The distance to the stars. And Old earth creationism.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Someone asked earlier what is the evidence for an old earth.
A good example would be the distance to the stars.

Now this would have to assume two things.
1. The speed of light is more or less constant.
2. The techniques for measuring star composition are valid.

This is how it works.
The closer stars are measured using a method called Triangulation. This measurement technique take advantage of the principal known as parallax. If anyone wants a clearer easier to understand explanation let me know and I will post it in this thread.

Another discovery was made involving spectronomy. It turns out that every element has its own electromagnetic signature. Using this we are able to determine the composition of the stars. Again if anyone need further information, let me know.

It turns out that similar stars have similar brightness and color. Using this information we determine a function using the measurements we have so far. Then plugging in the data for stars too far to triangulate we can calculate their distances.

In the Milky Way stars are as far away as 100,000 light years away! And thats only stars in our own galaxy.

A light year is a measurement for distance, but it is also the time it takes for light to cover that distance. So for that light to reach our night skys now, it had to have left the star 100,000 years ago!

And that is how we come to the age of the Universe. It must be older than that for the star to have formed there in the first place.

[Byblos]

Someone asked earlier what is the evidence for an old earth.
A good example would be the distance to the stars.

Now this would have to assume two things.
1. The speed of light is more or less constant.
2. The techniques for measuring star composition are valid.

This is how it works.
The closer stars are measured using a method called Triangulation. This measurement technique take advantage of the principal known as parallax. If anyone wants a clearer easier to understand explanation let me know and I will post it in this thread.

Another discovery was made involving spectronomy. It turns out that every element has its own electromagnetic signature. Using this we are able to determine the composition of the stars. Again if anyone need further information, let me know.

It turns out that similar stars have similar brightness and color. Using this information we determine a function using the measurements we have so far. Then plugging in the data for stars too far to triangulate we can calculate their distances.

In the Milky Way stars are as far away as 100,000 light years away! And thats only stars in our own galaxy.

A light year is a measurement for distance, but it is also the time it takes for light to cover that distance. So for that light to reach our night skys now, it had to have left the star 100,000 years ago!

And that is how we come to the age of the Universe. It must be older than that for the star to have formed there in the first place.

BGood, your example, while technically accurate, is not an indication of the age of the planet earth but rather an indication of the age of the galaxy. Earth could have been formed at any time in the past and its distance from those stars would still be 100,000 light years. I'm not saying it did or didn't; I am merely pointing out a discrepancy.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Someone asked earlier what is the evidence for an old earth.
A good example would be the distance to the stars.

Now this would have to assume two things.
1. The speed of light is more or less constant.
2. The techniques for measuring star composition are valid.

This is how it works.
The closer stars are measured using a method called Triangulation. This measurement technique take advantage of the principal known as parallax. If anyone wants a clearer easier to understand explanation let me know and I will post it in this thread.

Another discovery was made involving spectronomy. It turns out that every element has its own electromagnetic signature. Using this we are able to determine the composition of the stars. Again if anyone need further information, let me know.

It turns out that similar stars have similar brightness and color. Using this information we determine a function using the measurements we have so far. Then plugging in the data for stars too far to triangulate we can calculate their distances.

In the Milky Way stars are as far away as 100,000 light years away! And thats only stars in our own galaxy.

A light year is a measurement for distance, but it is also the time it takes for light to cover that distance. So for that light to reach our night skys now, it had to have left the star 100,000 years ago!

And that is how we come to the age of the Universe. It must be older than that for the star to have formed there in the first place.

BGood, your example, while technically accurate, is not an indication of the age of the planet earth but rather an indication of the age of the galaxy. Earth could have been formed at any time in the past and its distance from those stars would still be 100,000 light years. I'm not saying it did or didn't; I am merely pointing out a discrepancy.

Quite true but much of the discrepancy between OEC and YEC includes the creation of the heavens as well.

On a side note the Earth is estimated to be around ~4.5 billion years old.
But there is no rock on the Earths surface to prove this. Originally the Earth was thought to be much younger but date analysis on meteorites led to a startling discovery. That is that the meteors beleived to have formed around the same time as the formation of the planets all measured around 4.5 billion years! We can go into more detail on this in another thread.

The oldest rock found on earth is dated to roughly 3.8 billion years by several radiometric methods. Multiple dating methods converged on the same date making this date likely. However a larger sample is needed to be more conclusive. Again a thread can be opened to discuss this matter more in depth.

[Byblos]

Someone asked earlier what is the evidence for an old earth.
A good example would be the distance to the stars.

Now this would have to assume two things.
1. The speed of light is more or less constant.
2. The techniques for measuring star composition are valid.

This is how it works.
The closer stars are measured using a method called Triangulation. This measurement technique take advantage of the principal known as parallax. If anyone wants a clearer easier to understand explanation let me know and I will post it in this thread.

Another discovery was made involving spectronomy. It turns out that every element has its own electromagnetic signature. Using this we are able to determine the composition of the stars. Again if anyone need further information, let me know.

It turns out that similar stars have similar brightness and color. Using this information we determine a function using the measurements we have so far. Then plugging in the data for stars too far to triangulate we can calculate their distances.

In the Milky Way stars are as far away as 100,000 light years away! And thats only stars in our own galaxy.

A light year is a measurement for distance, but it is also the time it takes for light to cover that distance. So for that light to reach our night skys now, it had to have left the star 100,000 years ago!

And that is how we come to the age of the Universe. It must be older than that for the star to have formed there in the first place.

BGood, your example, while technically accurate, is not an indication of the age of the planet earth but rather an indication of the age of the galaxy. Earth could have been formed at any time in the past and its distance from those stars would still be 100,000 light years. I'm not saying it did or didn't; I am merely pointing out a discrepancy.

Quite true but much of the discrepancy between OEC and YEC includes the creation of the heavens as well.

So another assumption needs to be added to make the whole example technically valid and that being earth was created at the same time as the stars in the milky way. This, of course, does not say anything about the distance to other galaxies as then the same assumption would have to be carried over. (don't mean to nitpick, but ...)

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Someone asked earlier what is the evidence for an old earth.
A good example would be the distance to the stars.

Now this would have to assume two things.
1. The speed of light is more or less constant.
2. The techniques for measuring star composition are valid.

This is how it works.
The closer stars are measured using a method called Triangulation. This measurement technique take advantage of the principal known as parallax. If anyone wants a clearer easier to understand explanation let me know and I will post it in this thread.

Another discovery was made involving spectronomy. It turns out that every element has its own electromagnetic signature. Using this we are able to determine the composition of the stars. Again if anyone need further information, let me know.

It turns out that similar stars have similar brightness and color. Using this information we determine a function using the measurements we have so far. Then plugging in the data for stars too far to triangulate we can calculate their distances.

In the Milky Way stars are as far away as 100,000 light years away! And thats only stars in our own galaxy.

A light year is a measurement for distance, but it is also the time it takes for light to cover that distance. So for that light to reach our night skys now, it had to have left the star 100,000 years ago!

And that is how we come to the age of the Universe. It must be older than that for the star to have formed there in the first place.

BGood, your example, while technically accurate, is not an indication of the age of the planet earth but rather an indication of the age of the galaxy. Earth could have been formed at any time in the past and its distance from those stars would still be 100,000 light years. I'm not saying it did or didn't; I am merely pointing out a discrepancy.

Quite true but much of the discrepancy between OEC and YEC includes the creation of the heavens as well.

So another assumption needs to be added to make the whole example technically valid and that being earth was created at the same time as the stars in the milky way. This, of course, does not say anything about the distance to other galaxies as then the same assumption would have to be carried over. (don't mean to nitpick, but ...)

Not necessarilly because if YEC is correct an alternative explanation is needed for the perceived distance of the stars. Because the Universe was created along with the Earth in 6 days.

[Byblos]

Someone asked earlier what is the evidence for an old earth.
A good example would be the distance to the stars.

Now this would have to assume two things.
1. The speed of light is more or less constant.
2. The techniques for measuring star composition are valid.

