Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 8:29 PM
25 online now:
DrJones*, edge, JonF, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,098 Year: 5,135/19,786 Month: 1,257/873 Week: 153/460 Day: 95/58 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516171819
20
Author Topic:   How do creationists explain stars?
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2708 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 286 of 297 (433488)
11-12-2007 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Jason777
11-12-2007 12:50 AM


Re: Stars?
an agnostic is one who claims to have proof of the nonexistance of God

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.



Wikipedia

I 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Jason777, posted 11-12-2007 12:50 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 287 of 297 (433535)
11-12-2007 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Jason777
11-12-2007 12:50 AM


Re: Stars?
Jason777 writes:

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


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!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Jason777, posted 11-12-2007 12:50 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 288 of 297 (434913)
11-17-2007 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by carini
02-19-2006 1:47 AM


Sticking to what we know
Unless god changed the laws of physics from their current values, how are these visible?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by carini, posted 02-19-2006 1:47 AM carini has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by bluescat48, posted 11-17-2007 11:39 PM simple has responded

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2297 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 289 of 297 (434917)
11-17-2007 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by simple
11-17-2007 11:25 PM


Re: Sticking to what we know
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by simple, posted 11-17-2007 11:25 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by simple, posted 11-18-2007 12:54 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 290 of 297 (434919)
11-18-2007 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by bluescat48
11-17-2007 11:39 PM


Re: Sticking to what we know
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by bluescat48, posted 11-17-2007 11:39 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1776 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 291 of 297 (437944)
12-02-2007 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by carini
02-19-2006 1:47 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by carini, posted 02-19-2006 1:47 AM carini has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by quasimotto, posted 12-02-2007 6:13 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1776 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 292 of 297 (437948)
12-02-2007 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by AZPaul3
04-05-2007 8:15 PM


Re: Stars?
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.


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

  
quasimotto
Junior Member (Idle past 4054 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 12-02-2007


Message 293 of 297 (437959)
12-02-2007 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by IamJoseph
12-02-2007 3:38 AM


"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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by IamJoseph, posted 12-02-2007 3:38 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by IamJoseph, posted 12-02-2007 7:31 AM quasimotto has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1776 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 294 of 297 (437964)
12-02-2007 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by quasimotto
12-02-2007 6:13 AM


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'].


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by quasimotto, posted 12-02-2007 6:13 AM quasimotto has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by quasimotto, posted 12-04-2007 5:41 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
quasimotto
Junior Member (Idle past 4054 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 12-02-2007


Message 295 of 297 (438334)
12-04-2007 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by IamJoseph
12-02-2007 7:31 AM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by IamJoseph, posted 12-02-2007 7:31 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by IamJoseph, posted 12-04-2007 7:34 AM quasimotto has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1776 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 296 of 297 (438349)
12-04-2007 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by quasimotto
12-04-2007 5:41 AM


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 message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by quasimotto, posted 12-04-2007 5:41 AM quasimotto has not yet responded

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1909
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 297 of 297 (438351)
12-04-2007 7:44 AM


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

Thanks everyone for participating. ;)


  
RewPrev1
...
1516171819
20
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019