Creationists and stars...

[SoyLeche]

I was only joking Soy, but since you bring it up. I thought God was everywhere, why not just ask Him. I would, but we don't get on.

Like I've already said - I'm not a young earther. I just am waiting for an Excel Macro that takes forever to run, and need to do something to keep myself sane.

I only mentioned it because you keep asking why God didn't do something a different way. I'm sure he could have. He chose not to, and hasn't bothered to tell us why. When I find out I'll let you know

You know, Hal, you're all right. I enjoy reading your posts, and it has been fun to go at it for a little while at least.

 

[Halcyon]

I only mentioned it because you keep asking why God didn't do something a different way. I'm sure he could have. He chose not to, and hasn't bothered to tell us why. When I find out I'll let you know

Lol, touche.

You know, Hal, you're all right. I enjoy reading your posts, and it has been fun to go at it for a little while at least.

Hehe, thanks Soy. You're an interesting fellow to debate with.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Putting the cosmos into motion required laws. The beauty and magic detected by those laws are limitedly reduced by science. Which in turn results in complex and unintended, emergent systems. Hence you have the stars.

Sorry Victor, I can't give you frubals for that....I have to spread 'em around. :clap

 

[nutshell]

I'm not saying He wouldn't make distant stars, just that if He did, we wouldn't be able to see many of them if they were only 6,000 years old.

Ah, gotcha.

Well, I belive in the creation, but I'm not of the 6,000 years old crowd club.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

I guess i'm really asking the creationists who believe God created the universe in a week about 6,000 years ago.

What you are looking for are Young Earthers. Most folks who are bright enough to turn on a computer, and are hence able to read your thread, are not going to be defending a 6,000 year old Earth. The ones who do are going to refer you to answersingenesis.com a lot.

I think we have a couple of Young Earthers on this site, but they are few and far between, and the ones who you find are not much on legitimate debate. So good luck on your thread.

B.

 

[Halcyon]

What you are looking for are Young Earthers. Most folks who are bright enough to turn on a computer, and are hence able to read your thread, are not going to be defending a 6,000 year old Earth. The ones who do are going to refer you to answersingenesis.com a lot.

I think we have a couple of Young Earthers on this site, but they are few and far between, and the ones who you find are not much on legitimate debate. So good luck on your thread.

B.

Oh poo.

Guess you we're right Mich, not gonna catch any fishes with this bait

Ok, maybe i'll twist the flow a bit.

To creationists who don't believe in evolution, but do believe in distant stars. How do you reconcile accepting one aspect of the creation as told in Genesis as true, while simultaneously rejecting most of the rest?

 

[randb]

I'm not saying He wouldn't make distant stars, just that if He did, we wouldn't be able to see many of them if they were only 6,000 years old.

why is that so??? Maybe I'm not able to understand your statement.... What does age have to do with us being able to see them??? If the age of an object in years is lesser than the distance from earth in light years...then we wont be able to see it!!! Proxima Centauri is just 4.3 light years away from our sun!!!

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

why is that so??? Maybe I'm not able to understand your statement.... What does age have to do with us being able to see them??? If the age of an object in years is lesser than the distance from earth in light years...then we wont be able to see it!!! Proxima Centauri is just 4.3 light years away from our sun!!!

Yes, but many many many other objects in the night sky are far more than 4.3 light years away. In fact, we know that there are objects out there that are well over 10 billion light years away.

B.

 

[Ibrahim Al-Amin]

I'll probably get slammed for this, but believe it or not , Islam believes in evolution, and the Quran references the Big Bang:

"Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, and then we separated them." 21:30

Although many Muslims refuse to live by modern technological standards (because that's not how Muhammed lived), the Quran encourages scientific research and intellectualism.

Islam generally believes in the Torah, and the creation story, except the Quran corrects the reference of six "days" to six "periods," the "period" being accepted as an undefined, but excessively long amount of time.

As a result of the above-referenced quote regarding the Big Bang and the six "periods" of the creation of the universe, I (and many Muslims) believe in the creation story related by Muhammed, which is in line with modern scientific teachings.

Flame away...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Putting the cosmos into motion required laws.

:banghead3 NO :banghead3

 

[Darkdale]

:banghead3 NO :banghead3

:biglaugh: lol I can actually feel your frustration.

 

[YmirGF]

:banghead3 NO :banghead3

Hehe. C'mon Jayhawker Soule, spill dah beans, baby.
I think most of us would be interested in what you have to say. :curtsy:

 

[Fade]

:banghead3 NO :banghead3

Why not?

 

[michel]

:banghead3 NO :banghead3

Is that because of the phenomenon of "Chaos" ?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is that because of the phenomenon of "Chaos" ?

No, it is because laws are generalizations describing observed regularities. What does it mean to say:

Putting the cosmos into motion required generalizations describing observed regularities.​

 

[Fade]

No, it is because laws are generalizations describing observed regularities. What does it mean to say:

Putting the cosmos into motion required generalizations describing observed regularities.​

God is a Scientist?

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

No, it means that laws are merely man's description of what is occuring in the natural world of the cosmos. The cosmos does as it does, it acts as it acts, and we have observed how it acts. In those observations, certain laws have been laid out, that we have observed. The law is merely our description and explanation of what is occuring.

Red shift, gravity, black holes, neutron stars, asteroids, the speed of light, all of these things exist completely and totally independent of whether we observe them, and are curious about them, or not. When we as humans notice a pattern of a certain phenomenon behaving in a certain way every single time, for instance, objects at rest tending to stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force, then we are observing, and describing what we term to be a "Law" of nature.

Nobody and nothing needed to set up or write down these laws in order for an object at rest to tend to stay at rest unless and until acted upon by an outside force.

B.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yeah, but my point is. Why didn't He just do it exactly like it says in the bible, just make the stars lights in the sky rather than distant stars that He then has to play around with so we can see them?

Matthew 22:29

 

[Steve]

Here is one scientific explanation regarding starlight, distant stars and a young earth by Dr Russell Humphreys - (you may need flashget or a simular program to download it).
rtsp://ra.gospelcom.net/aig/seminars/SiouxFalls2001/RussStarlightTime.rm

 

[Ody]

Do Creationists believe stars are distant suns like our own, or do they still think that they are holes in the veil through which heaven shines?

If it is the former, how can they possibly believe that the Earth and/or universe is only 5-6,000 years old? Do they simply reject the discovery of the speed of light?

Not all creationists believe the earth to be 6,000 years old I will nevere back down from scientific data. How could you reject a scientific discoverey?