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

what about one smaller?

Of course. Assuming you're talking about a set of numbers that doesn't exclude the negatives.

one last question... since you can comprehend infinty. If the Universe is infinitly large... whats outside it?

If the universe is of infinite size, that question might not make sense.If the universe is not of infinite size, which I believe is true, then we just don't know what's outside of it. And how could we unless what's outside of the universe has an effect on what's inside it?

so lets just say for argumenst sake the universe is infinitly large.You just said that the question makes no sense....Thank you for finally agreeing that you cant comprehend infinity either

Sigh... nice try, but you know that's not what I agreed to. Thank you for deomstrating my point - that you have no idea what you're talking about.

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

i like these guys... their not sheep!!!

How do you figure? If we know how fast light travels (we do) and we know how far those objects are (we do), then we know how long it took the light to arrive from those objects. In this case, billions of years.Sounds like we can begin to set the minimum age of the universe, anyway. Unless God is trying to trick us? I was unable to duplicate the results. Can you explain the discrepancy? According to physical law it must be. Unless you think God is trying to trick us?

I love your logic. The guys who, using their intellects, plumb the mysteries of the observable universe via logic and scientific methodology, without regard to dogma or politics, are sheep, but the people who believe only what a 2000-year-old book tells them to are not. Brilliant![This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-12-2004]

what if the universe is ageless?

I'm not sure that's possible thermodynamically. If the universe were of infinite duration in the past then in the present, there would be no energy avaliable for work.Since energy is clearly avaliable for work, the universe must be of finite duration in the past - that is, it had a beginning.

Reef, if you have any intersest in understanding how finite numbers can be generated by a infinite series, just take calculus. In fact, the concept of limits, derivitives, integerals, etc, all depend on the the concept. For example an integral can be used to calculate the area under a given curve. Mathematically, you are taking infinite slices of the area, measuring them, and adding them up. Fortunately, this can be simplified using integrals, which generate equations that, when limits of integration are applied, give a value for this addition of infinite slices.

yes but what if the curve itself was infinitly big.Calculus is fine and integration can answer many problems but not Zenos Paradox

what if you dont know everything about energy?There is no reason to discount the fact that Energy may have changed in form over that past few billion years. whats to stay its properties were different back then?