Jump to content


Photo

What Is This A Picture Of?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
62 replies to this topic

#1 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 19 September 2007 - 02:58 PM

Here's a picture:

Hubble Ultra Deep Field


My question to creationists is: What is this a picture of?

#2 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 19 September 2007 - 03:07 PM

Space.

Any other Questions?

#3 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 19 September 2007 - 04:42 PM

jason78,
Nice picture.
Whats really interesting is that it represents a look at a very small portion of a fraction of the heavens.

There's something like 250 billion galaxies out there

My question is, how did they get all that stuff into a microscopic dot?

#4 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Agnostic
  • Piedmont, California

Posted 20 September 2007 - 10:32 AM

jason78,
Nice picture.
Whats really interesting is that it  represents a look at a very small portion of a fraction of the heavens.

There's something like 250 billion galaxies out there

My question is, how did they get all that stuff into a microscopic dot?

View Post

we dont know, we can only hypothesize about it. If anyone says they know how it happened, they are lying (or being intellectually dishonest) unless they have some evidence.

#5 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 20 September 2007 - 11:46 AM

we dont know, we can only hypothesize about it.



Why do you waste your time hypothesizing about something that defies all the laws of physics instead of just admitting that it never happened?

#6 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 20 September 2007 - 05:53 PM

jason78,
Nice picture.
Whats really interesting is that it  represents a look at a very small portion of a fraction of the heavens.

There's something like 250 billion galaxies out there

View Post


Hi Trilobyte,
As a creationist , may I ask how far away you think they are and how big they are? Some people suggest that the spiral forms are related to the fact that they are spinning. Is that acceptable? Or is there are different creationist theory? Thanks.


My question is, how did they get all that stuff into a microscopic dot?

View Post


There are actually thousands of papers on such an issue and it is related to black holes. That whole stars can be swallowed up into a black hole compressing the entire star into a singularity is widely accepted. There is even evidence that the center of our own galaxy has a black hole that is swallowing stars.
However, we are likely to get over my head quickly in a discussion of general relativity.

From http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Black_hole
"According to general relativity, a black hole's mass is entirely compressed into a region with zero volume, which means its density and gravitational pull are infinite, and so is the curvature of space-time which it causes. These infinite values cause most physical equations, including those of general relativity, to stop working at the center of a black hole. So physicists call the zero-volume, infinitely dense region at the center of a black hole a "singularity"."

#7 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 21 September 2007 - 01:34 AM

Until I see "evidence" that a liquid or solid can be compressed beyond numbers we cannot even calculate, at best it is all speculation. Has anyone been able to demonstrate how a liquid or solid can be compressed to a dot?

How about if we see a evolutionist take all the waters that exist in our oceans and compress them to a dot the size of a period on this page. If that can't be done, how can you expect a creationist to believe that the whole universe was done that way?

I like how physicist speculate what is found in a black hole, though it will never be proven. But we are supposed to believe (have faith) that they will always be right.

Another thing I find funny (not in a mocking way). That phycisists will work out all these formulations concerning gravity, but yet they do not know the source of gravity. Nor can they explain what gravity is. But yet the infinite gravitational pull of gravity causes a zero volume known as a singularity. It is accepted by the smartest minds in science. So that makes it true. Even though as best it is all speculation.

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 21 September 2007 - 01:40 AM

Just a warning about the thread. And the responses. A new rule about one liners was put up a few days ago. The thread itself borderlines on being a one liner to mock creationist. And the creationist responses are pretty much the same idea.

If the thread cannot get out of the one liner mode, I will close it. Either discuss like you have some interest, or don't post. I don't mind a little humor here and there from either side. But if humor is all you can post, then don't bother. We are trying to make threads more productive in discussing the debates between creation and evolution.

Ikester

#9 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Central California

Posted 21 September 2007 - 08:04 AM

Until I see "evidence" that a liquid or solid can be compressed beyond numbers we cannot even calculate, at best it is all speculation. Has anyone been able to demonstrate how a liquid or solid can be compressed to a dot?

View Post


I had the same thought, but I my ears really perked up at the mention in the previous post that a black hole's mass is "entirely compressed into a region with zero volume." Not a dot ... but a zero.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but zero, to me, sounds like nothing, no volume, a zero with a billion zeros after it stretching into eternity. I'll get back to that thought in a second.

Then, the same post stated, "These infinite values cause most physical equations, including those of general relativity, to stop working at the center of a black hole."

Now, that is a revelation! Can everyone see the importance of that statement? A singular moment of "nothing" but actually "something" which is beyond the laws of time, space and matter?

Gosh, it sure sounds like these greatest scientific minds are trying real hard to define the God of the universe, but not. Know what I mean?

I'm assuming that all this talk about black holes (there is a nothing, and it is beyond the laws of the universe) is a precursor to trying to explain the first alleged "singularity" that was "nothing" then it exploded, and voila, here we are.

But, you know what? The closer that these greatest scientific minds come to explaining the origin of the universe, the closer they come to the mind of God. And that explains why they so adamantly avoid discussion of origins. Gets too close to their conscience.

Very interesting.

Dave

#10 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 21 September 2007 - 08:50 AM

My question to creationists is:  What is this a picture of?

View Post


Among other things, evidence that mature galaxies exist as far back in time as we can see. Not exactly a prediction of the big bang.

#11 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 22 September 2007 - 07:22 AM

I had the same thought, but I my ears really perked up at the mention in the previous post that a black hole's mass is "entirely compressed into a region with zero volume." Not a dot ... but a zero.


View Post


Much of science takes us in directions that go against our intuitions. Galileo fought with the church over the idea that the earth moved. Partly this was because a literal interpretation of Joshua implied that it was the sun that moved - not the earth. Secondly, all our intuitions say that it is the earth that is at rest. However, almost everyone - including the church - now accepts that the earth moves and that passage in Joshua need not be taken literally.

Einstein grappled with the odd notion that light appeared to travel at the same speed no matter what the speed of the observer. This is a VERY counter-inutitive idea but its solution led to the theory of relativity - and these were eventually confirmed. The theories of relativity led to yet more counter-intuitive ideas: the concept of black holes resulting from the collapse of large stars. The evidence for these is now quite strong.

Relatively leads to a notion that time and space are fundamentally linked. The collapse of space leads to collapse of time. Few people have an intuition for such an idea: how can time collapse?

And some of these ideas - along with evidence of an expanding universe, lead a Belgium priest to the idea that the universe had a beginning. As I mentioned elsewhere, the term "Big Bang" was coined by the atheist Fred Hoyle to mock the concept which he saw as a 'Christian' theory. However, the multiple lines of evidence for the "Big Bang" have convinced most of the scientific community despite the religious overtones.

However, any new theory is allowed if it can explain the available data better than the current theory. But it takes serious work to demonstrate that your theory does a better job. Simply noting that the current theory seems counter-intuitive will not have much impact.

#12 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 22 September 2007 - 08:08 AM

Hi Trilobyte,
As a creationist , may I ask how far away you think they are and how big they are?

They are at all different distances...I don't understand the intent of your question.

Some people suggest that the spiral forms are related to the fact that they are spinning. Is that acceptable? Or is there are different creationist theory? Thanks.

Why would them spinning or not spinning matter? ....Once again I don't underdstand the intent of your question.

#13 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 22 September 2007 - 08:25 AM

What happens when a black hole swallows up another black hole?

#14 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 22 September 2007 - 11:42 AM

Much of science takes us in directions that go against our intuitions. Galileo fought with the church over the idea that the earth moved. Partly this was because a literal interpretation of Joshua implied that it was the sun that moved - not the earth. Secondly, all our intuitions say that it is the earth that is at rest. However, almost everyone - including the church - now accepts that the earth moves and that passage in Joshua need not be taken literally.

Einstein grappled with the odd notion that light appeared to travel at the same speed no matter what the speed of the observer. This is a VERY counter-inutitive idea but its solution led to the theory of relativity - and these were eventually confirmed. The theories of relativity led to yet more counter-intuitive ideas: the concept of black holes resulting from the collapse of large stars. The evidence for these is now quite strong.

Relatively leads to a notion that time and space are fundamentally linked. The collapse of space leads to collapse of time. Few people have an intuition for such an idea: how can time collapse?

And some of these ideas - along with evidence of an expanding universe, lead a Belgium priest to the idea that the universe had a beginning. As I mentioned elsewhere, the term "Big Bang" was coined by the atheist Fred Hoyle to mock the concept which he saw as a 'Christian' theory. However, the multiple lines of evidence for the "Big Bang" have convinced most of the scientific community despite the religious overtones.

However, any new theory is allowed if it can explain the available data better than the current theory. But it takes serious work to demonstrate that your theory does a better job. Simply noting that the current theory seems counter-intuitive will not have much impact.

View Post


The problem is that Black Hole´s properties are only mathematical concepts, there is no empirical evidence about what really happens in the black hole, or if the time really can be collapsed.

#15 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 22 September 2007 - 01:24 PM

What happens when a black hole swallows up another black hole?

View Post


Basically, you get a more massive black hole with a larger event horizon (the event horizon is region from which nothing - not even light - can escape).

Here is a nice story on collisions of supermassive black holes. However, although this is only a magazine science writer, I do wish they would not use the word proof. Nothing in science is really a "proof".

http://www.popsci.co...ecbccdrcrd.html

Black Hole Death Match
What do you get when black holes meet? A really big black hole.

