In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale

In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

parkerbrother -> In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (10/26/2009 3:30:25 PM)
Read from left to right, top to bottom http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2706/spaceb.jpg

ManimalX -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (10/26/2009 5:49:04 PM)
Simply amazing.

tacitus -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (10/27/2009 7:52:59 PM)
Wonder no more why the Sun is called a dwarf star these days!

DanJames -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (10/27/2009 8:08:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tacitus Wonder no more why the Sun is called a dwarf star these days! It may be, yet even though it's much smaller than any of these examples, our star is still larger than 90% of the stars in our galaxy! Go home team!

jhuperetes -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (10/27/2009 8:58:12 PM)
Hahaha! I am not even small! I am nothing! Hahahaha! I will remember this picture next time my hubris gets the better of me!

Elena1030 -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (10/27/2009 9:04:33 PM)
To quote a Jawa, "Teeeenee!!!"

schtumpy -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (10/29/2009 11:19:15 AM)
I loved the glimpse from Hubble at the end. Of course, we have no idea what these galaxies look like now. Only what they looked like 13 billion years ago.

flyboy2610 -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (10/30/2009 9:26:10 PM)
If the Big Bang theory were correct, they should not be there.

parkerbrother -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (10/30/2009 10:38:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flyboy2610 If the Big Bang theory were correct, they should not be there. Why is that?

schtumpy -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (11/2/2009 3:40:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flyboy2610 If the Big Bang theory were correct, they should not be there. If the universe was six thousand years old we would not be able to see them yet.

DanJames -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (11/2/2009 4:04:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: schtumpy quote: ORIGINAL: flyboy2610 If the Big Bang theory were correct, they should not be there. If the universe was six thousand years old we would not be able to see them yet. As much as I hate simply throwing out the "God did it" explanation, I simply must point out that your statement is not necessarily true.

schtumpy -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (11/3/2009 3:29:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: schtumpy quote: ORIGINAL: flyboy2610 If the Big Bang theory were correct, they should not be there. If the universe was six thousand years old we would not be able to see them yet. As much as I hate simply throwing out the "God did it" explanation, I simply must point out that your statement is not necessarily true. That is exactly correct. If you do not accept that the radiation that Hubble sees is 13 billion light years away, then you do not have to accept that it is not necessarily true. You would have to accept that when scientists say that certain stars or galaxies are any more than 6000 light years away, that they are wrong.

DanJames -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (11/3/2009 1:55:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: schtumpy quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: schtumpy quote: ORIGINAL: flyboy2610 If the Big Bang theory were correct, they should not be there. If the universe was six thousand years old we would not be able to see them yet. As much as I hate simply throwing out the "God did it" explanation, I simply must point out that your statement is not necessarily true. That is exactly correct. If you do not accept that the radiation that Hubble sees is 13 billion light years away, then you do not have to accept that it is not necessarily true. You would have to accept that when scientists say that certain stars or galaxies are any more than 6000 light years away, that they are wrong. Again, that's not necessarily true. God had a couple of naturalistic and supernatural options as to how we could have seen the stars from the day they were created. Have you not heard of them?

schtumpy -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (11/4/2009 7:29:19 AM)
Excellent. So let's explore the supernatural in science again. Let's make the evidence fit the preconceived notion rather than letting the evidence form the opinion. But seriously, I'd love for you to enlighten me on how the laws of physics (as we understand them) have been subverted for the sake of seeing stuff a really long, long way away.

DanJames -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (11/4/2009 5:34:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: schtumpy Excellent. So let's explore the supernatural in science again. Let's make the evidence fit the preconceived notion rather than letting the evidence form the opinion. But seriously, I'd love for you to enlighten me on how the laws of physics (as we understand them) have been subverted for the sake of seeing stuff a really long, long way away. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by subverting the laws of physics for the sake of whatever. I'm merely stating that if God wanted to allow us to see things that are far away in a relatively short amount of time, he could have done so without breaking any laws of physics. Jason Lisle gives a few options in his "Distant Starlight" message. He explains that the earth could be close to the center of a gravity well, for instance. This is my favorite explanation. Regardless, though, if God had wanted to, he could have supernaturally allowed us to see stars far away. Although I have a big problem with this because that would mean that many phenomena that we see in the night sky would never have happened.

schtumpy -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (11/4/2009 7:25:12 PM)
Ok,so here's my problem. When we look at the sun we don't see where it is now. Any flares that we notice coming from its surface aren't happening now. They happened about 8 and 1/2 minutes ago - depending upon where we are in the orbit. The poor astronomers looking at the moon the other night for the plume that kind of never happened couldn't have seen it when it happened. They could only see what happened there 1.3 seconds ago. Do you agree with these numbers? And if so, given the same laws of physics that guide our calculations in these relatively small distances....... It takes light 100,000 years to travel across the Milky Way and even watching the closest star to our solar system means watching what happened to that star 4 and 1/2 years ago. For all we know, Alpha Centauri may not even be there any more! And watching the nearest galaxy (of all the billions and billions of other galaxies) that is our closest neighbour still means not what is happening there now, but what happened 2,500,000 years ago. Now gravity can affect the path of light as Einstein famously proved, but if you want to suggest that there is sufficient gravity in some sort of (hitherto unproven) "gravity well" to affect the speed of light so that what would normally take 13,000,000,000 years to travel a certain distance to the degree that it now only takes 6,000 years seems to be a lot of gravity indeed. Do you not think such a gravitational force would have been measured? Or at least postulated upon? Surely it's much more intellectually honest to say, "It doesn't match the science, so it must be a miracle. God just did it and we don't know how." What is wrong with that?

StephenJ -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (11/5/2009 3:22:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: schtumpy Excellent. So let's explore the supernatural in science again. Let's make the evidence fit the preconceived notion rather than letting the evidence form the opinion. But seriously, I'd love for you to enlighten me on how the laws of physics (as we understand them) have been subverted for the sake of seeing stuff a really long, long way away. I'm with Schtumpy, the Andromeda galaxy is over 2 million light years away. The most logical scientific approach is to conclude that it took 2 million years for it's light to get here, not trying to increase the speed of light (or the expansion of the fabric of space/time) to meet an already decided upon belief.

DanJames -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (11/5/2009 3:43:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: schtumpy Now gravity can affect the path of light as Einstein famously proved, but if you want to suggest that there is sufficient gravity in some sort of (hitherto unproven) "gravity well" to affect the speed of light so that what would normally take 13,000,000,000 years to travel a certain distance to the degree that it now only takes 6,000 years seems to be a lot of gravity indeed. Do you not think such a gravitational force would have been measured? Or at least postulated upon? Surely it's much more intellectually honest to say, "It doesn't match the science, so it must be a miracle. God just did it and we don't know how." What is wrong with that? I don't know schtumpy. Have you asked Jason Lisle? It's a working hypothesis to explain a hole in the Creationist model (so far as I can tell). The fact that you used the words "hitherto unproven" is making my irony meter peg straight out of calibration. With all the "just so" stories that are postulated to explain the evolution of this or that organ, and you're going to use the words "hitherto unproven" as a means to discredit the gravity well hypothesis.

schtumpy -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (11/5/2009 4:39:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: schtumpy Now gravity can affect the path of light as Einstein famously proved, but if you want to suggest that there is sufficient gravity in some sort of (hitherto unproven) "gravity well" to affect the speed of light so that what would normally take 13,000,000,000 years to travel a certain distance to the degree that it now only takes 6,000 years seems to be a lot of gravity indeed. Do you not think such a gravitational force would have been measured? Or at least postulated upon? Surely it's much more intellectually honest to say, "It doesn't match the science, so it must be a miracle. God just did it and we don't know how." What is wrong with that? I don't know schtumpy. Have you asked Jason Lisle? It's a working hypothesis to explain a hole in the Creationist model (so far as I can tell). The fact that you used the words "hitherto unproven" is making my irony meter peg straight out of calibration. With all the "just so" stories that are postulated to explain the evolution of this or that organ, and you're going to use the words "hitherto unproven" as a means to discredit the gravity well hypothesis. Dan, the various explanations of the evolution of various organs - or even species - are inferences based upon the observable progression of change. You, and a tiny percentage of other biologists disagree and have your own inferences. Bully for you. But to infer that the speed of light can change to the degree necessary that light can accelerate to a point 2,166,667 faster than scientists have proven it travels is not based upon anything observed. It is based upon what is said in the holy book of a religion.

