Hey, fundies--try explaining this! APOD presents quasar 12.7 billion years away

[hyphenate]

Caption:

Explanation: Spiky stars are nearby, but fuzzy galaxies are strewn far across the Universe in this cosmic view. Spanning about 1/2 degree on the sky, the pretty picture is the result of astronomer Johannes Schedler's project to look back in time, toward a quasar 12.7 billion light-years away. The quasar is just visible in the full resolution image at the position marked by short vertical lines (center). The intrinsically bright nucleus of a young, active galaxy powered by a supermassive black hole, the quasar was recently identified as one of the most distant objects known. Since light travels at a finite speed, the galaxies receding into the distance are seen as they were in the increasingly remote past. The quasar appears as it did about 12.7 billion years ago, when the Universe was just 7 percent of its present age. Of course, the expansion of the Universe has redshifted the light. Schedler added image data extending to the near-infrared, acquired by collaborator Ken Crawford, to detect the distant quasar, with a measured redshift of 6.04.

For more:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html


Uh, gee, guys, if earth is really only 10,000 years old, how the fuck do you all explain that an object is 12.7 billion light years away? Perhaps your (cough, cough) god somehow misplaced his map and couldn't remember how much time it took to supposedly create the cosmos? Or just maybe the devil put these stars more than 10,000 light years away to test you blithering idiots? Too bad you don't have critical thinking skills--you won't need them to work at McDonalds, I know, but surely some of you aspire to something a little higher on the food chain?

Trust in Occam's Razor when in doubt.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

1. Let me guess...

That Quasar is really Angel kisses! Proof that Heaven is there.... Look, if you connect the dots (stars) it spells Not Of This World!

[goddess40]

2. Oh, Please!

The devil is trying to trick you - just like those big "dinosaur" rocks that he planted.

[mitchleary]

5. That

darn devil thinks of everything!!

[niceypoo]

16. Proof that dinosaurs and humans coexisted

http://nwcreation.net/dinosdragons.html">Dragons; proof humans and dinosaurs coexisted

And lightening may strike me if I leave out this gem...

http://evidenceofcreation.com/Dinosaurs-and-Dragons.html">Creation Science Ministries: Dinosaurs and dragons

...so you see, the evidence is all out there...just gotta google it! Who needs science?

[JCMach1]

3. God made the speed of light variable, just to confuse us

[skids]

4. Your logic just doesn't hold up...

The earth does not have to be there before the light is emitted in order to see it, it can be created in while the light is in-flight. The actual age of the earth as estimated by scientists is 4.5 billion years. Are you saying this star proves it is older?

Not that I believe the fundie "adam and eve rode dinosaurs to church" stuff, just your "proof" doesn't work.

[dysfunctional press]

6. it's not just the earth that is supposedly less than 10,000 years old...

it's the whole shebang, the entire universe- even the quasars that are 12 billion light years away- which poses the question- how does light from a star travel 12.7 billion light years in less than 10,000 years? (assuming it does NOT have access to borg trans-warp conduits)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. No, the star proves the star itself (and hence the Universe, with or without Earth) is older. -nt

[hyphenate]

26. What it proves

is this: the most distant object in the known universe is quite possibly 12 billion light years away. It means that it has taken that many years for its light to come to us. If the "creator" of planet Earth brought forth Earth only 10,000 years ago, how come he made the rest of the known universe look so much older? In addition, if one looks at an astronomical view of the Milky Way galaxy, our position on the very edge of the galaxy shows that the solar system we live in has been propelled far beyond where its position would be if the figure of 10,000 years is utilized. Here at home, observation alone here on our home planet shows that sedimentary rock takes a lot longer than that to produce fossil fuels, trilobites and other such prehistoric evidence of existence.

In fact, the continued complexity of lifeforms makes it painfully evident that 10,000 years is only a milliliter sized drop in an infinite ocean. This can even be shown in experiments with single celled organisms: they simply cannot evolve in a short period of time.

However, if you choose not to follow the scientific model of evolution and try to cling to a delusion that the bible is inerrant, there are many different contradictions in the text as to render such a belief ludicrous. If we follow such materials with an eye toward disproving them, all we need do is take the bible opus and analyze it word for word, and voila! you can use it to show that inerrancy is impossible to believe--the work contains enough flip-flops so as to render it useless as a text of anything other than anecdotal musings from a wide variety of talented and non-talented writers in history. The truth is, most fundamentalists take the bible and select the passages which prove their beliefs, and gloss over parts that don't suit them. So how is this in any way showing the literality of such a document? Ancient texts from developing civilizations such as Rome, Greece, Sumeria, Egypt et al have just as many convincing mythologies are just as detailed as the bible--how can we assume that one is "proof" of such a god and another isn't? How do we, as a rational entity, take one for truth and another as bunk? In my eyes, we can't. We need to understand where such legends and myths originated, and see them for a system for trying to survive in an unknown and often hostile environment.

Many fundamentalists in our time are just incapable of coping with the many vast and diverse changes in the world. As a result, religious beliefs ground them and give them the simplicity that they crave, taking them out of the jungle of humanity in the 21st century. In their narrow-minded view, the world was a better one 2000 years ago, and everything accomplished since then is the work of evil. Naturally, as with their eclectic selection of biblical passages to prove their view, they forget that 2000 years ago the world was a miserable place in nearly every way. It only suits their purposes to pick and choose what was historically significant to their own set of beliefs.

Let's face it in a single sentence: the fundies are either completely ignorant naturally or by choice, because many of them are too afraid to look at reality. Reality sucks--we all know that. But we try to look at it realistically for the most part. Most of us don't turn a blind eye to it, unlike these people who try to curtail their own participation in it. There are too many people in this world who need help, who need compassion and understanding and those of us who can see how much wrong there is going on never shirk our duties to the rest of humanity based on selfish and egocentric contempt.

[ComerPerro]

27. according to fundies, the earth was created in the same week as the rest of the universe

[hyphenate]

31. Exactly

and someone once pointed out that "he" created plants and other flora the "day" before he created light--so how can that be? Plants and other flora exist mostly through a process of photosynthesis, requiring light, mostly sunlight. I'd like to see fundies worm their way out of that one!


on edit: typo!

[ComerPerro]

33. it was only a day, and they were "God powered" for that time period. Next?

[momster]

7. Because that's how God wants it to look

He's the Great Artist, creating a beautiful work of art for us to appreciate and enjoy. But not to doubt or critique. He is all-powerful and can make the stars look anyway He wants. Our little human minds can't understand it so we shouldn't really try.

Okay, pardon me while I smack my head against this brick wall....that's better. I can do fundy-speak but it buuurrrnnns. Too much Kathryn Kuhlman as a kid.

[Deep13]

8. You'll have plenty of time to ponder the mysteries of the universe...

...while you're burning in hell!!!

:evilgrin:

[Clark2008]

10. I don't disagree that the earth is billions of years old, but

the point you're making here isn't valid. A fundie would just argue - and have a point - that while that object is 12.7 billions of years old, that doesn't mean the Earth is.

Fundies don't argue that the universe isn't ancient - their argument is that the Earth was created 6,000 or whatever years ago.

Again, I'm religious, but trust the scientific evidence that the Earth is much, much, much older than 6,000 years; however, I wanted to point out that you're arguing apples and oranges here.

[n2doc]

12. Oh no, the fundie would argue that we don't know the speed of light

And we don't know what causes light to be redshifted, that it is only a "theory". So it could be wrong :sarcasm: As compared to this little black book of theirs which is "truth", no questions asked. :eyes:

[charlie]

14. Stars were created after the earth in Genesis

A fundie literalist doesn't have much choice but to argue that the quasar shouldn't be older.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

39. Sorry...

The creationist view is that Earth and the Universe were created at the same time "let there be light" ---- That people during the middle ages were fighting dinosaurs (They say that's where the stories of dragons come from...)

They do argue that the universe isn't ancient. They teach it and they tell their home-schooled children that THE UNIVERSE is about 6,000 years old - since God created the HEAVENS (universe) and the Earth on the same day....

Watch Jesus Camp....

(Really...) Look at these clever creationist links:

http://independencebaptist.org/6,000%20Year%20Old%20Earth/6,000_year_old_earth.htm

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/

http://independencebaptist.org/Newsletters/2005/August%20-%20Proof%20the%20World%20is%206,000%20Years%20Old.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/earthage.html

[theHandpuppet]

11. The devil put it there to test our faith!

:sarcasm:

[cobalt1999]

13. It's all a big conspiracy by the atheist scientists

There are books, websites, and movies PROVING they are all lying and covering up the TRUTH!!!!

They know evolution takes a long time, and therefore make up this in order to keep their "theory" of evolution going.

It's all a LIE!!!! No intelligent person believes these scientists, we have our own who have PROVEN the bible is right!!!!


*whew* Channeling fundies is draining.


The problem with them is we are using facts and science to prove how old the universe is, they, on the other hand, are using emotion and beliefs.

[Kelly Rupert]

15. God created them there. And created the light on the way, too. n/t

[YOY]

17. They don't need to explain...just to obscurely reference the Bible

to a completely irrevelant verse that has the word 'stars' in it.

[Romulox]

18. Let's remember that science doesn't speak to the significance of these quasars

or the relationship of human beings to the larger existence. Many zealous atheists seem to confuse this point...

