Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do creationists explain stars?
Alcyonian
Junior Member (Idle past 5040 days)
Posts: 2
From: New Zealand
Joined: 04-05-2007


Message 271 of 297 (393563)
04-05-2007 7:23 PM


Stars?
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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by AZPaul3, posted 04-05-2007 8:15 PM Alcyonian has replied

Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 6179 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007


Message 272 of 297 (393573)
04-05-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by b b
03-26-2007 1:28 AM


Star formation
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by b b, posted 03-26-2007 1:28 AM b b has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by anglagard, posted 04-05-2007 8:30 PM Reserve has not replied
 Message 276 by b b, posted 04-06-2007 12:10 AM Reserve has not replied
 Message 282 by sidelined, posted 04-08-2007 11:39 AM Reserve has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 273 of 297 (393585)
04-05-2007 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Alcyonian
04-05-2007 7:23 PM


Re: Stars?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Alcyonian, posted 04-05-2007 7:23 PM Alcyonian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by b b, posted 04-06-2007 12:41 AM AZPaul3 has not replied
 Message 279 by Alcyonian, posted 04-06-2007 11:32 AM AZPaul3 has not replied
 Message 284 by bluescat48, posted 11-10-2007 6:19 PM AZPaul3 has not replied
 Message 292 by IamJoseph, posted 12-02-2007 3:51 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 274 of 297 (393587)
04-05-2007 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Reserve
04-05-2007 7:49 PM


Re: Star formation
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Reserve, posted 04-05-2007 7:49 PM Reserve has not replied

Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 6179 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007


Message 275 of 297 (393593)
04-05-2007 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Coragyps
03-06-2006 10:59 AM


Re: Distance to stars and the speed of light.
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:
What actually happens behind that murk is anyone's guess. Alan Boss spoke in these terms:
"What are the early stages in the formation of a star? What determines whether a cloud of star-forming matter will evolve into one, two or several stars? Because clouds of gas, dust and debris largely obscure all but the initial and final stages of the birth of a star, these questions have so far not been answered by direct observation....it has been impossible to date to view the cloud as it collapses through this range of densities. Consequently stars cannot be observed as they form." {3}[my emphasis]
quote:
The problems associated with the idea that stars can form from the gravitational infalling of a massive volume of nebular gas are great. Star formation by this route is physically impossible. The fairly simple formula for Jeans' Length (Sir James Jeans) shows what is necessary for stellar formation. A gas cloud must be within a critical radius in order to collapse by gravity (Jeans' Length). Jeans' Length (JL) is equal to the Gravitational constant (G) times the mass (M) of the cloud squared, divided by two times the number of moles of gas, times the Gas Constant (R), times the Temperature (T) in kelvins (see Table below). {5} There are other ways to calculate the physical parameters for star formation, but similar problems develop. Leo Blitz says that about 99 percent of the mass of a Giant Molecular Cloud (where stars are thought to form) is molecular hydrogen, H2. {6} I used this fact to calculate the minimum number of moles (n) of hydrogen that would have formed the core of the sun and solved for T. The temperature that the sun's equivalent cloud mass would have to be in order for it to contract under the force of gravity, considering the mass of the Sun, expanding its radius to the distance of one light year, and plugging in the values for the constants. The result was 1.69 degrees K (- 456.68 degrees F. Absolute Zero, 0 degrees K = - 459.67 degrees F), one degree less than the temperature of the 2.726 degrees K cosmic background radiation, according to the latest COBE satellite measurements. {7} The universe is too hot for star formation!
quote:
Chapter 26, "Survey of Stellar Evolution," of Cox and Giuli's work was the only chapter on star formation. What they had to say confirms what I said in my original challenge to Dr. Ross. {8} On page 947, they make their first direct comment on star formation:
"The very earliest stages in the star formation process must consist of the condensation of a 'protostar' from the interstellar medium. These stages constitute one of the most poorly understood areas in the whole field of stellar evolution, and we shall simply assume that a protostar has somehow formed."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Coragyps, posted 03-06-2006 10:59 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by cavediver, posted 04-06-2007 5:06 AM Reserve has not replied

b b
Member (Idle past 6131 days)
Posts: 77
From: baton rouge, La, usa
Joined: 09-25-2005


Message 276 of 297 (393616)
04-06-2007 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Reserve
04-05-2007 7:49 PM


Re: Star formation
No argument here. I agree with you Reseerve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Reserve, posted 04-05-2007 7:49 PM Reserve has not replied

b b
Member (Idle past 6131 days)
Posts: 77
From: baton rouge, La, usa
Joined: 09-25-2005


Message 277 of 297 (393618)
04-06-2007 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by AZPaul3
04-05-2007 8:15 PM


Re: Stars?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by AZPaul3, posted 04-05-2007 8:15 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 278 of 297 (393647)
04-06-2007 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Reserve
04-05-2007 8:59 PM


Re: Distance to stars and the speed of light.
My question to you is, what observation?
From what I read at:
http://www.ldolphin.org/stars.html
quote:
...Dr. Ross referred me to a book by Cox and Giuli, a massive, two-volume work on astrophysics published in 1968, implying that the information therein would refute my objections. After reading the relevant portions of their book, I found that they did not support his statements at all and did support my objections...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Reserve, posted 04-05-2007 8:59 PM Reserve has not replied

Alcyonian
Junior Member (Idle past 5040 days)
Posts: 2
From: New Zealand
Joined: 04-05-2007


Message 279 of 297 (393680)
04-06-2007 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by AZPaul3
04-05-2007 8:15 PM


Re: Stars?
Hi Paul,
Quote:
"Science" and "creationist" in the same sentence juxtaposed as to convey some meaningful relationship . the two terms do not play well together.
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:
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.
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:
Have fun while you’re here.
I'm sure I will

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by AZPaul3, posted 04-05-2007 8:15 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by b b, posted 04-08-2007 4:53 AM Alcyonian has not replied

b b
Member (Idle past 6131 days)
Posts: 77
From: baton rouge, La, usa
Joined: 09-25-2005


Message 280 of 297 (393880)
04-08-2007 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Alcyonian
04-06-2007 11:32 AM


Re: Stars?
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.
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;
The only reason it should be accepted is belief in God. If you don't believe in him then you shouldn't accept this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Alcyonian, posted 04-06-2007 11:32 AM Alcyonian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by jar, posted 04-08-2007 9:51 AM b b has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 281 of 297 (393895)
04-08-2007 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by b b
04-08-2007 4:53 AM


Re: Stars?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by b b, posted 04-08-2007 4:53 AM b b has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 282 of 297 (393909)
04-08-2007 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Reserve
04-05-2007 7:49 PM


Re: Star formation
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Reserve, posted 04-05-2007 7:49 PM Reserve has not replied

Jason777
Member (Idle past 4870 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 283 of 297 (433183)
11-10-2007 1:27 PM


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 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 284 of 297 (433235)
11-10-2007 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by AZPaul3
04-05-2007 8:15 PM


Re: Stars?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by AZPaul3, posted 04-05-2007 8:15 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Jason777, posted 11-12-2007 12:50 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Jason777
Member (Idle past 4870 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 285 of 297 (433446)
11-12-2007 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by bluescat48
11-10-2007 6:19 PM


Re: Stars?
Yes that is true.An athiest doesnt beleive,an agnostic is one who claims to have proof of the nonexistance of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by bluescat48, posted 11-10-2007 6:19 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Vacate, posted 11-12-2007 8:05 AM Jason777 has not replied
 Message 287 by Taz, posted 11-12-2007 1:01 PM Jason777 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024