So, creationists, how do you feel about the new Hubble discovery?

I honestly don't know why they still follow Archbishop Ussher's chronology, when it could not have accounted for every time period recounted in the OT. It makes no sense, but they don't even do the research on their own beliefs, they just "buy" whatever their leadership sells (literally).

Their leaders paint all science as "evil" in the face of all evidence to the contrary, and despite the fact that the "big bang" was first proposed by a Catholic priest - Georges Lamaitres (not an "atheist").

"The bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" - as Galileo said.

I've come to the conclusion that the Fundamentalist/creationist/ID movement is a conspiracy to destroy Christianity from within. Their unscrupulous leaders target uneducated but devout believers and convince them that “Genesis MUST be read literally” (even though it’s so obviously metaphorical), and that “evolution is a lie” (when it’s the very foundation of many major scientific fields). These charlatans are able to brainwash their audience by dazzling them with some pseudo-scientific jargon, fallacies, half-truths and out right lies. Since these people don't have enough information to realize they are being duped, they fall for it.

The creationist leaders actually made up this whole "false dilemma"/”either-or” fallacy!

“Believe ONLY in the bible or you are a bad Christian! Don't fall for science/evolution or even astronomy you will be led by the devil.”

This entire premise is a LIE because the Catholic Church, the Methodists, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, etc. the majority of ALL mainstream Christians have NO problem with evolution or science! Biblical scholars from all the major Christian denominations, and even Hebrew scholars confirm that the metaphorical language used in Genesis 1-2 does NOT conflict with the truth of the MESSAGE: “God created the universe and established a special relationship with mankind.” In fact, Genesis actually PARALLELS major scientific discoveries (“big bang” – “let their be light” – what’s the difference?) The majority of Christians are able to see how the big bang & evolution, etc are an elegant part of God’s plan.

However, this small group stirs up a lot of political controversy (i.e. teaching it in school) so that all non-Christians, who could be potential converts, are made to believe that ALL Christians are morons.

So, the general public, including potential converts, want nothing to do with Christianity.

Diabolical no?

These poor deluded, but faithful people believe they are doing "God's will" when they are actually doing the exact opposite. Their websites are just filled with fallacies, lies and misinformation. If they weren’t so dangerous to our school children and Christianity in general, it would be laughable.

This whole ridiculous controversy is one entirely of their own making! It's kind of sad.

See: http://www.songofgenesis.org/

That's awesome.

eelfins - "I think some of the tenents of creationismm are a little silly. The bible never specifically states that the Earth is only a few thousand years sold, it's a matter of interpretation."

From a literal reading, which is what many Fundies do, it essentially does. Even with a slightly looser interpretation, it still places the creation of humans at about six thousand years ago. It contradicts common descent, which, although that deals with evolution and not cosmology, is still an integral part of the truth of our past.

The Lord Of Dreams - "He must have deliberately created a universe that was already over 12,999,994,000 years old, just so that the Bible would be accurate, as part of His Divine Plan, and, also, of course, to test our faith. All of which "proves" absolutely nothing *yawn*"

Well, one thing it *would* prove is that that universe's creator was inherently deceitful.

And also, that that god created a universe where it is not possible to have any reasonable clue what is actually real.

Addendum II: BibleChooser - "Oh - THOSE Creationists. Well, the response is obvious - the dating of the Universe is based on theories as well as on data. Apply that data to a different theory and those estimates change dramatically. In other words: the dating of the Universe is theoretical, not proven."

Yes, well, a theory has to have some evidence to support it. The Big Bang Theory is supported by all current available evidence, and is accepted by virtually every authority in the field.

You can certainly present an alternate model if you'd like, but you need data behind it.

We'll if you want to get the most insane feeling of your life some it out of a bong. It's a lot smoother so you won't cough as much and the feeling is crazy compared to a joint or pipe. When you do it make sure you are with some friends, got some good munchies, got some netflix, and a comfortable spot and it's literally the best thing in the world. I earn you when you do it you will feel really weird like out of this world. You feel tall and when I was watching a movie you basically laugh at everything. Me and my friend always get the same feeling. When we are watching a movie we both thought for sure we have saw that movie before and we thought we new what was going to happen next but the next day I watched it again and it was totally different. When your high it feels so much more fun. If your not panicking ( trust me don't i did the first time and freaked out) it's the best thing in the world.

Creationists will ignore the data or just say that scientists are wrong without giving any scientific reason why they're wrong...as is typical of creationists.

Oh yeah, and that photo is freaking awesome. So many galaxies it makes my brain explode!

@ Tacit Knowledge:

"The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe."

lol...this problem was resolved in the early 1990s using deep sky surveys and the COBE satellite. Way to keep up with recent cosmology. (In cause you didn't notice, you're citing a source from 1992)

The oldest clusters are 12.7 billion years old, the WMAP probe has calculated the age of the universe to be 13.72 billion years old.

But that is what it doesn't demonstrate. I am not arguing for any kind of dating but all astronomical dating is of necessity indirect, just like Biblical dating. You are wrong to say they differ. They are exactly the same. And I am not a Creationist.

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

(6) The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

Even though the data have been stretched in the direction toward resolving this since the “top ten” list first appeared, the error bars on the Hubble age of the universe (12±2 Gyr) still do not quite overlap the error bars on the oldest globular clusters (16±2 Gyr). Astronomers have studied this for the past decade, but resist the “observational error” explanation because that would almost certainly push the Hubble age older (as Sandage has been arguing for years), which creates several new problems for the Big Bang. In other words, the cure is worse than the illness for the theory. In fact, a new, relatively bias-free observational technique has gone the opposite way, lowering the Hubble age estimate to 10 Gyr, making the discrepancy worse again. [[22],[23]]

[[23]] (1999); Sky&Tel. 98 (Oct.), 20.

[[24]] D.S. Mathewson, V.L. Ford, & M. Buchhorn (1992), Astrophys.J. 389, L5-L8.

But I'll bet all the teenage girls will believe that you 'studied' astronomy. It'll make you a chick magnet. But me, I think you are an uneducated idiot. :)

1) So, creationists, how do you feel about the new Hubble discovery?

Cool.

2) Just wondering how people who believe that the universe was created 4,000 years AFTER the Sumerians built entire city states, feel about discoveries that demonstrate that the universe is actually more than 13 billion years old.

Oh - THOSE Creationists. Well, the response is obvious - the dating of the Universe is based on theories as well as on data. Apply that data to a different theory and those estimates change dramatically. In other words: the dating of the Universe is theoretical, not proven.

Which is (of course) one of the reasons that the presumed age keeps changing.

Jim, http://www.bibleselector.com/

The Pope actually believes in the Big Bang. The Catholic Church's official point of view is that the Big Bang was the act of creation. I think some of the tenents of creationism are a little silly. The bible never specifically states that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, it's a matter of interpretation.

the bible teaches that the universe declares Gods eternal nature so when you consider the speed of light and the size of the creation it is essentially eternal in distance. The age of the universe is not a doctrine that I am aware of, although many have speculations on it. The age of man is more important as the literal interpretation of the biblical narratives requires a relatively short existence for man. Ancient civilizations disappear around 10,000 years ago; the meta narrative of a God creator is not challenged by this discovery.

lol-That's way over my head...I wouldn't know how to prove it if asked.

Edit: peopleisgrass, how on earth do you get genomes evolving at a quick rate equaling a very complex organism like humans (or most mammals) being able to also?

plus, that 1st sentence 'Science daily contradicted your news on the 03.01.2010.' doesn't make sense. March 2010 hasn't even happened yet.

I do not know the timing of the universe. This discovery does not effect my faith in any way at all.