Stars are imaginary.

[Biologist]

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3664

One explanation used in the past involved light travelling along Riemannian surfaces (a mathematical description of curved space). Such a model cannot be valid because if space were sufficiently curved to explain light travel, then our universe would be impossibly dense and small, which observations contradict.

One creationists explanation shot down by theselves.

Perhaps the most commonly used explanation is that God created light ‘on its way,’ so that Adam could see the stars immediately without having to wait years for the light from even the closest ones to reach the earth. While we should not limit the power of God, this has some rather immense difficulties.

Second explaination. "goddidit"

This would mean that for a 10,000-year-old universe, that anything we see happening beyond about 10,000 light-years away is actually part of a gigantic picture show of things that have not actually happened, showing us objects which may not even exist.

"goddidit" and stars don't exist.

To explain this problem further, consider an exploding star (supernova) at, say, an accurately measured 100,000 light-years away. Remember we are using this explanation in a 10,000-year-old universe. As the astronomer on earth watches this exploding star, he is not just receiving a beam of light. If that were all, then it would be no problem at all to say that God could have created a whole chain of photons (light particles/waves) already on their way.

That translates to: "We can't explain how the universe is by fitting it into 10,000 years so "goddidit""

To create such a detailed series of signals in light beams reaching earth, signals which seem to have come from a series of real events but in fact did not, has no conceivable purpose. Worse, it is like saying that God created fossils in rocks to fool us, or even test our faith, and that they don’t represent anything real (a real animal or plant that lived and died in the past). This would be a strange deception.

Finally, they compare their own explaination to a "goddidit" explaination, because it is just that.

They are very good at "Scientific" creationist explainations.

 

[I'ddie4him]

OK, Closing for review now folks.

 

[suzybeezy]

Thread has been reviewed and cleaned up of off-topic remarks. Let's try to discuss the OP again

 

[joey444]

I love how there's nothing left....

 

[birdan]

I'll repost, sans my first sentence ...

All I can say to the OP is, maybe someone should explain the difference between 'apologetics' and science to creationists. And the only apologetic that doesn't crash and burn in its own logical fallacies is, as Biologist pointed out, Goddidit.

Unfortunately for activist creationists, just saying Goddidit doesn't provide much leverage for interjecting religion into science classes or (in the case of the Discovery Institute) into science itself. Hence the rather bizarre and convoluted 'apologetics' that pass as science to creationists. (Dancing Greenland is my all time favorite, though AVs 4.5billionyearoldearthcreated6000yearsago is pretty nifty too.)

If the creationist argument was simply Goddidit, I would not be posting on this forum. What motivates me to post are the above tactics and the wish to interject creationism into science curricula, and religious fundamentalism into science.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

I love how there's nothing left....

At least they left the OP, I was beginnning to think I was at Uncommon Descent.

Anyhow, I read the article involved, and I dunno, I think I prefer Goddidit to mangling physics and relativity to attempt to squash 14 billion years into 6000, it is a very whacked theory that while at first glance might be plausible, in the long run fails. (we are in some sort of huge gravity well that makes time go very slow for us while 14 billion years occured elsewhere or something like that) I think maybe the best rebuttal is from Hugh Ross, another creationist. In his words.

In 1994 a physicist who is prominent in the young-earth movement, Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, unveiled a proposed alternative cosmology1 which, it was claimed, resolved a long-standing problem for the young-earth movement --- how light could travel billions of light years from distant galaxies during the passage of only a few thousand years of Earth time. This new cosmology was widely hailed in the young-earth movement and has been widely distributed in book form2. The author, Dr. Humphreys, is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory, and his initial article and book acknowledged the tentative character and possible falsity of the new proposal. He also solicited, publicly and privately, feedback from Christian physicists who did have formal training in these disciplines. Starting even before the appearance of Starlight and Time and continuing to the present, such feedback has been forthcoming, and, to our knowledge, it has been uniformly critical of the theory. In fact, Starlight and Time and related writings by

Humphreys exhibit profound misunderstandings of relativity theory and cosmology. Humphreys’ theory is irremediably flawed.

It is very unfortunate that these writings have been so widely distributed in the young-earth community and have misled so many Christians.

emphasis mine
source

there is of course more at talkorigins, but while it is a nice try, it still fails.

