Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" on astrophysics?
The Arachnophile
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 76 (9561)
05-13-2002 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Darwin Storm
03-16-2002 4:05 PM


Regarding creationist views on astrophysics I read an article on a crazy Norwegian creation site today which maintained that stellar evolution, novas and supernovas, galatic collisions, asteroids and other debris and generally all galatic "violence" were evidence of the great universal sin permeating the Universe! In other words it was not meant to be like that by God.
Is this an indication of what most creationist hold to be true, or...????
The Arachnophile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-16-2002 4:05 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by nator, posted 05-13-2002 10:35 AM The Arachnophile has not replied
 Message 33 by Philip, posted 05-14-2002 9:00 PM The Arachnophile has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 32 of 76 (9564)
05-13-2002 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by The Arachnophile
05-13-2002 5:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by The Arachnophile:
Regarding creationist views on astrophysics I read an article on a crazy Norwegian creation site today which maintained that stellar evolution, novas and supernovas, galatic collisions, asteroids and other debris and generally all galatic "violence" were evidence of the great universal sin permeating the Universe! In other words it was not meant to be like that by God.
Is this an indication of what most creationist hold to be true, or...????
The Arachnophile

I suppose that the great violence and huge explosions that occur on the Sun is because of man's sin, as well.
That belief is not one iota different from believing that Thor throws down lightning bolts or believing that the gods are angry when there is a drought.
I am so grateful that we have science. Otherwise, fear and superstition would rule the day.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by The Arachnophile, posted 05-13-2002 5:03 AM The Arachnophile has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by gene90, posted 05-15-2002 2:55 PM nator has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 33 of 76 (9652)
05-14-2002 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by The Arachnophile
05-13-2002 5:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by The Arachnophile:
that stellar evolution, novas and supernovas, galatic collisions, asteroids and other debris and generally all galatic "violence" were evidence of the great universal sin permeating the Universe!

--All such universal darkness, emptiness, chaos, and galactic entropic forces (per se) look pretty ‘cursed’, to various degrees at least wouldn’t you think? A lot of damaged-worthless substrates out there, no? A lot of nothing and nothingness. Seems like a valid hypothesis, this universal ‘curse’.
quote:
Originally posted by The Arachnophile:
In other words it was not meant to be like that by God.

The creationist model is: ‘Creation-Curse-Restoration’; did you not hear that? Shraf mentioned what appeared as a ‘redeeming’ aspects of a ‘violent’ sun. I.e., the sun, a worthless lake of fire ‘provides’ benefit as well. Do you not see that, scientifically.
quote:
Originally posted by The Arachnophile:
Is this an indication of what most creationist hold to be true, or...????

--Probably, yes.
[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by The Arachnophile, posted 05-13-2002 5:03 AM The Arachnophile has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 34 of 76 (9686)
05-15-2002 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by nator
05-13-2002 10:35 AM


One minute Creationists are claiming that there must be a Creator for the universe to be so orderly and predictable. The next minute Creationists are claiming that the violent, unpredictable universe needs a Creator to curse it so that it can be violent and unpredictable.
Does this curse-the-entire-universe-because-one-man-got-into-your-fruit-orchard issue raise questions regarding the nature of God to anyone else?
[This message has been edited by gene90, 05-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by nator, posted 05-13-2002 10:35 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Philip, posted 05-16-2002 1:06 AM gene90 has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 35 of 76 (9743)
05-16-2002 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by gene90
05-15-2002 2:55 PM


To Gene and all others:
--Note 'unpredictability' is a loaded term, filled with both ‘cursed’ and ‘redemptive’ connations. That vaporous molecules ‘unpredictably’ arrange to form air to breath is ‘redemptive’ (beneficial) to survival of most life-forms.
--But would someone help Gene, here? We’re waiting.
--He seems to imply that God has no right to form a vessel of destruction. Help him someone, to find fault with this creation(ist) mechanism.
--Gene (and others), did you miss the ‘redemptive’ data supporting the nature of God as ‘redeemer’, too? If so, kindly visit the thread entitled Only Christian ID Makes Logical Sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by gene90, posted 05-15-2002 2:55 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by gene90, posted 05-17-2002 6:12 PM Philip has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 36 of 76 (9893)
05-17-2002 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Philip
05-16-2002 1:06 AM


