# How DID those stars get there?



## Southern Presbyterian (Apr 16, 2008)

Star Birth Puzzle

Man, I just don't have any idea how those stars could have gotten there. 






Anyone else have a guess?


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 16, 2008)

You couple that story with this one and these staunch anti-theists are beginning to look like the refined woman proudly strutting across the ballroom floor and doesn't realize that her gown has fallen down around her ankles. At the base of evolution, at the base of non-Biblical cosmology is a philosophical assumption (religion) that is getting harder and harder to defend.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 16, 2008)

3,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years ago, a big explosion occured sendint out the right amount of particles, the right mixture at the right speed into the right direction in space. at which point they collided with other existing fragments at the right speed with the right composition to set off a reaction that took the right amount of itme to prodeuce stars. that is how they got there

or you could except a more logical and simple answer and turn to Genesis 1.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 16, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> You couple that story with this one and these staunch anti-theists are beginning to look like the refined woman proudly strutting across the ballroom floor and doesn't realize that her gown has fallen down around her ankles. At the base of evolution, at the base of non-Biblical cosmology is a philosophical assumption (religion) that is getting harder and harder to defend.



How would the second story be a refutation of or in opposition to evolution?


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 16, 2008)

Poimen said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> > You couple that story with this one and these staunch anti-theists are beginning to look like the refined woman proudly strutting across the ballroom floor and doesn't realize that her gown has fallen down around her ankles. At the base of evolution, at the base of non-Biblical cosmology is a philosophical assumption (religion) that is getting harder and harder to defend.
> ...



It's not a refutation, just another example of how their paradigm gets messed up by new discoveries. The story talks about how the biologists are puzzled because the simple jellyfishes seemed to be descended from a more complex ancient critter. 

Which is similar to a proposition I made once, long ago, in a philosophy of science class: 

"It seems possible that dolphins descended from Tahitian pearl divers, whose selective breeding for the best divers got out of hand." 

Nobody could come up with a reasonable refutation except that they were a different species. Well. . . duh? Why doesn't it work the other way around?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 16, 2008)

ModernPuritan? said:


> 3,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years ago, a big explosion occured sendint out the right amount of particles, the right mixture at the right speed into the right direction in space. at which point they collided with other existing fragments at the right speed with the right composition to set off a reaction that took the right amount of itme to prodeuce stars. that is how they got there
> 
> or you could except a more logical and simple answer and turn to Genesis 1.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 16, 2008)

Vic:

I asked how if could be a refutation *or* in opposition to evolution. 

Just because they find something new that they didn't expect doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is messed up. (it is but not for that reason)

We all have assumptions about what is and what is not and will often, if not always, interpret new evidence through our presuppositional lenses. Eventually someone will provide us with a new(er) way of looking at the evidence or simply destroy our paradigm altogether. In the mean time we continue to think as we always have. 

But I don't see how this new evidence does what Bob thinks it does (at least not yet).


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 16, 2008)

it appears that (even though its a theory) that evolutionist make absolute statements. 

1) sponge is first life form

a few years later they find something older

2) this isnt supposed to be here, we came form spongey, 

so either they will have to continually revise the first premise "we came from spnge" meaning that they cant be viewed as authoritative- they cant get the story straight? is it sponge or jellyfish. 


so they must insist that 1 is right and 2 is wrong, or that 2 is right and 1 is wrong. If number 1 is right, then they are willfully just as "unscientific and stupid" as creationist for not accepting their science, their test results, etc. IF they accept 2, then they have to admit that they can infact be wrong. IF they are wrong once, they could be wrong about other things too?

so either way the all mighty allwise evolutionist clearly dont have definitive answers.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Apr 16, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> You couple that story with this one and these staunch anti-theists are beginning to look like the refined woman proudly strutting across the ballroom floor and doesn't realize that her gown has fallen down around her ankles. At the base of evolution, at the base of non-Biblical cosmology is a philosophical assumption (religion) that is getting harder and harder to defend.



Okay, I've been thinking about this for awhile today. If Christians continually change the Creation Account to jive with the latest scientific theories (i.e. day-age theory, et. al.) don't we then appear just as foolish as the evolution crowd? 

The answer is, "Yes, we do!"

Thus a literal interpretation of the Genesis account is critical. If we don't stick to the original story, THE TRUTH, a literal 6 day 24 hour day creation, then we are throwing the baby out with the bath water!


----------



## Grymir (Apr 17, 2008)

Amen Southern!!!!!


----------



## BJClark (Apr 17, 2008)

Southern Presbyterian;




> Man, I just don't have any idea how those stars could have gotten there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh Oh, I do, I do, pick me, pick me...

Those who have died have been reincarnated and became stars...they evolved to a higher place in the heavens..and are now closer to their god..


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 17, 2008)

Close Bobbi, my mom told me that stars are the windows of heaven where angels peak through. Sounds good to me.


----------



## BJClark (Apr 17, 2008)

BobVigneault;



> my mom told me that stars are the windows of heaven where angels peak through. Sounds good to me.



I like that answer better too


----------

