On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 16:59:39 -0400, bwhiting
wrote:

I think its more like 3 million years now with the new Hipparcos
data....

I think there are many questions regarding possible statistical biases
in the Feast-Catchpole calculations. There have been several follow-on
papers disputing some of their conclusions.

However, the Hipparcos calibration of the Cepheid scale is certainly
something that one can use to argue with those that question the
distance in general terms. Very few assumptions are needed to arrive
at the approximate distance to the *nearest* galaxy comparable to our
own.

The problem I have with creationist arguments about age is that if the
"light created in transit" idea is true, then almost everything we see
in the Universe is an illusion (including much of our own galaxy). The
idea of "truth" kinda breaks down if that is the case -- so what's the
use of trying to understand anything? I could argue everything is an
illusion. I simply state the distance and if *they* want to argue, I
start with an explanation of Cepheids and the fact that the Hipparcos
data verified/calibrated that yardstick with simple geometry.

If my senses and logical mind tell me something that conflicts with my
beliefs, then perhaps it is time to reconsider my beliefs. I think
"truth" is contained in all things, not just one book.

---
Michael McCulloch