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

This is the deepest picture taken of our universe. All those little bright spots, and neato designs are galaxies! That's right, billions of trillions of stars and planets all clusterd together in great spirals just like our own milkyway. This image contains as many as 10,000 galaxies say scientists!Keep in mind that our milkyway is 3,000,000 (3 million) light years across. That is 17,610,000,000,000,000,000 miles across. Each one of the galaxies in this picture are at least that size. and there are at least 10,000 of them!to get an idea as to how far away, and indeed, how far back in time these images are have a look at this:
{Rescaled photo, to fit into normal page width. Was UBB code - Changed to html, which is the method I know (a little) - Adminnemooseus}That's right! Those galaxys are 13 billion light years away! Incase you don't have an idea about how much 13 billion light years is, let me put it in perspective:A lightyear (acording to google anyway) is about:5,870,000,000,000 miles! Multiply that number (5,870 billion) times 13 billion, and you beginn to see the picture.5,870,000,000,000 * 13,000,000,000 =76,310,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away.Not only that, but the images are what those parts of the galaxy looked like 13,000,000,000 years agao! Many of them are prolly not even there anymore.So my question is how on earth do YEC's reconcile a young earth, young universe? For certainly they must be blind. The age, and size of the universe is written in the skys plain as day.This galaxy is one amongst all the others, not particularly special, wizing along in a constant fall thrugh the void. How on earth can you say it is not?How can a YEC look at these pictures and say, firmly, that it was all created 6000 years ago, for our benifit?BTW. The images came from:http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pictures.htmlP.S. Any other coments on these stunning pictures and the latest Hubble images are more than welcome as well.[This message has been edited by Yaro, 03-10-2004]

But those galaxies are essentialy a photograph taken 13 billion years ago. Its basicaly a snapshot of the universe at the beginning of time.I dont see god in the picture, do you?

I posted a similar topic like this ages ago. That is a topic about a simple scientific thing which refutes Creationisim. The other one was a topic on the Star Nosed Mole. I had described it's unique nasal apendage and explaind how it was a specialized sensing organ. I used that to blow a hole in the whole 'created kinds' thing and the 'no new information' balognia.I thought it was a good topic, nice pictures to (I like pics ). Anyway... I got a few replys from locals such as here but creationists remaind curiously silent. Same here.Why do YEC's seem to back down from these speciffic points of discussion I bring up? Is it because their possition is so week they feel they must stick to topics discusing broad abstract ideas?This thread presents you all with a picture of the universe as it was 13 Billion years ago. I would love to hear a YEC position on this image, as I have yet to see a god in it, thank you.

Here is the Star Nosed Mole thread, in case anyone is interested:http://EvC Forum: Star nosed moles, and biblical kinds -->EvC Forum: Star nosed moles, and biblical kinds

I stand corrected, your right. It's close to 100,000. Still a whole bunch!

How does a photograph of the universe 13billion years ago not constitute evidence? There it is, before your very eyes. That's the universe, 13Billion (!) years ago.

Herm... now, I'm no astrophysisit (can't even spell it), but I don't think it takes much to understand that if something is x light years away, the light we are seeing is x light years old. That is, the image is an image of light that was x years old.How is this speculation?

I'll deffer to Eta on this, as she is a cosmologist. You should listen to her.

oops.... hehehMeh, it's the internet, whadda you want?

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]