DanJames -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (11/5/2009 5:12:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: schtumpy quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: schtumpy Now gravity can affect the path of light as Einstein famously proved, but if you want to suggest that there is sufficient gravity in some sort of (hitherto unproven) "gravity well" to affect the speed of light so that what would normally take 13,000,000,000 years to travel a certain distance to the degree that it now only takes 6,000 years seems to be a lot of gravity indeed. Do you not think such a gravitational force would have been measured? Or at least postulated upon? Surely it's much more intellectually honest to say, "It doesn't match the science, so it must be a miracle. God just did it and we don't know how." What is wrong with that? I don't know schtumpy. Have you asked Jason Lisle? It's a working hypothesis to explain a hole in the Creationist model (so far as I can tell). The fact that you used the words "hitherto unproven" is making my irony meter peg straight out of calibration. With all the "just so" stories that are postulated to explain the evolution of this or that organ, and you're going to use the words "hitherto unproven" as a means to discredit the gravity well hypothesis. Dan, the various explanations of the evolution of various organs - or even species - are inferences based upon the observable progression of change. You, and a tiny percentage of other biologists disagree and have your own inferences. Bully for you. But to infer that the speed of light can change to the degree necessary that light can accelerate to a point 2,166,667 faster than scientists have proven it travels is not based upon anything observed. It is based upon what is said in the holy book of a religion. Observable progression of change my toe. There is no mechanism proposed, let alone tested, for the production of novel structures or chemical pathways. It is no more scientific to pencil whip an explanation for the development of such systems than it is to theorize based on the observation of the Bible's history. And by the way, light isn't moving any faster, it's time that's going faster and slower. I'm not sure if we have evidence that we are at the center of a gravity well, and I wouldn't even be able to tell you how we could tell if we were. However, if we were (according to Dr Lisle) this could be sufficient to allow us on earth to be able to view distant events within a comparatively short amount of time as observed on earth.

quixote -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (11/5/2009 9:25:57 PM)
quote: I'm with Schtumpy, the Andromeda galaxy is over 2 million light years away. The most logical scientific view os that it took 2 million years to get here, not trying to increase the speed of light (or the expansion of the fabric of space/time) to meet an already decided upon belief. It's actually neither a logical nor scientific conclusion, though it may indeed be true. It's not a logically necessary deduction; it's an induction founded on the presupposition that all variables are now as they were, the speed of light being simply one variable. It's certainly not scientific in the sense that you may go back and observe or test it. Which is why Schtumpy qualified himself: And if so, given the same laws of physics that guide our calculations in these relatively small distances....... Givens are not empirically based. Thus, the entire conclusion rests upon a metaphysical assumption, which is the very thing you guys appeared to be denigrating as an already decided upon belief.

mysteryofgospel -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (11/6/2009 10:32:24 AM)
If God said, "Let there be light.", why does there have to be a sound scientific explanation of how it got here from anywhere else? Isn't that what you said quixote in your last sentence?

StephenJ -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (11/6/2009 1:34:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: quixote quote: I'm with Schtumpy, the Andromeda galaxy is over 2 million light years away. The most logical scientific view os that it took 2 million years to get here, not trying to increase the speed of light (or the expansion of the fabric of space/time) to meet an already decided upon belief. It's actually neither a logical nor scientific conclusion, though it may indeed be true. It's not a logically necessary deduction; it's an induction founded on the presupposition that all variables are now as they were, the speed of light being simply one variable. It's certainly not scientific in the sense that you may go back and observe or test it. Which is why Schtumpy qualified himself: And if so, given the same laws of physics that guide our calculations in these relatively small distances....... Givens are not empirically based. Thus, the entire conclusion rests upon a metaphysical assumption, which is the very thing you guys appeared to be denigrating as an already decided upon belief. To me it still seems like coming up with a theory, to fit an already decided upon conclusion. If we assume this then , like Schumpty said, we can't really rely on the accuracy of any measurment beyond 6000 light years.

quixote -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (11/6/2009 7:43:55 PM)
quote: To me it still seems like coming up with a theory, to fit an already decided upon conclusion. This seems to me nothing more than ad hominem, Stephen. quote: If we assume this then , like Schumpty said, we can't really rely on the accuracy of any measurment beyond 6000 light years. That is the point they're trying to make, I reckon [;)] But given their argument, I'm not certain you can assume the accuracy of the 6K either.

quixote -> RE: In interesting demonstration of cosmic scale (11/6/2009 7:57:05 PM)
quote: If God said, "Let there be light.", why does there have to be a sound scientific explanation of how it got here from anywhere else? Isn't that what you said quixote in your last sentence? No mystery, it's not. I think you've opened a different line of argumentation, and an interesting one at that.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI