New Hubble pictures, YEC explanations just don't make sense.

In fact, if I understand this correctly (and I am open to correction on this), our current understanding of science can only take us to within some very tiny fraction of a second after this convergence point, and no earlier.

It wasn't my intention to attack your intelligence. If it helps any I'm a 24-year-old college dropout. You agree, however, that causality has at least something to do with something happening before something else? That "before" is implied by "causality"?Then that's all you have to agree with. "Before" implies linear time. Therefore you can't say that something "caused" time, because there's no "before" before time. It's as simple as that. Before time, there is no time, by definition.

Hi all and thanks for your responses. I summarize them here with my response following.6-83 Reef re they are not sheep
6-84 Crashfrog re distance, age, trick us, could not duplicate experience
7-91 Darwin Storm re number of stars, distance, personal feeling, imperfect eyes on Bible, invalidation of scientific evidence via disbelief7-91.a Number of visible stars is = 3000 per hemisphere = (= google phrase search =) so Abraham could see more 5000 years ago but not "billions and billions".7-91.e I did not say that I do not agree with scientific findings or even imply that they are invalid. I said that a photograph can not be used as proof of distance. The evidence for distance is a measurement. We could see those galaxies in a picture no matter what their distance.I am a scientist. I think scientists are great people - and certainally not sheep. My son is working on his Phd in crystal chemistry. I support him completely. I am simply strict about using facts and data correctly.7-91.c - I agree that my personal experience is not scientific data - which is why it is of no concern to me that Crashfrog could not duplicate my experience.7-91.d - I do not communicate with God by reading. I clearly stated that our communication was intelligence to intelligence - having nothing to do with eyes and brain.6-84.d - God is not trying to trick us. He is trying to teach us to have faith in Jesus Christ. This universe was designed to do just that. Henry Ford did not build a blob of atoms that would expand into a car - he built a ready to run car. Is it not possible that God built a ready to run universe with no other intentions. Taking this car idea a bit further, can a person living near I-90 in the center of the US assume that every car that comes into view started at one coast and will continue on to the other? No, and we can not safely assume what went on before and what will go on after today.That said, I agree that the = age of the universe = is supported by evidence (not a photo). I am not as sure about the = distance across the universe = because problem one is that if it is as big in light years as it is in years then it has been expanding at around the speed of light and so its expansion can not be accellerating. Help me out if you will as I do not really care how big it is.There is much more to talk about (Greenland ice sheets?).Talk toyou soon,
Bob, Alice, and Eve

= last great ice age = have on the layers?This ice age started 70,000 years ago and ended 10,000 years ago. Hudson Bay was covered w/3300 meters (10,000 feet or 2 miles) of snow.How can one claim that an ice field was continiously resurfaced with 2 miles of ice on top of it for 60,000 years?Question two: assuming the above had no effect, am I expected to believe that every summer and winter the snow compacted to roughly 1 inch total (split as needed) and that any one layer never completely melted? For 110,000 years? Sorry.Best regards,
Bob Millward

Is it impossible to assume that time began before matter? Or perhaps time has always existed (I doubt it, but I'm not going to make an issue of it). That doesn't really matter. Something we both will agree to however, is that time was around when matter came into being. Whether that means time and matter were parallel in their (I would say creation) begining, or if time preceeded matter really doesn't seem relevent.
What is relevent to me in this discussion (and maybe our resident Cosmologist {did I spell that right?} dude can help us out here) is the source of your "Big Bang". I'd like to cover the basics of it. It is seems to me as a "something out of nothing" approach not dissimular to Creation. Perhaps "a lot out of a little" is a better explaination. I don not wish to define your position, so how 'bout you do it instead? Ok braniacs, peace out.Joe

I've heard about these ice sheets. My source said the layers were due to weather related events, not annual deposites. For example, storm, thaw, snow, storm, long thaw, lil storm..etc. I also, in a unrelated article read of a WWII plane squadren that was burried in 50 ft of ice. Since these layers are only an inch or so in depth, annual deposites doesn't seem to make sense, and as a method of dating, irrelevent.Joe[This message has been edited by Navy10E, 03-12-2004]

Here is a thread from last October that covered that story.http://EvC Forum: glaciers and the flood

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

I feel that Reef, and some others have derailed the focuse of what I hoped would be a more inteligent thread. As of now it seems like a bunch of "is to", "is not" etc.Im kinda disapointed with the results.[This message has been edited by Yaro, 03-12-2004]

Shortly before you posted, I just caught up in noticing that this topic's really been piling up the messages.Going to close it down, at least for a while.Adminnemooseusps: An investigation will soon get underway, to see if special moderator AdminNosy needs to be turned over to AdminAsgara for a whipping[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-12-2004][This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-12-2004]

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads