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 1-5051-100101-103 next last

1 posted on 09/01/2012 7:28:36 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lasereye

Speaking of outer space, if you live in Georgia, please look upwards at 266 degrees West and tell me what that pulsating red and green luminous object is with the flashing lights. It has been stationary for 40 minutes so far.


2 posted on 09/01/2012 7:40:02 PM PDT by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl of Justice

No I don’t. You should take a video if you can. It sounds interesting.


3 posted on 09/01/2012 7:42:14 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

If they were created only thousands of years ago, the light going out in every direction would also have needed to have been created in place as well, as most of the observable universe, including parts of our own galaxy, are much farther away than 6000 light years away. Just like all the isotopic ratios here on Earth, of certain radioactive ores that sure make it look like they have been decaying for billions of years. Including the complete absence of the so-called “extinct nuclides” (such as I-129) with half-lives that are very long compared to 6000 y but very short compared to the alleged 4.5 billion year age of the Earth.


4 posted on 09/01/2012 7:43:25 PM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

This article drops several contexts. Namely, that there are also lots of yellow stars and red stars in the universe, we can measure the distance to stars and we know the speed of light is a constant. We know there are stars that are more, much more, orders of magnitude more than 6,000 light years away. Therefore the universe is older than 6,000 years.


5 posted on 09/01/2012 7:43:42 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
This is frankly nonsense. If the universe is 6000 years old, how can the light from a galaxy a million light-years away reach Earth?

However you answer this, please don't tell me it's a mystery. A more plausible explanation is that your theology is simply wrong.

6 posted on 09/01/2012 7:44:26 PM PDT by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

It looks like a flashing red/green/white light with the naked eye. With binoculars, it is so detailed. Wow. Just wow.


7 posted on 09/01/2012 7:48:30 PM PDT by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: coloradan; albionin; stormhill
Starlight from distant stars is an apparent problem for a young universe. However that doesn't change the fact that other things are apparent problems for an old universe. This isn't the only thing by any means.

Dr. Russell Humphreys has proposed a possible solution to the distant starlight problem in his book Starlight and Time using the general theory of relativity.

8 posted on 09/01/2012 7:53:18 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

Can general relativity also explain how stars that are supposed to last for millions or billions of years, have already gotten around to supernova-ing for us today? (Or, in fact, millions of years ago such that we are finally just seeing them today?)


9 posted on 09/01/2012 8:02:40 PM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl of Justice

Red and green just happen to be the two colors that determine right-of-way. For boats, at least. Please take a picture or a video.


10 posted on 09/01/2012 8:04:30 PM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

What establishes with a high level of certainty that a star can’t supernova until it’s been around for millions of years?


11 posted on 09/01/2012 8:05:26 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

Unless the speed of light was not always what it is now, in this brief moment of time we inhabit.

If you put a radar gun on a vehicle moving down the road for a hundred yards, and it maintained a constant speed of 50 miles per hour, would you assert that it has always moved at that speed?


12 posted on 09/01/2012 8:06:00 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: stormhill

I think there are still a couple Joshua pines older than 6,000 years...

Or bristlecone pines. Whichever one it is that lives almost forever!


13 posted on 09/01/2012 8:07:56 PM PDT by djf (The barbarian hordes will ALWAYS outnumber the clean-shaven. And they vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Thank you for posting this. In my own view, it must be admitted that there is a great deal of mystery surrounding the early days of Creation. There is some evidence that what we know as "time" can be stretched or compressed (depending on how you look at it) so that what appear to us to be enormous periods of time were actually very short periods of time.

It is patently clear that Evolution demands vast periods of time to "get everything done" - as if all that is needed is to tack on a few billion years here and there to account for this or that evolutionary process.

A common saying that describes a primary assumption of evolutionists is that if you put a bunch of monkeys in a room and set them in front of computer keyboards, eventually they will type out the Encyclopedia Britannica. This assumption is, I believe, wholly unsupportable.

In actuality, the monkeys will probably only be able to string a few words together, no matter how much time they are given. The vast, almost incomprehensible complexity that we see all around us cannot have come about "all by itself" - no matter how much time is allowed.

This is the central fallacy of Evolution. There is much we do not know about how the world came into being (I am always amused to see Evolutionists speak with confidence about precise sequences of events they imagine to have occurred billions of years ago). The simple, unanswerable truth, which any child instinctively (but not Bill Nye) knows, is that unfathomable complexity does not spontaneously arise.

If you come across some kind of unknown device lying on the path in the forest, do you pick it up and exclaim: "Amazing the confluence of just the right chemical elements and energy perhaps from a lightning strike at this very spot, along with enormous amounts of time for evolutionary development, which produced this interesting device!"

