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.
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.
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.
You are guilty of the fallacy of rewriting reality.
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.
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...
LOL! You're the first. No one else has ever been able to achieve that but God.
“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.
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.
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?
Please restrain your leaps of illogic.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
What are you talking about?
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.
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.
Or perhaps as a necessary corrollary for any theory that can plausibly describe the universe.
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."
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.