Light, stars, and creationism

[otseng]

If the stars were created on the fourth day, where did the light on the first day come from?

How can we see stars that are billions of light years away if creationism says the earth is less than 20,000 years old?

[BoatRocker]

Who cares what I would do? It isn't about me, because what I would or would not do is completely irrelevant to what God has done. I cannot create God in my image, expecting him to act as I specify, demanding an explanation when he doesn't perfom to my specifications. In that case I would be pretending to be God, and treating God like a slave!

Many people wish God had created robots instead of people, forcing us to be good and kind. They value comfort over character, control over choice, fate over faith. But God isn't like that.

He gave us a free will. What's the point of that if we had no choice to make? That we have, as a race, chosen to defy God and live in sin is not his fault. So if you want to blame someone for all the evil in the world, blame man.

I highly recommend you check out this link:

http://members.tripod.com/plafgridz/Fet ... People.pdf

It's a rebuttal of the book "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People", and it covers many of the issues you bring up.

[using reason]

Wow, there is alot of dancing around this issue. It is a pretty simple question. What is really boils down to (as with most questions about the bible? is this, is the bible correct?

If it is correct, then let us rejoice in the wisdom of the lord. If it is not correct, then lets put aside this concern and focus on real problems. However, that is where people have their problem. They WANT to believe, man oh man, do they ever. It simplifies life if the bible is correct. There is just that tiny little problem - the bible is wrong. It is wrong about how the universe and world was created. It got the order of the appearance of plants and animals wrong. It got the placement of the first humans way off, the flood theory is a joke and every item it references requires faith or a miracle to occur. But life is not like that. The world spins, people live and die and do so every day without a miracle occurring. So dance around this issue if it makes you feel good. But at the end of the day, we are at the same place.

[using reason]

Boat rocker, how can you claim we all have free will? That we decide how we want to act. In the 1st place we have no choice in the matter. Adam and Eve condemned us all. Therefore, my free will is meaningless. All I get to do is ask for forgiveness again and again and again. Besides there are people living sinless lives. Mother Teresa immediately comes to mind. Except, she is a sinner as well. Why, because Adam and Eve condenmed us forever as sinners. If it is impossible not to be a sinner, then my free will has no relevance. I either choose to sin or not to sin with free will. But EVERYBODY is a sinner. So, my supposed free will to decide if I want to sin or not is meaningless. I sin every day regardless of what actions my free will allows me to do. So what is my free will?

Besides the deck was stacked against us from the start. God created everything including free will. He is omnipotent and therefore knows everything. So he knew Adam and Eve would eat the apple and fall from grace. He had to know - he is omnipotent. If he did not know he is not omnipotent and therefore not worthy of being worshiped as God. Since he knew, is was a sting operation and we are being punished for an event that was predestined to occur. And we are to sing the praises of this being and worship him? Please!!!

[BoatRocker]

the bible is wrong. It is wrong about how the universe and world was created. It got the order of the appearance of plants and animals wrong. It got the placement of the first humans way off, the flood theory is a joke and every item it references requires faith or a miracle to occur.

Sorry, but the Bible is right. The quotes I gave earlier from leading evolutionists show that not only is the theory of an ancient universe absurd, it is faith-based. It's a philosophy, not a proven scientific fact.

The Flood is a joke? Not according to people who specialize in geology and fluid dynamics (unless, as per earlier quote, they have decided a priori to reject any datat that will support it). I think it's comical, not to mention hypocritical, for "scientists" to believe in a global flood on Mars but deny it could happen here.

[BoatRocker]

Boat rocker, how can you claim we all have free will? ...Since he knew, is was a sting operation and we are being punished for an event that was predestined to occur. And we are to sing the praises of this being and worship him? Please!!!

First, please see this document:
http://64.17.140.18/FetherPDFs/Free%20Will.pdf

It's obvious from your post ("sting operation" etc.) that you are anything but open-minded about God. You've already played the part of judge and jury to a being you can't see and don't understand. Does God answer to you? Are you more moral than he is? Do you think he'll crumble before your superior intellect?

