How do creationists explain stars?

See message 138

See message 138I also want to point out that it is highly unreasonable to say that creationist are biased. I am not denying that they are, or that they do not push with too much zeal to find evidence for their beliefs. All I am saying is that we all do that. If you know an unbiased person, let me know...One must battle his own nature to become an objective truth seeker, and that is why the moral arguments are so philosophically undeniable. It can be done, but not perfectly for anyone. So I hope when a scientist makes a mistake in a single line, that his entire worldview will be discounted. To do that, would be to prove a bias from the criticism.All of us are smarter, and more cleverly deceptive, than we pretend to be, so all I ask is that we be as honset as possible, and concede when we are wrong. I for one intend to do so, though I assure you that just because I am a Christian, it does not mean that my nature is dead, so you may well have to prod me as well, before I will submit naturally to the truth at any given time. There is nothing natural about submission. It is an altogether unworldly act!Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Sounds to me like an atmosphere that strictly oppresses with fear!No wonder few scientists stop to seriously consider other angles on 'empericism' (thanks Percy). I mean What? Are you stupid or something? We all know that Genesis can't be true!Stephen Hawking has something to say about what we know:The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)You boys need to stop with the absolute attitude or you'll sound like me. But the absolute can only be found in the metaphysical (thank you for that Aristotle, and for believing that light speed was infinite Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This what I'm driving at yes, though I am still learning much as to how to express these things. I was not famillliar with the term 'a priori' until very recently. Please be patient with my ignorance...Logic cannot get you there, but it is critical to test for coherence. There are a lot of logical things that turn out to be untrue. We need the moral voice, the conscious, to weigh in as well. That to me is the 'a priori'. In strict naturalism, this 'a priori' is nothing but bias, and I strongly disagree with that. If morality is not real and true, (and to be so, it must be a link of the metaphysical to the physical, through the conscious) then life becomes unlivable and chaos rules the day.So, at least Anarchists are consistent, other than posting rules about no guns or alchohol at their conventions. We better watch the topic...

I completely concede that point CK... In fact, I'm glad you brought it up. I had forgotton.I was born again and did not for a couple years even question my theistic-evolutionary views.I is not a requirement for salvation, if in fact salvation is true. I believe it is and we all need it. So don't base other angles of belief in God on this one point.Very good CK, these things get lost in the translation often.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also want to point out that it is highly unreasonable to say that creationist are biased.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I said in the next sentance that I was not denying that they are, and in the following sentance I in fact said that we are all biased.You took one sentance of a whole message and took it out of context. Please don't do that...

just common sense

Wow, you are really knowledgeable. May I bow at your alter?And you have so much faith in a system devised by men, for men, to find out what they say 'can't be known', but insist on testing and denying everything up to, yet excluding, their own skepticism.Feel free to believe what you want. All your looking for is the respect and pat on the back of your peers. I'll face hells fury and the spit and laughing of all of you, until you can convince me of what you say cannot be known.Yeah! I'll take the a priori, you take what ever you want. As long as your alive, it's your perogative.I'm going to be booted. It's only a matter of time! But that is what will prove my point!

Well, of course! Justice should be feared, because it is right. but that is not the context I meant at all. I was implying that there is more to the 'convention' than that... the implication is based on my 'a priori' little voice. Sometimes you can't prove a thing, even though the wolf has a full belly.I see why the topic must be limited, and why Percy speaks with such clarity. You guys are free to dismiss this argument against 'age of light'. I will concede an inferior ability to offer 'scientific' evidence, as well as have such profound faith in it. I appriciate Hawkins article, I referred to above in message 144.The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)

Now back to relevant issues that lead right back to the topic:Are you really skeptical of everything? Both that stars are old; and that stars are young? You see? I don't know if light is slowing down or not, but it is possible. The reason it is possible, is that we cannot deny that it is, unless we are God.I know that light inasfar as truth is slowing down, since more and more question if it is even real. But they then assume that it's non-existance is true. So, because of that, truth must exist and we are simply dead to it.I have to think the Hawking quote did it's job, as no-one has yet to comment: The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)Peace to you sir, Rob Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

I said:

quote:

---

You see? I don't know if light is slowing down or not, but it is possible. The reason it is possible, is that we cannot deny that it is, unless we are God.

