>That is what we are debating after-all.

I thought we were debating whether YOU (a human on planet Earth) are 'recorded' into eternity?

I have two problems - the first is with it being a human and not a star. Looking at the HDF shows you a rather simple yet important thing - enormous light SOURCES are visible for a lot farther than tiny light REFLECTORS. The inverse square law states that light received from an object will reduce exponentially as distance increases... as it's a perfect inverse square ratio an object twice as bright as another will be visible for four times as far.

Our Sun is TRILLIONS (hell that's probably too small) of times brighter than you and so whereas there might only be enough photons from you to make you visible for a light minute, there will be enough to see The Sun for possibly billions of light years.

By the time the light from you reached the farthest reaches of space it'll be indistinguishable from any other random packet of light - how does that constitute recording you? How could anyone tell? It's like saying I could record the Complete Works Of Shakespeare by only writing one word. It might be a word Shakespeare used, but it's not Romeo and Juliet.

The clarity of the
>image does not concern me, the fact that it is traveling
>forever in space, does. Also, you are just speculating, you
>cannot say for certain we won't be able to decode the
>information into an image when the Hubble Deep field proves
>that we can.
>
>According to your assumptions, the thousands of galaxies that
>we see should be scattered beyond the point of recognition,
>but they are not.

No, because they emit vastly more photons and so will be visible for vastly squared more distance.
>
>Take a look at the image.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field#mediaviewer/File:HubbleDeepField.800px.jpg
>
>Should the image be a scattered mess of unrecognizable
>photon's?

No. Same reason as above.

>How can I perceive the correct shapes of >the
>galaxies from 13 billion years ago even though we see nothing
>but pitch black sky in that part of the sky today?
>
>

Because you are still within their range of visibility according to the inverse square law. Because they're MASSIVE AND BRIGHT.