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

and so did the Greeks. So did Abraham. He also knew that there were billions of stars (see Genesis 15:5 and 32:12 regarding more stars than sand). I find that interesting since only in the last dozen years have we come to know that there are "billions and billions" of stars.The Hubble picture, while further evidence of many stars, is not evidence of an ancient universe any more than the picture of Yaro proves that she is a certain age. The Hubble picture proves, at best, that the universe is big. It could have been created big and designed to get bigger. And it proves nothing about the age of the earth, either.The posting about the Greenland ice sheet is interesting, and related to a young earth discussion. But, do I simply accept the "facts" or do I question them? If only I knew the methods behind the interpertation.And now, we are at the crux of the matter - the methods. A daily, ongoing, bi-directional spiritual relationship with God has its own methods. The results are clear and certain. If one is attempting to tell me that an imperfect instrument read by imperfect eyes and processed by an imperfect brain is superior to an intelligence-to-intelligence communication with God... well, one might as well try to convince me that salt has no flavor. After all, its flavor can not be measured or described. And I think to myself "Non-YEC explanations just don't make sense."Don't get me wrong; I have a great appreciation for science. What I don't appreciate is this picture being used as evidence of what it is not. Again, it is evidence, at best, of a large universe with lots of stars - created big and expanding. It may be an ancient universe but this picture is not evidence of that.Very best wishes,
Bob, Alice, and Eve

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