GAP Creationism VS YEC & OEC Creationism

[TheReasoner]

Ok, let me try to explain it to you this way. Romans 11:28 says: "for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." Lets take Lady Gaga for an example. No one would question that she has talent or what we could call a gift from God. She has a choice, she could use that gift to honor God, but she does not have to honor God. She is free to dishonor God if she wants. He will not take away her gift.

Evolution is the same. No one denys that it contains truth. No one denys that Lady Gaga has talent. Do people use evolution to honor God? I do not think so. Those very same people would deny that Lady Gaga got her talent from God. They would say her talent is random chance or a mutation. They would even point to a gene and say look there is the dance gene. It mutated and that is why they can dance. Does this honor God? Does this glorify God? That is the choice we have. Do we use our gifts and talents in a way that brings God honor or glory?

Of course there is holy sanctified living also, but that maybe another topic.

I think we often do, as far as biology is concerned. As with all things, not always though. Still...

Do you agree that there is nothing in the current models explaining the universe and life - both origin and development of both - which excludes the possibility of a creator?

 

[SkyWriting]

YEC is falsified by Rock Solid Science.

Science cannot falsify any past events. It can only define and replicate and predict the outcome of future events. Beyond that, is not Science.

Plus, when God intervenes in the world, He doesn't follow human timing. That's one of the obvious properties of Miracles.

 

[TheReasoner]

Science cannot falsify any past events. It can only define and replicate and predict the outcome of future events. Beyond that, is not Science.

Oh. It can't?

Of course it can, SW. Do you think we can't go to the scene of an accident and predict what has happened? Of course we can! Events leave marks. Said marks can be traced, and we can by observing such marks formulate a model for what has happened.

Besides, you're again as many creationists do forgotten that we DO see into the past as if it was happening now. Anything that travels through space needs time in which to traverse the space. This includes light. When we look into the night sky with our telescopes we see the past- as if it was happening now. Some light has travelled around 13 billion years to reach us.

Plus, when God intervenes in the world, He doesn't follow human timing. That's one of the obvious properties of Miracles.

So you'd say that God has created the world 6-10 000 years ago and is lying through His teeth about everything in it, most easily demonstrated by the issues pertaining to light and distance as outlined above?

God may not be chained by time as we perceive it (I assume thats what you meant by 'timing'), but that is not an argument for a young earth at all. In fact it's an argument for an old one. Time matters not to God as it does to us. His creation tells us with every fiber of it's being that it's old. Roughly 13.7 bn years. So, it stands to reason - God not being a liar - that it really is that old. From our perspective. As time doesn't matter to God age isn't the same to Him as it is to us, so... What's the problem you have with an old, dynamic universe?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Science cannot falsify any past events. It can only define and replicate and predict the outcome of future events. Beyond that, is not Science.

Oh really? If I was to come home from vacation and have someone claim that a massive herd with thousands of buffalo stampeded through my yard while I was gone, and I see my fence is still standing, all my shrubs and flowers are intact, my grass is fine and there is not a single buffalo chip or buffalo track anywhere to be found anywhere in the neighborhood, I think science can falsify the claim of that past event. It is similar with the global flood. There is no evidence it happened and there should be and there is a massive amount of evidence that it could not have happened.

FG has already posted falsification of the young earth.

 

[SkyWriting]

Oh. It can't? Of course it can, SW. Do you think we can't go to the scene of an accident and predict what has happened? Of course we can! Events leave marks. Said marks can be traced, and we can by observing such marks formulate a model for what has happened.

Sure, I've read all about the Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson hearings.
All I ask is that you link to any scientific source of information that will back you up.
the scientific method - Google Search
There are one or two that I've found but they are just opinion pages.

Besides, you're again as many creationists do forgotten that we DO see into the past as if it was happening now. Anything that travels through space needs time in which to traverse the space. This includes light. When we look into the night sky with our telescopes we see the past- as if it was happening now. Some light has traveled around 13 billion years to reach us.

Maybe.
There are a number of theories on reasons for red shift. In order to date something properly, don't we have to have a standard item of known age to compare it to? And we don't know all the effects Dark Energy may play on expansion rates.

Jesus healed a blind man and as far as we know, his "new" eyes were a match for his age. It's possible all the healings Jesus did were just lame "faith" healings. If so, I don't know why anyone was impressed enough to write about them.

So you'd say that God has created the world 6-10 000 years ago and is lying through His teeth about everything in it, most easily demonstrated by the issues pertaining to light and distance as outlined above?

As mentioned,somebody is lying to you about actually knowing the age.
2nd, as mentioned, God "instantly" creates age appropriate miracles.
We could go through any list you choose of miracles from the Bible and not find one "young" item on the list. Even Adam and Eve are not recorded as infants.

God may not be chained by time as we perceive it (I assume thats what you meant by 'timing'), but that is not an argument for a young earth at all. In fact it's an argument for an old one. Time matters not to God as it does to us. His creation tells us with every fiber of it's being that it's old. Roughly 13.7 bn years. So, it stands to reason - God not being a liar - that it really is that old. From our perspective. As time doesn't matter to God age isn't the same to Him as it is to us, so... What's the problem you have with an old, dynamic universe?

It may look old, even be old. But Creating the cosmos in a week is the same "lie" as causing a blind man to see, the lame to walk, or raising a man from the dead. Scientifically speaking, those are "lies" by God as well. If you don't think any of those things happened, then you're being consistent in your beliefs. That's fine. All the miracles in the Bible, all the references to Jesus healing, all the old testament miracles, and the Creation stories are all lies from God. Or just lies from men. That's consistent thinking. I'm on the other end of the spectrum, myself.

 

[TheReasoner]

All I ask is that you link to any scientific source of information that will back you up. the scientific method - Google Search
There are one or two that I've found but they are just opinion pages.

What do you mean? I'm not sure I understand your question. Scientific sources that back up what? The age of the universe? The possibility to describe past events by use of different theories?

The last should be painfully obvious to anyone who can remember the past and have taken some basic physics classes - high-school level. As for the age of the universe, knock yourself out with any university level textbook. Learn enough math and physics and you can test it yourself.


Now, if you want some seriously heavy, in depth sources stop by any major repository of biology, physics or geology (for example) papers. I doubt you have the basis to understand them though. Often heavy stuff. So, stop by your library and knock yourself out with scientific american. It's an easy read and quite reliable.

Maybe.
There are a number of theories on reasons for red shift. In order to date something properly, don't we have to have a standard item of known age to compare it to? And we don't know all the effects Dark Energy may play on expansion rates.

Jesus healed a blind man and as far as we know, his "new" eyes were a match for his age. It's possible all the healings Jesus did were just lame "faith" healings. If so, I don't know why anyone was impressed enough to write about them.



As mentioned,somebody is lying to you about actually knowing the age.
2nd, as mentioned, God "instantly" creates age appropriate miracles.
We could go through any list you choose of miracles from the Bible and not find one "young" item on the list. Even Adam and Eve are not recorded as infants.



It may look old, even be old. But Creating the cosmos in a week is the same "lie" as causing a blind man to see, the lame to walk, or raising a man from the dead. Scientifically speaking, those are "lies" by God as well. If you don't think any of those things happened, then you're being consistent in your beliefs. That's fine. All the miracles in the Bible, all the references to Jesus healing, all the old testament miracles, and the Creation stories are all lies from God. Or just lies from men. That's consistent thinking. I'm on the other end of the spectrum, myself.

False comparison about the single miracles/creation. You can't compare creation to single event miracles.
We can observe creation and test theories as to it's development. Single events by virtue of being singular and so small scale are not possible to test at this juncture. So please, can that logically inconsistent comparison. Besides, even those miracles could be explained by natural laws. By which I mean a divine being should in theory be able to make use of known physical laws to make them happen. As I have said many times before, a good engineer/programmer/designer doesn't circumvent and break down his creation in order to make alterations. He leaves room for future modifications by it's own laws. And knows how to use what is already made to make alterations and adjustments. What you're suggesting sounds like an incredibly bad programmer who needs and chooses to rewrite basic programming in order to make a minor adjustment. Why do so?

Furthermore, even IF he grew eyes into empty sockets this could be achieved - hypothetically - by rampant cell growth. So while the cells would be new, they would still have his DNA and bare certain elements of the cells from which the eye originally then grew. I.e. it would be as any other cell divided when the host organism had lived a certain time. And regardless, it is not testable at this juncture.

In addition there is the significant difference between a new cell popping into existence and a universe with information constantly reaching us about events that - if your YEC is correct - never happened. We see supernovae that supposedly happened before the YECers believe the universe began. And not only that, we can also see planets orbiting stars so far away within our own galaxy that the light from the star they orbit left long before the universe began - according to YECers. All this means that IF YECers are right God is actually continually lying to us. Which in turn means the Christian God - who is not a deceiver - is not the real God anyway. And if the YEC interpretation is the right way to read the bible and Christianity hinges on it's validity then should reality prove (as it has) to be different than the YEC prediction then once again what YEC has managed to do is nothing short of disproving Christianity.



