rob_murfin@hotmail.com (Murf) wrote in message news:<cff14f12.0410140553.384ec67e@posting.google.com>...

Hello everybody,

Last week I was wandering the shops during my office lunch break when
I was harassed by a religeous zealot selling magazines and CDS.

Feeling argumentative I asked him whether he was (1) a creationalist
and (2) a "Young Universe" creationalist - i.e. one who believes that
dinosaurs etc didnt exist and that the universe is about 4,500 years
old...

When he replied that, yes, he didnt believe in evolution, dinosaurs
(and women's rights I assume) I suggested that he was a little
misguided.

In evidence I said "how come you can see all of the stars at night
then? After all, many of them are clearly more than 4,500 light years
away?"

He told me that "astronomy is a souless science - they lie to you".

Hmmph. He was obviously a twat, but is my line of arguemnt sound -
i.e. that you can see (or even detect) stars more than say 10,000
lightyears away a robust argument against a "young" view of
creation/existance?

  There has been any view of the age of the 
  universe other than what science retards 
  call biochemistry.
  Upon which they tack on excess baggage called 
  Astro-physics. 

  Biochemistry can quite easily that the Earth
  is > 5 billion years old. 

  So any stars that our younger that are 
  just composite reflections for the sun.

  Any stars that are older that are just composite
  reflections from the Milky way.

  Any stars that are older than the Milky way,
  are not stars. Since they are part of 
  the thermal background of the "big bang". 

  

Cheers!

Rob
Sheffield