Tuesday, August 20, 2013

... on Hugh Ross' take on Day Four

Hugh Ross series:

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Angels and Men in Hugh Ross Context , 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hugh Ross' take on Day Four, 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Ice Cores with Lava Dust (a k a Tephra Layers), 4 ... on Moses, Church Fathers, Oxygen and Hydrogen (featuring Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross, separate videos)

video commented on:
ReasonsToBelieve1 : Did God create the earth before the sun and moon?
Hans-Georg Lundahl

Now, God "made" the lights and "made" is a perfect verb form.

This serves for Greek aorist, perfect and pluperfect and sometimes perhaps future perfect as well - if we go on to Latin.

But give one example beyond this verse where neither LXX translates with pluperfet or past participle, nor an adverb meaning before or after is there, and yet the meaning is pluperfect?

And name one Church Father who agrees with you.

Now St Augustine does not, his "six days and seventh day" are the same 1.

James Sue
If this man is correct, what then, does he think about star formations that continue to happen today? I suppose creationists will twist facts to fit the "god did it" garbage.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Where is star formation seen today?
James Sue
All over space. There are clouds of dust called nebulae. When a nearby star explodes, these clouds collapse and form a new star. While this is rare in our galaxy, it does happen. In fact, some of the stars we see with the naked eye are already dead due to the distance the light has to travel to earth. By the way, the sun (also a star) is also dying.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"There are clouds of dust called nebulae. When a nearby star explodes, these clouds collapse and form a new star."

OK, who has observed a nebula forming a star? When?

Is this the theory of how stars are formed and "different stages of it" are observed - or has this anywhere for any star now known been observed each stage successively by human astronomers?
James Sue
Exactly when, where and by who, I am not certain. However, it is not a theory on star formations, it's the process that has been observed and documented. If you are really serious about your inquiry, I suggest you do your own research. I have not personally witnessed, but have read and learned from credible sources. I am not interested in doing your legwork. Science is beautiful and intriguing. The more you learn, the better. Take care.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I was not putting forward the option it was a theory with no observation.

I was asking whether the observations amount to:

a) all stages but in diverse stars


b) all stages in one same star.

And I would like to know what credible sources you refer to.
James Sue
@Hans....like I said, I will not do your homework for you. My sources are various science journals and astronomers. Besides, if the process was never observed, how would it be known? Guesses? Read and discover for yourself.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I was giving you a chance to argue your case.

I do not consider agreeing with you a kind of goal of any kind of homework.

I am on my track, which is arguing. I am not going off it on some kind of wild goose chase just because you would like so.

And the fact that you would like me to is not flattering to your credibility or that of the "credible" sources you will not even name.
James Sue
Your original comment to me was not an argument by definition. Your comment was simply a question. Now, go stick your lip out at someone else because I refuse to answer any more of your elementary questions. You asked if star formations have been observed...how else would the process be known?????? Google it and have a nice life.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
How else would the process be known you ask?

My point is precisely that if it has not been observed it is not known but a guess.

That is the exact reason why I ask where and when it has been observed.

What is your point in commenting, if you dare not argue and support your claims?
James Sue
I don't need to. Like I said, you don't need me to explain or reference the information. It's readily available to anyone who wants to learn.....including you.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sure, you can say that.

I take that as chickening out.

I take it as saying "info is info" as if info were never ever intox.
James Sue
See my previous comment to you........google that and read for yourself. Stop making an ass of yourself.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am showing up your lack of intellectual honesty.

You have had a few days to name one of your "credible sources" and you have not.
Sorry, I just saw you had given a precise info.

Will google that story.
James Sue
NASA. I am not dishonest. Like I said, look up NASA and Astronomer James McNeil. There are two of my sources. Think before you accuse someone of being dishonest. Only a pompous asshole does that. In conclusion, have your facts straight before you spew diarrhea from the mouth.
Your apology is accepted. I don't just spit random information. I take the time to read and learn without the fog of religion to influence the facts. My aim is not to insult anyone, but to examine and discover the truth. I am happy to be proved wrong as much as right because the truth is what is paramount.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I agree truth is paramount.

BBL after looking into story.

Above was in reference to:
Hans-Georg Lundahl

[Ce commentaire a reçu trop de votes négatifs.] !
A google just may work - if you give me a precise title to google for. Preferrably an article that is still there.
James Sue
In January '04, astronomer, James McNeil, discovered a small nebula that appeared unexpectedly near the nebula Messier 78, in the constellation of Orion. When observers around the world pointed their instruments at McNeil's Nebula, they found something interesting:its brightness appears to vary. Observations with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory provided a likely explanation: the interaction between the young star's magnetic field and the surrounding gas causes episodic increases in brightness.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The X-ray/optical comparison of the region surrounding McNeil's Nebula shows that the position of a source detected by Chandra is coincident with that of a bright infrared and optical source at the apex of the nebula.Source 3, thought to be a very young star, is illuminating the fan-shaped cloud of gas, or nebula."*

Thought to be very young = not seen at its actual beginning.

"Such a scenario may explain why the brightness of McNeil's Nebula appears to vary with time. It appears in optical images taken of this region of Orion in the 1960s, but is absent from images taken in the 1950s and 1990s."*

No indication that same sharpness of observation has been applied since e g 1900 and only in 60's the first sighting came.

Telescopes have been improving, and it seems this one could have been fluctuating before they could sight it - even back to Day Four.

So, once again no actual clear sighting of a star passing from pre-star to star in the stages of the scenario currently accepted by astronomers.

The observations do not amount to "all stages in same star" so far, only to "different stages in different stars" (except Sirius which passed from red, redder than Mars, to white within the last millennia, if Hovind got his sources right).

Meaning "different stages" could be a misreading for different kinds of star.

*source: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2004/mcneil/

[To be continued]
With all due respect, I don't think you understand how stupid this question is. How was there vegetation before the sun? The bible doesn't say that there was. Light existed "in the beginning", God separated the light from the darkness and called light "day" and darkness "night". This indicates that the sun existed on "day 1" and that the earth was rotating to allow for day and night. Vegetation didn't sprout until "day 3", which means that they would have already had light for photosynthesis.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"This indicates that the sun existed on "day 1" and that the earth was rotating to allow for day and night."

It does not.

Light without any further light source beyond God alone would certainly have sufficed for photosynthesis on day three, even waiting for sun to be created on day four.

Your evidence for a moving earth is ...?

No comments: