Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Blue Stars Confirm Recent Creation
Institute for Creation Research ^ | September 2012 | Jason Lisle, Ph.D.

Posted on 09/01/2012 7:28:34 PM PDT by lasereye

Orion is one of the most well-known and easily recognized constellations of the winter sky. The three bright blue stars in Orion’s belt seem to draw our attention instantly.1 Such stars are a strong confirmation of the biblical timescale.

Most stars generate energy by the process of nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium in the stellar core. This is a very efficient power source. Theoretically, a star like the sun has enough hydrogen in its core to keep it burning for ten billion years. But that’s not the case with blue stars.

Blue stars are always more massive than the sun. This means they have more hydrogen available as fuel. Yet, blue stars are much brighter than the sun; some are over 200,000 times brighter!2 They are “burning” their fuel much more quickly than the sun, and therefore cannot last billions of years. Based on their observed luminosity, the most massive blue stars cannot last even one million years before running out of fuel.

None of this is a problem for the biblical timescale of about 6,000 years for the age of the universe. But if the universe were 13.7 billion years old, as secularists allege, then it really shouldn’t have blue stars. Yet blue stars abound in every known spiral galaxy. It seems that these galaxies cannot be even one million years old.

Secular astronomers must assume that new blue stars have formed recently to replace all those that have burned out over deep time. They claim that some nebulae (clouds of hydrogen gas) eventually collapse under their own gravity to form a new star. Some astronomy textbooks even have pictures of nebulae labeled as “star-forming regions” or “stellar nurseries,” as if star formation were an observed fact. But it is not. Star formation has never been observed.

Star formation is problematic at best.3 Gas is very resistant to being compressed. On earth, gas always fills its container. In space, there is no container. So gas expands indefinitely. If the gas could be forced into a sphere that is very small (in comparison to a nebula) such as the sun, then the gas would be held together by its own gravity. However, in a typical nebula, the gas pressure far exceeds the miniscule force of gravity. Secular astronomers now believe that external forces, such as a shockwave from an exploding star, are necessary in most cases to trigger star formation.4 Observations confirm that gas clouds expand; they do not appear to collapse into stars.

Even if we could compress the nebula sufficiently to the point that the force of gravity was strong enough to prevent the gas from expanding, other effects would kick in, thereby preventing the formation of a star. Clouds of gas always have a weak magnetic field, which would be concentrated if the cloud were compressed. This dramatically increases the field strength. The magnetic pressure would halt a shrinking cloud and drive it to re-expand.5 It’s a bit like trying to push the like poles of two magnets together.

Also, gas clouds always have a small amount of angular momentum; they rotate, if ever so slowly. But much like a skater who pulls her arms and legs in as she spins, a collapsing gas cloud would spin-up dramatically. The “centrifugal force” generated would tend to prevent any further collapse. Gas pressure, magnetic field strength, and angular momentum all work to prevent star formation. From a scientific perspective, naturalistic star formation appears unlikely at best. The evidence seems far more consistent with the biblical account—it appears that stars were supernaturally created only thousands of years ago. With blue stars scattered across the cosmos, our universe certainly “looks” young.

References


1. Going from east to west, the stars are named Alnitak, Alnilam, and Mintaka.
2. Alnilam—the center star in Orion’s belt—is a blue supergiant with a luminosity that is 275,000 times greater than the sun.
3. Wiebe, D. Z. et al. 2008. Problems of Star Formation Theory and Prospects of Submillimeter Observations. Cornell University Library. Posted on arxiv.org July 21, 2008, accessed July 13, 2012.
4. But, of course, this would require a previous star, and so it cannot be used to explain the formation of the first stars.
5. Hartmann, L. 2008. Accretion Processes in Star Formation, 2nd edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 57-58.


* Dr. Lisle is Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in Astrophysics from the University of Colorado.


TOPICS: Astronomy; Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: astronomy; creation; evolution; notasciencetopic; stars; strawman; theology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-103 next last
To: lasereye

Sirius was red back in BC.

It is now white.

Word.


51 posted on 09/01/2012 9:15:54 PM PDT by ROTB (Live holy, forgive all & pray in Jesus' name. Trust He is willing & able & eager to ANSWER BIG!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: albionin
I don’t assume anything, that is what you are doing.

I've done no such thing. All I've done is ask you a couple of simple, reasonable questions. I assume nothing.

Infinity is a number larger than any number you can imagine. In fact it is a number with no specific value. Hence it has no identity therefore it does not exist. I don’t believe in an infinite regression.

So, you don't believe in infinity. You've answered one of my questions. Which leads me to ask the other question again: Didn't it have to get up to speed at some point in time? Did it for some period of time get up to a higher speed before it slowed down again to its steady current rate? How do you know?

I’ll ask you to answer the same question. What evidence is there to believe the speed of light is variable?

And I'll repeat the answer I already gave you. I don't know. I wasn't around since the beginning to observe how fast light was traveling.

52 posted on 09/01/2012 9:16:20 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

That is a very interesting way of looking at stars. I never thought of it that way. The fact remains though that you are coming up with an arbitrary explanation to back up an arbitrary claim. There is no reason to believe this happened other than an unfalsifiable claim in a book. There is no reason to claim that the evidence we have so far is invalid and the bible account of the creation is true.


53 posted on 09/01/2012 9:20:46 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

http://phys.org/news195999802.html

So much for the claim that scientists have never witnessed a star being born. And being only 800 light years away it is only 800 years old.


54 posted on 09/01/2012 9:27:41 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tjd1454
probability theory (I am here taking your word for it) would of necessity DEMAND that the monkeys eventually not only type out a PRECISE copy of War and Peace, but (given enough time, of course) EVERY OTHER great book of Western, or Eastern, or whatever literature. This will, it is understood, require quite a lot of time.

That is exactly what the theory states. And yes, for a precise copy of just *one* piece of literature to be produced, would take an amount of time much closer to infinity than to any number our minds can even begin to comprehend.

Now you know well and good in your heart that such things cannot be randomly generated

That is incorrect.

even by a super computer working at warp speed to approximate millions and even billions of years.

This is correct. We don't have nearly the computing power yet. The numbers are HUGE. Take a very simple case:

Just to randomly generate a four-letter word like "LOVE". The number of four-letter permutations using our 26-letter alphabet is already huge:

26 possibilities for the first letter, 26 for the second, 26 for the third and 26 for the fourth. Or 26 x 26 x 26 x 26, giving 456,976 permutations, only one of which is "LOVE."

Simple enough for our computers today. But extrapolating that out to even a short children's book would make the number of permutations astronomical.

The whole point of the "monkey-literature" example isn't to say, as apparently some people hear are thinking, that something like this is likely to happen in our lifetime.

It is simply a curious fact, and a mathematical certainty, that given enough time (and yes, this means something approaching infinity) all possible permutations of a given set will occur.

Keep in mind, my whole point was that the "monkey" thing did not come from evolutionary theory, but rather from probability theory. Speaking of which, let me throw another one on:

If it were possible to sit 456,976 monkeys down in front their own keyboards, consisting of just 26 keys representing our English alphabet, and have each monkey type out four purely random letters, it is highly probable that one of them would just by chance type "LOVE".

55 posted on 09/01/2012 9:32:00 PM PDT by kevao (Is your ocean any lower than it was four years ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: stormhill

Well, my first pass seems to have generated a novel about The Fonz .... it spit out “AYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY” .... I must have a bug :p.

In all seriousness, it is impossible to create a true random number generator on a computer. One can create psuedorandom generators, but there will always be an underlying pattern to the numbers generated. Some generators I’ve used have also sampled the outside world via temperature and optical sensors .... still, its not “truly” random. LFSRs are among the worst generators, but are commonly used in applications where randomness isnt exactly critical as they are simple and cheap in either software or hardware designs :).


56 posted on 09/01/2012 9:37:46 PM PDT by edh (I need a better tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: stormhill
Here's an excellent test for probability: have your computer generate a trillion characters and see how many best-sellers we can cull from it.

Someone will do it someday, when we have the processing power. But one trillion characters wouldn't even come close to being a sufficient sample. For example, the probability of randomly generating *just* the 26 letters of the alphabet, in order, would be:

26 x 25 x 24 x 23 x 22 etc., which would be:

1 / 4 times 10 to the 26th power.

57 posted on 09/01/2012 9:40:30 PM PDT by kevao (Is your ocean any lower than it was four years ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

“So, you don’t believe in infinity. You’ve answered one of my questions. Which leads me to ask the other question again: Didn’t it have to get up to speed at some point in time? Did it for some period of time get up to a higher speed before it slowed down again to its steady current rate? How do you know?”

The reason I know is that light has never been observed to go faster than C. There is no reason to believe that light was faster for some time before it slowed down to its steady current speed. And light would have to be traveling several orders of magnitude faster to cross 13.7 billion light years in 6,000 years. Some force would have to act on it to slow it down and it would have to do it uniformly across the whole universe. If you say that God created the light instantaneously on the way here at a point where it would arrive at the moment of creation 6000 years ago that is an arbitrary claim. There is no reason to even consider it.


58 posted on 09/01/2012 9:43:34 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

I’m sorry you are having so much difficulty reconciling faith and reason for yourself.


59 posted on 09/01/2012 9:43:54 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edh
it is impossible to create a true random number generator on a computer

I had this in the back of my mind when I mentioned "intelligence." But my real objection is the idea that randomness leads to chaos, not order.

Still LOL about the Fonz!

60 posted on 09/01/2012 9:45:19 PM PDT by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: edh

I’ve seen random “dice” generators that seem to work. As you would expect, after only 1,000 rolls or so, the frequency distribution can be quite skewed, as it usually is in real life, btw. But after you get up there, beyond millions of rolls, each of the numbers consistently converge on it’s 16.66% theoretical probability.

Would your random number generator not do this?


61 posted on 09/01/2012 9:46:00 PM PDT by kevao (Is your ocean any lower than it was four years ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: albionin
The reason I know is that light has never been observed to go faster than C. There is no reason to believe that light was faster for some time before it slowed down to its steady current speed.

If you see a car going 50 miles an hour, do you assume it has always traveled at that speed?

62 posted on 09/01/2012 9:48:09 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Apples and oranges. Cars can travel at any speed up to a certain maximum withing the parameters of the motor. Light however does not. It can slow down slightly as it moves through glass or water, but it cannot travel faster than C. If cars were known to travel at a constant speed such as C and so reliably so that we could use that speed as a constant in mathematical equations then there would be no reason to expect the car to change speeds when we are not looking. And neither is there a reason to believe that light is breaking the laws of physics when we are not looking.


63 posted on 09/01/2012 10:03:47 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: albionin

You’ve now turned your attention to the obvious physical limitations of cars, rather than to the concept of speed.

If the physical universe, which includes light, had a beginning, would not light have had to accelerate to get to its current speed? Or did it just get to its current speed magically?


64 posted on 09/01/2012 10:11:07 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
If the physical universe, which includes light, had a beginning, would not light have had to accelerate to get to its current speed? Or did it just get to its current speed magically?

No, it doesn't "need" to accelerate, and no, it's not magical. Light, when emitted, propagates at the speed of light instantly, without any "acceleration." That is part and parcel of quantum physics.
65 posted on 09/01/2012 10:13:29 PM PDT by Oceander (TINSTAAFL - Mother Nature Abhors a Free Lunch almost as much as She Abhors a Vacuum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

You misunderstand either me or the article you cited. The latter states that there are three stages to the supernova remnant. (The “SNR.”) While the third is the only stage of the three that takes millions of years, what I was talking about was how long a star takes to become a supernova in the first place, which is to say, prior to stage 1 of the three stages of SNRs. So the fact that only stage 3 SNRs last millions of years has no bearing whatsoever on how long stars shine before going supernova, which can be billions of years in the case of stars only slightly above the Chandrasekhar limit. And yet some of those stars have obliged us by blowing up, which means either that they have been shining for a lot longer than 6000 years, or The Creator created them just ready to explode, as well as all the light-years of light, between us and them, of the pending explosion. Just to deceive us?


66 posted on 09/01/2012 10:21:37 PM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

There are a lot of things that depend on the speed of light. Such as what the spectra that different atoms would emit if they were heated. Yet the spectra for distant stars (that is, the light that was emitted long, long ago) has recognizably the same patterns as what we see today, except for a Doppler shift that we understand as having to do with the expansion of the universe. If the speed of light changed during that time, what spectra would look like back then wouldn’t match up so well with what we see today. Furthermore, if it once changed, why should it be so stable today? If can be measured so precisely the speed is now defined; that it doesn’t vary to 15 decimal places can be ascertained today. To within that tolerance, it does not.


67 posted on 09/01/2012 10:28:11 PM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Oceander
instantly

Or, perhaps, a shorter period of time than is discernible by human means?

68 posted on 09/01/2012 10:30:22 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I was showing how the comparison wasn’t valid. The question has to be answered what reason is there to believe that light was ever traveling faster in order to travel 13.7 billion years in 6,000. Light would have to be zipping along at more than 2 million times C and then slam on the brakes at the last minute. That is an extraordinary claim and has to be proved.


69 posted on 09/01/2012 10:31:01 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Furthermore, if it once changed, why should it be so stable today?

Just because something is stable and steady today it doesn't follow that it was always that way.

Think of striking a match. When you do so the chemical properties cause the light and heat to flare greatly, before settling down to a steady, relatively stable flame.

If your perspective was limited only to a tiny portion of the time when the flame was steady and stable, would you be correct in your assumption that it was always the way you have observed it?

70 posted on 09/01/2012 10:41:14 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

The “operation” of matter and life, down to the atomic level, depends on certain constants.

Change those constants, and you change the way the Universe works. Including unimportant things like chemistry, and electrical conductivity. And outside of a surprisingly narrow range. . . life is impossible. . .


71 posted on 09/01/2012 10:41:19 PM PDT by Salgak (Acme Lasers presents: The Energizer Border. I **DARE** you to cross it. . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: albionin
That is an extraordinary claim and has to be proved.

I haven't made any claim. All I have done is ask questions.

Light would have to be zipping along at more than 2 million times C

Do you know of any provable physical limitations on the speed of light?

72 posted on 09/01/2012 10:44:41 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I admit measurements of the present make no strong statement about the past, however, within your analogy the flame of a match, after settling down, fluctuates an awful lot on the scale of 10^-15 of its total heat output. But the speed of light does not. Not only would you have to come up with a lot of wild physics to allow c to vary by many orders of magnitude over 6000 y, you’d also have to come up with a mechanism to get it to chill out to the tune of .000000000000001 or less after these quite wild changes. Good luck!


73 posted on 09/01/2012 10:45:15 PM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Salgak
The “operation” of matter and life, down to the atomic level, depends on certain constants.

Change those constants, and you change the way the Universe works. Including unimportant things like chemistry, and electrical conductivity. And outside of a surprisingly narrow range. . . life is impossible. . .

Some good points. But when we're talking about a possible change in the speed of light, perhaps it happened before life existed on Earth, eh?

74 posted on 09/01/2012 10:49:43 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

You would be if the flame behaved exactly in every way like a photon. If the flame doesn’t then what is the basis for the comparison?

You keep evading the question? You are proposing that the laws of physics governing photons are not absolutes. the Onus is on you to prove it and not on others to prove a negative. This is simple logic.

You will question everything except the story of the creation. Do you mean that the laws of physics are mutable but the arbitrary claims of genesis are not?


75 posted on 09/01/2012 10:53:23 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

You’re getting hung up on the physical properties of a match in the same way the other poster got hung up on the physical properties of a car. That’s not the point. The point is your very limited human perspective, the tiny window of time you, or men of scientific minds, have had available to you to observe.

And, by the way, I never suggested variations in the speed of light over the last 6000 years.


76 posted on 09/01/2012 10:55:03 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: albionin
You are proposing that the laws of physics governing photons are not absolutes.

I've done no such thing. I've simply pointed out the obvious fact that you cannot prove they have always stayed exactly the same via observation. You haven't been around since the beginning.

77 posted on 09/01/2012 11:00:01 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

“That is an extraordinary claim and has to be proved.”

I haven’t made any claim. All I have done is ask questions.

“Light would have to be zipping along at more than 2 million times c.”

Do you know of any provable physical limitations on the speed of light?

___________________________________________________________

The claim is implicit in your questions.

General Relativity is the physical limitation on the speed of light.


78 posted on 09/01/2012 11:00:43 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: albionin

Enough fun for one night. Time to hit the sack.

Thanks for the interesting conversation.

Good night.


79 posted on 09/01/2012 11:01:53 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Furthermore, if it once changed, why should it be so stable today?

There's a reason. Insha'Allah. Yours not to reason why.

80 posted on 09/01/2012 11:04:51 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Monarchy is the one system of government where power is exercised for the good of all - Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: albionin
General Relativity is the physical limitation on the speed of light.

The theory concerns the known physical universe as it exists right now.

It seems wrong to me to assume that it has always been exactly the same. And unprovable, since it can't be observed or reproduced.

Good night.

81 posted on 09/01/2012 11:06:55 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

You keep asking all these perhaps and might it be possible questions. Can’t you think in principles. The answer to all of these hypothetical questions is the same. Prove it. Existence exists. Truths are absolutes.

At one time man believed, wrongly, that the Earth was flat. Within the context of the knowledge available to man at the time there was some evidence but not enough evidence to conclude the Earth was flat. When man advanced a little and was able to measure and prove that the Earth was actually round, this new knowledge did not overturn an absolute truth but a false conclusion. But now we have proven with mathematics that the Earth is round and we have also flown out into space and proved it by perception. In the same manner man has proven the constancy of C. By the nature of the universe the fact that the Earth is round is an absolute. We are not at some point in the future going to make some discovery that overturns that truth and makes the Earth flat again.

It is the same with light. You could say that monkeys with tennis rackets are out there in space doing backhands to speed up photons and then jellyfish are lining up to slow the photons back down. The answer to all such suggestions is the same. Prove it.


82 posted on 09/01/2012 11:16:47 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

You are guilty of the fallacy of rewriting reality.


83 posted on 09/01/2012 11:28:30 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

The theory concerns the known physical universe as it exists right now.

It seems wrong to me to assume that it has always been exactly the same. And unprovable, since it can’t be observed or reproduced.
____________________________________________________________-

The reason you are having trouble is that you are denying the existence of an objective reality. That A is not A.


84 posted on 09/01/2012 11:45:07 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: albionin
That is a very interesting way of looking at stars. I never thought of it that way. The fact remains though that you are coming up with an arbitrary explanation to back up an arbitrary claim. There is no reason to believe this happened other than an unfalsifiable claim in a book. There is no reason to claim that the evidence we have so far is invalid and the bible account of the creation is true.

Do you even know what the Bible account of creation is, I mean literally is? There is not one word or hint or suggestion the heavens and earth of Genesis 1:1 are young. AND Genesis 1:2 describe a complete destruction of this earth even to saying it was flooded. Moses does not address the specifics of this, although he does point to the source by using the phrase 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil.'

Literal evidence does not conflict with the literal words of the Bible...

85 posted on 09/01/2012 11:46:54 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Please help Todd Akin defeat Claire and the GOP-e send money!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: albionin
I don’t assume anything

LOL! You're the first. No one else has ever been able to achieve that but God.

86 posted on 09/02/2012 12:04:39 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

“Do you even know what the Bible account of creation is, I mean literally is? There is not one word or hint or suggestion the heavens and earth of Genesis 1:1 are young. AND Genesis 1:2 describe a complete destruction of this earth even to saying it was flooded. Moses does not address the specifics of this, although he does point to the source by using the phrase ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil.’

Literal evidence does not conflict with the literal words of the Bible...”

The premise of the opening post is that the Universe is young and conforms to the account of Genesis. So the opening poster thinks that Genesis does.

Yes I have read the bible account many times. It does say that God created the heavens and the earth is 6 days. It is very specific that there was morning and there was evening each day. If the bible did not say that the heavens and the earth are young then there would be no reason to try and reconcile the bible account with the now known fact that the earth is in the neighborhood of 4.5 billion years old by claiming that the days mentioned in genesis 1:1 are not literal days. What reason is there to conclude this? It does not say anything of the kind. Either Genesis can be taken literally or it must be interpreted. That would mean different people deciding it means different things which is exactly the situation you see today. So your assertion is false.


87 posted on 09/02/2012 12:18:42 AM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: albionin
The premise of the opening post is that the Universe is young and conforms to the account of Genesis. So the opening poster thinks that Genesis does.

But that is not what the Bible literally says or even hints.

Yes I have read the bible account many times. It does say that God created the heavens and the earth is 6 days. It is very specific that there was morning and there was evening each day. If the bible did not say that the heavens and the earth are young then there would be no reason to try and reconcile the bible account with the now known fact that the earth is in the neighborhood of 4.5 billion years old by claiming that the days mentioned in genesis 1:1 are not literal days. What reason is there to conclude this? It does not say anything of the kind. Either Genesis can be taken literally or it must be interpreted. That would mean different people deciding it means different things which is exactly the situation you see today. So your assertion is false

Moses does not tell us how long those days of creation were, but Peter sure does. IIPeter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing,

that one day is with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Not a very difficult concept to discern that those days of creation amounted to thousands of years instead of what we now call literal 24/7 days.

It is flesh man that makes the claim of a young earth and it sure does not come from the WORD. The literal evidence demonstrates without question this earth is very very old... Genesis 1:2 describes that earth age that then was, was destroyed nothing survived. Again, IIPeter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of,

that by the word of God the heavens were of OLD, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

7 But the heavens and the earth which are NOW, by the same world are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

God gave the interpretation, planted throughout His Word by His elected holy prophets. Look how long Methuselah lived 969 years, not quite a 'day' with the Lord...

Genesis 6:3 And the LORD said, "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his *days* shall be an hundred and twenty years...

Notice it says man's days, not God's days.

88 posted on 09/02/2012 12:33:41 AM PDT by Just mythoughts (Please help Todd Akin defeat Claire and the GOP-e send money!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

If a day to god is 1000 years then that would mean the creation took 6 thousand years plus 1000 years to rest plus the time from Adam to the present that is still far far less than 13.5 billion years.


89 posted on 09/02/2012 12:57:25 AM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: albionin
If a day to god is 1000 years then that would mean the creation took 6 thousand years plus 1000 years to rest plus the time from Adam to the present that is still far far less than 13.5 billion years.

No. Genesis 1:1 is a declaration... no date or 'time' is associated with the when the beginning was or how long from the creation of the heavens and the earth until the devil rebelled. That is Genesis 1:2, describing the rebellion of the devil, whose position of being "anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so; thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire...... Ezekiel 28:14

The devil was sentenced to death, he is the only named entity that has already received that judgment.

Actually, there are '8' days of creation. God rested the 7th day, and then there was no man to till the ground... Genesis 2:5.... Does not know history record, that agriculture was not common until after the 'hunter gatherers' age?

90 posted on 09/02/2012 1:09:35 AM PDT by Just mythoughts (Please help Todd Akin defeat Claire and the GOP-e send money!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

Please restrain your leaps of illogic.


91 posted on 09/02/2012 1:52:57 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL WASHINGTON! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevao
If it were possible to sit 456,976 monkeys down in front their own keyboards, consisting of just 26 keys representing our English alphabet, and have each monkey type out four purely random letters, it is highly probable that one of them would just by chance type "LOVE".

Even if that were true, applied to evolutionary development, it would surely require not billions but surely trillions upon trillions of years.

I recently heard of a scientist likening the workings of a "simple" cell to that of a vast city, with all of the endless complexity. He concluded by admitting that we probably understand only about 1 percent of what goes on within a cell.

Given that the most basic building block of the unfathomable complexity of life is in itself infinitely more complex than a trifle such as "War and Peace," one would think that we are talking about - as I suggested - time requirements on an order vastly greater than imagined by evolutionists.

From my perspective, such complexity requires what the ancients via Thomas Aquinas called a "Prime Mover" - the formative cause behind all things. One classic argument for the existence of God used, e.g., with devastating force by Bishop Copleston against Bertrand Russel in their classic debate was the argument from contingency: the idea that everything must have a sufficient cause.

The only remaining question, in my mind, is whether God "used" evolutionary process to create the world, a question answered by the philosopher theologian Francis Schaeffer, who spoke of "the ghost in the machine."

According to Schaeffer, one may postulate that there exists a "ghost" that is actually making the "machine" (evolution) work. A scientist, however, will look bemusedly upon such superstition as totally unnecessary. Why? Because science can fully explicate how the machine works without recourse to any "ghost."

Similarly, a Christian who accepts evolution as God's creative "mechanism" has unwittingly made God superfluous.

92 posted on 09/02/2012 2:42:51 AM PDT by tjd1454
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: stormhill

If you haven’t read it, I’d recommend you look up “The Age of the Universe” by former MIT physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder (he has a website), in which he does a good job of reconciling Biblical creation and the Big Bang. Fascinating stuff.


93 posted on 09/02/2012 3:16:23 AM PDT by Hootowl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

Scientists hypothesize circumstances and processes that explain or at least are consistent with everything that can be observed, and even which predict things not observed yet. Contrary to your statement. That is what they do. Hiding behind the fog of “It’s God’s will” is not useful; at least lasereye is attempting an alternative explanation, flawed as it may be.


94 posted on 09/02/2012 8:00:40 AM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

No. Genesis 1:1 is a declaration... no date or ‘time’ is associated with the when the beginning was or how long from the creation of the heavens and the earth until the devil rebelled. That is Genesis 1:2, describing the rebellion of the devil, whose position of being “anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so; thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire...... Ezekiel 28:14

The devil was sentenced to death, he is the only named entity that has already received that judgment.

Actually, there are ‘8’ days of creation. God rested the 7th day, and then there was no man to till the ground... Genesis 2:5.... Does not know history record, that agriculture was not common until after the ‘hunter gatherers’ age?

___________________________________________________________

You are rewriting reality. It clearly states that man was created on the 6th day.

There are many many people who do believe that the earth was created in 6 days. They interpret it literally. All of this argument and disagreement among Christians kind of makes my point that the bible is not the word of God. Would the word of God need to be interpreted and argued about every which way from Sunday? No if God is rational and wants us to know the truth then his word would be clear and unambiguous. The reader would not have to go and study numerous translations and the original works in Hebrew and study styles of ancient writing to determine if something is poetry or allegory or a historical account.

If you are coming from a position of faith then the base of your knowledge is belief. A belief or a feeling is not a means of cognition. It’s subjective. To start from an arbitrary claim taken on faith is irrational.

If you are rational then your knowledge must start from Existence exists as an axiom. An axiom is a self evident truth that can not be broken down further. It is a primary and an absolute. It can’t be questioned, it must be either accepted or rejected. A belief in an arbitrary claim or a feeling or an intuition is not an axiom. It can be questioned and must be questioned before it can be considered knowledge.

So you can quote scripture and tell me I don’t know what it really says or I haven’t studied it in the Original Language but the fact remains that all of it is made up of arbitrary claims and the argument for it consists of “prove it is not so”.


95 posted on 09/02/2012 9:59:05 AM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
Please restrain your leaps of illogic.

What are you talking about?

96 posted on 09/02/2012 10:36:20 AM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: albionin
You are rewriting reality. It clearly states that man was created on the 6th day.

I did not write or rewrite anything. I never said that male and female were not created on the 6th day. Obviously they were else how could Genesis 2:4 state "These are THE GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND OF THE EARTH (caps are not mine) when they were created, in the *day* that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

5 (A very long verse) And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:

for the LORD God had not cause it to rain upon the earth, AND (my caps) there was NOT (my caps) a man to till the ground.

I did not write this nor am I rewriting anything. DNA all on its own demonstrates that not all flesh can come from only two people. People who claim that the literal WORD conflicts with the literal discovered evidence are out to lunch!

There are many many people who do believe that the earth was created in 6 days. They interpret it literally. All of this argument and disagreement among Christians kind of makes my point that the bible is not the word of God. Would the word of God need to be interpreted and argued about every which way from Sunday? No if God is rational and wants us to know the truth then his word would be clear and unambiguous. The reader would not have to go and study numerous translations and the original works in Hebrew and study styles of ancient writing to determine if something is poetry or allegory or a historical account.

And you have the God given right to believe whatever you choose. But God is not the fault or the problem, flesh beings are when they ignore what is literally written.

If you are coming from a position of faith then the base of your knowledge is belief. A belief or a feeling is not a means of cognition. It’s subjective. To start from an arbitrary claim taken on faith is irrational.

The truth and the literal evidence and/or FACTS do not bother me... I was raised in a religion of what the hierarchy of a denomination said God said... Now if those dinos roamed this earth during Noah's time then Noah would have made room for them on that ark. The ark was not about destroying the animals, but those that polluted all but Noah's pedigree, since the Adam's bloodline, was predestined to be that to the birth of Christ. And I did not write that nor am I attempting to rewrite anything.

If you are rational then your knowledge must start from Existence exists as an axiom. An axiom is a self evident truth that can not be broken down further. It is a primary and an absolute. It can’t be questioned, it must be either accepted or rejected. A belief in an arbitrary claim or a feeling or an intuition is not an axiom. It can be questioned and must be questioned before it can be considered knowledge.

This earth is filled with all manner of evidence that something catastrophic happened long ago on this earth. Finds of that 'age' that was are everywhere. So Christ said in Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.

That by necessity would include a 6,000 year old earth. Christ and Paul point to the overthrow - casting down of the old dragon before man/soul/spirit was placed in flesh bodies... Some scribe along the way used the phrase 'foundation of this world'. It takes far more faith to accept either evolution or a young earth than to find the instruction planted throughout the WORD is rational.

So you can quote scripture and tell me I don’t know what it really says or I haven’t studied it in the Original Language but the fact remains that all of it is made up of arbitrary claims and the argument for it consists of “prove it is not so”.

Because of 6,000 year old earth claims, alll peoples came from only two people, evolution, and, and, and, and, I too twenty plus years ago consider the Bible to have become the translation of men for the purpose to cause unbelief. As I said above you have the God given right to choose whatever you choose to believe. But you have no credibility claiming God elected any of His holy prophets to write down this earth is a mere 6,000 years.

97 posted on 09/02/2012 10:50:53 AM PDT by Just mythoughts (Please help Todd Akin defeat Claire and the GOP-e send money!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: tjd1454
Even if that were true, applied to evolutionary development, it would surely require not billions but surely trillions upon trillions of years.

You misunderstand. This probability example has *nothing* to say about evolution, that the monkeys would ever develop some kind of intelligence and finally begin typing out real words. The example assumes (in fact, it *requires*) that the monkeys remain just stupid mammals tying keys randomly, without any thought whatsoever. It is just a question of pure randomness.

If the typewriter in my example throws you off, then think of the monkeys (or better yet, a human) throwing a 26-sided die (each side representing one letter) four times in a row, for a purely random outcome of four letters.

98 posted on 09/02/2012 11:06:16 AM PDT by kevao (Is your ocean any lower than it was four years ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Or perhaps as a necessary corrollary for any theory that can plausibly describe the universe.


99 posted on 09/02/2012 11:16:24 AM PDT by Oceander (TINSTAAFL - Mother Nature Abhors a Free Lunch almost as much as She Abhors a Vacuum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Do you assume that the speed of light has always been constant back into infinity? If so, how do you prove infinity? If not, didn’t light have to get “up to speed,” and/or “down to its current speed,” at some time?

The present "standard theory" is that the speed of light and all other physical constants came into existence at a given point, which we call the Big Bang.

It is not possible to speak of "before the Big Bang" because time also came into existence then. There was no light.

What I find most interesting is that the Big Bang Theory merely restates Genesis 1:1. "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

100 posted on 09/02/2012 11:23:43 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-103 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson