Neil deGrasse Tyson Proves Creationists Wrong on Age of The Universe

“The Crab Nebula is about 6,500 light years from Earth,” Tyson said. “According to some beliefs, that’s the age of the whole universe, but if the universe were only 6,500 years old, how could we see light from anything more distant than the Crab Nebula? We couldn’t.”

1. Astronomers are completely wrong about the distances, and all apparently distant objects are within a bubble of 6000 light years or less centered on the solar system.

2. The distances are real, but light takes short cuts through space according to an article by Moon and Spencer published in 1953.

3. The velocity of light was much higher in the past, by factors of millions or more, and slowed down to the present value.

4. A variation of (3) is that somehow between leaving the distant star and arriving at the earth, the starlight speeded up, perhaps to an infinite velocity, then slowed down again on reaching the earth.

5. The distances are real and the light has traveled at a constant velocity, but the earth was at or close to the center of a white hole, which caused such an enormous distortion of space-time, that billions of years in the external universe elapsed during the creation week on the earth.

6. God created the light in transit from distant stars to give the universe the appearance of age.

7. All astronomers, except for a handful of creationist astronomers, are somehow deceived by Satan, or their brains are so completely polluted by sin that they cannot see the “truth”.

8. A variation of (7) but all astronomers are engaged in a world wide conspiracy to cover up the “truth”.

9. Astronomers are making some sort of assumptions, which are often a combination of several of the above arguments.

10. Epistemological nihilism – because we do not know everything about the universe, and we probably never well, what we do know is completely useless, so we know nothing at all.

Sassy wrote:Just stop it!   You are using logic, not applicable to HF, the Bible is fact!  (No matter how bloody stupid lol)

victorisnotamused wrote:and here's me thinking the world was a disc, supported by 4 elephants riding on the back of the celestial turtle....

Ben_Reilly wrote:JD?

Actually creationists have a wide variety of really stupid answers to the starlight problem:

1. Astronomers are completely wrong about the distances, and all apparently distant objects are within a bubble of 6000 light years or less centered on the solar system.

2. The distances are real, but light takes short cuts through space according to an article by Moon and Spencer published in 1953.

3. The velocity of light was much higher in the past, by factors of millions or more, and slowed down to the present value.

4. A variation of (3) is that somehow between leaving the distant star and arriving at the earth, the starlight speeded up, perhaps to an infinite velocity, then slowed down again on reaching the earth.

5. The distances are real and the light has traveled at a constant velocity, but the earth was at or close to the center of a white hole, which caused such an enormous distortion of space-time, that billions of years in the external universe elapsed during the creation week on the earth.

6. God created the light in transit from distant stars to give the universe the appearance of age.

7. All astronomers, except for a handful of creationist astronomers, are somehow deceived by Satan, or their brains are so completely polluted by sin that they cannot see the “truth”.

8. A variation of (7) but all astronomers are engaged in a world wide conspiracy to cover up the “truth”.

9. Astronomers are making some sort of assumptions, which are often a combination of several of the above arguments.

10. Epistemological nihilism – because we do not know everything about the universe, and we probably never well, what we do know is completely useless, so we know nothing at all.

http://www.csharp.com/starlight.html

Eilzel wrote:I love how a paranoid smelly assumed this was only a go at Christians and jumped in to attack Muslims.

Doesn't matter the religion smelly, if you think the Universe can be measured in thousands of years you are a thick git, Christian, Muslim or Jew

Ben_Reilly wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:
and here's me thinking the world was a disc, supported by 4 elephants riding on the back of the celestial turtle....

It's turtles all the way down!

Sassy wrote:Just stop it!   You are using logic, not applicable to HF, the Bible is fact!  (No matter how bloody stupid lol)

Eilzel wrote:It does however give us the genealogy of Biblical characters going back from Roman times (a clearly recorded time in human history) right back to Adam and Eve, who, according to the Bible, were created in the first week of Earth's existence- therefore we can measure the age of the Earth roughly according to the Bible, as creationists do. Only their results are way off the actual age as we know it.

VOD(original) wrote:

Sassy wrote:Just stop it!   You are using logic, not applicable to HF, the Bible is fact!  (No matter how bloody stupid lol)

Your daughter is a vicar so shouldn't you at least give the bible and her faith a chance .

Sassy wrote:

VOD(original) wrote:


Your daughter is a vicar so shouldn't you at least give the bible and her faith a chance .

Actually, no!   My daughter knows I love her, but she also knows I think religion is the bane of the world, I would rather she didn't spend her life on something that doesn't exist, but what she does is her own affair, she is 45 this year.   However, I am rather pleased that she and her congregation are very non judgemental, would happily have gay weddings and she is definitely not a creationist.

Eilzel wrote:Same as most vicars GIG including the forner Archbishop of Canterbury.

And the Bible doesn't need to state the age of the world. It is mathematica GIG, you take Adam and work out the number of years from his life to the time of Jesus, as creationists do, then you add 2014 years and you are left with the approximate age of the Earth according to a literal reading of the Bible.

Creationists like Ken Ham spend a lot of time arguing for this Biblical truth. Fact is if you are a scriptural literalist or creationist this is the kind of BS you subscripe to

Eilzel wrote:I love how a paranoid smelly assumed this was only a go at Christians and jumped in to attack Muslims.

Doesn't matter the religion smelly, if you think the Universe can be measured in thousands of years you are a thick git, Christian, Muslim or Jew

smelly_bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I love how a paranoid smelly assumed this was only a go at Christians and jumped in to attack Muslims.

Doesn't matter the religion smelly, if you think the Universe can be measured in thousands of years you are a thick git, Christian, Muslim or Jew

It was until I mentioned it you imbecile

Racist Sassy goes straight in to attack Christianity not religion in general but she mentions the bible specifically

So not sure how it's a general thing when one religion is specified

Eilzel wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

It was until I mentioned it you imbecile

Racist Sassy goes straight in to attack Christianity not religion in general but she mentions the bible specifically

So not sure how it's a general thing when one religion is specified

The person who argues for literal readings of any religion here is HF, HF is Christian. If Zack or Sexy were here always arguing vigorously for literal interpretations of mythical Islamic stories then someone would have mentioned Islam. You are just bitching cause you want everyone to attack Islam alone all of the time- get over it   

smelly_bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

The person who argues for literal readings of any religion here is HF, HF is Christian. If Zack or Sexy were here always arguing vigorously for literal interpretations of mythical Islamic stories then someone would have mentioned Islam. You are just bitching cause you want everyone to attack Islam alone all of the time- get over it   

the thread was started and sassy immediately mentions Christianity

therefore it was started as a n attack on Christianity instead of religion in general even though Islam (a "religion") has the same point of view

sassy ignored this fact because she likes SM and fuzzmuck

the reason i mentioned it you simpleton is for one reason, to deflate the attack on Christianity which is exactly what ive done

if i hadn't, this thread would be 100 pages come morning , but since i have highlighted Islams stupidity, any attack on religion would have to involve Islam which you will never do

thus your unilateral attack on Christianity is stopped to spare Islam from criticism  

Sassy wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

the thread was started and sassy immediately mentions Christianity

therefore it was started as a n attack on Christianity instead of religion in general even though Islam (a "religion") has the same point of view

sassy ignored this fact because she likes SM and fuzzmuck

the reason i mentioned it you simpleton is for one reason, to deflate the attack on Christianity which is exactly what ive done

if i hadn't, this thread would be 100 pages come morning , but since i have highlighted Islams stupidity, any attack on religion would have to involve Islam which you will never do

thus your unilateral attack on Christianity is stopped to spare Islam from criticism  

Oh dear, fucked up again Smelly, my first post mentioned RELIGION and I only mentioned Christianity after VOD said about my eldest daughter being a Vicar.  You really are useless.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Sassy wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

the thread was started and sassy immediately mentions Christianity

therefore it was started as a n attack on Christianity instead of religion in general even though Islam (a "religion") has the same point of view

sassy ignored this fact because she likes SM and fuzzmuck

the reason i mentioned it you simpleton is for one reason, to deflate the attack on Christianity which is exactly what ive done

if i hadn't, this thread would be 100 pages come morning , but since i have highlighted Islams stupidity, any attack on religion would have to involve Islam which you will never do

thus your unilateral attack on Christianity is stopped to spare Islam from criticism  

Oh dear, fucked up again Smelly, my first post mentioned RELIGION and I only mentioned Christianity after VOD said about my eldest daughter being a Vicar.  You really are useless.

more lies for sassy - a liar and a racist

you mention the bible and HF in the 4th post,

lurker opens
you say "i see another religion thread starting""
ben chimes in with his usual inane commentary
then you mention the bible - Christianity

smelly_bandit wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Oh dear, fucked up again Smelly, my first post mentioned RELIGION and I only mentioned Christianity after VOD said about my eldest daughter being a Vicar.  You really are useless.

more lies for sassy - a liar and a racist

you mention the bible and HF in the 4th post,

lurker opens
you say "i see another religion thread starting""
ben chimes in with his usual inane commentary
then you mention the bible - Christianity

smelly_bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

The person who argues for literal readings of any religion here is HF, HF is Christian. If Zack or Sexy were here always arguing vigorously for literal interpretations of mythical Islamic stories then someone would have mentioned Islam. You are just bitching cause you want everyone to attack Islam alone all of the time- get over it   

the thread was started and sassy immediately mentions Christianity

therefore it was started as a n attack on Christianity instead of religion in general even though Islam (a "religion") has the same point of view

sassy ignored this fact because she likes SM and fuzzmuck

the reason i mentioned it you simpleton is for one reason, to deflate the attack on Christianity which is exactly what ive done

if i hadn't, this thread would be 100 pages come morning , but since i have highlighted Islams stupidity, any attack on religion would have to involve Islam which you will never do

thus your unilateral attack on Christianity is stopped to spare Islam from criticism  

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

more lies for sassy - a liar and a racist

you mention the bible and HF in the 4th post,

lurker opens
you say "i see another religion thread starting""
ben chimes in with his usual inane commentary
then you mention the bible - Christianity

Um, smelly? It's Christians who are commonly referenced by the term "creationist." It's a global Christian movement. If one were not talking about Christians they'd be likely to use the term "Islamic creationists," "Jewish creationists," etc.

Sassy wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

more lies for sassy - a liar and a racist

you mention the bible and HF in the 4th post,

lurker opens
you say "i see another religion thread starting""
ben chimes in with his usual inane commentary
then you mention the bible - Christianity

Because you idiot, HF is the one that bangs on about creationism in thread after thread after thread.   Nobody else does.   What a useless article you are.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Um, smelly? It's Christians who are commonly referenced by the term "creationist." It's a global Christian movement. If one were not talking about Christians they'd be likely to use the term "Islamic creationists," "Jewish creationists," etc.

yes i understand that but its ignorant and scared little rabbits like you (who are so very good at attacking Christians who believe in creationism), that don't know Islam teaches the same thing AND plenty more even more believable fallacies to boot, and even if you did know haven't got the balls to call them up on it that have associated the term creationist with Christians

you don't want to criticize anyone else because jews are protected and Muslims will cut your head off so like a true coward you attack the soft target.

you then backtrack when you are picked up for it

Eilzel wrote:Creationist is a term applied to those who believe the literal story of Genesis. The former ABofC believes in the Big Bang and Evolution as part of God's creation.

And are you being completely ignorant of your own book?

It says, in the Bible who were Adams sons, who were son's sons; and so on up to Jesus; even a thicko like you knows this and can read this. It goes on up to Roman times and so you can add all those years up to get a relatively close age of the Earth up to that point.

stardesk wrote:Getting back on track, Creationists, whatever denomination they may be, are totally and utterly wrong about the age of the Universe, the Earth and everything else. As said above, Eizel or Ben I think, the Creationist's method of dating as was said, was arrived at by tracking back the lineages. Jehova's Witnesses and other sects place the date at about 4,000 BC, which of course is silly. Don't be too hard on Smelly for he is justified in mentioning Muslims. Islam can be included in this arguement as the Koran is, to a great extent, based on the Old Testament. Read it for yourselves if you don't believe me.

Eilzel wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

yes i understand that but its ignorant and scared little rabbits like you (who are so very good at attacking Christians who believe in creationism), that don't know Islam teaches the same thing AND plenty more even more believable fallacies to boot, and even if you did know haven't got the balls to call them up on it that have associated the term creationist with Christians

you don't want to criticize anyone else because jews are protected and Muslims will cut your head off so like a true coward you attack the soft target.

you then backtrack when you are picked up for it

You know what just chill out and think for a moment (it isn't THAT hard)...

What would be the point in going out of the way to attack specifically Islamic thinking here? It would be rather like shouting in an empty field wouldn't it? Sexy and Zack are almost never online so if we come on here slagging off Islamic myths or reasoning why such and such a thing is wrong then WHO is going to answer?

No one, that's who. How bloody boring....

Of course if someone is attacking creationism or the stories of Noah or Moses then OBVIOUSLY it is attacking the same beliefs of Christians, Muslims and Jews- it doesn't need making explicit because 1. no Muslims are around who will respond and 2. it is OBVIOUS they are included anyway.

Just because pissy little smelly wants everyone to slag off Muslims all the time  

Eilzel wrote:^smelly, I had laid out a reasonable answer to you but then I figured it would be a waste of tome; so I'll just block out your wailing- take it as one them orgasmic victories you seem to get off on haha

^GIG, I own a Bible and have read the whole of Genesis as well as the whole of many other books in the Bible; I've listened to debates by creationists and Stardesk is the most knowledgeable poster here on Biblical matters imo- I'm afraid your weak words are no counter to anything anyone here has said.

As an example of your dense 'the Bible never says' argument. Imagine I write an autobiography. I never mention my age or how long ago I was born. But the book clearly records each passing year up to the present.

Could you, from my autobiography, use it to figure out my age? Yes or no.

stardesk wrote:Well said Kevin. How on earth do we get it into their heads that this planet, and all the life it supports is millions of years old. They are so wrapped up in their book of fantasy and myths, afraid to take their heads out of it and research for themselves. There are mountains of books, magazines and programmes that explain it all. There are many branches of science doing their own kind of research, all arriving at the same  conclusions, that this planet and evolution are millions of years old. Physics, astronomy, archaeology, anthroplogy, palaeontolgy, geology, to name a few, all agreeing that life was not created, but a long process of transitions and adaptation.

Sometimes I view some of the Bible stories as a comedy, and I can well understand Monty Python's critical and satirical programmes.

Eilzel wrote:So no answer then? Says it all about your level of intellect and understanding.

Eilzel wrote:^smelly, I had laid out a reasonable answer to you but then I figured it would be a waste of tome; so I'll just block out your wailing- take it as one them orgasmic victories you seem to get off on haha

^GIG, I own a Bible and have read the whole of Genesis as well as the whole of many other books in the Bible; I've listened to debates by creationists and Stardesk is the most knowledgeable poster here on Biblical matters imo- I'm afraid your weak words are no counter to anything anyone here has said.

As an example of your dense 'the Bible never says' argument. Imagine I write an autobiography. I never mention my age or how long ago I was born. But the book clearly records each passing year up to the present.

Could you, from my autobiography, use it to figure out my age? Yes or no.