|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: How do creationists explain stars? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alcyonian Junior Member (Idle past 5068 days) Posts: 2 From: New Zealand Joined: |
I actually feel like I may be off-topic on my first message into this group.. however: besides a biblical (and I suppose a literal) rendition of star formation - what is the scientific explanation that creationists have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reserve Junior Member (Idle past 6207 days) Posts: 26 Joined: |
I am a creationist. The only explanation for stars I have come from Genesis. I am also a Creatioists. However I believe God created a world where we are able to perform observations and conduct tests, and eventually come to the right conclusion. However, only IF one makes the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God and that it is correct. Any assumptions one uses that contradicts this one, will not only arrive at different answers, but at WRONG answers. So, using wrong assumptions can still lead to answers, but not the right one. Now I will use what I have said for the formation of stars. The explanation for stars can be scientifically understood. But this understanding cannot come from the Bible alone, for the Bible does not touch on the physical laws that are being used to make stars. But the order in which God makes the heavens and the earth, the time in which He makes the heavens and the earth, are valid starting points to pluck into equations dealing with the the Beginning, and what happened and using the first verses as a guiding tool for a method God may have used. For instance, Dr. Humphrey does this in his creation model of how the universe formed under the direction of God. A simple scientific experiment can show that different assumptions can lead to seamingly correct conclusions, but only one assumption can identify the correct problem. Here we go... Consider a lighting stand on a desk. 2 people come into the room and see that the ligth bulb is not on. Now the assumptions start. (A & B) Person A, assumes the lightbulb is broken, and therefore replaces the bulb and flicks the switch, and the light bulb turns on. Person B, assumes that from the start the switch was not turned on, he goes over and turns the switch and the light comes on. Here it is obvious that person A started off on the wrong foot, even knowing that one has to turn on the light switch first to see if it will work. But he missed that the first time. But being a keener, he knew to flick the switch after replacing the bulb, and satisfied with the result, believes the previous light bulb was indeed broken. Im sure you get the point. I think this example can illustrate the difference between evolutionists and creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Welcome aboard Alcyonian.
No, you're not off topic at all. I will be, though.
what is the scientific explanation that creationists have? Major problem here, Alcy; "Science" and "creationist" in the same sentence juxtaposed as to convey some meaningful relationship . the two terms do not play well together. Up thread you will find one interesting creo fantasy about some god thingie making stars with “mature” light, meaning the creation was set in place with the new star billions of light-years away but the light pre-stretched to already be seen here on Earth less then 10,000 years later in keeping with Young Earth Creationism’s (YECs) pre-ordained timeline, complete with red shift to simulate its billions of light-years of travel. Well, that gives you a flavor of what I mean. Science is the enemy, a force of godless atheism (actual quote), instrument of Satan, asking too many pesky questions about reality and evidence and just not having enough faith to accept the truth as they see it. Now, please understand there are a lot of religious people on this forum with their heads firmly attached to their shoulders where they belong. Then there are the YECs. The only force recognized by YECs is “goddoneit.” Have fun while you’re here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Reserve writes: Consider a lighting stand on a desk. 2 people come into the room and see that the ligth bulb is not on. Now the assumptions start. (A & B) Person A, assumes the lightbulb is broken, and therefore replaces the bulb and flicks the switch, and the light bulb turns on. Person B, assumes that from the start the switch was not turned on, he goes over and turns the switch and the light comes on. Here it is obvious that person A started off on the wrong foot, even knowing that one has to turn on the light switch first to see if it will work. But he missed that the first time. But being a keener, he knew to flick the switch after replacing the bulb, and satisfied with the result, believes the previous light bulb was indeed broken. Im sure you get the point. I think this example can illustrate the difference between evolutionists and creationists. You forgot person C. Person C curses electricity since it was not mentioned in the Bible and therefore must be the work of the devil. Or person C denies that electricity exists for the same reason. Person C gets mad and stalks off because he was not allowed to burn person A and B at the stake for heresy. Person C is similar to the Young Earth Creationist (Dark Ages supporter).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reserve Junior Member (Idle past 6207 days) Posts: 26 Joined: |
And you're mistaken. Your opinion fails to trump observation. Where's the repulsive force to resist gravity in a collapsing gas cloud? My question to you is, what observation? From what I read at: http://www.ldolphin.org/stars.html
quote: quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
b b Member (Idle past 6159 days) Posts: 77 From: baton rouge, La, usa Joined: |
No argument here. I agree with you Reseerve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
b b Member (Idle past 6159 days) Posts: 77 From: baton rouge, La, usa Joined: |
Then there are the YECs. The only force recognized by YECs is “goddoneit.” Well duh? The word Creationist wouldn't mean much without a creator would it? You have to believe in a god in order to believe in Creationism.
Up thread you will find one interesting creo fantasy about some god thingie making stars with “mature” light, meaning the creation was set in place with the new star billions of light-years away but the light pre-stretched to already be seen here on Earth less then 10,000 years later in keeping with Young Earth Creationism’s (YECs) pre-ordained timeline, complete with red shift to simulate its billions of light-years of travel. God created man not baby. When God created things maybe he did create them mature.