[QUOTE][b]That vaporous molecules ‘unpredictably’ arrange to form air to breath[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I'm sorry but I haven't any idea what you are talking about. "Vaporous" molecules "arrange" themselves to "form" air? Maybe you can make that clearer by defining words that I have placed in quotation marks and how they relate to our atmosphere?
[QUOTE][b]He seems to imply that God has no right to form a vessel ofYou recently posted a comment that the Creationists around here are off maturing. Well, I hope that as you mature your theology will mature as well, and your personal concept of God will lose this preschool "Smite them all!" mentality.
[QUOTE][B]--Gene (and others), did you miss the ‘redemptive’ data supporting the nature of God as ‘redeemer’, too?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
The nature of God as a redeemer is inconsistent with the nature of God as a childish curser of CreatioYou recently posted a comment that the Creationists around here are off maturing. Well, I hope that as you mature your theology will mature as well, and your personal concept of God will lose this preschool "Smite them all!" mentality.
[QUOTE][b]--Gene (and others), did you miss the ‘redemptive’ data supporting the nature of God as ‘redeemer’, too?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
The nature of God as a redeemer is inconsistent with the nature of God as a childish curser of CreatioT=Submit Reply concept of God is just or it is not.
I think your concept of God is terribly flawed because most *people* seem to have a greater capacity for forgiveness than your version of the perfect being. When was the last time somebody got shot stealing fruit in your hometown? And if that happened, would the shooter go unpunished? I hope not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Philip, posted 05-16-2002 1:06 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Philip, posted 05-17-2002 7:04 PM gene90 has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 37 of 76 (9895)
05-17-2002 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by gene90
05-17-2002 6:12 PM


[QUOTE][/b]
The nature of God as a redeemer is inconsistent with the nature of God as a childish curser of Creation...
I think your concept of God is terribly flawed because most *people* seem to have a greater capacity for forgiveness than your version of the perfect being. When was the last time somebody got shot stealing fruit in your hometown? And if that happened, would the shooter go unpunished? I hope not. [/B][/QUOTE]
--The nature of the ID is both ‘cursed’ and ‘redemptive’. Not only a naturalistic ‘curse’ upon all the creation, but biblically, a ‘cursing’ of his own Son it appears; for wretched ‘cursed’ sinners like you and I. A ‘hellish’ cursing for ‘demons’ for all time.
--‘Redeeming’ data far exceeds the ‘cursed’ data to ‘forgive’ ‘cursed’ creatures like you and I. You appear to ‘regard’ ‘forgiveness’ as ‘evident’ in people, to be greater than the ‘forgiveness’ of the ID’er! Well what about this?: One man’s curse (Christ’s) is potentially every man’s redemption/forgiveness, eternally. Is that enough forgiveness for you and I? Might not the creation righteously sustain (and thus empirically reflect) what you perceive as ‘childish’ eternal cursing by an all-righteous Creator.
--Next time I regard an AIDS victim, a drowned child (my own), victims of terrorism, etc., might I not observe the excellent ‘redemptive’ data to formulate a scientific theory of Salvation, based on these observation.
--Who are you and I to scientifically go against the observed ‘cursed’ and ‘redemption’ data we’re both grappling with? If my nature of the ID is such that it childishly avenges ‘minor’ transgressions against an infinitely holy ID, than who am I (the molded clay) to say to the Maker that requires justice and punishment, You could have been less childish by punishing less these vessels of wrath?
--Any other comments are welcome here.
[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-17-2002]
[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by gene90, posted 05-17-2002 6:12 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by wj, posted 05-17-2002 7:59 PM Philip has not replied
 Message 39 by gene90, posted 05-17-2002 8:56 PM Philip has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 76 (9897)
05-17-2002 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Philip
05-17-2002 7:04 PM


Redeeming data and cursed data? What on earth are you talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Philip, posted 05-17-2002 7:04 PM Philip has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 39 of 76 (9898)
05-17-2002 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Philip
05-17-2002 7:04 PM


[QUOTE][b]You appear to ‘regard’ ‘forgiveness’ as ‘evident’ in people, to be greater than the ‘forgiveness’ of the ID’er![/QUOTE]
[/b]
I have yet to hear of a fruit thief being punished by cursing the universe, except for the incident in Genesis.
You attribute everything bad in life as being a result of the Curse, some twisted kind of punishment on all of us for something we did not do. Not one of us here was in the Garden, we did not transgress God's law. Nor would a just God punish us as such. Let me repeat, to punish us for our own sins is fair, but to punish us for the sins of others is not. There is no curse on the Universe, and the redemption is for our personal transgressions. Because we make the prior assumption of a just God, there are no other possibilities.
[QUOTE][b]Is that enough forgiveness for you and I?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
If we believe that we are punished from the beginning for our own sins and not those of people who came long before us. But is it reasonable for us to be cursed for an act that is supposed to have happened thousands of years ago? The OT says that God curses the offspring of a sinner to the third or fourth generation (Numbers 14:18 and many other passages) unless you happen to be descended from either (1) a bastard (2) a Moabite (3) an Ammonite, for which a literal Bible apparently does not allow salvation, ever. (Deuteronomy 23:1-3). Mosaic Law forbids execution of sons for the sins of the father (why then does God do it? See 1 Timothy 1:16; 1 Peter 2:21). This whole concept of the universe and the entire human race being cursed for the action of one man is unfair and obviously wrong.
If you argue that we are punished for personal sins for knowing the difference between good and evil that position seems reasonable to me. But if you believe we are punished *because* we know the difference that position is difficult to accept.
[QUOTE][b]Next time I regard an AIDS victim, a drowned child (my own), victims of terrorism, etc., might I not observe the excellent ‘redemptive’ data to formulate a scientific theory of Salvation, based on these observation.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
No, because "cursed" and "redeemed" are not quantifiable and are subjective.
[QUOTE][b]than who am I (the molded clay) to say to the Maker that [/QUOTE]
[/b]
You're attempting to dodge the ethical implications here by pointing out the inferiority of mere mortals. You, as the molded clay, must consider the implications. Because if you are wrong, you are committing blasphemy. You do possess knowledge of good and evil, therefore you cannot duck your head into the sand and avoid the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Philip, posted 05-17-2002 7:04 PM Philip has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 76 (11643)
06-16-2002 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Darwin Storm
03-23-2002 9:32 PM


Just for the record, there is the 'created in place argument.' That light was created in transit so to speak. It didn't actually start at its star of apparent origin. I have no clue as to how something like this is supposed to be verifiable.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-23-2002 9:32 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Mike Holland, posted 10-17-2002 5:19 AM John has not replied

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 41 of 76 (20085)
10-17-2002 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by John
06-16-2002 12:01 PM


John, this silly one keeps popping up. It is actually the only way I can imagine to reconcile creationism with science - trees were created complete with tree-rings, Adam was created complete with a navel - and with memories of his 'childhood', the earth was created complete with fossils, etc.
But then one could argue that it was all created at midnight last night - we were created complete with 'memories' of our past lives, etc.
Of course, there is no way to prove it - or disprove it. That is the beauty of it. But then God, not Satan, is the great deceiver.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by John, posted 06-16-2002 12:01 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Mike Holland, posted 10-17-2002 5:29 AM Mike Holland has not replied

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 42 of 76 (20086)
10-17-2002 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Mike Holland
10-17-2002 5:19 AM


To returnn to the original discussion for a moment, about how we can see starlight (and galaxy-light). The sun may be only 8 light-minutes away, but the light rays crewated in the interior of the sun do not burst out in seconds - the sun is not transparent. A photon created in the centre of the sun is emitted, absorbed, re-emitted, etc, and slowly makes its way out in a random walk, averaging about 30,000 years (I quote from memory, but it is of this order) to escape the sun's surface. So if the sun were 600-10000 years old, it would still be dark, unless photons were created already in transit.
But this is all just theory (based on physics which has been tried and tested for the past century and more), so there is no reason why creationists should believe it.
Mike Holland.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Mike Holland, posted 10-17-2002 5:19 AM Mike Holland has not replied

  
bambooguy
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 76 (32908)
02-23-2003 1:13 AM


Darwin,
I am new to the list or I would have replied earlier. As you can tell, we creationists don't have our act together when it comes to cosmology. I know of one prominent creationist that said the second law of thermodynamics proves that stars can't form themselves, God had to make them personally. As a physicist such blatant disregard of science riles me, as a creationist it does even more.
I think that there is no real problem between cosmology and Christianity. They don't really contradict each other, cosmology says that the universe exists by this and that law and Christianity says God created those laws. Not very contradictory in my opinion.
So the problem between Cosmology and Creationists (not Creationism) lies in the interpretation of Genesis 1. Are you familiar with this passage? In the first two verses it says, 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters." This may be confusing to you since these verses appear to contradict 'literal' interpretations of this passage, because it seems clear that the planet we call Earth existed before the traditional 6 days of Genesis 1.
I think that the literal interpretation of this passage does not disagree with the science of cosmology. This chapter in Genesis deals exclusively with modifications to the planet 'Earth'. Just because God put humans here 6,000 yrs ago doesn't mean that the planet itself isn't older!
I think that this rift between cosmology and creationism is largely an internal problem, within Christianity. It allows atheists to poke fun at us, not because of the actual idea of creation but for our ludicrous ideas. Such disregard of scientific principles is not Christian. Christianity is rational, much more rational than science alone.
Evan

  
bambooguy
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 76 (32909)
02-23-2003 1:20 AM


Addendum:
Oh, now I know what YEC means!! I guess I would be both YEC and OEC (old earth creation). The planet is older, but the life & humans are young. Get my drift?
Evan

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 45 of 76 (32910)
02-23-2003 4:02 AM


Great. You accept the evidence for age in the one case, but reject it in the other. How do you choose?
You do not provide any arguments for your views, but simply believe what you choose, what you think fits with your interpretation of genesis.
So there is nothing to discuss.
Mike

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024