Discussion on:

Looking back 13.2 billion years into the universe (pictures)

More than good science which certainly abounds, good PR for NASA and friends! At a time when interest in pure science, space exploration has waned and public consciousness of all their benefits seems absent (i.e. no space program, no holy-apple-iphone!), this telescope, with all the problems and expense fixing and maintaining it, has brought smiles and enthusiasm to multitudes.

Long live the Hubble!

So the universe is alleged to be around 13.2-13.75 billion years old and these images are alleged to be that old as well? If we were really viewing objects that far back in time ought not we to be seeing either nothing, or the new universe after the big bang before everything coalesced into fully formed stars, galaxies and even super novas? Seems to me as though this information should lead to a much different, and obvious, conclusion . . . In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And it's much bigger a problem than just that: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v25/n4/light-travel-time

Can this site please remain one place on the Internet were we can keep the subject on technology and real science? Although proponents of ID profess to use both to "prove their point", it's really a thinly veiled effort to push creationist religous doctrine. ID's psuedo-science tripe is an affront to those who dedicate their lives using technology and real science (the scientific method) to pursue and actually understand the secrets of the universe and, potentially, its true origin. If people who visit this site want to explore ID, there are plenty of websites for them to peruse and they can find the links via Google, Bing or other search engine. Please don't post them here.

Thank you in advance!

In what way does anything you had to say counter the obvious problem with your point of view? "Real science" would accurately deal with the fact that light alleged to be 13.2 billion years old should *NOT* reveal what we see using the "real science" of the images obtained by Hubble. What you had to say is nothing more than a "thinly veiled" ad hominem attack, the favorite device of those that know their arguments cannot stand logical scrutiny. Here's a thought for you- if God exists and if He is the Creator of all we see, then "real science" will in fact align with that. The evidence works against the naturalistic world view. The most scientific statement that can be made then would be, In the beginning God . . .

-since when is it "real science" to a priori rule out ANY argument? If you have decided what the final answer must be prior to beginning your investigation, then you have left the realm of "real science" and traded it for what your limited senses tell you, and more importantly, what your personal desire is were you to be God. You are not God and I am continually fascinated by how alleged intellects attempt to limit the conversation to avoid that which makes them uncomfortable. Not being God as you might suppose, you cannot have all knowledge and cannot determine that God doe not exist. Neither can you tell anyone what they should or should not post. If you do not want to deal with "real science", or certain discussions, how is it that you cannot come to the conclusion to move on? One of the great ironies here is that you would affirm that God does not exist and yet you ascribe meaning to what you do. Apart from God you have no meaning being nothing more than a cosmic accident, risen from the primordial goo with nothing more to hope for than to return to the dust form whence you came. What motivates you to even bother confronting ID?

I don't bring the idea of God into my conversations out of respect for those who may have a different view (religion is too touchy a subject). I ask that others keep it to themselves, as well. However, if they express their opinions related to the subject, I have every right to express my own opinion on it. As I recall, you brought the subject up FIRST.

I never said a deity doesn't or never has existed. My point is that it has never been proven, nor has anyone from the ID side ever tried to prove such an existence using real science, subject to scientific peer review. It is the only proof I and many others will accept. Simply stating something "is" does not make is so. I am NOT saying there is NO God, but I am also NOT saying there IS.

Real Science is what is used to find the real truth. It is a never ending seeking of the truth. Those using Real Science never assume they know the absolute truth at the start. They base their hypothesis on what they know at present and what others around them using real science have discovered, past and present. They are ACCEPTING of new, provable evidence that's validated using the scientific method and subject to ongoing peer review.

In the attempt to prove the hypothesis or theory, those using real science are also WILLING to disprove it. A negative result or overall failure to prove is just as valuable as succeeding to prove. It's an opportunity to adjust your hypothesis or theory and your approach so you can come to the proper conclusion, at the END, not the beginning.

The majority of religions START with the "ABSOLUTE TRUTH", that a deity DOES exist and that the existence of the universe is directly related in whole or at least in part to the actions of that deity. This belief in a deity or deities is based on nothing other than stories and teachings passed down via spoken word and/or writings. There is no scientifically validated evidence, no scientific experimentation, no scientific peer review. It is all a faith based belief that the stories told are true, with no proof to back it up.

A common defense to the "no proof" argument, is "well, you can't prove it is NOT true, so, that makes it true!". With real science, for something to be true, you have to prove something IS TRUE before it is true. Do you know what people using real science do when they CANNOT prove something is NOT true? They continue to with their effort to prove it IS true BEFORE they declare it true, as long as the evidence, subject to peer review, proves it is true.

ID people, start with the the premise that "God" exists. They make no valid effort to prove that God exists. No effort what so ever. They wrap pseudoscience around their "Proof" that "no one can prove that God does not exist, so, God must exist". ID people say that when those using real science have conflicting views, or don't have a complete understanding yet, that it only proves that God must exist. What ID people forget is that real science is a never ending attempt to find the truth about the universe. The willingness to have conflicting views, different approaches, and acceptance of new hypothesis and theories and validated evidence is what makes real science the only effective, logical method to find the truth.

In short: ID is all about the preconcieved conclusion that "God exists" and using scientific mumbo jumbo to support that precieved conclusion, without actually proving it. The day the ID community changes its tactics, actually uses the scientific method and presents their evidence of God's existence along with its methodologies for scientfic peer review, with reproducibility of its experiments, the scienctific community as well as I, will WELCOME the knowledge that there is, indeed, a God behind our existence. When do you think ID will be ready to take that approach?

The Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy 100,000 to 120,000 light-years in diameter containing 200 to 400 billion stars. It may contain at least as many planets, with an estimated 10 billion of those orbiting in the habitable zone of their parent stars. (Wikipedia)

And there are maybe 150 billion galaxies. Are you religious techrepublicans seriously suggesting that these 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or so stars and their planets were all created by one god several billion years ago? And on our tiny planet he/she is interested in the wellbeing and morals of 7,000,000,000 people. All sounds highly implausible. Particularly if it all happened a few thousand years ago (according to some creationists).

Very scientific, that! It seems "highly implausible" to millions who choose to ignore the evidence in order to live on in their sin. Far more implausible, based on science, is that matter an useable energy are eternal. If there was ever a time in the past when there was nothing, then nothing is what we would have today. String theory and multiple universe conjecture is nothing more than proof that scientists understand this and are coming up with very creative ideas, unproven. It would be one thing had God not told us what He had done and is doing. Far more plausible is the answer that in order for there to be anything today, something, or Someone, must have as a necessary function of their being eternal existence. We already know *via science and observation* that this does not apply to matter. That Someone is God!

If it took light from immediately after (in astrological time) the big bang 13.5 billion light years to reach the Hubble, how could the Hubble already have been here to receive it? Did the atoms from the big bang that make up our part of the universe travel faster than light - supposedly an impossibility - to reach our current location, and then stop and wait for these "new" light particles to catch up?

I guess I did too. No-one has yet seen the big bang. If they could, the universe would look very different, as the clouds of matter had not coalesced into stars and other objects. The oldest galaxy seen by Hubble is estimated to be around 13.2 billion years old or 500 million years after the big bang. A lot happened in those 500 million years. Anyway, all it means is that it took the light Hubble is seeing now light 13.2 billion years to get here so it is a long way away. Hubble is seeing light waves by the way, not atoms.