Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Doesn't the distance of stars disprove the young earth theory?
misha
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 14 of 138 (549056)
03-03-2010 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nlerd
03-03-2010 3:46 AM


This is precisely the question I asked myself in my high school physics class that pushed me on a long path from YEC->OEC->ID->Science.
The situation that arrises is that in order to believe in a young earth someone must either deny mathematics and physics OR they must believe that God created everything with an appearance of age.
Many would rather say that God placed all the photons from far away stars in transit when he created the heavens. However, this would make God decietful, like someone peddling forged antiques.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nlerd, posted 03-03-2010 3:46 AM nlerd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Flyer75, posted 03-03-2010 8:56 PM misha has replied
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-05-2010 1:39 AM misha has not replied

  
misha
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 21 of 138 (549131)
03-04-2010 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Flyer75
03-03-2010 8:56 PM


Flyer75 writes:
. . . but whether man is choosing science or God. That's why theistic evolutionists really baffle me. I can understand the atheist more then I can the Christian who feels the need to have science prove "God" and creation. . .
But I, as well as most other theistic evolutionists, don't feel the need to have science prove "God." I need science to understand natural phenomena. I need God to understand things beyond the natural. Of course we can not use the natural sciences to prove the existence of something supernatural. And the existence of the supernatural is more of a philosophical question than a naturalistic one. Hence, philosophy should be used to question the supernatural and methodological naturalism should be used to question the natural. And honestly, I'm still too young and not well read enough to completely understand if and when the two intersect. That is why I believe faith is an evidence of things unseen and science is the methodological collection of evidence of things seen.
The ID crowd and the Creationists (young earth and old) are the ones claiming that science must hold to their current beliefs of God. For most theistic evolutionists God is not a cosmic tinkerer constantly adjusting his little machine in order to fix it. Most theistic evolutionists have a view of God that sees Him creating a masterful plan without the need to tinker.
This doesn't mean that I'm a determinist either. There is no need to say that God demanded that the higher lifeforms capable of pondering questions of His existence needed to be primates or even mammals. But I do think that many evolutionists agree that at some point, even if it took another billion years, our niche would be filled. Maybe this makes me more of a naturalist and deist when it comes to natural phenomena. However, I still feel that God acts in this world, although rarely. I believe those actions even more rarely transpire in the physical world that we can observe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Flyer75, posted 03-03-2010 8:56 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
misha
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 23 of 138 (549136)
03-04-2010 8:56 AM


NOW! back to the topic at hand.
The only other creationist explanation I have heard about starlight travel has been about euclidean geometry of the universe.
A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem - creation.com
I haven't had the opportunity to disect this argument yet and could probably use some help from the more intellectually inclined physisicts present.

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-04-2010 11:20 AM misha has not replied

  
misha
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 30 of 138 (549165)
03-04-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taq
03-04-2010 11:44 AM


Re: Evaluating the evidence.
Taq writes:
We see the same problem with Humphrey's model. While it attempts to explain the starlight problem it completely avoids the geologic problems where age is quite apparent.
I didn't realize at the time that my earlier post was concerning the same fringe creationist explanation.
Humphreys is claiming a Euclidean geometry to the universe rather than a Reimannean. Even Hugh Ross of the creationist outlet Reasons to Believe debunks Humphreys' papers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 03-04-2010 11:44 AM Taq 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