[Deep13]

19. You're joking, right?

The significance of quasars and all astronomical objects, including the one we are standing on, is a completely scientific matter. I don't know what you mean by the "larger existence" but science alone has found the relationship of humans to the universe. That relationship is far more profound than any trite creation story can possibly imagine. The simple fact is that the carbon in our bodies and the iron in our blood was created in a doomed star long ago. The eventual super nova explosion put those materials back in space where they eventually became part of a collapsing cloud of gas that condensed to make the solar system, the Earth and us. We see examples of different stages of this process all around us.

P.S. on edit:
When I attending the Grand Canyon Star Party in 2003 I flew there with my home-built, airline portable 6" telescope. I knew that I could not compete with the views in the huge scopes brought by Arizona locals, so I used mine for a lesson. First, I showed interested members of the public Messier-8, the Lagoon, which is a gigantic star-forming region. I told them that solar systems were being created there as we watch. Then, I swing over to M-54(?), the Ring Nebula. I point out that at the center is a dying star not unlike the sun in its death throes.

[Romulox]

20. You *assert* that science has "found the relationship of humans to the universe"

Link to scientific studies establishing the significance of existing as a human being? The very thought is ridiculous.

[Deep13]

21. "significance of existing as a human being"

What exactly do you mean by that? The significance is that we are humans and not some other animal.

As far as our relationship to the universe, I explained the basis for it and there is extensive evidence for it. My information does not come from an internet source, so I have no link for it, though doubtless there are some available. If you want more details or you just do not believe me, you can do your own reading like I did.

[Romulox]

22. If you feel there is no significance to human existance

then there is no point in this conversation. I am not a theologian, or even a religious person. But I will tell you this: the age of the universe, or the density of matter therein are data points, not a coherent theory of what it means to be a human being in the universe.

You don't even seem to understand the question, so it is not surprising you won't find the answer. "Science" is an artifact of human culture, and as such, it is as subject to our biases and narrow frames of reference as any other human discipline.


"The significance is that we are humans and not some other animal."

Yes, very good, and undoubtedly true. But this is an extremely narrow view on the subject. It either willfully or myopically ignores the broader questions. If you have no frame of reference from which to explore the question of the mystery of human existence and our relationship to the broader universe, i.e. whether life has meaning as a broad principle that we share with one another, the plants and animals of this planet, and maybe even other sentients scattered across the universe, or whether we are just a freak and random anomoly...

At any rate, what it means to be alive in the universe is simply a question beyond the competence of science to answer.

[Deep13]

23. I did not say being a human has no meaning.

Rather I asked you to clarify what you mean by significance. You have still declined to do so.

"You don't even seem to understand the question, so it is not surprising you won't find the answer."

Right. An answer is pretty meaningless without knowing what the question is. I was asking you to clarify what you mean. It is not my job to read your mind and guess what you are hinting at.

Science may be a human creation, but the facts it discovers are real independently of any understanding of them. That the universe is expanding, for example, is true and was so even before people believed it was possible. Science is not a perfect way to understand things, but so far it is the only method that has had ANY success in attempting to do so.

[hyphenate]

25. Your question is not a scientific point

It is a philosophical one. And whether we, as humans, have significance does not relate to a scientific observation, but a spiritual one.

Human beings exist. Are we somehow special in the whole existence of the universe? Perhaps, perhaps not. A collection of amino acids allegedly metamorphosed into an organic being somewhere eons ago. Does that mean that any of us are somehow superior to other species here? Again, it is a question that we might not be able to answer yet--there are too many variables we have either no knowledge of, or insufficient information.

Scientific inquiry gives us a chance to extend our knowledge as well as allows us to admit we don't know everything. A hundred years ago, some scientists claimed that there was "no more" knowledge to be found. Imagine their reaction to the current world! One hundred years from now, who knows where we will be?

The universe is infinite. There is no way we can explore it all anytime in the foreseeable future. Human beings on planet Earth might have even less time than the dinosaurs, which were around for about 25 million years in one form or another. Our species certainly is not an ideal form, though we might think otherwise--human beings tend to consider themselves the ultimate living form ever. However, that is not proven, and with the current arrogance homo sapiensexhibits, we might not ever investigate that claim. I personally have a deep belief in extraterrestrial life--I cannot prove that obviously, until some ET comes forward to give us tangible proof.

If there is true significance of our existence, you are correct--we don't have enough evidence to answer that question, and with an infinite cosmos before us, we will continue to lack the data to answer it. With some certainty, though, we can honestly say that we humans firmly believe that we are special! Of course, that proves absolutely nothing, but merely points to our own hubris. Regardless of all subjective musings, the fact remains that we are as much an animal as any other animal here--one thing which places us apart is our ability to use tools of one form or another. Our evolved brain gives us the knowledge on how to use these things; whether that makes us superior is not known. Earth is truly a water planet, even though we have large land masses, water still covers more space than terrain. It makes sense that the dominant life on a water planet likely resides in said medium. But we cannot know if that is true. We are limited in our ability to communicate with other intelligent species on earth. To me, that lessens our claim of superiority because we cannot give corroboration of that as a fact.

This is the essence of our true significance--in our own minds we are superior, but that presumption certainly can't be mistaken for scientific proof. Science tends to give us more limited options as we traverse the realm of our investigation--we look for answers and as we observe the data, we eliminate information that has no relevance, and narrow our theories to those which can be proven. This kind of fact gathering helps to sharpen our eventual output. As we continue to increase our store of data, we get a clearer picture of what is possible or likely, and what isn't.

However, the simple answer will remain--we can never be certain of the truth and what it means. Regardless of how much we, as a species, want to declare our significance in the universe, we must constantly remain scientifically ignorant of the answer to that question, only being capable of answering it as it it relates to our own subjective existence.

[Deep13]

42. "The universe is infinite. "

While it is certainly gigantic beyond any means to describe it, it is not infinite. It came into existence at a specific time in the past. It has been expanding at a rapid, but finite speed ever since.

The concern I have with labeling issues as "philosophical" or "spiritual" is that they are conveniently vague terms that may be applied willy-nilly to any question beyond our present ability to answer it. It is also applied as in this example to questions based solely on the nuances of the English language with no basis if fact. Anything can be called philosophical. In fact science was once called natural philosophy. Spiritual is a wholly meaningless term for the sufficient reason that there are no spirits. The real difference between science and other branches of philosophy is that science must be based on observable fact.

All the logic and all the clever language in the world is meaningless if it is not based in observation and testing. There is an anecdote that says that Aristotle once came to the perfectly logical conclusion that women have fewer teeth than men. Men typically are bigger than women and, therefore, have more room in their jaws for teeth. Logically women with less space have fewer teeth. If the story is true, it shows the flaw the purely contempative philosophy. Something can be completely logical and reasonable and still be dead wrong. Apparently, it never occurred to Aristotle actually to count the teeth in men and women.

We have stardust flowing in our veins. We are the same stuff as the rest of the universe, but our organization allows us to appreciate it. When one asks if we have significance in the universe beyond that fact, I have to ask what significance is there beyond the universe? The very question of human significance trivializes the enormous. Besides, the universe does not care if we are significant or not. That is fo us to define.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

41. I Heart You

Thank you...

Very well put...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

38. Is there a point in there somewhere?

Or is it just "grumble mumble damn atheists mumble grumph grumble?"

The OP talks about facts that contradict Bible literalists. Unless you're one, why the grumpiness?

[Bryn]

24. Beautiful Picture!

I watched on history channel the other night (last tuesday night) called "beyond the big bang" (I am not sure if this is a right title.) It was awesome! Have you seen it?

[hyphenate]

28. No, I haven't seen it

But I'll look for it. BTW, the link to the original picture and article takes you into the archives as well--APOD (Astronomical Picture of the Day) presents a different photograph every day and some of them are quite beautiful, so you might want to bookmark it and check it out on a routine basis. :)

[BlooInBloo]

29. lol! Their explanation is the soul of simplicity: god put it there...

... the world is REALLY simple if you just believe in magic.


EDIT: A bad their/they're/there day.

[hyphenate]

32. And they say

that "magic" is the work of the devil! :rofl: Okay, fundies, we know who you really believe in now, don't we? **snicker**

[BlooInBloo]

34. Yah - the religious fight SOOOOO hard to protect god's magic-monopoly.

[ComerPerro]

30. problem is, people who reject science stating the actual age of earth will reject the distance

or how long light takes to travel it.

That's the thing about faith: There's always a loophole to explain away logical errors

[BlooInBloo]

35. Of course - it's easy if you can just make shit up.

[hyphenate]

37. The sad part about that

is that an overview of a scientific premise is really a lot simpler to understand than the convoluted and devious manipulations they apply to make it fit into their own mythology. You don't have to understand astronomy, biology, evolution, anthropology or most sciences to see it in action and as an explanation. You will benefit by knowing some of those paths of studies, but you only need to comprehend the basics to see the picture.

[ComerPerro]

40. well, their anifestations aren't as specific as scientific priciples, so they are in a way easier

to keep track of and to understand. A lot of it comes from understanding the "what" but not the "why" or "how". The why and how are always "God"

[Kingshakabobo]

36. Trickery by the Devil!!!