Non creationist astronomy failed

[tdrehfal]

Kendemeyer,

thankyou for the links, they are awesome.

Best explanation for the moon's existence:"observational error, the moon does not exist".

Here's what was written in the link, and taken out of context by the poster here:

Evolutionists (and progressive creationists) deny the moon

Edited January 21, 2007 by tdrehfal

[Admiral-Bell]

Our universe is finite. And there are better explainations for Its creation than a god. First, Consider the fact that a god violates the laws of thermodynamics. Second, even if the big bang is incorrect, there is no imperical evidence of a god, another theory may be correct. Thirdly, the Universe may be actually neutral in energy, and may have come of nothing. Fourth, there is imperical evidence for the big bang. Fith, believed unsolvable problems have been solved (Speciation, composition of sun, what light is, etc.) .

[billie]

God isn't subject to natural laws. He created them for us. He's above and not confined to them.

[Admiral-Bell]

God isn't subject to natural laws. He created them for us. He's above and not confined to them.

So, the existance of god requires no evidence?

[billie]

The existance of God "requires" nothing.

[Guest Realitybites]

Creationist Astronomy failed

Creationists have yet to explain why we can observe light greater than ~6000 light years away, given that the light has not had enough time to travel further.

You cannot judge science based on knowledge it has not yet aquired. Science is about the exploration of the truth, and cannot be dismissed due to gaps in our knowledge. We are only human. God did not create us to be perfect. We are mortal and have small brains, is it any wonder that some people believe in creation stories, or that we have gaps in our knowledge.

Creationists and scientists fail to explain the rotation curves of galaxies, and the formation of the early universe. 'Therefore both have failed and must be wrong.' No, just because scientists haven't figured it out doesn't mean it's wrong, and just because it's not in the bible doesn't make it unknowable.

God created the entire universe. There is nothing wrong with exploring and explaining the nature that god created for us, and neither is there anything wrong with not knowing the answer to a difficult question. You can't agree with science every time it agrees with the bible, and then dismiss it every time you think it contradicts your own limited and therefore flawed understanding of the bible.

[aslanlight]

Why Faith vs. Science?

I'm perfectly happy with both.

Edited January 30, 2007 by aslanlight

[aslanlight]

'If the universe is infinite, it could not be caused because it would need an infinite number of conditions to cause an infinite universe, and an infinite number of conditions can never be met.'

If you are pressuming that God created an infinite universe why are you assuming that he could not create an infinite number of conditions?

In other words why can't the universe be natural and supernatural? This would explain evolution and creation as being the same thing.