Now. As for 'dark energy'. Saying "We don't know how it works" is very very far from saying everything we know is wrong to the point of even discarding all geology, physics, biology and more. D.E. won't be speeding up light, if it had we'd be observing all sorts of distortions as a result. We don't. and even if it DID YEC would still be well and thoroughly falsified. And it will be by virtue of light alone. Not ONLY light, a huge number of things falsify it (alone or together), light just proves an easy example. And nothing, not a thing, supports the YEC belief.

DE works over extremely large distances. Any less than a given distance and gravity is stronger. Pulling galaxies together. And even if we observe this galaxy alone we'd have falsified YEC by light from it's stars alone.

 

[Jazer]

YEC is falsified by Rock Solid Science. YEC is laughable and absurd.

Laughable and absurd by those who mock God.

"Arise, O God, plead your own cause: remember how the foolish man reproaches you daily." psalm 74:22

This is a theory from Bishop Usshler published in 1658. Actually, the good Bishop never said there was not an old earth. Have you even read the book. Or do you just go by what other people tell you about it. In fact it is free on the internet so your without excuse. Or do you just want to argue that someone somewhere might have said this that or the other, therefore I am justifed in mocking the God who created not only me but all of the universe.

Why don't we look at what Bishop Usshler has to say: "9. After the first week of the world ended, it seems that God brought the newly married couple into the Garden of Eden. He charged them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil but left them free to eat of every other plant."

Ok, this is YEC Straight from Bishop Usshlers book. What is laughable and absurd about this? The tree of knowledge? Maybe you find the story of the snake "laughable and absurd". Just what is it that you have a problem with?

 

[TheReasoner]

Laughable and absurd by those who mock God.

"Arise, O God, plead your own cause: remember how the foolish man reproaches you daily." psalm 74:22

And you don't notice how you yourself are approaching the question pertaining to creation?

You ignore everything that challenges your position. Have nothing to back you - except one way among many to read the bible. And that one way is one which no serious theologian today will follow either. Not outside the US anyway. In addition you're contradicted by God's own handiwork at every bend and curve. And you accuse others of mockery?

Well, not really. I don't think Bandersnatch mocked God with his statement.

This is a theory from Bishop Usshler published in 1658. Actually, the good Bishop never said there was not an old earth. Have you even read the book. Or do you just go by what other people tell you about it. In fact it is free on the internet so your without excuse. Or do you just want to argue that someone somewhere might have said this that or the other, therefore I am justifed in mocking the God who created not only me but all of the universe.

But Jazer, if you're wrong - and everything God has created points in that direction - YOU are the one mocking God. You are leaning on men. And ignoring the work of God. YOu say you believe God spoke the universe into existence, but then you turn a deaf ear to what the universe - God's voice's echo - when it contradicts you.

How is that NOT hubris? How is that NOT mocking God?

Why don't we look at what Bishop Usshler has to say: "9. After the first week of the world ended, it seems that God brought the newly married couple into the Garden of Eden. He charged them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil but left them free to eat of every other plant."

Ok, this is YEC Straight from Bishop Usshlers book. What is laughable and absurd about this? The tree of knowledge? Maybe you find the story of the snake "laughable and absurd". Just what is it that you have a problem with?

Errr... A completely random excerpt, Jazer? Please. And from one man? Please. The argument was that Young Earth Creationism was laughable and absurd. I'd agree with it, much as I would the argument that belief in a flat-earth is laughable. Not the believer. Human beings have value. But the belief. And random quotes from one man's writings hardly change that. That one quote does not encompass creationism, it is not even relevant to this discussion. You might as well have said:

The following was said by a great YEC supporter: "And then John rode his bike down the street." what's laughable about this?

Please Jazer. Do try to show some integrity and stop this nonsensical jibber-jabber about totally unrelated issues which you try to pass off as relevant.

 

[Jazer]

As for the age of the universe, knock yourself out with any university level textbook. Learn enough math and physics and you can test it yourself.

I am not so sure you will find that information in a text book. They are often outdated by as many as 5 or 6 years. Hubble was last repaired on May 16, 2009. So it has really only been two years sense what they currently believe to be the age of the universe has been known. Before they repaired the Hubble they used a different date then the one they are using now.

Good the Bible does not change and has remained the same for more then 3500 years. Science constantly changes and what they believe constantly changes. By the time a book gets published it is already outdated.

 

[Jazer]

YOu say

I never said that. All of your arguement is a straw man arguement. Maybe you really do not understand any of this stuff. You continue to make stuff up, say we said it when we never said it. Then you argue against your own straw man. If you ever decide to get serious and have a real discussion let me know. Otherwise your arguement is with yourself and the stuff you make up.

 

[TheReasoner]

I am not so sure you will find that information in a text book. They are often outdated by as many as 5 or 6 years. Hubble was last repaired on May 16, 2009. So it has really only been two years sense what they currently believe to be the age of the universe has been known. Before they repaired the Hubble they used a different date then the one they are using now.

Good the Bible does not change and has remained the same for more then 3500 years. Science constantly changes and what they believe constantly changes. By the time a book gets published it is already outdated.

False argument AGAIN Jazer. They are not so outdated that the information in them is useless. The level where you use textbooks is normally fairly stable. And stick solidly within the given paradigm.

The new information which is discovered between publishings is not enough to change the theories and basic principles. So while new information is given the areas wherein this new information is enough to topple a textbook normally don't base themselves on textbooks, but research papers. Studying at that level is far more dynamic.
Besides, the bible cannot be compared with physics textbooks Jazer. That's a false comparison as well.


So, in the words of my old sergeant: Try again.

 

[TheReasoner]

I never said that. All of your arguement is a straw man arguement. Maybe you really do not understand any of this stuff. You continue to make stuff up, say we said it when we never said it. Then you argue against your own straw man. If you ever decide to get serious and have a real discussion let me know. Otherwise your arguement is with yourself and the stuff you make up.

So, correct me Jazer. You don't though. You have random quotes, logically fallacious arguments, and can't provide a single credible piece of evidence. Sure, I took your position and extrapolated a most likely position for you to hold. For example: I assumed you believe in hell in one way or another. You do believe in the lake of fire. I also assumed you believe God spoke this universe into being. Was I wrong in that assumption?



And Jazer, I'm cool with a serious debate. Will you become logically consistent and stop making all those unrelated attacks and totally random arguments?
If so, you're on. If not: What are you doing here?

 

[Jazer]

So, correct me Jazer.

I already have.

can't provide a single credible piece of evidence

Hubble is not "credible"? You really are going way out on a limb all by yourself now. If Hubble is not credible than what are you going to use to establish the age of the universe? Everyone pretty much goes by the age established by Hubble.

 

[TheReasoner]

I already have.

Nope. You said I misquoted you. You didn't say WHAT I had said that was incorrect.

Hubble is not "credible"? You really are going way out on a limb all by yourself now. If Hubble is not credible than what are you going to use to establish the age of the universe? Everyone pretty much goes by the age established by Hubble.

Please, Jazer. You claim to be an adult. So don't act like a child. Hubble, both Edwin and the telescope, are credible sources. But to say that physics text books are rendered so inaccurate that they are so deeply inaccurate they are no longer valid as educational textbooks - which was, in essence, what you said - is ludicrous.

Hubble's discoveries and the work related to it's discoveries have unveiled much, but you make it sound as if Newton, Einstein and Schrodinger all were proven no more valid than a kindergarden argument.

And then... Your followup?`"The bible has remained for 3500 years". Such nonsensical irrelevant drivel Jazer. Sure, the bible is an old book. But you seem to have forgotten that it's no science textbook. It has been used as such before, to argue for a flat world. To argue for a geocentric universe and the rest of the ptolemaian model. And you know what, even though their arguments made perfect sense if you look at the bible and the bible alone they make no sense if you cast half a glance at the universe around us.
Hence, to argue that the bible is unchanged and therefore your interpretation is infallible is beyond inane. The bible may be unchanged. But from that it does not follow that it is correct. And even if it is one cannot draw a conclusion from that that your interpretation - which is a minority and considered sectarian by many - is correct.


And in all of this I have not yet mentioned that you employ the old creationist standard of ad-hominem attacks - saying that those who disagree enough with your position to consider it laughable are mocking GOD. Who IS God according to you Jazer? Your own stance on creation, is THAT who God is? Does He fit in your snug little box?
And - in addition to that - attacking the faith of your opposition, calling it this and that. For example. Or the totally random quotations of Usher, where he makes a reference to Adam and Eve, which you use apparently as a basis for creationism's validity - even though it in itself is totally unrelated to the argument at hand.
And you wonder why you are not respected? Hah!

