Watching planets form ...

[rogue06]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]14755[/ATTACH]

FIFY n/c

[Roy]

FIFY n/c

wrong hole

[rogue06]

wrong hole

man-head-up-butt.jpg

[Jorge]

Yes- Really. Case in point - Saturn's rings. What creates the gaps in them? The presence of moons both within and outside the ring system.

These gaps are direct evidence for planets which are clearing their orbits of debris - and in the process growing (forming).

This disk is itself the leftover from the star's original formation from a disk of gas and dust - that we can see in earlier stages in the Orion Nebula for one.


As for 'catching in snares', if my words show that to follow Christ does not mean the rejection of thousands of plain and simple facts about the world in which we live, then I have in all likelihood saved many from the snare you and Ken Ham have created by defining the truth of the scripture as dependent upon the falsity of these same known and simple facts (e.g. that the universe is 13+ billion years old, the Earth is in the neighborhood of 4.5 billion years in age, and life has a history of over 500 million years on that same Earth)

Jim

You possess a delusion of the worst kind - the kind that you are totally unaware of.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I'm not an expert on that element, and I can't guarantee the comments that follow are necessarily 'orthodox' on that subject. But I don't think OEC/TE necessarily defines a position one way or the other. The "Big Bang" itself is often regarded as essentially "creation ex nihilo". But it gets fuzzy in terms of 'what do you mean by "nothing"', as one can see just on concurrent thread on ZPE and the definition of 'what is a vacuum'. The Bible says life was formed from the Earth (man from the dust of the Earth) and so on, so Biblically, creation ex nihilo refers to something before the 'Spirit of God was hovering over the waters', something before when God place the stars in the heavens, or brought forth the dry land from the waters. by those events, 'something' had already been produced from 'nothing'.

So I guess I'm not exactly sure how that connects with my original comments about God continuing to create as regards stars and planets, why one would regard the current process as necessarily (Biblically) distinct from how God created what we see in the heavens at night? Do you see it necessary that the stars we see in the sky at night where produced by a process different from what is producing stars today?

Jim

OF COURSE your comments are not "orthodox". It is by definition that TEs are UNorthodox - they have to be if they are to hold & promote the anti-biblical beliefs that they do.

Why must the obvious have to be reminded for you guys?

Jorge

[Jorge]

I think that is a tad cynical if you are referring to the OEC/TE take on things. It describes Deism well. I personally know very few Christians that would profess faith in the physical Resurrection that would limit God's involvement in the world past present or future in such an austere way - regardless of their take on the mechanism or timeframe of creation. I personally describe myself as TE/CE but find no reason to doubt that God works and has worked directly in the lives of people all over the world. And that there are in fact miracles of God in the world: past, present, and future.

Jim

"I personally describe myself as TE/CE ..."

Until you accept the fact that you are in fact a BS* (it's not what you think), you will never, ever, escape your errors. I've been telling you that for many years.

*BS = Biblical Selectionist = a person that selects/accepts from the Bible what he/she wants to accept -- because it supports his/her presupposed beliefs -- and rejects all else from the Bible.

Jorge

[Jorge]

FIFY n/c

Projecting AGAIN, I see.

Jorge

[Jorge]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]14758[/ATTACH]

Yet MORE projecting. Zowwee - will it ever end?

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

You possess a delusion of the worst kind - the kind that you are totally unaware of.

Jorge

And here is your problem Jorge. When the reality of the situation challenges your theology, rather than accept the evidence your theology is flawed, you deny reality. Here you simply dismiss the physical facts that allow us to understand what those gaps mean in terms of planet formation. Planets are forming, and we are seeing a snapshot of that process in the image that is in the OP of this thread. But that challenges your theology, and so rather than accept that reality, you just deny it and cast it out of your mind, and then project your own deficiencies onto those that point the reality out to you.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

"I personally describe myself as TE/CE ..."

Until you accept the fact that you are in fact a BS* (it's not what you think), you will never, ever, escape your errors. I've been telling you that for many years.

*BS = Biblical Selectionist = a person that selects/accepts from the Bible what he/she wants to accept -- because it supports his/her presupposed beliefs -- and rejects all else from the Bible.

Jorge

Until you accept it is possible your view of scripture can be wrong, you will never escape your own errors Jorge. The fact you sit around and try to invent new categories to place people in that challenge your views is simply part of the process of denial you live in. If I can be demonized and all like me can be dismissed, then you can feel justified ignoring my words. But which of us is the one that literally has written and continues to stand behind a piece your KNOW is flawed and deceptive to try to hide from yourself and thousands of others the truth that large asteroids have impacted the Earth in the distant past? A fact that is 100% incompatible with what you define as the ONLY correct way to interpret Genesis 1. Rather than accept you theology is wrong, you are literally willing to write and support nothing less that full on deception! Do you see how incompatible that is with what you claim to believe? You claim to believe in a God of truth, and to stand for the truth, and yet you have created and stood behind full on deception to hide from yourself and others the plain and simple facts of the matter.


Jim

[Jorge]

And here is your problem Jorge. When the reality of the situation challenges your theology, rather than accept the evidence your theology is flawed, you deny reality. Here you simply dismiss the physical facts that allow us to understand what those gaps mean in terms of planet formation. Planets are forming, and we are seeing a snapshot of that process in the image that is in the OP of this thread. But that challenges your theology, and so rather than accept that reality, you just deny it and cast it out of your mind, and then project your own deficiencies onto those that point the reality out to you.

Jim

You make me feel like a seasoned, educated adult having a conversation with a three-year-old.