---

And David Hume said:I assume you know your argument is 'Humean'?Anyway, the problem with that criticism is that it is also not mathtematical or experimental.How can you make a meaningful statement that is metaphysically stated, in order to tell you that metaphysics is meaningless?Isn't it interesting that it takes a spirit, to deny a spirit?I can understand your thinking, but when dealing with the age of stars, we must be willing to admit that we do not know.However, I concede that this does not mean that we must accept the possibility that the Puff Marshmallow Man lives inside each star, just because we can't prove it.

Percy, I know what you mean, but strongly disagree. The reason is that the metaphysical implications of tentatively knowing thse things that are repeated by TV science programs are enormous...And in that way, science is affecting things that it admits it cannot answer for.

Havn't got time for Coulter... But she is hot! (sorta...)I'm not a Liberal basher. I don't need scape goats when I have a mirror. But many Liberals and Conservatives are convinced that the world would be a better place if the opposition would just give up their sins. Far too often the political bickering sounds like the first chapter of C.S. Lewis' 'Mere Christianity'. As a recovering Neo-New ager, turned Secular conservative, turned Born-Agian, I am pretty well versed in the general features of these political side-shows. They're a great distraction to keep people focused away from reality.As for E=mc2... I don't have a problem with it, particularly because Einstein was a believer in some sort of metaphysical reality. He was far wiser than his secular peers were, or will ever be (in my simple-minded, theistic, and uneducated opinion).I believe I've shown my ignorance of science and eagerness to seek to confirm my bias well enough, but of what I do understand, I find more in Relativity Theory (and the Quantum) to support my faith than not.An associate professor of mathematics, Sylvain Porier, at Université de la Réunion told me in a private email debate, "Jesus could not have multiplied bread and fish, because He would have violated Mass Conservation." He went into this whole complicated thing about the first law of thermodynamics and it's relation to relativity, and on and on. I have to admit he shut my mouth. I didn't know much of what he was talking about.Then the next day it dawned on me... So I sent him an email asking him why he assumed that Jesus created new matter when performing the miracle? And then I asked him why Jesus could not simply have transferred energy from one place to the other?I never heard form him again... Geuss I'm just too stupid for some folks who know a lot of 'stuff' (Well, they don't know it, but they tentatively assume it!) They do invest a lot of energy, so maybe I should not pull the rug out from under them. They're kind of sensitive...

How in the name of Fritjof Capra did I admit that?I live in Humboldt County, Ca... do you have a connection for the good stuff or what?He was technologically advaned allright! And alien to us, yes! But an alien? Far more alien than we realize...Whoa whoa whoa! I just got your point... And all I was saying is that we do not know how He did it. I believe Syvain got that point, because he was very engaged until a dummy like me pointed out something so simple.Even so, and assuming my explanation is true; our God does not violate Himself! That is why He is Holy; He doesn't act like us!Its like the old question: Could He build a rock so big He cannot lift it? Such questions are non-sensicle! God doesn't do stupid things.If he created the universe in such a way, so that He could not violate His own laws, then that only makes Him consistent and true. On your contrary view you might well accuse Him of hypocracy, and interference.Trust Him when He tells you He is in complete control. He just didn't want to give you 'your own truth' for eternity, until you had an opportunity to reconsider your present course.You don't see?What He created is beautiful and necessary. He is looking at the big picture. What would you change about the universe?He shows profound respect to an obstinate people, and models self control of His enormous power.This is a circus, and I think I'm the clown.We're gonna be so busted for being off topic...

I CONCEDE THE THREAD TO THOSE WHO KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING...I leave you with a quote that is one of my favorites.Malcolm Muggeridge.