Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 6:21 PM
19 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, dwise1, Taq, Theodoric (5 members, 14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,790 Year: 4,827/19,786 Month: 949/873 Week: 305/376 Day: 98/57 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   How do creationists explain stars?
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3624 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 91 of 297 (321655)
06-14-2006 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by kuresu
06-14-2006 11:10 PM


Re: Aside on energy and mass
So essentially, we are nothing but energy, if I understand it correctly. Now that's wierd. Nothing but a 150 lb bag of energy, I am.
Indeed. And as cavediver pointed out all you had to do to release all that energy would be to meet an anti-kuresu. it would probably try to shake your left hand instead of the right one...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by kuresu, posted 06-14-2006 11:10 PM kuresu has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3953 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 92 of 297 (321678)
06-15-2006 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Coragyps
06-13-2006 7:38 PM


Re: RE Age of Stars
Like I said - report back to us with what he tells you.

That's what I've been doing...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Coragyps, posted 06-13-2006 7:38 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3953 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 93 of 297 (321680)
06-15-2006 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by fallacycop
06-13-2006 10:45 PM


Re: what debate?
And what make you think there is a debate? if I may ask?

The fact you appear to disagree. And yes, you may...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by fallacycop, posted 06-13-2006 10:45 PM fallacycop has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by fallacycop, posted 06-15-2006 9:43 AM Rob has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3953 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 94 of 297 (321714)
06-15-2006 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Mespo
06-14-2006 10:18 AM


Re: Forbidden Lens
Now, to segue back to the original topic so I don't get yelled at...

Question: How do creationists explain stars?
Answer: I don't know, but the Amish sure as Hell can't.

I see we all ramble now and then :)

How do creationists explain stars??? In the begginnig, God created...

I think the problem with understanding this is that everything has a cause. The Kallum cosmological argument says that everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

The universe began to exist... Why? Because an entropic (2nd law of thermodynamics) system, such as ours, could not have existed eternally, since it would have had all of eternity for the energy to come completely apart.

The only argument to counter this that I can think of is that entropy is increasing, which would indicate that entropy would decrease in the past. Perhaps, there was point that there was no entropy at all (a perfect system). And then your argument becomes interesting...

Because, then It could be said that it did indeed take all that time for the light to get here, indicating an age of untold billions of years for the universe.

I don't deny the logic, I just know that it cannot prove that God in the omnipotent and all powerful way He is described in the Bible cannot exist and could not create the universe pre-formed, including light already positioned as it would be years later.

It is not difficult for me to make the leap, because I believe all life was created pre-formed because it is irreducibly complex. But that's another thread, and to be honest, there I got my butt kicked...

And I'm not Amish...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Mespo, posted 06-14-2006 10:18 AM Mespo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by cavediver, posted 06-15-2006 3:46 AM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 100 by ramoss, posted 06-15-2006 8:51 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3953 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 95 of 297 (321715)
06-15-2006 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by ReverendDG
06-14-2006 11:06 AM


Re: RE Age of Stars
that depends on if you subscribe to a multiverse outlook or not

Ah yes.. String Theory. So, you move beyond physics to metaphisics, so that you can deny the metaphysical claim of theists?

Did you know that it takes a spirit to deny a spirit?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by ReverendDG, posted 06-14-2006 11:06 AM ReverendDG has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by cavediver, posted 06-15-2006 3:33 AM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 105 by ReverendDG, posted 06-16-2006 2:53 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3953 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 96 of 297 (321716)
06-15-2006 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by ReverendDG
06-14-2006 11:50 AM


Re: RE Age of Stars
{qsreality is not absolute, have you ever talked to any pychotic people? they have a very different reality than you or i do - reality is relative to the person, what you mean is the universe is absolute[/qs]

If what you said is true, then it is not true. I see the lie, because I see the contradiction...

then explain the light distances

Read message 94 or 95...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ReverendDG, posted 06-14-2006 11:50 AM ReverendDG has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by ReverendDG, posted 06-16-2006 2:46 AM Rob has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1747 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 97 of 297 (321732)
06-15-2006 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Rob
06-15-2006 2:19 AM


Re: RE Age of Stars
Ah yes.. String Theory. So, you move beyond physics to metaphisics, so that you can deny the metaphysical claim of theists?

Apparent metaphysics to the layman, perhaps, but not in reality. We call it mathematical/theoretical physics.

----
Cavediver (One-time String Theorist)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Rob, posted 06-15-2006 2:19 AM Rob has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1747 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 98 of 297 (321734)
06-15-2006 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Rob
06-15-2006 2:15 AM


Re: Forbidden Lens
The Kallum cosmological argument says that everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

Yes, and this argument is fundementally flawed as applied to the universe - fallacy of composition I think the guys round here call it. I just call it wrong :)

The universe began to exist... Why? Because an entropic (2nd law of thermodynamics) system, such as ours, could not have existed eternally, since it would have had all of eternity for the energy to come completely apart.