 

[Biologist]

If the creationist argument was simply Goddidit, I would not be posting on this forum. What motivates me to post are the above tactics and the wish to interject creationism into science curricula, and religious fundamentalism into science.

Same.

But they don't argue that 'goddidit" anymore. They seem to claim that every observable piece of evidence is wrong and that PhD scientist are retarded Atheists.

This thread was de-railed twice by the same person on its first page. They can't even respond to my question, without trolling and calling scientists retards.

 

[birdan]

Same.

But they don't argue that 'goddidit" anymore. They seem to claim that every observable piece of evidence is wrong and that PhD scientist are retarded Atheists.

This thread was de-railed twice by the same person on its first page. They can't even respond to my question, without trolling and calling scientists retards.

Simply because their agenda is political, not scientific. They will posit arguments which seem plausible to those un/under-educated in science (the vast majority of the U.S., it seems) to lend credence to their political argument. Which is the same reason they keep focusing on evolution - it is politically expedient to do so. If their agenda encompassed all the sciences they have a beef with (astronomy, cosmology, anthropology, geology, linguistics, etc., etc.) they would loose, I think, a lot of their political base for being too extreme. So they just keep hammering on 'evilution'.

 

[Biologist]

Any creationists going to respond? Surely since the creationists have the better point of view they should be able to explain why we see stars that are millions of light years away.

 

[AV1611VET]

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3664


One creationists explanation shot down by theselves.


Second explaination. "goddidit"


"goddidit" and stars don't exist.


That translates to: "We can't explain how the universe is by fitting it into 10,000 years so "goddidit""


Finally, they compare their own explaination to a "goddidit" explaination, because it is just that.

They are very good at "Scientific" creationist explainations.

Biologist, is there a problem with "God did it" explanations?

After all, He wants the credit:

• [bible]Colossians 1:16-18[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

Any creationists going to respond? Surely since the creationists have the better point of view they should be able to explain why we see stars that are millions of light years away.

Have you seen my post on why God put the stars in the sky the way He did --- and why the sun went dark from noon to 3 pm the day Jesus was crucified?

 

[Biologist]

Biologist, is there a problem with "God did it" explanations?

I don't have a problem with it, until you start saying that it's more scientific than science. I find it interesting that people will suggest stars are imaginary just because their "holy" book can't be right if stars do exist.

 

[Morcova]

Biologist, is there a problem with "God did it" explanations?

After all, He wants the credit:

• [bible]Colossians 1:16-18[/bible]

Besides that it's not scientific and that you might as well say, the flying spaghetti monster did it? I have as much proof that the FSM created the universe as you do that "god" did it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have as much proof that the FSM created the universe as you do that "god" did it.

Not hardly --- show me an empire built around the claims of the FSM.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't have a problem with it, until you start saying that it's more scientific than science.

Science is right in the middle of the supernatural and the subnatural.

IOW, it's in the middle between the metaphysical and the myth.

Here's how I rank it:

1. Supernatural: God, angels, miracles.
2. Natural: the universe.
3. Subnatural: tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Easter bunny.

I find it interesting that people will suggest stars are imaginary just because their "holy" book can't be right if stars do exist.

I'm not familiar with this claim; but then, I haven't really read this thread, either.

 

[Chalnoth]

Not hardly --- show me an empire built around the claims of the FSM.

Ah, but that's why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is such a great diety. He would really rather people didn't kill for him. So no empires will ever be created in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just noodley goodness!

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, but that's why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is such a great diety. He would really rather people didn't kill for him. So no empires will ever be created in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just noodley goodness!

Oh, I think God was pretty adept at taking care of business on His own when it warranted it. Much unlike your FSM, who would probably run if he saw a jar of Ragu.

 

[Chalnoth]

Ah, I see. So your imaginary diety is so much better than my imaginary diety.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, I see. So your imaginary diety is so much better than my imaginary diety.

My Deity is backed by a whole empire --- who backs yours --- Del Monte?

 

[Chalnoth]

My Deity is backed by a whole empire --- who backs yours --- Del Monte?

Ah, so then you must agree that the Roman pantheon were real gods, too. They had a whole empire backing them.

And so here we are. Instead of believing that things which we can see are real and things which we can't see are imaginary, we have people believing that stars are imaginary and a god which has absolutely zero physical evidence whatsoever is real.