You want respect? Earn it. Start by criticizing any mockery by addressing what the mockery IS, not something completely different. Your POSITION was laughed at, not God. And even if someone don't agree with your biblical interpretation that does NOT mean they are not Christian. As stated, if it did then most Christians wouldn't be Christians.
Start also by NOT employing completely random fallacies to defend your position. If we're discussing creationism's validity as a whole then one quote from Usher, even though he is central to the pseudoscience, does not validate the position as a whole. Especially not when it's ripped out of context and jammed into a thread where it fits worse than a square peg in a round hole.


So, shall you try again?

 

[Jazer]

The bible may be unchanged. But from that it does not follow that it is correct.

There is a lot in the Bible that has been shown to be correct and true. As a History book the Bible is very accurate. Also the Bible is one of a very few documents we have from early written history. NOTHING in the Bible has ever been falsified.

So, shall you try again?

Try what? I am GAP so I would be glad to discuss that with you. If you want to argue YEC then go find a YEC and you can talk to them about what they believe.

I get really really tired of people saying I am a YEC when I am a GAP.

 

[TheReasoner]

There is a lot in the Bible that has been shown to be correct and true. As a History book the Bible is very accurate. Also the Bible is one of a very few documents we have from early written history. NOTHING in the Bible has ever been falsified.

Ignoring the important bit which follows that quote?

Well, I could show you some parts right now. Most of which neither one of us would take literally. Such as the earth having pillars. Does it have pillars? No. Or being round as a disc. Is it? No. It's a slightly compressed sphere. Or it having a hard hammered sky above it. It doesn't. Or the rock-badger chewing cud. It doesn't. Does the earth have four corners? No. Is pi=3? No.

See? I hope so. Even if the bible is infallible interpretations might not be.

And I am arguing that a creationist interpretation is false, and has been thoroughly falsified. Just the same as both the view that the earth is flat - which some people insists the bible claims. Or that Pi=3, or that the earth is the centre of the universe. All of which are claims you can make with the bible at your back. Or one interpretation of it anyway.

You say the bible hasn't been falsified. I say that depends on how you read it. IF you claim the bible says pi=3, then it's falsified. Pi is not equal to 3. And the world is not immobile and placed upon pillars. It spins rather fast, and orbits something else which spins and orbits. It´s most definitely moving. A LOT. But the bible, if read literally, says it's immobile.


Also: History does not equal natural science.

Try what? I am GAP so I would be glad to discuss that with you. If you want to argue YEC then go find a YEC and you can talk to them about what they believe.

I get really really tired of people saying I am a YEC when I am a GAP.

I thought you argued for YEC and GAP being reconcilable? Also, don't you think other people are getting a bit tired of you accusing them of being nonbelievers, mocking God etc. when they disagree with you?

Anyway. What does GAP say, specifically. Boil it down.

 

[Jazer]

Such as the earth having pillars. Does it have pillars?

Are you talking about the book of Job? If so that is Job saying that. It is a very difficult book because you have to look to see who is saying what. Can you give me a scripture referance so I can look at it.

If you want to have a Bible study wonderful. But I will need to know what verses you want to study so we can look at them to see if we can figure out what they are saying. Remember this is a 3500 year old document and it can be a challange to know how it appys to us today. I have been to Bible college so I can help you to understand what the message is for us today in the Word of God.

We can also look at the people the Bible was written to and how they understood what they were reading at the time.

 

[Jazer]

I thought you argued for YEC and GAP being reconcilable?

You can not throw the baby out with the bath water. A lot of the YEC theory is valid and supported by Science. But like a lot of 500 year old theorys some of it has been proven not to be true. New information comes along and you have to update what you believe. That is the way Science works and that is the way Science does things. What is amazing is the Bible is 3500 years old and has always proven to be accurate. Nothing has ever had to be corrected. God does not need an eraser on His pencil.

Also, don't you think other people are getting a bit tired of you accusing them of being nonbelievers, mocking God etc. when they disagree with you?

No more tired then I get of the BS I have to put up with on here. I am going to take a stand for the truth. I am not going to stand around when people want to slander the truth. It maybe a while before people finally get it and understand what they need to know. People have to discover the truth for themselves. We just try to help them to know where to look. Science can not tell you where to dig for Gold or Diamonds. But Science can help you to know where to look.

