jeffnevins Posted April 2, 2008 Group: Senior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 207 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 806 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 141 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/09/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/21/1973 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I watched a series of videos recently that claimed that YECs must deny gravity. That the speed of light from distant stars must have stayed constant the past 6000 years or our galaxy would've been ripped apart (attempting to refute that God put the light in motion from creation). I can ask CMI on this as well. Just wondering if this has been covered already and wanting to understand creation as much as possible. Thanks for any insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heresyhunter Posted April 2, 2008 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 170 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted April 2, 2008 Jeff, as an ardent creationist, I must admit that the YEC position is falsified by the fact that starlight may take millions of years to reach the Earth. The YEC position is untenable and is giving creationism a bad name. Things are old, man, real old... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterpoet Posted April 2, 2008 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 128 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,704 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 25 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/29/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/08/1950 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Well I found out what a YEC was, but failed to identify what CMI was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs Posted April 2, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 45 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,081 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 53 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/13/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 2, 2008 Things are not very old at all and there is much evidence to the contrary. Anyway in answer to the original post; go to www.answersingenesis.org and search for that phrase .. they do have resources for it. One in particular im thinking of is called Starlight and Time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffnevins Posted April 3, 2008 Group: Senior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 207 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 806 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 141 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/09/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/21/1973 Author Share Posted April 3, 2008 Well I found out what a YEC was, but failed to identify what CMI was. Creation Ministries International. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffnevins Posted April 3, 2008 Group: Senior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 207 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 806 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 141 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/09/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/21/1973 Author Share Posted April 3, 2008 Things are not very old at all and there is much evidence to the contrary. Anyway in answer to the original post; go to www.answersingenesis.org and search for that phrase .. they do have resources for it. One in particular im thinking of is called Starlight and Time. Thanks. Before buying the book, I found a video series at YT to find out the gist, and its an interesting theory. God may have affected the rate of time on the fourth day. And the rate of time may be different according to location in the universe. AiG seems more supportive of Humphry's theory than that of creation of stars w/light in-transit (which would have problems w/gravity). But I'm not a scientist, just a layperson with a keen interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricia1 Posted April 3, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 44 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,858 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 9 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/24/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/23/1957 Share Posted April 3, 2008 http://268generation.com/videoplayer/playe...&quality=hi watch this if you can I just copied it from nebulas topic for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerioke Posted April 3, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 97 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,850 Content Per Day: 0.84 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/19/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/11/1911 Share Posted April 3, 2008 It only stands to reason that everything in space traveled a lot faster in the beginning . As the initial energy it took to create everything has dissipated through space and time, distant stars got to where they are a lot faster than they would have today. This probably all happened around 15,000 years ago. I'm 48 years old but was born yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherTraveler Posted April 3, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 80 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,595 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/12/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted April 3, 2008 I think the God that created everything can handle the recoil from the process of creation. Also, all the theories we can invent are flawed in that our position of observation is based on so little fact, so little time, and the assumption that the laws of physics we accept here on earth are somehow constant in the universe as a whole, and that is a pretty big assumption. My theory is that the universe is 200 years old, and I only ask that you to present one witness that is alive today that can refute my theory by direct observation. (just a humble attempt at humor ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerioke Posted April 3, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 97 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,850 Content Per Day: 0.84 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/19/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/11/1911 Share Posted April 3, 2008 I think the God that created everything can handle the recoil from the process of creation. Also, all the theories we can invent are flawed in that our position of observation is based on so little fact, so little time, and the assumption that the laws of physics we accept here on earth are somehow constant in the universe as a whole, and that is a pretty big assumption. My theory is that the universe is 200 years old, and I only ask that you to present one witness that is alive today that can refute my theory by direct observation. Well that leaves me out. I was born yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts