winding up

That may appeal very much to Creationists but are the rest of us really supposed to be impressed? It's true that we observe stars at some distance from the centre of galaxies moving faster than predicted and that's what the hypothesis of Dark Matter seeks to answer.

In short, there must be substantially more mass within galaxies than we can see and it's of a form that we haven't yet identified.

The old "Science doesn't know, but my faith tells me it will someday" answer.

   A common stronghold for naturalists to retreat to.

Is 'faith' as you use the term probabalistic?

I only ask because that's how I judge the likelyhood of a scientific explanation emerging for the observation that stars at a distance from the galatic centre, orbit that centre at greater speed than predicted.

The fact that we understand so much of how the Universe works by means of science leads us to believe that we'll probably untangle this conundrum as well. If you want to describe that as faith you can.

I want to. Just don't include me in your "us".

Sad part is, if the Young Earthers were right, we wouldn't even be able to SEE those galaxies. They would be too young still for their light to reach us.

The very fact we can see them, by itself proves Young Earth theory wrong. (If not necessarily Creationism.)

Actually not true, at the start according to the text, stars were set up to be seen immediately, it should be noted too that even before the sun and stars were created, God made light.

I know this is cheating. But I am going to use a Creationist source to tackle this one.

https://creation.com/dont-use-arguments#transit

Some older creationist works, as a solution to the distant starlight problem, proposed that God may have created the light in transit. But CMI long ago pointed out the problems with this idea.

It would entail that we would be seeing light from heavenly bodies that don’t really exist; and even light that seems to indicate precise sequences of events predictable by the laws of physics, but which never actually happened. This, in effect, suggests that God is a deceiver.

For example, when a large star explodes as a supernova, we see a neutrino burst before we see the electromagnetic radiation. This is because most neutrinos pass through solid matter as if it were not there, while light is slowed down. This sequence of events carries information recording an apparently real event. So astronomers are perfectly justified in interpreting this ‘message’ as a real supernova that exploded according to the laws of physics, with observations as predicted by those same laws.

I don't care whose site you go to, the assumption is always this is how and where it all started and this is what it looked like when it did begin, you don't know that. Assuming it was created by a big bang from singularity means many things had to occur to get the universe to look the way it does now, assuming life started from a single lifeform means many things had to occur to get life to look the way it does now.

If life starts all at once with various kinds all showing up at the same time, and if the universe was created out of nothing and its starting place wasn't a single point, but instead, the beginning looks as it does today, that means what we look at today didn't go through all of the various steps from a single unexplainable point for the universe or life. You assume much.

Sedimentary rocks are laid down in strata over many millions of years. The fossilised remains of various forms of life can be found in such rocks and if the age of the strata in which they're found can be dated, then so can the creatures.

As you go down through various layers you're also in effect travelling back in time and what we see is that creatures so fossilised become ever simpler, eventually losing their skeletons or shells and eventually only softer-bodied lifeforms remain.

That is why this: "If life starts all at once with various kinds all showing up at the same time", is so inaccurate because we know from the evidence within rocks that it did not happen that way. Very simple, single-celled life eventually evolved into multicellular life and from there to ever more complex forms.

Cling to scripture all you want, the evidence in the rocks beneath our feet does not lie!

But the people talking about it do.

Another baseless, random allegation?

Another non-rebuttal rebuttal.

You cannot prove your position by restating your position, it is circular.

No such assumption.

The only assumption is light travels at the speed of light. (Mind-blower, right?) So, in order to see celestial bodies 13 billion light years away, interacting with each other in accordance with the laws of physics, the bodies must be 13 billion years old.

Unless you can be the first person to make the speed of light change, the assumption that light travels at the speed of light, is a sound one.

Not only can we see galaxies 13 billion light years away (which we shuld never see if the Big Bang was as incorrect as Young Earthers insist), but the farther back we look, the hotter and denser we see the universe was.

Which is exactly what a Big Bang Universe should look like.

So that is what is called "predictive power." An entire universe of predictive power. at that.

But still they stomp their feet, and insist big Bang is wrong. Although they never show any such predictive power with their own model, we are not allowed to notice or mention that. We are expected to obediently believe everything the YE Creationists spout without question, and ignore all the evidence against their theories.

Young Earth-ism has nothing to do with scripture, whatsoever. It is simply a scam, to hoodwink retirees out of their pension checks.

It is not supported by any evidence. Is not taken seriously. And is not anything close to science.

What you are suggesting is that if we know the speed of a car on the highway is 70 mph that proves it was 70 miles back an hour ago, failing to take into account when and where it started simply because you have a rate of travel.

I'm not stating or restating some 'position', I'm stating a number of facts.

Which particular facts in my post do you disagree with?

Are you sure? I was reacting to this comment by T_M in #7....

"Actually not true, at the start according to the text, stars were set up to be seen immediately, it should be noted too that even before the sun and stars were created, God made light."

That looks a lot like a reference to Genesis to me.