Just like they talk about old and new wealth, there is old and new treasure to be found in the word of God.

 

[createdtoworship]

many stars exist yet there are few star births being observed, indicating neither evolution or OEC or GAP possibilities....

from this link:
biblestudying.net

Formation of Stars: Like the formation of the large-scale structures of the universe, there is still no working explanation in evolutionary Big Bang cosmology for the formation of stars, the predominant and perhaps most basic celestial object. Consequently, the Big Bang cosmology doesn't explain or describe what caused the "bang," the bang itself, how the bang led to the current large-scale structure and distribution of the universe, or the formation of anything from galaxies to stars. There is still no working evolutionary model for the existence of these things.

"Many aspects of the evolution of galaxies cannot yet be determined with any certainty." - Joseph Silk, (Professor of Astronomy at the University of Oxford), The Big Bang, 2001, p. 195 (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

"Galaxies must have condensed out of the gases expanding from the big bang…Details of the formation of galaxies are still highly uncertain, as is their subsequent evolution." - The Facts on File Dictionary of Astronomy, 1994, p. 172 (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

"The complete birth of a star has never been observed. The principles of physics demand some special conditions for star formation and also for a long time period. A cloud of hydrogen gas must be compressed to a sufficiently small size so that gravity dominates. In space, however, almost every gas cloud is light-years in size, hundreds of times greater than the critical size needed for a stable star. As a result, outward gas pressures cause these clouds to spread out farther, not contract." - Don De Young, Ph. D. in Physics, Astronomy and the Bible, 2000, p. 84 (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

"Precisely how a section of an interstellar cloud collapses gravitationally into a star…is still a challenging theoretical problem…Astronomers have yet to see an interstellar cloud in the actual process of collapse." - Fred Whipple, The Mystery of Comets, (Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institute Press, 1985), pp. 211, 213 (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

"To many astronomers, it seems reasonable that stars could form from these clouds of gas. Most astronomers believe that the clouds gradually contract under their own weight to form stars. This process has never been observed, but if it did occur, it would take many human life times. It is known that clouds do not spontaneously collapse to form stars. The clouds possess considerable mass, but they are so large that their gravity is very feeble. Any decrease in size would be met by an increase in gas pressure that would cause a cloud to re-expand." - Danny Faulkner, Ph. D. Astronomy (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

"There is general belief that stars are forming by gravitational collapse; in spite of vigorous efforts no one has yet found any observational indication of confirmation. Thus the 'generally accepted' theory of stellar formation may be one of a hundred unsupported dogmas which constitute a large part of present-day astrophysics." - Hannes Alfven (Nobel prize winner), Gustaf Arrhenius, "Evolution of the Solar System," NASA, 1976, p. 480 (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

"Despite numerous efforts, we have yet to directly observe the process of stellar formation…The origin of stars represents one of the fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics." - Charles Lada and Frank Shu (both astronomers), "The Formation of Sunlike Stars," Science, 1990, p. 572 (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

"Stars are formed by the gravitational collapse of cool, dense gas and dust clouds…There are problems, however, in initiating the collapse of a gas cloud. It resists collapse because of firstly its internal motions and the heating effects of nearby stars, secondly, the centripetal support due to rotation, and thirdly, the magnetic field pressure." - Facts on File Dictionary of Astronomy, 1994, p. 434 (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

"The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level." - Marcus Chown, "Let there be Light," New Scientist, Feb. 7, 1998 (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

a video series on this topic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpVRjQTBVZU&feature=player_detailpage

 

[createdtoworship]

You can not throw the baby out with the bath water. A lot of the YEC theory is valid and supported by Science. But like a lot of 500 year old theorys some of it has been proven not to be true. New information comes along and you have to update what you believe. That is the way Science works and that is the way Science does things. What is amazing is the Bible is 3500 years old and has always proven to be accurate. Nothing has ever had to be corrected. God does not need an eraser on His pencil.

No more tired then I get of the BS I have to put up with on here. I am going to take a stand for the truth. I am not going to stand around when people want to slander the truth. It maybe a while before people finally get it and understand what they need to know. People have to discover the truth for themselves. We just try to help them to know where to look. Science can not tell you where to dig for Gold or Diamonds. But Science can help you to know where to look.

Just like they talk about old and new wealth, there is old and new treasure to be found in the word of God.

your right creationists (YEC) need to update their material. But they are working on limited budgets thats all. (not federally funded)