By Greg Mone | December 2002

Ravenous and unbelievably dense, a supermassive black hole is one of the most fearsome creations in the universe. With the mass of 100 million suns, these black holes swallow all the galactic material in their neighborhoods. But what would happen if two of these cosmic monstrosities actually bumped into one another? Astronomers David Merritt of Rutgers University and R.D. Ekers of the University of California, Berkeley, think they know.

Black holes meet when gravity pulls two galaxies together over billions of years, forming a gargantuan new system. Each black hole starts in the center of its host galaxy and drifts toward the middle of the new one. As they draw closer together, the black holes begin to orbit one another. In most computer simulations, this dance lasts indefinitely, with each black hole keeping its distance. But according to Merritt, in some cases the black holes can lose energy, gradually causing their orbits to shrink. Eventually, after hundreds of millions of years, the smaller of the two plunges inward, coalescing with its larger partner. Merritt compares it to the merger of two raindrops: Each black hole loses its original identity, forming a new, more massive whole.

Merritt and Ekers think they've found evidence of such mergers in a group of unusual X-shaped radio signals coming from distant galaxies. These X formations, they say, are proof of rapidly shifting plasma jets—streams of superheated gas shooting out from a black hole's center like sprouting palm trees.

Although a supermassive black hole is itself invisible, a plasma jet is one indication of its presence. Another sign is an accretion disc, a collection of swirling gas and dust sometimes likened to tree-swinging monkeys. The plasma palm trees extend out perpendicular to this disc, in line with the black hole's spin axis. Several light-years from the center, the superheated gas in the jet starts to cool and expand. As it does so, a radio beam shoots out from the jet, like a giant flashlight shining through space.

Astronomers were recently able to pick up some of these radio beams but were puzzled by their criss-cross formations. A movement of the jet seemed to be an obvious explanation. The problem was, a plasma jet—and its radio beams—should be extremely tough to move. A force acting gradually on the black hole, like a long-term gravitational pull, might produce an S-curved jet, but the X shape suggested rapid change. To produce that, you would have to knock around the black hole itself—and spinning objects that size are nothing if not stable.

Merritt and Ekers argue that the only plausible explanation for this intense result is the meeting of two supermassive black holes. And these exciting events can happen quickly. According to Merritt, once the smaller black hole begins to dive into its partner, it takes only about a year for the jet to shift. Even more spectacular, when the two black holes finally coalesce, there is a huge burst of gravitational radiation that could last less than 2 minutes. Merritt hopes that NASA's proposed Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), a space-based gravity wave detector not yet slated for construction, could pick up one of these merger events every year. Aside from proving Merritt and Eker's theory, such evidence would constitute a solid proof of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.

#16 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 22 September 2007 - 01:36 PM

What's wrong with a white hole?

#17 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 September 2007 - 02:32 AM

Much of science takes us in directions that go against our intuitions. Galileo fought with the church over the idea that the earth moved. Partly this was because a literal interpretation of Joshua implied that it was the sun that moved - not the earth. Secondly, all our intuitions say that it is the earth that is at rest. However, almost everyone - including the church - now accepts that the earth moves and that passage in Joshua need not be taken literally.


Because Joshua could not peer into space to see how things worked. His observation was correct as far as what he could see. So no he was not wrong at the time that he said it. plus the knowledge of man at that time also confirms. So yes it still can be taken literally but with the knowedge that he wrote about what he observed, and what he knew. But not what really happens.

For how can a lie be a lie if the knowlege of truth is not known?

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Which also means that the flip side of the verse applies as well. Because if good is not known (truth), then how is it sin? For judgement to be just, God is not going to be throwing people into hell because they had no access to the truth. Knowledge of sin makes the sin action a sin. The prime example of this is the first sin. God made sure they knew it was sin to partake of the tree because ye shall surely die. And upon them knowing good, but choosing to have knowledge of evil. They were judged.

Have you ever pondered what could have happened if Adam would have confessed his sin and asked for mercy instead of blaming it on Eve? Adam and Eve refused to confess what they did, and tried to say their sin, that they committed was someone else's fault. But they knew better because God warned them. So their attempt to not own up to their sin failed. And we all paid for that one.

Einstein grappled with the odd notion that light appeared to travel at the same speed no matter what the speed of the observer. This is a VERY counter-inutitive idea but its solution led to the theory of relativity - and these were eventually confirmed. The theories of relativity led to yet more counter-intuitive ideas: the concept of black holes resulting from the collapse of large stars. The evidence for these is now quite strong.

Relatively leads to a notion that time and space are fundamentally linked. The collapse of space leads to collapse of time. Few people have an intuition for such an idea: how can time collapse?


I have a question. How can time expand? And if space and time are connected as you say. When space expanded, so did time.

ps 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

is 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

is 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein

Except time for a day was already set as done in Genesis 1. So when space was expanded, what could expand that would not affect the passing of time, but after the first sin became a part of time? Age. So when the heavens were expanded, age was expanded as well. But time remained the same. So the expansion of space aged the stars beyond our solar system according to their distance from us. Why? Earth is considered the center point in which all the light from stars had to shine.

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Why create things we are not able to see? This is why God put light into the firmament to give light upon the earth. Stretching the heavens stretches the light that comes from thos stars he created. If the light did not stretch when the heavens expanded, the reason light was created (to give light upon the earth) would not longer be in play. And when light is stretched, as the heavens were expanded. Gave light a red shift.

And some of these ideas - along with evidence of an expanding universe, lead a Belgium priest to the idea that the universe had a beginning. As I mentioned elsewhere, the term "Big Bang" was coined by the atheist Fred Hoyle to mock the concept which he saw as a 'Christian' theory. However, the multiple lines of evidence for the "Big Bang" have convinced most of the scientific community despite the religious overtones.


Yep, remove God, steal the theory.

However, any new theory is allowed if it can explain the available data better than the current theory. But it takes serious work to demonstrate that your theory does a better job. Simply noting that the current theory seems counter-intuitive will not have much impact.

View Post


It's a known fact that if a Creator is included, the theory is not allowed.

What do you think was the driving force behind the removal of the 10 commands? Evolution.

What was the driving force behind the removal of creation from schools? Evolution.

What was the driving force of the removal of prayers in school? Evolution.

And what is the current driving force behind eliminating all Christians in 10 years? Evolution.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/


The you tube video link shows where the evolutionist at RRS want to rid the world of Chriatians in 10 years.

And if you don't think evolution is behind it, then explain this page:
http://www.rationalr....com/KentH*vind

#18 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 23 September 2007 - 06:43 PM

Wow,
That is quite a set of comments for a discussion of what is seen in that picture of galaxies. I see you are a moderator. Shouldn't we be staying on topic?

As far as the question of prayer in schools, I once had a chance to ask Jerry Falwell about that when he came to my university. I asked him if it was ok with him if kids classes had hindu prayers, muslim prayers and even devil worshipping prayers if that was the religion of the students (or the parents). He implied that they could take turns. Personally, I wouldn't want my kids go through the prayers from odd religions simply because the community had a significant number of such people, so I am happy for the separation of church and state.

And shouldn't we avoid discussions of Kent H*vind here?

As far as the Big Bang theory, are you implying that the scientific community 'stole' the theory from Christians? Most physicists I know, are aware of who first came up with the theory. However, it is the evidence that won over the scientific community.

Yep, remove God, steal the theory.

View Post

,

Every scientist wants their theory to be accepted. It takes hard work to show that the theory is consistent with all the different lines of evidence. The Big Bang is a theory that is consistent with a number of different lines of evidence. But there is no proof. And a new theory with better explanatory power will be accepted if it really accounts for more data.

Our own galaxy is around 100,000 light years across and there are many lines of evidence to support this. Our neighboring galaxy, the andromeda galaxy is 2 million light years away, and there is lots and lots of evidence of that. It has stars just light those in our galaxy and by knowing their size, we can estimate the distance. It is really quite straightforward.

Posted Image

So a theory that requires the universe to be just 6,000 light years across would really require a lot of juggling. Since just about every line of evidence goes against that. But hey, if you think you can make such a theory work, go for it. I would love to hear it.

Maybe we can start with an account of the Andromeda galaxy - since that is close to the topic here. We know a lot about it since it is our neighbor at a mere 2 million light years away. How big do you think it is. How far away is it?

How big is it according to the Creation Theory of the universe? What do you think we should tell a kid in school if they ask?

#19 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 24 September 2007 - 11:10 AM

The problem is that Black Hole´s properties are only mathematical concepts, there is no empirical evidence about what really happens in the black hole, or if the time really can be collapsed.

View Post

I think you'll find that Black Hole's are real world objects Deadlock. If you look at the Schwarzschild solution for General Relativity you'll see that t can be exchanged for r inside the event horizon.

#20 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 24 September 2007 - 03:27 PM

Just a warning about the thread. And the responses. A new rule about one liners was put up a few days ago.

View Post


Yeah, sorry about that I just can't help myself sometimes.

I think it falls into the strategy of debate, where you ask a simple question to get a predicted answer and use that to somehow prove a point.


Anyway, Jason, where were you going with this thread? You'll have to put the question strategy aside and just lay it out.

A picture of space, what is the context there?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users