Major problem here, Alcy; "Science" and "creationist" in the same sentence juxtaposed as to convey some meaningful relationship . the two terms do not play well together. Maybe they should. Maybe you should do something to change this. I'm trying. Use science to prove God instead of disprove what he said. Creationist should not be opposed to evolution. My bible says God created Adam and Eve. It never said they were what we call homosapians. I say it's the same story. The first man would seem, going by science, to have started off as a baby. The bible says he started as a man. It's no surprise that science would also point to the first star starting at the birth. The bible again says this was not so. The bible makes alot of points that would seem hard to believe. This is because it is impossible to truly prove or disprove any of it. With all the evidence in the world that God did not create the stars (Maturely) as he said he did; if he comes back in the end science would be wrong(at least about this issue). the only way to find the truth is to wait and see. I have no problem with scientist who state probability. Because they admit that it's possible they are wrong. I just don't listen to "impossible, never happened, definitely," and "I know". That's playing God. Evidence has proven through the years to be misleading sometimes. Unless the blame lies in the Human Mind. I'm sure once we die, it all makes PERFECT sense. But til then, we are missing a piece of the puzzle which ties it all in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
quote: you think that quotes from 1968 are relevant??? Do you not think that in THIRTY NINE years, astrophysical research may have moved on a little? That obseravtions may have improved, just a little? Ever heard of the HST? It's this little telescope we have in orbit that has improved observations relevant to this study by, ooh say, a THOUSAND-FOLD!!!! Do you really think that stellar astrophysicists have sat on their arses for the past 39 years??? What do you think they've been doing for nearly half a century? Drinking their way through their grants? (well, in my experience there's a fair bit of truth there ) Edited by cavediver, : trimming excess sarcasm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alcyonian Junior Member (Idle past 5068 days) Posts: 2 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Hi Paul,
Quote: I agree with you absolutely. I know the scientific explanation for star formation and was curious as to the "biblically" quoted explanation and why, per se, it should be accepted. Quote: Sadly this is true. Through many such debates I always see literal theists demand a scientific explanation even though they have a ludicrous proposition to put in its place. Quote: I'm sure I will
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
b b Member (Idle past 6159 days) Posts: 77 From: baton rouge, La, usa Joined: |
I agree with you absolutely. I know the scientific explanation for star formation and was curious as to the "biblically" quoted explanation and why, per se, it should be accepted.
The only reason it should be accepted is belief in God. If you don't believe in him then you shouldn't accept this.
gen ch1 Young's Literal Translation writes: 14And God saith, `Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years, 15and they have been for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth:' and it is so. 16And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night;
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The only reason it should be accepted is belief in God. If you don't believe in him then you shouldn't accept this. I'm sorry but that is not simply totally false, it is just plain silly and changes GOD into some book. Many theist believe in God yet realize that all you have provided is a poetic description. Many Christians also realize that the two mutually exclusive tales in Genesis were poetic and allegorical. Belief in GOD, even the Christian Biblical God does not mean you have to accept things which have been shown to be false, like the passage you quote. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Reserve
Person A, assumes the lightbulb is broken, and therefore replaces the bulb and flicks the switch, and the light bulb turns on. Person B, assumes that from the start the switch was not turned on, he goes over and turns the switch and the light comes on. Here it is obvious that person A started off on the wrong foot, even knowing that one has to turn on the light switch first to see if it will work. But he missed that the first time. But being a keener, he knew to flick the switch after replacing the bulb, and satisfied with the result, believes the previous light bulb was indeed broken. Given the order you have placed the assumptions and the tests we cannot say that the light was not first broken but can only say that Person A did not check the issue of power first before making the assumption of the light bulb itself being broken.He may still consider his assumption valid as a possible cause of the darkness.Since he switched the light bulb and then turned the power on we can only conclude that he failed to test the more obvious case first, that of the power supply to the bulb. However, Person B ,who tested the power after person A had switched light bulbs, is incorrect in his assumptions about the power being the cause unless both he and Person A first check the original light bulb to see if that bulb was indeed the cause of the darkness. Keep on asking questions though it might be good to loosen your grip on your assumptions lest you remain in the dark.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jason777 Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
If going by the bible literally,there is no scientific explanation.In Gen. it states that god created the heavens in one day.In the book of Isaiah it says that god stretched out the heavens.If the verse is true then that would mean that they were much closer before he did.And beleiving that god is limited by the speed of light is rediculous if you beleive there really is one.Needless to say it cant be scientifically measured or calculated.But one thing that can support creationist is the fact that it is impossile to measure a triangle thats a straight line.How could you gety an angle from that unless you make a very big assumption.Even SN1987A is based on the assumption that we are observing the correct decay rates of the cobalt.And how many times have they been wrong about things like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Well, that gives you a flavor of what I mean. Science is the enemy, a force of godless atheism (actual quote), instrument of Satan, asking too many pesky questions about reality and evidence and just not having enough faith to accept the truth as they see it. Why would an atheist be an instument of satan when an atheist would't believe in such an entity anymore than they would believe in Yahweh
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jason777 Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 69 Joined: |
Yes that is true.An athiest doesnt beleive,an agnostic is one who claims to have proof of the nonexistance of God.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024