This is how it works.
The closer stars are measured using a method called Triangulation. This measurement technique take advantage of the principal known as parallax. If anyone wants a clearer easier to understand explanation let me know and I will post it in this thread.

Another discovery was made involving spectronomy. It turns out that every element has its own electromagnetic signature. Using this we are able to determine the composition of the stars. Again if anyone need further information, let me know.

It turns out that similar stars have similar brightness and color. Using this information we determine a function using the measurements we have so far. Then plugging in the data for stars too far to triangulate we can calculate their distances.

In the Milky Way stars are as far away as 100,000 light years away! And thats only stars in our own galaxy.

A light year is a measurement for distance, but it is also the time it takes for light to cover that distance. So for that light to reach our night skys now, it had to have left the star 100,000 years ago!

And that is how we come to the age of the Universe. It must be older than that for the star to have formed there in the first place.

BGood, your example, while technically accurate, is not an indication of the age of the planet earth but rather an indication of the age of the galaxy. Earth could have been formed at any time in the past and its distance from those stars would still be 100,000 light years. I'm not saying it did or didn't; I am merely pointing out a discrepancy.

Quite true but much of the discrepancy between OEC and YEC includes the creation of the heavens as well.

So another assumption needs to be added to make the whole example technically valid and that being earth was created at the same time as the stars in the milky way. This, of course, does not say anything about the distance to other galaxies as then the same assumption would have to be carried over. (don't mean to nitpick, but ...)

Not necessarilly because if YEC is correct an alternative explanation is needed for the perceived distance of the stars. Because the Universe was created along with the Earth in 6 days.

And an alternative explanation is provided. Red shifting. Look up Dr. Russel Humphreys theory on the subject (don't have a link, will look for one).

[Byblos]

BGood, your example, while technically accurate, is not an indication of the age of the planet earth but rather an indication of the age of the galaxy. Earth could have been formed at any time in the past and its distance from those stars would still be 100,000 light years. I'm not saying it did or didn't; I am merely pointing out a discrepancy.

Quite true but much of the discrepancy between OEC and YEC includes the creation of the heavens as well.

So another assumption needs to be added to make the whole example technically valid and that being earth was created at the same time as the stars in the milky way. This, of course, does not say anything about the distance to other galaxies as then the same assumption would have to be carried over. (don't mean to nitpick, but ...)

Not necessarilly because if YEC is correct an alternative explanation is needed for the perceived distance of the stars. Because the Universe was created along with the Earth in 6 days.

And an alternative explanation is provided. Red shifting. Look up Dr. Russel Humphreys theory on the subject (don't have a link, will look for one).

Here are some links:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

Other arguments for a young earth Dr. Humphreys uses:

Depletion of Earth's magnetic field

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... iew&ID=182

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... gnetic.asp

Here's a general link where Dr. Humphreys answers his critics:

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Quite true but much of the discrepancy between OEC and YEC includes the creation of the heavens as well.

So another assumption needs to be added to make the whole example technically valid and that being earth was created at the same time as the stars in the milky way. This, of course, does not say anything about the distance to other galaxies as then the same assumption would have to be carried over. (don't mean to nitpick, but ...)

Not necessarilly because if YEC is correct an alternative explanation is needed for the perceived distance of the stars. Because the Universe was created along with the Earth in 6 days.

And an alternative explanation is provided. Red shifting. Look up Dr. Russel Humphreys theory on the subject (don't have a link, will look for one).

Here are some links:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

This fist link is a perversion of the General Theory of relativity, observations show that there is an acceleration away from other objects in space not towards. The time dialation is found in the theory of special relativity. This confuses relativity to an obscene level. We can start a thread on this if you like.

