How do creationists explain stars?

I'm not a physicists, so any out there up to date please correct this, but I'm fairly certain what I'm about to say is right.Ever hear of E = mc^2? With that simple formula, you can create energy from mass, or mass from energy. That whole first law only applies to limited systems (as in size, not whether they are closed or open). Sadly enough, I don't remember where I heard (or read) this exactly, but I have a vague feeling it was at livescience or from a science jounral, like Scientific American.Point is, energy can be made, not just converted to other forms of energy.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

good point. I'll have to see where that article was, so I can better explain it (or so you can better correct it).

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

So essentially, we are nothing but energy, if I understand it correctly. Now that's wierd. Nothing but a 150 lb bag of energy, I am.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I hope your joking. Put a comma inbetween Darwin and geologist, and it reads: before Darwin, geologists . . .Even without the comma it's safe to assume that the term geologist is separate from Darwin, because otherwise the sentence makes no sense, as there is no "the" before "Darwin", and even the sentence wouldn't be too clear.ABE:it would help if I read the full thread before posting that. Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Not to draw on a too technical point--wasn't it Descarte who developed rationalism as a philosophy? If I remember correctly, this "rationalism" holds that thinkgs are known "a priorily". Empericism relies on experience, in that knowledge in "post priori".Now, if you are talking about being a rational being, as in one using logic, then that holds true for science.But the philosophy of rationalism is based off of "a priori", which while not entirely contrary to science, isn't how our science is based.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Stupid IE crashed before I could submit my post.a priori has no connotations with a "moral voice".It simply means that we know things without, or before, experiencing them.There are many possiblities, such as knowing God, grammer, and whatnot.A good example would be this.
Person A: "I know the color blue"
person B: "Have you ever experienced blue?
person A: "no".Personally, I find empericism to have the better argument. Experience is required to know that thing. How do I know God w/o experiencing Him? How do I know colors? The person above looks a little foolish, but . . .

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

sorry, this makes absolutely no sense. Can you expain? I read his post. Didn't have anything about what you are writing here. So please, expain.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

you are quite wrong on this account, Z. I love a challenge, and I am not dishonest, under handed, or hateful (to the best of my ability). There are very few here on EvC who are.We don't silence those who believe differently from us. We ask questions, and when people make erroneous statements (like 2 + 2 = 5), we try to correct their understanding.You have misunderstood a whole group of people. Try not to do that again.