how do creationists explain light years?

[Thinking]

I got the 'brane reference.

Do you get BBC's Horizon? In "What happened before the Big Bang?", Laura Houghton-Mersini was on great form. She's saying one reason for the universe being hotter than expected could be neighbouring universes.

HighlyEvolved wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not an insult, Janeebee.
If you knew anything about the multiverse, you'd know what p-branes are.
In theoretical physics, a p-brane is a spatially extended mathematical concept that appears in string theory which exists in a static number of dimensions.
The variable 'p' refers to the number of spatial dimensions of the brane.
There may be multiple universes, containing parallel/alternate Janebees.
Have you ever considered that possibility?
If so, then you know that you may already be a p-brane.

[HighlyEvolved]

Thinking wrote:

I got the 'brane reference.
Do you get BBC's Horizon? In "What happened before the Big Bang?", Laura Houghton-Mersini was on great form. She's saying one reason for the universe being hotter than expected could be neighbouring universes.
<quoted text>

We have a BBC channel in our cable lineup, but I don;t know which BBC channel it is.

We get shows such as I'd Do Anything, Law & Order UK, Top Gear, The Graham Norton Show, BBC World News, Primeval, Peep Show, and Luther.

I'll keep an eye out for Horizon, but I don't recall seeing it in the lineup.

Thanks for the tip!

[LOVE4GOD]

well scientist cant really measure stars after so far so they guess. They sure cant even mesure close to six thoousand light years.

[par five]

moofactory wrote:

Then from whats been said thus far. the "young earth" theory is flawed?
because if it were true than The measurement of the speed of light would have to be thousands of times faster than what it currently is.
Its simply impossible for a planet supposedly 15,000 lightyears away to be seen. simply because 1 light year = 1 of our years in which it takes light to travel. which is saying... this planet was here before the creation of the universe.
so either the young earth theory is wrong.. or the way we measure how fast light travels must be.
except.. weave already proven how fast light travels.. so? what does that tell you?

What it tells me is that you can present proof, until you are blue in the face, to show that the young earth believers are wrong, but they will always come back at you with the only thing they have got, and that is, "goddidit". As long as they keep repeating that to themselves then they don't have to think logically, it is their answer to everything!

[Alphabet]

You should ask I See Jesus. It is his favorite subject.

Same as Ken Ham's of www.answeringenesis.com

From www.fstdt.com
Quote# 77004

Q-If God created the world 6,000 years ago or so, why are stars millions of light years away?

Ken Ham. Answer: Brendon, what a question! Yes, we know from the dates God gives us in the Bible that He did create the whole universe about 6,000 years ago. When we hear the term light-year, we need to realize it is not a measure of time but a measure of distance, telling us how far away something is. Distant stars and galaxies might be millions of light-years away, but that doesn’t mean that it took millions of years for the light to get here, it just means it is really far away!

[Big Al]

Reading the comments in this thread was extremely entertaining. Don’t they teach science in school anymore? Or maybe some of the posters in this thread haven’t gone far enough in school to have a science class? Wow!

[THE WAY]

Caboose wrote:

Well done baron, show the rest of these tits how its done..

True, it is a measure if distance...however, since the speed of light is constant (186000m/sec) all you have to do is the math to see how LONG it took for the light from that distant star to reach earth...hence the problem...

[Lucan]

M-A Le Tout-Puissant wrote:

<quoted text>
I've read a thing about creationnist & if I remember correctly, in their view, when the universe was made the light was reaching us. Kindof 'god made it so it was already reaching here when everything was created'

In other words, God created a 14 billion year old universe.

[Mr Ironhart]

THE WAY wrote:

<quoted text>
True, it is a measure if distance...however, since the speed of light is constant (186000m/sec) all you have to do is the math to see how LONG it took for the light from that distant star to reach earth...hence the problem...

First of all; what is a light year?

Light is travelling at a certain “fixed” speed in space, roughly 300 000 000 m/s.
The Earth circulates the sun in one year.
The distance that light travel in one year is about 9 460 730 billion meters, and that is the length of one light-year.

But how do we measure distances in space?
There are five different methods described here; http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild...

Time is two things; one how we experience time in our brain and the other is the order and velocity of events summed up in an event horizon.
Time isn’t a universal constant, it is what Einstein said; space-time.
It is hard to explain and understand because our brain and clocks are misleading our perception of time.

We are fully depending on the speed of light in measuring our universe and that leaves us in the hands of the structure of space; what space is, and we are now just starting to scratch on the surface of this until now hidden mystery.

But the religious people should relax; the answer has nothing to do with religion or a god.

[No Fear 1]

How do creationists explain light years?

A very long flight.

;p

[par five]

No Fear 1 wrote:

How do creationists explain light years?
A very long flight.
;p

I suggest they probably think that any year that is not a leap year is a light year, as a leap year has an extra day, thus making it that bit heavier!

[Ibborbi]

moofactory wrote:

Then from whats been said thus far. the "young earth" theory is flawed?

Definitely and without question.

because if it were true than The measurement of the speed of light would have to be thousands of times faster than what it currently is.
Its simply impossible for a planet supposedly 15,000 lightyears away to be seen. simply because 1 light year = 1 of our years in which it takes light to travel. which is saying... this planet was here before the creation of the universe.
so either the young earth theory is wrong.. or the way we measure how fast light travels must be.
except.. weave already proven how fast light travels.. so? what does that tell you?

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Some Christians are unable to comprehend what the Bible says while others just like to make everything difficult just because ...

imo, of course.

[Ibborbi]

No Fear 1 wrote:

How do creationists explain light years?
A very long flight.
;p

LOL

[Ibborbi]

par five wrote:

<quoted text>
I suggest they probably think that any year that is not a leap year is a light year, as a leap year has an extra day, thus making it that bit heavier!

LOL

I want to say something to add to this, but I have no comeback as witty as this.

:)

[RnL2008]

No Fear 1 wrote:

How do creationists explain light years?
A very long flight.
;p

Probably the same way they explain the Dinosaurs and any other event or question that doesn't fit into their theory.....lol!!!

[MazHere]

Big Al wrote:

Reading the comments in this thread was extremely entertaining. Don’t they teach science in school anymore? Or maybe some of the posters in this thread haven’t gone far enough in school to have a science class? Wow!

I see that empty heads get kudos here.

The problem for you lot that think that you are know alls is that you can no longer tell the difference between a theory and fact.

Science classes teach the big bang theory as fact. It isn't. Indeed there are numerous problems with Big Bang theory.

Here is a link that speaks to an earth centred universe. There is no need to evoke the mystery of dark energy and matter with this model.

This model fits in with current theories of relativity and the bigggest problem with it is that these loosers can't accept anything that refute the Copernican suggestion that the earth must not be special in any way.

The other thing scientists get theier knickers in a knot about is that they say the 'after glow' supports the big bang.

WELL! The shadows do not align with predictions and I suggest that the supposed afterglow of the big bang is a figment of the imagination.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/...

http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/a...

In other words some egg heads have studied crap and confusion at PHD level and called it science, then think their confused state means they know how the universe was created. Congratulations!

Light years are the figment of scientists imagination. Indeed these bright sparks are no longer measuring the doppler effect in relation to red shift because doppler does not apply to expansion. It is meant to measure distance.

What I like best is boofheads getting on here quacking on their own uninformed pulpit and suggesting they 'know science'.

[Jammercolo]

How do creationists explain light years?

Answer: Poorly!

[Punisher]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
I see that empty heads get kudos here.
The problem for you lot that think that you are know alls is that you can no longer tell the difference between a theory and fact.
Science classes teach the big bang theory as fact. It isn't. Indeed there are numerous problems with Big Bang theory.
Here is a link that speaks to an earth centred universe. There is no need to evoke the mystery of dark energy and matter with this model.
This model fits in with current theories of relativity and the bigggest problem with it is that these loosers can't accept anything that refute the Copernican suggestion that the earth must not be special in any way.
The other thing scientists get theier knickers in a knot about is that they say the 'after glow' supports the big bang.
WELL! The shadows do not align with predictions and I suggest that the supposed afterglow of the big bang is a figment of the imagination.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/...
http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/a...
In other words some egg heads have studied crap and confusion at PHD level and called it science, then think their confused state means they know how the universe was created. Congratulations!
Light years are the figment of scientists imagination. Indeed these bright sparks are no longer measuring the doppler effect in relation to red shift because doppler does not apply to expansion. It is meant to measure distance.
What I like best is boofheads getting on here quacking on their own uninformed pulpit and suggesting they 'know science'.

There ya go, pick a fight in an empty room. Kudos.

This thread was dead, leave it there.

[MazHere]

Punisher wrote:

<quoted text>There ya go, pick a fight in an empty room. Kudos.
This thread was dead, leave it there.

This thread needed some sense adding to it, rather than starting a new thread and hearing all the woffle over again.

Kudos always to those lost in the dark, such as yourself, with ignorance and single mindedness on display. Now I can leave it there.

[james]

TheBaron wrote:

Because light years is a measure of DISTANCE, not TIME
and, that's it. simple.

yes your right but it is a measure of distance using time :P you know basic physics Distance = Speed x Time A light year is the distance light travels in one year :P silly