moving away from us at faster than the speed of light. You can only move millions of light years in millions of years. Simple physics.

You should really ask questions and get a good handle on a topic before you try to debate things like physics or genetics. You are making stuff up as you go with absolutely no basis or knowledge on the subject.

 

[dad]

....
You would have to explain why stars in tightly bound clusters are not randomly "aged" but exhibit a clear pattern we expect from their masses and evolutionary states.

"Now, if we remember two things; Firstly, that globular clusters are coeval systems, formed during a relatively short time period, and secondly that we already know how long we expect stars to live given their various observable properties, then it should be obvious that we can get an estimate for the age of a globular cluster by examining the most massive stars within it. The cluster must be approximately the same age as the average lifespan for its most massive members."
http://www.frayn.net/evolution/claim3.html

Now if this article is right, we assume
--it was formed in a certain timeframe.
-- that old ages are involved, apparently, and we assume we are looking at something that we know is in a certain age of decay, no?
-- that other stars near this are close to this age derived from these assumptions

Sounds like a stretch to me.

 

[shinbits]

The light that is hitting us now could only have originated from the star millions of years ago unless the star is moving away from us at faster than the speed of light.

That's only if the light is just reaching us. But like in the example of the "flashlight", the light could have always been hitting us, starting from when it was first created, and continued moving back.

 

[KerrMetric]

That's only if the light is just reaching us. But like in the example of the "flashlight", the light could have always been hitting us, starting from when it was first created, and continued moving back.

Come on, think.

Moving back??? Do you practice this gibberish?

 

[KerrMetric]

http://www.frayn.net/evolution/claim3.html
Now if this article is right, we assume
--it was formed in a certain timeframe.

It's not just an assumption.

-- that old ages are involved, apparently, and we assume we are looking at something that we know is in a certain age of decay, no?

Not just an assumption.

-- that other stars near this are close to this age derived from these assumptions

Not just an assumption.

Sounds like a stretch to me.

No it doesn't. But your post is the typical paroDADy.

 

[shinbits]

A stars lifetime is dependent on its mass.

I know. You must've must've missunderstood me then, I thought there was something I wasn't getting.

But if you want them 10,000 years old but naturally so and for them to appear the way they do today then you have problems. Just varying their fuel content isn't enough

Why? (I'm not trying to be difficult, but the answer to this question would prove your point, that's all.)

You would also have to explain why trends of rotation rates appear as they do which implies age.

There may be "evidence" to "imply" age, but there still have to be some assumptions made, and one of those is the age of the universe. Those assumptions make the evidence that implies the age of stars unreliable.

You would have to explain why stars in tightly bound clusters are not randomly "aged" but exhibit a clear pattern we expect from their masses

Wouldn't the fact that clusters are not randomly aged imply some sort of order? And doesn't order imply design?

Because if so, then the explination is simply, that they were created that way.

Er... how are you moving at millions of times the speed of light?

That was just to illustrate a point. The point being, that if the light started shining while it was close and moved away that fast, then then assuming that the light is just hitting us would be incorrect---it could have always been there and moved away, still shining.

"Yeah, but that many times the speed of light?"

Well, the Big Bang was said to scatter particles many times faster then speed of light, then things slowed down. I'm not saying that that is what happened, but if you could believe the Big Bang, then it's not that crazy.