Time and Starlight

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What about it? You’ve made no relevant points. There are people who believe that.
 
You must have missed the whole “we must have total compliance here” idea. That’s all this is.
 

This is the best possible explanation Ive ever seen. Basically that the creation story was written from the POV of at the Big Bang. And while it’s only been a few thousand years from where it all started space has stretched so much since then that from where we are sitting here on earth, it’s been billions of years. In that article I posted, they even do the math and it adds up. Amazing, and it’s what I think has happened!
 
Last edited:
edwest said:
See this book:
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that a Roman Catholic would support someone who does not believe in the Big Bang. I read that his QSO theories have not had much acceptance within the scientific community.
 
Gingersnaps4 said:
And while it’s only been a few thousand years from where it all started space has stretched so much since then that from where we are sitting here on earth, it’s been billions of years. In that article I posted, they even do the math and it adds up. Amazing, and it’s what I think has happened!
Click to expand...
What do you mean, “from where it all started space has stretched so much since then that from where we are sitting here on earth, it’s been billions of years”

Can you elaborate? This is all way over my head
 
From the point at where creation started, if you were sitting right where the Big Bang was, it’s been about 10,000 years and space has stretched so much that from where we sit, we look at the universe and it’s been billions of years. Using scientific principals like Einstein’s theory of relativity, and using the math on how fast the universe is expanding, the math adds up. Read that article, it’s long but very interesting. He walks you through everything so you don’t have to be literate in physics or astronomy to read it.
 
I just finished reading it (I SHOULD have been sleeping, thank you very much!), and I am VERY glad I did!!! It was great on several levels, but it must be read to the very end to be appreciated fully.

I can’t help thinking that so many people who doubt the possibility of a Biblical text being correct, will absolutely refuse to take the time to read articles such as these, which propose plausible explanations for agreement with scientific findings, while laughing at those who attempt to bring them to discussion.

And the “science only” folks will gloss over how the attitudes and beliefs of the various scientific communities have changed (sometimes drastically!) over the years.
 
HopkinsReb said:
Then let me rephrase: the Catholic priest on this Catholic forum was stating the Catholic view of the what the Lutherans have, not the Lutheran view of what the Lutherans have.

I’m sorry if you’re bothered by that. But you did choose to be a member of a Catholic forum, so it should neither surprise nor offend you to find people here claiming that a church that lacks apostolic succession lacks the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
I am fine with someone making a claim that conflicts with mine. It is interesting however, that my response to a comment not brought up by me, that refuted the comment using scripture and historical precedent was deleted from the thread. Apparently, some are fine with making a claim but are not fine with having to defend it.
 
Hope1960 said:
What do you mean?
Click to expand...
He’s getting a bit conspiratorial and suggesting that the reason literal creationism isn’t taken seriously is because there’s some shadowy cabal keeping truth from the masses. Or something.
 
Hope1960 said:
40.png
edwest:
You must have missed the whole “we must have total compliance here” idea. That’s all this is.
Click to expand...
What do you mean?
Click to expand...
Some people interpret parts of the bible literally. Nothing wrong with that. But If someone points out that scientific evidence contradicts said interpretation and that the science based viewpoint is accepted by a very high percentage of bona fide scientists, then some people have a tendency to claim there has been a degree of brain-washing, or suggest that there is pressure to comply with the ‘groupthink’ (as per 1984).

It’s a common trope amongs conspiracy theorists. Global warming is a classic example. It’s the obverse to the appeal to authority. You can hardly appeal to a minority so they denigrate the all but universal acceptance of well founded scientific theories by claiming a sheep-like tendency to follow the crowd.

And who wants to be thought of as blindly following the masses (all together now: ‘We don’t!’).
 
When the information coming in ignores alternative possibilities and data, I find it interesting that only a handful of people do look into it.
 
God simply created them that far away and made their light shine in our sky from day one.

Adam was not created as a new born baby.
Eve was not created as a new born baby.
God can create light that can be seen from earth instantly even though it should have taken billions of years to reach our eyes.
 
Bradksii, out of curiosity as the resident atheist, what led you to start posting on CAF? Presumably you don’t think that religious belief is per se stupid, since otherwise you wouldn’t bother to engage.

I don’t mean this as a prelude to a fight or anything. You’re always respectful and your posts are usually well reasoned and interesting. I’m just curious.
 
The information may be misinterpreted, which I think has been the general consensus on the QSO theories of Professor Arp.
 
GhostOfBBM said:
Bradksii, out of curiosity as the resident atheist, what led you to start posting on CAF? Presumably you don’t think that religious belief is per se stupid, since otherwise you wouldn’t bother to engage.

I don’t mean this as a prelude to a fight or anything. You’re always respectful and your posts are usually well reasoned and interesting. I’m just curious.
Click to expand...
Simply put…I enjoy the debate. It wouldn’t be much use to me discussing life, the universe and everything with people who would agree with most of what I say, so it’s more beneficial to debate those who almost always disagree with me.

If nothing else, it forces me to examine my views and put forward arguments for them. That clarifies matters for me somewhat.
 
edwest said:
When the information coming in ignores alternative possibilities and data, I find it interesting that only a handful of people do look into it.
Click to expand...
So let’s take the evidence as per the video that was linked. Which is meant to be an honest appraisal of a scientific investigation into red shift. And whch starts with a demand that we always must appreciate, before we even get to the evidence, that God created the universe and effectively, if He wanted to the speed of light to vary in any way, then we must accept that.

End of story I’m afraid. God is never implicitly excluded from scientific discussions (a fact you never fail to ignore) but the moment that He is explicitly included, then it is no longer a scientific discussion.
 
Oh my. This is Catholic Answers after all. God must be included. People do quote Popes but only when they say something agreeable. If not, they are called uneducated. Strange that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top