[using reason]

If the flood occurred, the following happened. The entire world is covered by water. Thats what the bible says. Therefore, all the rivers, lakes, seas and oceans above and below the former surface combine into one giant body of water. Take a glass of fresh water and glass of salt water and mix together. There is now one larger amount of salt water, although it is slightly diluted. Therefore, all fresh water supplies have been contaminated. The only fresh water is what Noah brought on board and what he can catch during a rain. Once the water starts to subside, and land emerges, all water sources are salt water. There is no fresh water anywhere. If it rains, it rains into salt water lakes, rivers, seas and oceans. All land has been contaminated as well. Salt mixed into ground renders it incapable of growing crops. That is what armies did to ruin a countries ability to rebound after an invasion, salt their land. So, all the water is salt water and all the land cannot support crops. So, all land based animals who survived on the ark die. There is no suitable land that can grow crops and there is no fresh water to grow them.

Now I suppose you can claim that Noah had enough fresh water to last long enough to allow manmade lakes to accumulate sufficient fresh water to support an eco-system after the flood and brought uncontaminated top soil in the ark which was used to grow the crops. However, I think the fairy tale has enough stretches at this time.

Now, Creationists who claim to specialize in geology and fluid dynamics can maintain its feasibility all they want, but that does not change the reality of what has to occur.

Then you make a tremendous jump and complain that if it happened on Mars, it can happen here. There is no LIFE on Mars that needs to rebound after a worldwide flood occurs. Or if there was life, perhaps this is what killed it all off. Besides, it is a speculation only at this time. That is the problem with the flood theory on Earth; such a flood would render the world incapable of supporting life (well except marine life).

[otseng]

Discussing the flood is not really relevant to this thread. Please start another thread to debate the issues you brought up of a global flood.

[using reason]

I am very open-minded about God. It is the bible I take issue with, and the way it describes God.

I doubt God is very concerned over my comments. I believe he would be much more upset over the way he is described in a book that is supposed to provide a guide to the world.

[ENIGMA]

Boat rocker, how can you claim we all have free will? ...Since he knew, is was a sting operation and we are being punished for an event that was predestined to occur. And we are to sing the praises of this being and worship him? Please!!!

First, please see this document:
http://64.17.140.18/FetherPDFs/Free%20Will.pdf

It's obvious from your post ("sting operation" etc.) that you are anything but open-minded about God. You've already played the part of judge and jury to a being you can't see and don't understand. Does God answer to you? Are you more moral than he is? Do you think he'll crumble before your superior intellect?

It is also quite obvious from your various posts in this thread that you have minimal interest in sticking to the thread topic, wishing to engage in a large number of side discussions in a wide array of topics, ranging from free will (post above) and sin, to slightly more topical but utterly pointless copy and paste from creationist quote-miners, many of whom have a rather odd tendency to quote-mine people from decades ago, almost invariably out of context as an attempt to show evolution "has no empirical backing". (Need to spend that "research" budget somehow, eh?).

A quick example with the quote-mining:

**Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology. [ SA 81] **

Perhaps I should emphasize something...

**Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology. [ SA 81] **

A quick example to show the flaw in using this to "disprove" evolution:

I can't, off the top of my head without looking it up, remember exactly how tall the Empire State Building is. So a buddy and I get into a quick discussion on how tall we think it is:

Me: Its a pretty big building, I think it's around 110 stories tall.
Buddy: Nah, it's big, but it can't be that tall. It's probably a bit less, like around 100.
Me: I'm pretty sure its 110-something..
Buddy: Nah. Its 100-something.

Then someone out of the blue comes by and says:

Stranger: You're both wrong. It's 6 stories tall.

Should my inability to remember exactly how tall it is inhibit my argument that the Empire State Building, a major skyscraper, is definitely more than 6 stories tall? Of course not, since the discussion was predicated on the knowledge of both my buddy and I that the building was tall enough to have a number of floors in the low triple-digits or at least in the high double-digits, since it is a major skyscraper that is particularly noted as being "a very big one".

Likewise, the data is quite definitively showing evolutionary processes at work, however it is an open question to what degree such things as genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium and the like play in such a process.

[using reason]

I am new here, and perhaps I misunderstand the premise. I thought we were having a debate. Although a specific topic is necessary, there is often a need to incorporate additional ideas and concepts to get the message across. If I am out of line, I will try to be more specific. However, I have not added any posting in my e-mails. I think you are confusing the dialogue here.