Literally 6 Days

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by Paidion » Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:46 pm

Hi TK, you wrote:Paidion-
I am not sure I understand your question 100%. If you are asking how we know that stars go through an aging process that takes a super long time, part of the answer must be that we see stars in different stages as I outlined. For example, our star (the sun) is at a certain stage (yellow dwarf). As the hydrogen fusion decreases it will ultimately become a red giant which will eclipse the orbits of Mercury and Venus. If earth still has life then it won’t survive. The fact that there are red giants observable means that those stars have been burning a lot longer than our sun.
I am asking how anyone knows these characteristics of the various stars are indications of stages in their age. How do you know that Sol is at "a certain stage." How do you know that a red giant is a further stage of development? I am suggesting that the various ages assigned to stars is mere speculation. I don't see how it can be otherwise. There are no ancient records that a particular red giant was once a yellow dwarf (There couldn't be, of course, if the vast ages speculated for stellar development are correct). So what evidence is there for the supposed stellar development? I have never encountered any at all. Astronomists have offered a theory to explain the different varieties of suns (stars). And people simply accepted the theory with zero evidence.

What's wrong with an alternate speculation that all the stars were created to look much the same as we see them now? It's not that if the latter speculation is true, then God must have given them an appearance of age. For we don't know what "the appearance of age" is!

The latter speculation contradicts the former. Of that there is no doubt. But to accept the former speculation as fact with no evidence at all doesn't make sense to me.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by TK » Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:50 pm

Hey Paidion-

I found a link to an article that may or may not address your question. The second response in the article is more detailed than the first.

Bottom line, it seems, is that stars are fusion reactors and the laws of physics determine how long a star can last.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... s-determi/

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:00 pm

TK wrote:Dwight wrote:

TK: There is no deception in making them full grown because no one was around to know any better or to care.

Dwight: The exact same thing could be said about the stars and the trees, etc. That is, there was no one around to know any better or to care if God chose to have the light from the stars appear immediately upon their creation or to create trees with hundreds of rings or to create eroded mountains.
_______________

But WE know. Surely God knew that man would one day use their brains to study what they observe?
Dwight: Yes, and we also know that Adam and Eve appeared to be young adults, but were really less that one day old on the day they were created. So, using our brains, if that is not deception, and I agree with you that it is not, then neither is it deception to create stars that appear to be millions of years old, but actually were also less than one day old on the day they were created.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:21 pm

TK wrote:Singlephile wrote:
However, I wonder if some signs of age or degeneration aren't actually useful or even necessary parts of their environment or system. For example, are astronomers certain that the starlight that has not yet reached Earth has no purpose in the universe? Are they sure that supernovas serve no purpose? What about tree rings? Do tree rings serve a purpose besides helping to establish a tree's age? I wouldn't be surprised if they do, in which case, those "signs of age" would not be so different than giving Adam and Eve muscles that they never developed.
I suppose such an argument could be made about anything so I can’t dispute it other than by saying the burden of proof is on the person making that argument.

In other words if a person argues that God created already-formed supernovas (ie that didn’t come from an exploded star) then the person making the argument has to explain why, because such an argument is non-intuitive and seems ridiculous to me.
Dwight: I have to explain my argument because you think it is non-intuitive and seems ridiculous? Really, and who do you think you are? I could say the same to you. You must explain your argument because it is ridiculous to me. I do not find my argument either non-intuitive or ridiculous. In reality, I would say the burden of proof is on you because the most natural way to take the creation story is literally and I daresay that that is how it was originally taken. Then later, some have come along, especially since Darwin's evolution, and suggested that it was never meant to be taken literally. So THEY bear the burden of proof, not me.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by TK » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:58 pm

hey Dwight-- you seem like you are getting testy. No need to get testy- we are just having a discussion.

My comment regarding the burden of proof was directed toward Singlephile not you, but I guess it could have applied to you as well.

Let me ask you this: is there a difference between the appearance of age and the appearance of maturity?

And yes, it is your burden to prove that the universe was created with an appearance of age, if in fact that is what you believe. The scripture is silent in this regard. It does not say that God created the universe/earth to appear older than it actually is. If there is no explicit statement in scripture regarding **why** God would have done this, why is it okay to say that He did? Well, the obvious reason is that it is an easy (and perhaps lazy) way to explain how we see stars that are millions and millions of light years away, and why the moon is riddled with craters, etc.

