Literally 6 Days

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 3:19 pm

Well that’s something we definitely agree on.

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:57 pm

TK wrote: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.

Dwight: Whether we know those things or not is really not the question. The issue is that none of that knowledge proves that the stars light did not appear immediately after being created.

Dwight: As Paidon observed, in the article there were a lot of theories bandied about, but no proof.

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.

Dwight: Maybe so, but I'm pretty sure they will be burning until Jesus returns and destroys them and creates a new heaven and earth.

Creation is groaning- including Alpha Centauri and Zeta Reticuli.

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:27 pm

Paidon,

I agree with pretty much everything you said on global warming. Where I do see the similarity is in the attitude of scientists and/or proponents who make claims that their theories are settled science - basically facts, when they are no such thing.

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:35 am

Referring once again to the Scientific American article about determining ages of stars, I find it absolutely astounding as to how much scientists think they know. As soon as I heard about computer models being used, I knew for sure we were dealing in science fiction. Computer models are also used to predict global warming and are notoriously unreliable. One reason is because of the amount of assumptions that a scientist must build into his model. Each physicist puts his own assumptions into his model. None of them can get around the fact that their assumptions may not be true. Another problem with predicting the climate is that a scientist cannot put the whole earth into his laboratory to examine it. Rather he is living inside of the "specimen" he wishes to examine. For example, it is difficult to get an accurate average surface temperature of the whole earth, because a satellite would need to be traveling over every spot on the earth at the same time to do so,which is impossible. Granted, they still sample many areas and come up with a figure, which becomes the "average surface temperature".

How much more difficult would it be for scientists to put a star into his laboratory? Then add to that that the star is multiplied millions of light years away. Then add to that that the number of known stars exceeds the estimated number of grains of sand on the earth!

The following is a quote of Roy Spencer, a former NASA meteorologist: "The Earth's climate system is possibly the most complex physical system we know of. It is marvelous and very complicated and the more man learns about it, the less he understands, and the more amazed he is of how nature works."

If that is true with a 'specimen" that we live inside of, how much more with multiplied trillions of "specimens" that are millions and billions of light years away? No, man has many theories about the stars, but very few proven facts. As I have said before, I don't believe we have even begun to understand OUR star, the sun, let alone the stars of the universe. Again, Job 38-41 comes to mind.

God has allowed scientists to learn many things and I am thankful for that and it is admirable for them to research and learn as much as they can. But at a certain point they must acknowledge the things that they don't know, rather than pretend that they are experts on those things too. They are too quick to change their theories into "facts".

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by Jason » Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:20 pm

TK, you asked a valid question about why God would allow for the appearance of stellar evolution and Singalphile mentioned that perhaps there might be usefulness in having done so. I think a real possibility is that God laid out the universe in such a way as to make us marvel at it. If that was His main goal, then God either took a very long time to do it, or he "sped up the tape" as was already mentioned. Genesis 1, even if taken non-literally, doesn't easily account for the first option.

A "time-lapse" creation actually agrees with scientific discovery as well as a more literal view of the Genesis account. Whether God did it this way is what we don't know. But I wouldn't accuse Him of deception if He had.

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by TK » Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:53 pm

If the time lapse theory is true, at what point do you think it stopped?

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by Jason » Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:44 am

I'm visualizing a whirlwind of creation punctuated by resting/ceasing on the seventh "day." The universe and the earth would look ancient, for good reason, but actually be a week old. Again, I have no idea if God hyper-lapsed the universe into existence, but I wouldn't think it odd. He's done stranger things.

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:44 am

The Cassini spacecraft that went to and crash landed (as planned) on Saturn gave several indications that our solar system is not that old. Saturn has a powerful magnetic field, but magnetic fields lose their power over time. Evolutionists suggested that Saturn's magnetic field is maintained by an internal dynamo (like a chemical imbalance in a battery). But the direction of the magnetic field showed Saturn doesn't have a dynamo. This apparently means the planet can't be billions of years old. In fact all of the outer planets are more dynamic or give off more heat than is possible in an ancient, run-down solar system.

Answers magazine, March/April issue 2018 page 74

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by TK » Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:37 am

So did God create Saturn with its rings already intact? How about the moon’s craters?

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:28 pm

TK wrote:So did God create Saturn with its rings already intact? How about the moon’s craters?
Dwight: It appears that He did. The rings orbit at different speeds, yet they are so stable and unique that each ring and gap between the rings has its own name. Also there are spokes in the rings like wheels. Some rings are even braided! During its final passes through the rings, Cassini measured their gravitational pull and confirmed they're too light to have lasted billions of years. Furthermore, measurements of the dust coming from the outer solar system show that the icy rings are too clean to be billions of years old. The rings are composed of billions of particles of dust, rock, and ice, all orbiting the planet together. Some are as small as a grain of sand; others are as large as a building.

Saturn has at least 62 moons, with astonishing variety! It's largest moon is Titan. Cassini carried the Huygens module, which landed on Titan on January 14, 2005. Titan has an atmosphere and surface which is similar to the earth's. Larger than the earth's moon, it's the only moon known to have an atmosphere. In fact, its atmosphere is more like the earth's than any other body in the solar system, yet there are still vast differences. Titan lacks free oxygen and it's surface temperature is -290 degrees F. Cassini's infrared instruments and radar pierced Titan's opaque atmosphere and found what appear to be lakes of liquid methane on the surface. Cassini also discovered methane in the atmosphere. The challenge is that sunlight breaks down methane into ethane and other chemicals. So after just 10 million years the atmosphere's methane should all be gone. If Titan is 4.5 billion years old, where is all that methane coming from?

Secular scientists were also quite confident that Titan would be covered with thousands of craters after billions of years of asteroid hits. Surprisingly, the Cassini-Huygens exploration showed only sixty craters on fifty percent of Titan's surface. This suggests that Titan's surface is far younger than its supposed 4.5 billion year age.

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”