Changes

: Lets take another approach to this.  The Andromeda galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away.  This is not a definition, but the conclusion of theories and observations.  Cepheid variable stars have a property that their absolute magnitude is a function of the variable period.  This is backed up by theory and observation and is still being refined.  Now, knowing the apparent magnitude and the period one can compute how far something is away (just as you can guess how far a 100 watt light bulb is away by how dim it is).  There are other approaches that have lead to further refinements (eclipsing binary stars that let astronomers get the mass of the star which in turn is leads to how bright it should be which again, can give you the distance).  This distance is not something that "most astronomers believe that the Andromeda galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away" but rather it is an observable fact that continues to be refined to more precise values.  The [[starlight problem]] is one that YEC have to deal with when talking about astronomy, but it does not alter the distance to the Andromeda galaxy.  Nor does it alter that the most distant objects observable in the universe are about 14.7 billion light years away.

: Lets take another approach to this.  The Andromeda galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away.  This is not a definition, but the conclusion of theories and observations.  Cepheid variable stars have a property that their absolute magnitude is a function of the variable period.  This is backed up by theory and observation and is still being refined.  Now, knowing the apparent magnitude and the period one can compute how far something is away (just as you can guess how far a 100 watt light bulb is away by how dim it is).  There are other approaches that have lead to further refinements (eclipsing binary stars that let astronomers get the mass of the star which in turn is leads to how bright it should be which again, can give you the distance).  This distance is not something that "most astronomers believe that the Andromeda galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away" but rather it is an observable fact that continues to be refined to more precise values.  The [[starlight problem]] is one that YEC have to deal with when talking about astronomy, but it does not alter the distance to the Andromeda galaxy.  Nor does it alter that the most distant objects observable in the universe are about 14.7 billion light years away.

: One approach to saying "the universe is about 14.7 billion years old" is "Currently, the most distant observable objects in the universe are 14.7 billion light years away.  The implications from this for those who believe in an old universe is that the universe itself is 14.7 billion years old.  For Young Earth Creationists, this is addressed by the [[starlight problem]] which suggests that while the objects are 14.7 billion light years away, with creation light on its way to Earth was also created." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: One approach to saying "the universe is about 14.7 billion years old" is "Currently, the most distant observable objects in the universe are 14.7 billion light years away.  The implications from this for those who believe in an old universe is that the universe itself is 14.7 billion years old.  For Young Earth Creationists, this is addressed by the [[starlight problem]] which suggests that while the objects are 14.7 billion light years away, with creation light on its way to Earth was also created." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:: The issue with the quotes as they are included in this article is that they are just the single line quotes.  I would be curious to see the full text of the quote in http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605 rather than just the "... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong." The citations as they are and the links they go to is just a page of quotes.  Nothing of the article in there itself.  I also question the use of the quote "“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186. -- That is 20 years ago.  There has been much progress since then.  If one is to provide a quote, it should be linked to the full text of the article.

:: The issue with the quotes as they are included in this article is that they are just the single line quotes.  I would be curious to see the full text of the quote in http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605 rather than just the "... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong." The citations as they are and the links they go to is just a page of quotes.  Nothing of the article in there itself.  I also question the use of the quote "“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186. -- That is 20 years ago.  There has been much progress since then.  If one is to provide a quote, it should be linked to the full text of the article.