|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Doesn't the distance of stars disprove the young earth theory? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello nlerd! Welcome to EvC
nlerd writes:
It doesn't disprove a young earth since the age of the universe has nothing to do with the age of the earth. It does however disprove a young universe. At least, it does without invoking some crazy, completely unevidenced stuff like "God created the light en-route to earth!". Since we know how fast light moves and how far away certain stars are from the earth wouldn't any star being more then 6000 light years away disprove the young earth theory, or at least a young universe? The age of the earth is determined differently, and independant from the age of the universe. Current scientific understanding places it at 4.5 billion years old. Whereas the universe is, according to current scientific understanding, 13.5 billion years old. A little posting tip: Click the "peek" button on the bottom right of my post to see how i made that nice little quotebox. It's not hard to do, and makes your posts so much more pleasant to read.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peepul writes:
No, I don't think that's correct. For the interval between two "pulses" does not take longer, it's just that the light from both is red shifted. They pulse so fast I think it's negligible. I could be wrong though.
Ok, I understand that. Thanks! So I guess that means that the rotation speeds we measure for distant pulsars are actually higher in reality?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
nlerd writes:
Not if god put the light in transit very far from earth, making it appear older then it actually is. Which I think is a stupid thing to claim, but there you have it.
But in the bible it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Gen 1:1, and he said "Let there be light" Gen 1:2 after creating the earth so earth should appear to be OLDER then we could see the oldest light to be. But then it goes on to say that he created stars "to divide the day from the night" and "to give light upon the earth" on the third DAY so now I'm getting lost.
Which is why you shouldn't take genesis literally. It doesn't reflect what we know about the universe.
his is just in Gen 1:1-19 in the King James, so I gues if the bible is that confusing trying to add science would muddle it up even more.
The bible isn't about science. Like a famous person once said "The bible teaches us how to work to get to heaven, not how the heavens work". Don't try to mix science with the bible, either you'll have to say the bible is wrong, or you'll have to shoehorn the eivdence in htere with rediculous explanations. Just accept that they are two completely different things, leading to two different truths.
And sorry for taking so long to reply.
No problem mate, there's no time limit.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
nlerd writes:
What if none of it is "true" in the litteral sense? Would this detract from the messsage that it is trying to convey?
If god didn't do the things in the bible the way it says they were done, how is someone supposed to know what is and is not true in the bible? Unless you mean some other kind of truth?
Spiritual truth? Whatever that may be.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
nlerd writes:
I agree.
I don't mean to say that there is nothing of value to be learned from the bible, I'm just saying that you've got to know what is worth taking from it and what isn't. If someone tries to take it all as literal they could miss out on alot while wasting time on something that was written 2000+ years ago by various people for unknowable reasons. There are good things that the bible can teach but the bible is not the only sorce for those things. The Lord of The Rings books have things that you can learn from in them but that doesn't mean you should believe in Hobbits and talking trees.
And I agree again Agreeing is nice
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello PEIN and welcome to EvC!
PEIN writes:
Not really, no. Does time pass differently for you and me, for example?
time is relative and different for everything.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Well yes, of course. I Should have been more clear. Thanks for bringing that up
But, to be nit picky, if you and PEIN are ever in relative motion to the other at any time then, yes, time passes differently between you. The dilation is so minuscule, however (on the order of a few millionths of a second), as to have no practical effect.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Well, I think there are ways to deduce a stars age, which will probably have to do with the ratio of helium versus hydrogen it contains.
I think astronomers have a pretty good idea of the age of most stars, and this has nothing to do with when they were first recorded. Then again, it's completely irrelevant, if we see the star now, and it is 300,000 light years away, then it means the universe still has to be at least 300,000 years old, or else, we wouldn't see the star.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Taq writes:
Well, not really, now does it. I mean, the age of the earth is of course independent from the age of the universe. Even if the Earth was only made yesterday, the universe would still be at least 3 billion years old from your example star.
This falsifies a young earth.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dogmafood writes:
I don't see what Hubble's law has to do with the formation of stars. It simply states that the distance of a galaxy to our own is proportional to the velocity with which it is receding from us.
Can anyone put Hubble's Law into simple terms for me? How does it account for all the time that it took those distant stars to form and start shining?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Apothecus writes:
Well, actually (please bear with me here, I just thought of this ), if the star was first visible 150,000 years ago, and was destroyed 3,000 years after it's "birth", we wouldn't actually be able to see it these days, would we? It would stopped being visible at 147,000 years ago.
Yes, exactly what I was getting at. Thanks.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
About the same size as it is today.
Here is a picture:
Yes, it says "not to scale", but that's only for the ones in the latter stages (red giant and later), whixh is why I suspect it is only on the right of the picture
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dogmafood writes:
No, because of the age of the universe. You can't see things if the light hasn't reached you yet, and since the universe is 13.5 billion years old, you can't see more than 13.5 billion light years away. Of course, that what you see at 13.5 billion light years away is at the time you see it much farther away, since it took the light 13.5 billion years to reach us. That's why what you see now as being 13.5 billion light years away is at the time of seeing it actually 46 billion light years away.
Are we limited to seeing only 13.5 billion light years due to a technical limitation? IE the resolution of our cameras.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024