More Hints at Early Origin of Stars, Galaxies (Not an April Fool's)

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 3/31/06 | Creation-Evolution Headlines Staff

[bondserv]

Ping-Bang!

[balrog666]

Does this mean that you believe that the Earth is more than 6000 years old?

[jimbergin]

Another scientific certainty down the tubes!

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . the extent of the structure that we can discover . . .

Structure? What structure? Design? What design? Intelligence? What intelligence? Do you not know science has emprically determined that none of these exist, or at least that all of them are beyond the realm of science?

[Alter Kaker]

"In the last of a 36-part series of lectures on 20th century science produced by The Teaching Company..."

Why is it we always see creationists citing consumer products, popularized accounts, news magazine articles -- or in this case introductory-undergraduate-level video cassettes? Can the creationists at least understand why they're not taken seriously?

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . creationists citing consumer products . . .

Like National Geographic?

[bondserv]

Does this mean that you believe that the Earth is more than 6000 years old?

It means that things were created in a mature state from a scientific perspective, which makes modern dating methods insignificant.

From a scientific perspective, Evolutionary theory is nullified.

Again, how old is a freshly created chunk of matter?

[Alter Kaker]

Like National Geographic?

Exactly. I'm not saying National Geographic articles are necessarily wrong, but they're from a popular magazine. If you think you can base serious criticism of evolution (if there is such a thing) on seeming contradictions in a magazine you might find at your local barbershop, you're crazy.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

This is really interesting.

[bondserv]

Why is it we always see creationists citing consumer products, popularized accounts, news magazine articles -- or in this case introductory-undergraduate-level video cassettes? Can the creationists at least understand why they're not taken seriously?

I would be more concerned if I joined the consensus of Liberal Academia.

[Alter Kaker]

It means that things were created in a mature state from a scientific perspective, which makes modern dating methods insignificant.

In other words, God made the universe look old, just to trick us. I suppose He created and hid fossils and created background radiation and all that, just to fool us silly, gullible humans.

Well, maybe your God is a trickster, but mine isn't.

Again, how old is a freshly created chunk of matter?

Huh?

[balrog666]

It means that things were created in a mature state from a scientific perspective, which makes modern dating methods insignificant.

4.5 billion years is not a mature state?

From a scientific perspective, Evolutionary theory is nullified.

Aw, gee, is the Earth somehow not 4.5 billion years old now?
I must have missed that in the article...

Again, how old is a freshly created chunk of matter?

Uh, gee, freshly created? Would that be "fresh", Alex?

And how old is the Grand Canyon now? Is it more than a million years? Or a couple of weeks? Did an anonymous god create it all Last Thursday?

[Alter Kaker]

I would be more concerned if I joined the consensus of Liberal Academia.

You don't have to join the consensus, but you at least have to know what scientists are talking about if you want to be able to seriously criticize their work.

[orionblamblam]

> Well, maybe your God is a trickster, but mine isn't.

I knew it! Creationists are the servants of Loki!

That explains much.

[dhs12345]

I must be missing something because it wasn't ever clearly explained to me:

If we are viewing the light, from the center of the universe from a big-bang event that happened billions of years ago, that has traveled billions of light years and billions of years to get to us, and the matter in our planet and our solar system originated from the same big bang that was already here billions of light years from the original event and billions of years earlier...

Believing the special relativity is valid, this would be impossible. Matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Unless of course, there is such a thing as "warp" and space-time was compressed before the big-bang event. Or as this article states, the Universe was already mature or the big-bang theory is invalid.

[Adrastus]

I don't recall God having said anything one way or another. At the same time man seems to be able to make himself look foolish without His help.

How long will it take for man to stop blaming his silliness on God and accept the idea that maybe the joker in the deck is man and his inability to make right choices ?

[jimbergin]

"Well, maybe your God is a trickster, but mine isn't."

and you know this because....

[bondserv]

Well, maybe your God is a trickster, but mine isn't.

Trickster? Try thinking outside of the box. Consider for a moment that we know nothing about creating matter out of nothing.

During the process what kinds of atomic processes are involved? How does relativity play into the formula?

A being that is not constrained by time; exactly as a goat herder from 3,000 years before Einstein described, can paint light across the universe with a stroke of the finger as a painter does on a canvas. Open minded people are always aware how little they understand. It's the elitists who seem to forget the concept of humility!

Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name [is] Holy; I dwell in the high and holy [place], with him also [that is] of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.