god, life + creation

Originally posted by Halitose
Quite right. I'm fitting on the Y.E.C. hat for the duration of this thread. ///
An asteroid impact that caused Noah's flood and the ice-age.

Lol, what colour & shape is that hat?

Did God pluck the asteroid from its orbit or was it a purpose-built Flood Missile?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Suspects Halitose is taking the piss

Quite right. I'm fitting on the Y.E.C. hat for the duration of this thread.

How does this scheme of things explain precession?

An asteroid impact that caused Noah's flood and the ice-age.[/b]

Why do you say an asteroid impact when it could be something else?

Originally posted by Halitose
Why would the distance from the earth be any indication of its age? In the young-earth model, the stars were created at their respective distances from the earth and like Adam, fully mature, i.e. the light emanating from it having already reached the outer limits of our universe.

If a star is 20,000 light years away then either
1. it existed 20,000 years ago hence an indication of its age.
or
2. the light we see was created by some other means than emanating from a star but was made to appear to have emanated from that star.

If No 2 is true then my theory that the earth was created "fully mature" in the Year 2000 must be correct.
However since this full maturity includes memories (star light) of a past which never really existed, I can still base all my scientific studies on that non-existant past and conclude that in the non-existant youth of the universe there was a big bang and evolution.
What I dont understand about your "Fully Mature" Theory is why you still insist on criticising any science which deals with history before creation. If the earth was created fully mature with dinosoar bones and apparently old rocks all carefull planted in the earth so as to give the impression of maturity then surely we can still accurately study these and draw conclusions about the earths youth even though it never existed.

Do you fully understand the concept of the young-earth model?
No. I know almost nothing about the concept except the claim that the earth is less than about 10,000 years old.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So God created the star light first and then created the stars?? When we see light from a supernova 100,000 light years away we're seeing something that never actually happened? It's all a show God decided to put on?

Obviously, you're not asserting that all the stars, galaxies, etc. etc. etc. are all contained in an area only 6,000 light ye ...[text shortened]... measure distance? Do you know what a red shift is? Or are you just happy whistling in ignorance?

So God created the star light first and then created the stars?? When we see light from a supernova 100,000 light years away we're seeing something that never actually happened? It's all a show God decided to put on?

Erm... why would it not have happened?

Obviously, you're not asserting that all the stars, galaxies, etc. etc. etc. are all contained in an area only 6,000 light years in diameter.

That is not what I am asserting; why would it have to be in such a confined space?

Do you know anything at all about actual astronomy? Do you know what a Cepheid star is and how these are used to measure distance? Do you know what a red shift is? Or are you just happy whistling in ignorance?

State your counter-hypothesis, lets not resort to ad hominems just yet.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Goddunnit.

Spot on!Mabey you know this as you may/may not have been reincarnated from that time through'mirilithorwhatever'If this is true mabey you have more to offer on the subject?🙂

Originally posted by windmill
Why do you say an asteroid impact when it could be something else?

Earth?boooom!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Lol, what colour & shape is that hat?

Did God pluck the asteroid from its orbit or was it a purpose-built Flood Missile?

Lol, what colour & shape is that hat?

A dunce cap.

Did God pluck the asteroid from its orbit or was it a purpose-built Flood Missile?

Either way, it resulted in one big splash.

Originally posted by windmill
Why do you say an asteroid impact when it could be something else?

That is why it is called a "theory".

Originally posted by twhitehead
If a star is 20,000 light years away then either
1. it existed 20,000 years ago hence an indication of its age.
or
2. the light we see was created by some other means than emanating from a star but was made to appear to have emanated from that star.

If No 2 is true then my theory that the earth was created "fully mature" in the Year 2000 must be ...[text shortened]... t nothing about the concept except the claim that the earth is less than about 10,000 years old.

Yeah I'll go with No 2.

However since this full maturity includes memories (star light) of a past which never really existed, I can still base all my scientific studies on that non-existant past and conclude that in the non-existant youth of the universe there was a big bang and evolution.

Erm... provided your observations are accurate and your conclusions correct.

What I dont understand about your "Fully Mature" Theory is why you still insist on criticising any science which deals with history before creation.

I don't. I criticize the methodology and assumptions of origin-science.


If the earth was created fully mature with dinosoar bones and apparently old rocks all carefull planted in the earth so as to give the impression of maturity then surely we can still accurately study these and draw conclusions about the earths youth even though it never existed.

No. You don't need bones to have a mature universe. Bones are a sign of death and decay. What profound conclusions do you reach anyway?

Originally posted by Halitose
Yeah I'll go with No 2.

I don't. I criticize the methodology and assumptions of origin-science.

According to you God created a "fully mature" earth complete with a history book which gives a detialed history of an imaginary past before the earths actual creation. You then choose to dispute how this book is read. Why dispute the reading of the book when you have already declared that nothing in the book ever happened anyway ?

None of what we are discussing is origin-science. We are discussion your theory which is a religious belief and its relationship to history and the observable universe which we can study through scientific methods.
The term origin-science is almost meaningless as science is unable to describe origins and any other descriptions are not scientific anyway.

Originally posted by twhitehead
According to you God created a "fully mature" earth complete with a history book which gives a detialed history of an imaginary past before the earths actual creation. You then choose to dispute how this book is read. Why dispute the reading of the book when you have already declared that nothing in the book ever happened anyway ?

None of what we are ...[text shortened]... s as science is unable to describe origins and any other descriptions are not scientific anyway.

Let me ask how much of science was created by Non-Christians to Christians.It has been made 4 the most part by Non-Christians.Based on the studies already done in regards to the flood would we have done enough to prove it real?Therefore all samples dated before,during,and for an unknown time after would be thrown out of whack if it was not proven.The earth may have aged x-years in a short time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
According to you God created a "fully mature" earth complete with a history book which gives a detialed history of an imaginary past before the earths actual creation. You then choose to dispute how this book is read. Why dispute the reading of the book when you have already declared that nothing in the book ever happened anyway ?

None of what we are ...[text shortened]... s as science is unable to describe origins and any other descriptions are not scientific anyway.

According to you God created a "fully mature" earth complete with a history book which gives a detialed history of an imaginary past before the earths actual creation.

I think you have grossly misunderstood my position on this thread. I asserted nothing of the sort. Creating the light of a star together with the star itself doesn't imply a "detailed history". How do you know for certain that the speed of light is a constant? Its been slowed down to a halt in the lab. Eistein contended that it is influenced by gravity. There are many theories that don't require some imaginary past.

None of what we are discussing is origin-science.

By "origin science", I was implying a non-scientific-method-type-forensic-scientific-investigation. Much of our origins is a matter of conjecture, theory and belief; just because my position here includes the G-word, doesn't discount its credibility - it stands or falls on currently observable phenomenon.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]According to you God created a "fully mature" earth complete with a history book which gives a detialed history of an imaginary past before the earths actual creation.

I think you have grossly misunderstood my position on this thread. I asserted nothing of the sort. Creating the light of a star together with the star itself doesn't imply a "de ...[text shortened]... word, doesn't discount its credibility - it stands or falls on currently observable phenomenon.[/b]

Anyone ever heard of string theory.

Originally posted by windmill
Let me ask how much of science was created by Non-Christians to Christians.It has been made 4 the most part by Non-Christians.Based on the studies already done in regards to the flood would we have done enough to prove it real?Therefore all samples dated before,during,and for an unknown time after would be thrown out of whack if it was not proven.The earth may have aged x-years in a short time.

Science is not something that can be created. It is a way of looking at the world. If you are asking about the proportions of various religions amoungst scientists that would be a hard question to answer as the definition of a scientist is vague and so is the definition of a Christian.
However many of the more famous scientists professed to be Christian.
I dont quite understand what you are saying about the flood. However the sentence "The earth may have aged x-years in a short time." makes no sense at all. A 50 year old object is 50 years old and cannot "age" 100 years in 50 years.
Most of my arguements in this thread however are to do with the distance from earth to stars and how this either proves that the earth is greater than 10,000 years or that most of the stars you see at night are not really there, you are just seening light that has been travelling since the creation and was created in such a way as to make it appear that there were stars.

Originally posted by trevor33
Anyone ever heard of string theory.

Yes. And your point is?