If you spouted such nonsense and truly believed it, you would be a candidate for the insane asylum. What you say is: "Wow, I wonder where this came from - who made this?" While I have more questions than answers, as a Christian I affirm with absolute confidence: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."

14 posted on 09/01/2012 8:08:08 PM PDT by tjd1454
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

But if the universe were 13.7 billion years old, as secularists allege,
///
secularists?!?
...there are 10’s of MILLLIONS of devout CHRISTIANS,
who believe in a God who can create a Universe beyond what you seem to believe.
who believe that God talks in many parables in the Bible,
and there is no reason to take words as literal,
that result in the belief that God told us to examine all things, and keep that which is good and true...
yet deceives us, with ALL our studies, in many disciples, from geology to astronomy.


15 posted on 09/01/2012 8:08:23 PM PDT by Elendur (It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
The blurb for Dr. Humphreys' book offers a questionable assertion:
The Bible says the universe is just thousands of years old...

To put it delicately, this is just not so. It is only one of several possible interpretations of the Biblical account.
Another way to see Genesis 1:1 is to understand it as a gap in time from "In the beginning..." to "the Earth was (became)..." that can be filled by an undefined period of time.

16 posted on 09/01/2012 8:10:05 PM PDT by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stormhill

****If the universe is 6000 years old, how can the light from a galaxy a million light-years away reach Earth?****

Those who believe the universe is “Billions of years old” have a similar problem.

If you’d like to know about it put “Horizon Problem” in your favorite search engine.


17 posted on 09/01/2012 8:11:03 PM PDT by schaef21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Elendur

even more especially, a verse in the OLD testament.
(which btw, has the wife of Adam created twice,
and differently...)
-
i wish the people in that institute, would make as much effort to help their Christian brethern being persecuted, raped, and killed, in Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, etc.,
as they do defending a small part of the OLD testament.
-
i’m sure Jesus would approved of how they prioritize spending their time.


18 posted on 09/01/2012 8:12:13 PM PDT by Elendur (It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

The same sorts of things that establish that blue stars don’t last billions of years. Either you accept what astronomers tell you about stars, or you don’t. Such as: smaller, cooler stars last far, far longer than big hot blue stars do. By reason that they emit less power, therefore, the fuel that they have lasts longer; if indeed blue stars are hundreds of thousands of times brighter than other stars, then, for the same mass they should last hundreds of thousands of times less, which places the lifespan of the smaller, less powerful stars into the billions of years. If stars lasted only 6000 years, they’d be going off like popcorn right now, don’t you think? Their numbers would all be coming up right about now. But they’re not, and we only see about one supernova per galaxy per year - out of the billions or trillions of stars that each galaxy has.


19 posted on 09/01/2012 8:14:20 PM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
According to this it's only stage 3 SNR's that take millions of years.
20 posted on 09/01/2012 8:16:06 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
The lifetimes of other kinds of stars could be billions of years but nothing demonstrates that they actually are. They are not evidence for an old universe. Nobody said they only last 6000 years.
21 posted on 09/01/2012 8:18:53 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Elendur

No God hasn’t deceived us. I don’t know what you mean by “beyond what I seem to believe”.


22 posted on 09/01/2012 8:20:47 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Elendur
(which btw, has the wife of Adam created twice, and differently...)

Uh no. That's nonsense.

23 posted on 09/01/2012 8:23:18 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tjd1454
A common saying that describes a primary assumption of evolutionists is that if you put a bunch of monkeys in a room and set them in front of computer keyboards, eventually they will type out the Encyclopedia Britannica.

That does not come from evolutionary theory; that is probability theory and the Law of Large Numbers. And it is correct. Given enough time, a monkey striking random keys on a keyboard will produce War and Peace or some other recognizable piece of literature. Sure, it might take billions upon billions upon billions of years, but eventually it would happen *by pure chance* because, with a finite alphabet of 26 letters (English), the number of permutations of letters you can type out on, say, 1000 pages is also finite.

Sorry for the ramble; I love probability theory.

24 posted on 09/01/2012 8:23:39 PM PDT by kevao (Is your ocean any lower than it was four years ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Uh no. That's nonsense.

On this point we agree.

25 posted on 09/01/2012 8:25:18 PM PDT by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

Here is the problem with this so called creation science. It starts off with an arbitrary claim and treats it as an irreducible primary. It then goes out and tries to find evidence to validate the arbitrary claim while ignoring any evidence that contradicts the claim. Science, at least valid science, starts with the axiom that existence exists and seeks to validate all subsequent knowledge with logic. By the nature of the Universe a contradiction can not exist. There have been countless measurements made of the age of the universe and the Earth through multiple methods using half lives of radioactive elements as well as distance measurements and the speed of light, which has been proven over and over again. Please explain how this theory of yours invalidates all of those previous measurements. I would love to see an astrophysicist weigh in on this.


26 posted on 09/01/2012 8:26:29 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

What reason is there to believe that the speed of light was once different?


27 posted on 09/01/2012 8:27:56 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: albionin

What reason is there to believe that it was always the same?

Were you around to observe it?


28 posted on 09/01/2012 8:31:15 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kevao
Seems like probability theory clashes with the law of entropy.
The problem is that there's no rule that says the monkey must always strike different sequence of keys. More likely, it will just repeat the same gibberish ad infinitum without ever producing anything resembling recognizable literature.

So, no, it's not correct.

29 posted on 09/01/2012 8:33:30 PM PDT by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

The fact that I was not around to observe it is not evidence that it was different at one time. Your question amounts to the demand that I prove it didn’t happen. I can not and will not attempt to prove a negative. Again what evidence is there that the speed of light is variable? I would like a direct answer please.


30 posted on 09/01/2012 8:36:44 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
What reason is there to believe that it was always the same?

General Relativity.

What have you got?

31 posted on 09/01/2012 8:38:23 PM PDT by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

I was not able to take a picture. With the naked eye, it looks like a star flashing different colors- red, green, white and blue. Through binoculars, it was well defined It was stationary for about 50 minutes and then dropped below the tree line. Through binoculars, I could see it morphing into different shapes, like an amoeba. It is gone now.

Two commercial pilots were here and saw it - they have about 80 years of flying experience between the two of them. They stated that they had absolutely no idea as to what that could be, had never seen anything like it (lots of international flying experience) and it definitely wasn’t a planet or a star.


32 posted on 09/01/2012 8:40:48 PM PDT by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: stormhill

He has faith. You can not argue with faith. It has a blank check on reality.


33 posted on 09/01/2012 8:41:26 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: stormhill

If you want to nitpick, then instead of a monkey, make it a computer program that randomly generates letters, giving equal likelihood to all letters. No more clash with your law of entropy.

Do you really dispute the mathematical theory behind this?


34 posted on 09/01/2012 8:41:54 PM PDT by kevao (Is your ocean any lower than it was four years ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: albionin

I was simply pointing out an obvious unknown in the equation. A huge one.


35 posted on 09/01/2012 8:42:10 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: albionin

Truly sad.


36 posted on 09/01/2012 8:43:39 PM PDT by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: stormhill
What have you got?

A huge gap in my knowledge, since I've only been around for about half a century.

And you've got a theory.

37 posted on 09/01/2012 8:45:43 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tjd1454

As a person of the Lutheran faith, I accept the tenant that “In the beginning God created the heavens and earth”. However, I often ask ‘Where did God come from and what was it like before He made these entities’.


38 posted on 09/01/2012 8:46:05 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

But it is not an unknown. Unless you claim that we can not know anything. Prove it. Prove that man’s consciousness is invalid. Prove that logic is invalid. Again what evidence do you have for your arbitrary claim that the speed of light is variable?


39 posted on 09/01/2012 8:47:19 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kevao
No, I will not let myself be positioned against mathematics.

Problem is that with a computer, you have introduced into the equation the element of intelligence (however artificial) so I must ask, are you sure you want to go down this path?

40 posted on 09/01/2012 8:49:22 PM PDT by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: stormhill

I am glad to stand shoulder to shoulder with you to battle the forces of subjectivism.


41 posted on 09/01/2012 8:52:01 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: stormhill; albionin

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?

These are just simple questions that occur to me.


42 posted on 09/01/2012 8:52:05 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: kevao
that is probability theory and the Law of Large Numbers. And it is correct. Given enough time, a monkey striking random keys on a keyboard will produce War and Peace or some other recognizable piece of literature.

Interesting - your own statement indicates that (if only on a subconscious level) you do not believe in the Absolute Truth of probability theory:

"...will produce War and Peace or some other recognizable piece of literature."

What is this "or some other recognizable piece..." nonsense? As I understand it, 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.

But of course I can't imagine that anyone has ever bothered to demonstrate through empirical investigation whether or not monkeys can put together more than a few letters?

Forget about the monkeys. Just use a random letter generator computer program. Much more efficient and less smelly. And we don't have to start with War and Peace - let's see if a random letter computer program can compose something much simpler, such as a chapter out of a Nancy Drew mystery (any one will do) or even a paragraph or two out of a Berenstein Bears story?

Now you know well and good in your heart that such things cannot be randomly generated, even by a super computer working at warp speed to approximate millions and even billions of years. But are you honest enough to put aside your absolute faith in fallible and (let's face it) ever-changing scientific theory and the "experts" (scholars, textbooks, teachers - as a former professor I know all about it...) to admit it? I hope so!

43 posted on 09/01/2012 8:52:27 PM PDT by tjd1454
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I don’t assume anything, that is what you are doing. 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. I’ll ask you to answer the same question. What evidence is there to believe the speed of light is variable?


44 posted on 09/01/2012 8:57:32 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: stormhill
Problem is that with a computer, you have introduced into the equation the element of intelligence (however artificial)

LOL. You're saying a computer program designed to generate random characters, cheats? Or begins thinking for itself and then stubbornly refuses to generate random characters?

You know, there is a way to test if your program has become "self-aware" in this way. Have it generate one billion random letters. Then check the frequency distribution of the letters it has generated. That will show if your program has begun "cheating" on you.

are you sure you want to go down this path?

Yes, I'm quite sure. Everything I've said here can be backed up by the math. These are mathematical principles created by God himself. Mathematics is *the* language of the universe.

45 posted on 09/01/2012 9:01:14 PM PDT by kevao (Is your ocean any lower than it was four years ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: stormhill; lasereye
This is frankly nonsense. If the universe is 6000 years old, how can the light from a galaxy a million light-years away reach Earth?

Because you're starting out with the wrong concept of what a star or a galaxy is and what is involved in their creation.

You have started out with these assumptions:
A star is a object that produces light
If created there was a time before it started producing light
After being created, it began producing light and the light takes time to traverse distance
Then you conclude:
If we see the light and the distance away from the star in light years is any greater than the number of years supposed to have elapsed since the moment of creation, then creation did not occur that many years ago.
The problem, though, is that you have too narrowly defined star (same is true for galaxy, since it is a conglomeration of stars). A star not only produces light, the light it produces is ontologically or intrinsically as much a part of that star as anything could be. If it were not, then the composition of the star could not be determined spectrographically. There is a being that is called "a star" that consists of elements, the processes in which those elements are involved, and the products of those processes. Thus, a star is not a thing way over there that produces something we detect way over here. What we are detecting is as much the star as the processes and materials that produce one of the consequences or conditions of its existence. An account that says God created the stars and other celestial bodies to be sources of light and for the markings of seasons on Earth is not at all saying God started something way out there that eventually, after a number of years consistent with the speed of light and the distance from Earth, would appear in the night sky. They appeared there at the time he created them and have continued to be visible because they were created as fully functioning entities that extend throughout space in all directions.
46 posted on 09/01/2012 9:04:11 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kevao
Have it generate one billion random letters

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.

47 posted on 09/01/2012 9:07:40 PM PDT by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
You've given me food for thought.
Thank you.
48 posted on 09/01/2012 9:11:01 PM PDT by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
As a person of the Lutheran faith, I accept the tenant that “In the beginning God created the heavens and earth”. However, I often ask ‘Where did God come from and what was it like before He made these entities’.

You do well to affirm a central understanding of Christians: that of God as Creator. Of course, as finite creatures we can have a very limited understanding of such things, but we can know that which has been revealed in Holy Scripture.

In sharp contrast to Mormons - who believe in an infinite regression of and eternally evolving Godhood - orthodox Theists, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam believe that God is eternal and uncreated: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Thus, God did not "come from" anything: He has always existed.

As a Ph.D in Theology and former professor, I have often pondered these kinds of questions, trying to imagine what it could be like to be God - eternally existing and never having had a beginning. But it is something that is simply beyond our comprehension - at least this side of Heaven.

49 posted on 09/01/2012 9:12:41 PM PDT by tjd1454
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
As a person of the Lutheran faith, I accept the tenant that “In the beginning God created the heavens and earth”. However, I often ask ‘Where did God come from and what was it like before He made these entities’.

You do well to affirm a central understanding of Christians: that of God as Creator. Of course, as finite creatures we can have a very limited understanding of such things, but we can know that which has been revealed in Holy Scripture.

In sharp contrast to Mormons - who believe in an infinite regression of and eternally evolving Godhood - orthodox Theists, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam believe that God is eternal and uncreated: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Thus, God did not "come from" anything: He has always existed.

As a Ph.D in Theology and former professor, I have often pondered these kinds of questions, trying to imagine what it could be like to be God - eternally existing and never having had a beginning. But it is something that is simply beyond our comprehension - at least this side of Heaven.

50 posted on 09/01/2012 9:12:52 PM PDT by tjd1454
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 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