Apr 21, 2012 -- 7:58PM, steven_guy wrote:

steven_guy: If the entire universe is a merely six thousand years old, how come we can see stars, nebulae and galaxies more than 6,000 light years distant? And what we see are middle aged, ageing and dying stars? 

The M.31 galaxy in Andromeda is nearly three million light years from the Milky Way galaxy and it is a naked eyed object. It also appears to be a middle aged galaxy with many old stars and nebulae caused by ancient super novae.

No one who looks at the universe with open eyes could possibly come to the frankly ludicrous conclusion that the universe is a measly 6,000 years old.

Can any Creationist credibly explain why the universe appears to be billions of years old? 

iama: The God revealed through the pages of The Bible is omnipresent.  That means that He is present to the extent of The Universe.  Since He is, also, our Creator-God and The Creator of The Universe, He can place His created heavenly bodies any where He chooses to, and they can be any type of body which He chooses.  Here is a Scripture reference speaking about the "bodies" which were created:

1Cr 15:37-41
"And that which you sow, you sow not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]: But God gives it a body as it has pleased Him, and to every seed his own body.

All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

[There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another.

[There is] one glory of the sun, and

another glory of the moon, and

another glory of the stars: for

[one] star differs from [another] star in glory."

Psa 147:4     
"He tells the number of the stars; He calls them all by [their] names."

.

Apr 22, 2012 -- 9:11PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Apr 21, 2012 -- 7:58PM, steven_guy wrote:

steven_guy: If the entire universe is a merely six thousand years old, how come we can see stars, nebulae and galaxies more than 6,000 light years distant? And what we see are middle aged, ageing and dying stars? 

The M.31 galaxy in Andromeda is nearly three million light years from the Milky Way galaxy and it is a naked eyed object. It also appears to be a middle aged galaxy with many old stars and nebulae caused by ancient super novae.

No one who looks at the universe with open eyes could possibly come to the frankly ludicrous conclusion that the universe is a measly 6,000 years old.

Can any Creationist credibly explain why the universe appears to be billions of years old? 

iama: The God revealed through the pages of The Bible is omnipresent.  That means that He is present to the extent of The Universe.  Since He is, also, our Creator-God and The Creator of The Universe, He can place His created heavenly bodies any where He chooses to, and they can be any type of body which He chooses.  Here is a Scripture reference speaking about the "bodies" which were created:

1Cr 15:37-41
"And that which you sow, you sow not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]: But God gives it a body as it has pleased Him, and to every seed his own body.

All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

[There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another.

[There is] one glory of the sun, and

another glory of the moon, and

another glory of the stars: for

[one] star differs from [another] star in glory."

Psa 147:4     
"He tells the number of the stars; He calls them all by [their] names."

.

Is that the best you creationists can do?  Seriously?  Is it? 

Apr 22, 2012 -- 9:27PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Apr 22, 2012 -- 3:44PM, steven_guy wrote:

steven_guy: If there was any truth in Humphries' preposterous ideas then the light from distant galaxies would be blue shifted. It isn't. It's red shifted. Epic fail.

iama: Do you have an answer to WHY "it's red shifted"?

.

Because the blue was taken.

It took all of 3 seconds to look up redshift, Iama.  Holy hell, creationists tend to the lazy side in research......

Wait a minute.

That could be a trend.

O.  M.  G!!!

coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_class...

Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:19PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

There is controversy regarding the usefulness of "redshift" in determining distances.

There is no controversy. That creationists don't like something doesn't make it controversial. Real scientists, who actually have productive work to do, ignore creationists.

iama

He, also, is in the proverbial dog house, because he is refuting the Big Bang.

There's nothing controversial in argument about the nature of the Big Bang.  Several schools of thought have been contending about it for the past decade.

What isn't so controversial, though there are still different schools of thought, is what happened after the Big Bang and our description of the expanding universe.

But you're a creationist, so I'm wasting your time - you don't care what's true in reality, only what supports your prejudices.