Not true. Diffciult to explain in the time I have now (should be working!) but most certainly untrue.

I just know that it cannot prove that God in the omnipotent and all powerful way He is described in the Bible cannot exist and could not create the universe pre-formed, including light already positioned as it would be years later.

Of course it can't. Last-Thursdayism can be applied at any point in our history. It is just a little ugly. The workings of this universe are incredibly beautiful. The idea of God just poofing them into existence mid-flow is bizarre and immensely unaesthetic relative to the workings themselves. Perhaps if God had a hang-over from hell after partying on day 0, then I could understand such a bodged creation effort on day 1... but it doesn't fit comfortably with me.

because I believe all life was created pre-formed because it is irreducibly complex

If God made us pre-formed, why are we made of this unimaginably complex stuff? Why are we not just animated clay as Genesis 2 suggests? One or other fits perfectly - pre-formed clay, or evolved complex matter - but the creationist half-way house of pre-formed complex stuff is simply weird and unpalatable, and does not sound like my God at all.

---

Cavediver (Christian and Scientist but not Christian Scientist ;))


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Rob, posted 06-15-2006 2:15 AM Rob has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1747 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 99 of 297 (321744)
06-15-2006 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by fallacycop
06-14-2006 10:40 PM


Re: Aside on energy and mass
forgot to mention that even that little bit of "mater" is most likely also due to the interaction of these particles with the "sea" of Higgs field(s)

Hmmm, I certainly didn't forget. Just not convinced :) The fermionic masses and Higgs don't sit well together. The Higgs mechanism is a fine part of the Standard Model for the massive gauge particles (Ws and Z) but the whole massive fermion sector is more a signal of the breakdown of the Standard Model, and will be better explained by a more fundemental level: possibly String/M-theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by fallacycop, posted 06-14-2006 10:40 PM fallacycop has not yet responded

ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 100 of 297 (321770)
06-15-2006 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Rob
06-15-2006 2:15 AM


Re: Forbidden Lens
Well,

You seem to be a young earth creationis.

Why does the stars have the appearence of great distance/great age?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Rob, posted 06-15-2006 2:15 AM Rob has not yet responded

tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 297 (321773)
06-15-2006 8:57 AM


Creationists (myself) should be explaining stars the same way everyone else does.

I do not opt for the young earth idea.


fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3624 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 102 of 297 (321794)
06-15-2006 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Rob
06-15-2006 1:07 AM


Re: what debate?
Rob writes:

And what make you think there is a debate? if I may ask?


So you take the fact that somebody appears to desagree with you as evidence that you may be right???
This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Rob, posted 06-15-2006 1:07 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Rob, posted 06-16-2006 1:12 AM fallacycop has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3953 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 103 of 297 (322091)
06-16-2006 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by fallacycop
06-15-2006 9:43 AM


Re: what debate?
So you take the fact that somebody appears to desagree with you as evidence that you may be right???

Nope!

Just that one of us is wrong, because the truth is absolute!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by fallacycop, posted 06-15-2006 9:43 AM fallacycop has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 06-16-2006 8:08 AM Rob has responded

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2214 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 104 of 297 (322102)
06-16-2006 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Rob
06-15-2006 2:27 AM


Re: RE Age of Stars
If what you said is true, then it is not true. I see the lie, because I see the contradiction...

i guess thats all you have then, calling me a lier?
its not a contradiction, preceptions of reality do not always reflect the universe.
heres a story about what i mean, i went to the doc to get some more prozac and theres this guy who was scizo who talked to me, he thought the doctors were giving drugs to him to kill him, now of course they were not, he thought it was, what i am getting at is reality is not static or absulute it varies from person to person
but the universe does not
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Rob, posted 06-15-2006 2:27 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Rob, posted 06-16-2006 10:15 AM ReverendDG has not yet responded

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2214 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 105 of 297 (322104)
06-16-2006 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Rob
06-15-2006 2:19 AM


Re: RE Age of Stars
Ah yes.. String Theory. So, you move beyond physics to metaphysics, so that you can deny the metaphysical claim of theists?

Did you know that it takes a spirit to deny a spirit?


they need sarcasim blocks or something, anyway metaphysics isn't about the spiritual as far as i can tell

so you are saying that there has to be something to deny? i don't deny god, i deny the concept of god as written in all human books
god can exist for all i care, but none of the religions got it right


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Rob, posted 06-15-2006 2:19 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019