Other arguments for a young earth Dr. Humphreys uses:

Depletion of Earth's magnetic field

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... iew&ID=182

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... gnetic.asp

This is an interesting idea I will research this idea a little more.
=)

Here's a general link where Dr. Humphreys answers his critics:

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

[Felgar]

I don't know why so many YEC's refuse to consider that God could have started the universe already in motion. Most seem to see "light on the way" as a deception by God and thus dismiss it out of hand. I personally don't see it that way and have no problem at all with 'appearance of age' because given that God is perfect, in the realm of science appearance of age is legitimate, actual age.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I don't know why so many YEC's refuse to consider that God could have started the universe already in motion. Most seem to see "light on the way" as a deception by God and thus dismiss it out of hand. I personally don't see it that way and have no problem at all with 'appearance of age' because given that God is perfect, in the realm of science appearance of age is legitimate, actual age.

Well I certainly can't argue with this. But personally I don't like it.

[Byblos]

I don't know why so many YEC's refuse to consider that God could have started the universe already in motion. Most seem to see "light on the way" as a deception by God and thus dismiss it out of hand. I personally don't see it that way and have no problem at all with 'appearance of age' because given that God is perfect, in the realm of science appearance of age is legitimate, actual age.

I have considered that a great deal but I had to dismiss it as it tends to show God as a liar. Since we know God cannot lie, the theory can't be right. An example: If the universe is created already in motion then light was created in transition. This implies that the supernova we seem to be observing today that occurred millions of years ago did not actually happen. This smacks of deception.

[Jbuza]

I don't know why so many YEC's refuse to consider that God could have started the universe already in motion. Most seem to see "light on the way" as a deception by God and thus dismiss it out of hand. I personally don't see it that way and have no problem at all with 'appearance of age' because given that God is perfect, in the realm of science appearance of age is legitimate, actual age.

I completely agree with this. Did God create streams empty and had to wait for the water to fill them? In spite of the fact that Adam was only one day old after he was created, IT is quite likely that he would have appeared to be older than that.

Also if the stars are accelerating away from us, could they not have been closer earlier in time?

[Jbuza]

Now this would have to assume two things.
1. The speed of light is more or less constant.
2. The techniques for measuring star composition are valid.

There is a large amount of evidence to suggest that assumption 1 is not correct.

Also you failed to address another assumption that, to me, seems to be the most important one at hand. What about the expanding universe. Even from the evolutionary big bang model, the stars were pushed away at very rapid speeds. The red shift phenomenom and the apparent visibility of distant stars can be explained by a much closer proximity at the begining.

[Jbuza]

Does the doppler effect imply that our galaxy is the center of the universe?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I don't know why so many YEC's refuse to consider that God could have started the universe already in motion. Most seem to see "light on the way" as a deception by God and thus dismiss it out of hand. I personally don't see it that way and have no problem at all with 'appearance of age' because given that God is perfect, in the realm of science appearance of age is legitimate, actual age.

I completely agree with this. Did God create streams empty and had to wait for the water to fill them? In spite of the fact that Adam was only one day old after he was created, IT is quite likely that he would have appeared to be older than that.

Also if the stars are accelerating away from us, could they not have been closer earlier in time?

No because the distance we measure is from when the light left the star.
The star may have moved since then.

Now this would have to assume two things.
1. The speed of light is more or less constant.
2. The techniques for measuring star composition are valid.

There is a large amount of evidence to suggest that assumption 1 is not correct.

Is there a large amount of evidence? Can you site the source please, becuase this is a huge story. And I hope your not refering to trapped or light which is bent/slowed down. This is misunderstood by some people.

Besides, any downgrades or delays in principal would only make the Universe's age older.

Also you failed to address another assumption that, to me, seems to be the most important one at hand. What about the expanding universe. Even from the evolutionary big bang model, the stars were pushed away at very rapid speeds. The red shift phenomenom and the apparent visibility of distant stars can be explained by a much closer proximity at the begining.

Not so unless you have some new principal where the light can appear to eminate from a source it did not emanate from.

The red shift only means that the light source is moving away at the time. This means that the star is likely farther away in the current than when the light left the star. The measured distance is the distance to the point when the light began its journey.

Does the doppler effect imply that our galaxy is the center of the universe?

Not at all. Everything is relative. A good analogy is a baloon. Draw some dots on it and then blow it up. From the perspective of each dot all the other dots are moving away.