Remember, the Bible says that God created actual stars and planets etc. He did not just create the light from those bodies to make us think there are stars, etc out there. But if the universe is only 6000 or so years old, then we should not be seeing the light from any star that is more than 6000 light years away.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by Singalphile » Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:15 am

TK wrote:Singlephile wrote:
However, I wonder if some signs of age or degeneration aren't actually useful or even necessary parts of their environment or system. For example, are astronomers certain that the starlight that has not yet reached Earth has no purpose in the universe? Are they sure that supernovas serve no purpose? What about tree rings? Do tree rings serve a purpose besides helping to establish a tree's age? I wouldn't be surprised if they do, in which case, those "signs of age" would not be so different than giving Adam and Eve muscles that they never developed.
I suppose such an argument could be made about anything so I can’t dispute it other than by saying the burden of proof is on the person making that argument.

In other words if a person argues that God created already-formed supernovas (ie that didn’t come from an exploded star) then the person making the argument has to explain why, because such an argument is non-intuitive and seems ridiculous to me.
I wasn't really making an argument. That is, my questions were not rhetorical. I was hoping you'd know! But that sort of an argument - if it were an argument - could be disputed or disproved by showing that there is no known benefit or utility of tree rings or fossils or supernovas or light that has not reached Earth yet, etc.

As I understand it, observation indicates that everything is millions and billions of years old. Fine with me. However, it also seems possible that God could have decided to make everything come to its full maturity in an instant (not created with the appearance of age, but just speeding up the process, like a time-lapse video that slows down to real time after a minute).

I don't care either way (though it's interesting), but the arguments that I think are weak are 1) that Gen 1-3 is a literal genre and that 2) it would be deceptive for God to have created stuff with an appearance of age/maturity and/or sped up the creation process before slowing down to our real time.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:40 am

TK wrote:hey Dwight-- you seem like you are getting testy. No need to get testy- we are just having a discussion.

My comment regarding the burden of proof was directed toward Singlephile not you, but I guess it could have applied to you as well.

Let me ask you this: is there a difference between the appearance of age and the appearance of maturity?

Dwight: I don't see any difference, but what are you getting at?

And yes, it is your burden to prove that the universe was created with an appearance of age, if in fact that is what you believe.

Dwight: First of all, neither of us can prove our position, so this "burden to prove" language does not even apply here. We each have our opinions, but no proof.

The scripture is silent in this regard. It does not say that God created the universe/earth to appear older than it actually is. If there is no explicit statement in scripture regarding **why** God would have done this, why is it okay to say that He did?

Dwight: Again, God is not required to answer all of our questions. If He chooses to create something with the appearance of age, which IMO He did, He does not also have to explain it to us, as you seem to require Him to do. Did He explain all the created things he spoke about to Job in chapters 38-41? No, apparently, He felt there was no need to. The same is true here. There are many unknowns in the creation story. There were many miracles in the creation story. Can you explain miracles?

Well, the obvious reason is that it is an easy (and perhaps lazy)

Dwight: As you said, no need to get testy here. So my interpretation is lazy and yours is not? I guess that means your interpretation is accurate and mine is not. In the real world, your opinion is just that, not proof of anything.

way to explain how we see stars that are millions and millions of light years away, and why the moon is riddled with craters, etc.

Remember, the Bible says that God created actual stars and planets etc. He did not just create the light from those bodies to make us think there are stars, etc out there.

Dwight: I never said otherwise

But if the universe is only 6000 or so years old, then we should not be seeing the light from any star that is more than 6000 light years away.
Dwight: Unless my interpretation is correct. If so, then the light from all the stars was immediately visible on the day they were created, and continues to be visible today.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:15 am

Paidion wrote:
Hi TK, you wrote:Paidion-
I am not sure I understand your question 100%. If you are asking how we know that stars go through an aging process that takes a super long time, part of the answer must be that we see stars in different stages as I outlined. For example, our star (the sun) is at a certain stage (yellow dwarf). As the hydrogen fusion decreases it will ultimately become a red giant which will eclipse the orbits of Mercury and Venus. If earth still has life then it won’t survive. The fact that there are red giants observable means that those stars have been burning a lot longer than our sun.
I am asking how anyone knows these characteristics of the various stars are indications of stages in their age. How do you know that Sol is at "a certain stage." How do you know that a red giant is a further stage of development? I am suggesting that the various ages assigned to stars is mere speculation. I don't see how it can be otherwise. There are no ancient records that a particular red giant was once a yellow dwarf (There couldn't be, of course, if the vast ages speculated for stellar development are correct). So what evidence is there for the supposed stellar development? I have never encountered any at all. Astronomists have offered a theory to explain the different varieties of suns (stars). And people simply accepted the theory with zero evidence.

What's wrong with an alternate speculation that all the stars were created to look much the same as we see them now? It's not that if the latter speculation is true, then God must have given them an appearance of age. For we don't know what "the appearance of age" is!

The latter speculation contradicts the former. Of that there is no doubt. But to accept the former speculation as fact with no evidence at all doesn't make sense to me.
Dwight: Paidon,

Well said, scientists tend to get all puffed up about what they do know, to the point of thinking that there is nothing that they don't know. As you said, they have plenty of THEORIES to explain the varieties of stars, but no conclusive evidence to make their theories FACTS. Again, as you well said, we can't even know for sure what "the appearance of age" looks like, regarding the stars. It is all speculation. Not only that, but how do we know that stars ever burn out? If they do, what would cause a final explosion in each case? If they are burning out, then what gases would be left to explode? I'm sure scientists think they have all the answers to these. It is no different than the topic of global warming. Scientists used to call it a theory, but many now have changed their label to "Fact", even though they cannot prove it. One anti-global warming scientist put it this way: "Aside from the human brain, there is nothing on this planet as complex as the climate." Of course, even that statement could be wrong, but he makes his point that the climate is extremely complex, and to say that mankind is bringing about a catastrophic end to our planet, because we burn fossil fuels is pure speculation, nothing more.

Paidon, I wish your post could be in all the high school and college science books, because it states the truth.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by TK » Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:21 pm

To suggest that we know nothing about stellar evolution is pretty ridiculous, quite frankly. We KNOW stars explode- we see it. They are supernovas. We KNOW there are black holes- we observe them with telescopes. You seem to think that because we don't see a star age from birth to death then we cant prove it happens. But that observation is not possible because no one will be around for several billions years to observe it happen linearly like you would seem to require. Did you read the Scientific American article I linked to? It explains how they know about the relative ages of various stars. Further, the Hubble telescope has found a location where stars are actually birthed-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillars_of_Creation

Of course science does not have everything explained perfectly- which is why there is science. I assure you it is a physical impossibility for stars to burn forever. Creation is groaning- including Alpha Centauri and Zeta Reticuli.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by Paidion » Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:34 pm

Hi TK,

I examined the article from Scientific American, and there is no doubt that the authors propose theories that attempt to explain the existence of various types of stars as being of various ages and evolving through time to becoming a different type. Yet, I don't think any evidence was presented in the article that would indicate that this is KNOWN to be factual.

Dwight, you seem to think that global warming is in the same ball park. But it isn't. The cycles of global warming and global cooling have been observed and recorded throughout the centuries. There's no doubt that the average temperature of the earth is warmer now that it was in 1900. But it isn't yet as warm as it was in 1200—the peak of a cycle. Why do you suppose Greenland was given that name? Then later the earth began to cool again until in around 1600, the "little ice age" was at its peak.

In Europe during the Medieval Warm Period, agriculture flourished, (including vineyards in Scotland); Denmark was colonizing and establishing agriculture in Iceland and Greenland; and during this time, Leif Ericsson made several voyages from Greenland and established a settlement at L’anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland. The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. Cooling followed this period and by 1500 AD the earth entered into the intense cool part of the Little Ice Age. This period is well known as the sea-ice froze and the Danes couldn’t get to Iceland or Greenland to re-supply their colonies which virtually perished in addition to the settlement in Newfoundland being abandoned.

No, the problem with the hype about global warming or "climate change" is not that it isn't occurring. The problem is assigning the reason for this change to be the release of "manmade greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere. True, this does have SOME effect, but the effect is minuscule compared the main cause—sun activity. Even if the carbon dioxide released by man into the atmosphere were reduced to zero, global warming would continue, and at ALMOST the same rate.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”