How do creationists explain stars?

quote:

---

1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

---

thefreedictionary

quote:

---

Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without", and gnosticism or gnosis, meaning "knowledge") is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims”particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality”is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.

​

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.

---

WikipediaI have never heard of an Agnostic that has such certainty, care to provide a quote - and then explain how it fits with the definition of agnosticism?I claim you have no proof that I have proof.

Just curious. Where are you from?

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

To suggest He changed it means we assume it was the same then. There is no reason to assume that in science. Is there? I think people just look to the past as if it were the same, and proceed from there.

Why wouldn't it be the same. Why would physical laws, speed of light & radioactive decay differ 6000 years ago? There is no logical reason why.

The real question, that science depends on totally, and that cannot be answered, is 'why would they'? There has to be a reason, or all is in vain that is built on that premise. My experience so far says that there is no reason at all. The wizard of Oz is a silly, weak old man.

Comprehension must precede science. The OT does not say the world is 6000 years old; this figure refers only to the advent of speech endowed humans - and this is vindicated today. The OT calendar does not include the creational days, as these are epochs of time, not 24-hour days: the sun's luminosity, which occurs on the 4th creational day, addresses this issue.With regard stars, Genesis says that stars do not immediately produce light [luminosity], but require a time to evolve into a star, and some do not reach this point. Further, Genesis says, the light from the sun did not reach the earth till a period passed; and that the rain cycle had not begun till the sun's light began impacting on the earth. The stars in general are what is referred to as Heavens in Genesis' opening verse, with 'earth' here being either this planet [because the conext refers to this planet], or earthly matter in general.Genesis also says, light predated the stars [else the stars could not produce light]; and that originally light essence per se, was created, and its reproduction continueing via the stars' atomic energy. The photon factor may be what makes light per se as vision-friendly.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

Science comes from Genesis, and genesis must be vindicated by science. Medicine [its first seperation from the occult/leprosy]; evolution [the chronological order of life forms]; and the original status of life forms [these were originally dual-gendered] - also come from Genesis.The first declaration the universe is finite is in genesis' opening preamble [there was a 'BEGINNING'], followed by the patterned and sequenced order of the universe creation; this is the first cosmological summary of the universe creation. It is fully and wholly a scientific premise, and not negated as such where it is seen to differ with any particular factors held by sectors of the current science generation.There is no contradiction between creationism and science; the latter is a post-universe faculty, thus the following is more appropriate:CREATIONISM; SCIENCE.Presently, there is no alternative to creationism: the universe is FINITE.

"With regard stars, Genesis says that stars do not immediately produce light [luminosity], but require a time to evolve into a star, and some do not reach this point."Really? It says all that? Fascinating. I must have missed it.

quote:

---

Really? It says all that? Fascinating. I must have missed it.

---

Examine the texts, and whether any other interpretation is possible:That the stars were created in the beginning, v1, is here:

quote:

---

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

---

That the luminosity of the sun impacted the earth later, in the 4th creation day, and that this relates only to light, and not the creation of the sun, is here:

quote:

---

14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. {P}

---

The same also explains why the creation days are different in length from the rest of the days: these were not 24-hour days but epochs of time, because there was yet no luminosity.This brings up the issue, how were the vegetation, fish and birds created before the luminosity. This is answered in the follow-up chapter, which says the life forms in the creation stage were inanimate, becoming animated when the light and rain cycle began, and the life forms became 'living souls'. Many meanings can be derived here, including the basic design and construct of an original and first model of the life forms, or what they were prior to being animated living souls. This is varied from personalised dna and skeletal structures, but refers to the fundamental design [wirings/sub-atomic structures?] what constitutes a life; because the personalised reproduction of each species are addressed elsewhere ['A seed shall follow its own kind'].

I think that maybe you think lumping a lot of claims into a post means that no one will bother to refute them. I see no reason to accept that life was inanimate.

There is widespread distortion and miss-representation of the genesis texts. Mostly, these distortions are never examined by its texts, but taken from reportings of it. Thus i asked to examine and decide.

This thread has reached nearly its 300 post limit (as do all our threads) and is now closed.Thanks everyone for participating.