How do creationists explain stars?

Hi Phat, I think Percy's missing a comma "Even before Darwin, geologists..."

Oh, I see! Doh! Oh well, I'll butt out now....(Phat knows little about geology except a few basic 7th grade science stuff)

He's alright... Hasn't done much since leaving University of Newcastle, England (late 80's) but don't tell him I said so Sort of interesting. Probably not correct, as many pointed out (Steve Carlip in PHys Rev D 67 023507 for example)What Davies and his students are saying is that microscopic changes in alpha (the fine structure constant) that may have been observed in the early universe (~12 bilion years ago) can be translated into microscopic changes in c (the speed of light) through an argument based upon black hole thermodynamics. However, as Carlip points out, this argument is not particularly sound.However, it is possible that the speed of light has changed slightly (in wahtever way this can be interpreted)... That's right: the universe as we measure it at 12 billion years old is actually some tiny fraction of a percent different to 12 billion years old. Amazing. If I'd realised that such a small change was all it required to align cosmology and YEC ideas I would have published my book years ago Nice try... no bananaI see you picked up on the newspaper editor's comment about an infinite c at the big bang Notice this was not Paul's comment. Even if this were true, it does not change the fact that 12 billion years ago is still just about 12 billion years ago. Sorry.

Sounds to me like an answer to the question of this thread. Not a no brainer for any parties involved...

Sorry, you are right. I only saw a small part of the article.

Sorry for being dense, but I'm not with you. Can you explain what you mean?

I just mean that many of the proponents of evolution have raised this question of star age as though it is indefensible for the creationist.It is not that cut and dry... I just became aware of this 'light slowing down' thing today. So I was stunned, because I was totally satisfied with the answer that God created with appearent age.With this, the debate is far less easily divided between a religious belief and science. This is a mind blower and has huge implicationsfor re-evaluating all of science.If I may take some liberty... After thinking this argument over for a while yesturday, before getting home to check some sources on it, I thought of this verse, which now makes perfect sense:[qs]Job 38:4-11 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?"I have to admit, the idea of light travelling at infinite or near infinite speed, would be glorious! It just makes good sense...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't have to be a proponent of evolution to recognize that the universe is old - far older than Young Earth Creationism allows. This doesn't alter the fact that the universe is old, and that Young Earth Creationism is badly wrong.

I hope your joking. Put a comma inbetween Darwin and geologist, and it reads: before Darwin, geologists . . .Even without the comma it's safe to assume that the term geologist is separate from Darwin, because otherwise the sentence makes no sense, as there is no "the" before "Darwin", and even the sentence wouldn't be too clear.ABE:it would help if I read the full thread before posting that. Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

The problem with the "light slowing down" thing is that it contradicts known evidence. That's because the "light slowing down" thing was proposed to explain how the universe could appear old (which is what the scientific evidence says) when it is actually young (which is what creationists think the Genesis says). In other words, its a religious attempt to reconcile science with an interpretation of Genesis that has no scientific foundation. I'm totally satisfied with that answer, too, unless you think this is a scientific answer. I'm fine with it unless this is what you want to teach in science class.--Percy

Old is a relative term...Our facts about the universe appear to have been wrong in some degrees. Sounds to me like the position these laws have relative to each other may stay the same, but that the so-called cosmological constants that I used to love talking about, are not so constant after-all.The jury is out on this on nwr, so relax and enjoy the ride. Most of us were arguing from the assumption that the laws of physics were constant; the speed of light being just one of them. Well, it appears God had another suprise for us all...Do you like suprises my furry little friend?

I was expecting a lot more from you on this whether you argued against it, or thought it intriguing...There is a long list of scientists, who think it may be a valid precisely because science is an approximation and not absolutely true.In this case, as Paul davies clearly stated is initial shock, the implications are dramatic.(Paul Davies, Theorectical Physicist/ Australian Centre for Astrobiology)Makes me wonder if you even read the quotes and links I peovided at all Percy. It is not cut and dry. It is a genuine debate...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Another article from Worldnet Daily on this creation hoax:Page not found - WNDLet's all take a serious look ok?It is true that creation scientists have been too eager at times, but that is not something unique to creationists... it is something unique for all scientists, because they assume that the universe is ordered and intelligible. As a result, any forwarded theory or postulate is implied to be Gospel truth.This is inescapable because we cannot move forward with out assuming our view to be true, irrespective of what our view is.My sincere prayer, is that regardless of what the truth is, that we are seeking it, and not simply being defensive all the time. There is a time for defense, offensive, and consessions.RobEdited by Rob, : No reason given.

Where is the full Davies quote - generally when Creationists quote something and it contains "...." there is generally something pretty important missing...

I notice that that article relies quite heavy on the Work of Barry Setterfield - the mainstream community thinks he is a crank. Now you might say "well of course they do! Because of their world view!"Problem is - Answers in Genesis always rejects his work. Why do you think a major creation science organization rejects his work?Paul Davies is also mentioned that and this is what AIG had to say about his work - So if this is all about secular bias - why aren't christian science organizations backing it?Edited by CK, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Reflects => rejects.Edited by Admin, : why => what