What "reality" is it that you think "challenges my theology"? Tell me, because I don't know of any.

Do I have unanswered questions and "mysteries" in my life/theology? Yes, of course, as does everyone else. But that is an acceptable condition, a consequence of my limitations. That said, the weight of the supporting evidence far, FAR exceeds the weight of those unanswered questions. Furthermore, I do not have to blatantly DISTORT God's Holy Word as do (TEs, PEs, Atheists and Humanists) nor deny many observable facts in order to retain my theological position. You cannot say the same and I have demonstrated as much over the years.

The truth is that I do not (now or ever) emphatically-dogmatically deny the possibility that planets and/or stars may form naturally. You keep missing that point. My position is simply that I do not believe that they can and, furthermore, that there is no unequivocal evidence to support the opposite. Over the decades I've read hundreds of writings claiming that it is possible and I was able to shoot holes through all of it quite easily. Lastly, yes, observations may be INTERPRETED as said evidence. But interpretations sans hard evidence are opinions, no more. The basic physics does not support it - period!

The fact of the matter is that the Evolutionary Paradigm -- which you wholeheartedly embrace and which dictates your interpretation of EVERYTHING, from the natural world around you to God's Holy Word -- demands that you believe in natural planet-star formation even if you had nothing to stand on. It's all downhill after that.

Repeating: you will never, ever escape your errors until you face those facts.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

You make me feel like a seasoned, educated adult having a conversation with a three-year-old.

What "reality" is it that you think "challenges my theology"? Tell me, because I don't know of any.

Yes you do. There was a VERY long thread on why stars don't form on the old TWEB, and if you weren't the thread starter, you were a major contributor on the 'they don't form side'. And there were a good many theological angles you put forward on that thread. Similarly a major thread on planet formation in which I promised you a picture of a planet in 10 years or less, and in which later I published the first such picture less than two years later.
The science is quite solid for both of these, YOU don't believe they form because of the theology of it. And the fact you are not honest enough to admit it is telling.

Do I have unanswered questions and "mysteries" in my life/theology? Yes, of course, as does everyone else. But that is an acceptable condition, a consequence of my limitations. That said, the weight of the supporting evidence far, FAR exceeds the weight of those unanswered questions. Furthermore, I do not have to blatantly DISTORT God's Holy Word as do (TEs, PEs, Atheists and Humanists) nor deny many observable facts in order to retain my theological position. You cannot say the same and I have demonstrated as much over the years.

You call every theological proposal that is not YE a 'distortion'. It's a self referential definition. As for the science, you have to deny virtually every bit of evidence that actually has implications for the age of the Earth. And you criteria for the 'validity' of the same science? It has nothing to do with anything science. If the implied age is > 10,000 years it is suspect, if > 100,000 years it is invalid. Nothing more, nothing less.

The truth is that I do not (now or ever) emphatically-dogmatically deny the possibility that planets and/or stars may form naturally. You keep missing that point. My position is simply that I do not believe that they can and,

A belief that is based on .... (theology)

furthermore, that there is no unequivocal evidence to support the opposite.

And THAT is the most idiotic comment anyone who claims to be aware of the science surrounding this issue could make. The evidence is simply overwhelming. We have extant instances of very nearly every possible theoretical phase of star formation life and death, from the very first indications of collapse to the multitudinous means of stellar death. So many that theories based on the raw physics can be tested, refined, rewritten as the case may be. And in the last 20 years or so we've been able to add to that a massive number of observations of varying phases of planetary formation and we now have cataloged literally over 2000 exo-planets and hundreds of planetary systems. Given the limited types of planets we are able to detect, the implications in terms of the number of planets in the galaxy is staggering.

Over the decades I've read hundreds of writings claiming that it is possible and I was able to shoot holes through all of it quite easily.

In a pigs eye. I'll tell you what Jorge. I'll put up a couple of threads over the next week or so. One with some clear evidence of star and/or planet formation, and another analyzing the evidence for a major asteroid impact. With the first you will have the opportunity to 'shoot holes through all of it quite easily' and we'll see just how easily you can do that. With the second, we'll get to see just how well your psuedo-science blather 'explaining' asteroid impacts' to the YEC faithful holds up against the actual evidence for the event.

My prediction: you won't be able to muster one solid argument against the evidence itself in either case.

Lastly, yes, observations may be INTERPRETED as said evidence. But interpretations sans hard evidence are opinions, no more. The basic physics does not support it - period!

You don't understand what 'hard evidence' is Jorge.

The fact of the matter is that the Evolutionary Paradigm -- which you wholeheartedly embrace and which dictates your interpretation of EVERYTHING, from the natural world around you to God's Holy Word -- demands that you believe in natural planet-star formation even if you had nothing to stand on. It's all downhill after that.

No Jorge - the evidence itself demands an evolutionary conclusion. You have it all backwards. The early geologists STARTED believing in a 10,000 year old Earth and a global flood. The evidence is what undid their position. I started as a YEC and anti-evolution. I had no desire to be anything else, and my current position is the result of looking for evidence to SUPPORT that position - and likewise, the evidence forced a different conclusion. The only difference between you and I Jorge is I am honest about what the data implies.

Repeating: you will never, ever escape your errors until you face those facts.

Jorge

Actually, it is the opposite. You are simply projecting your own incapacity to face the truth onto me. I am not the one forced to deny mountains of physical evidence and the implications thereof. Yes, I have looked for and accepted alternatives to YOUR particular interpretations of scripture where what is known about the world is incompatible with YOUR interpretation, and while those changes push me outside what YOU can accept, what I believe is well within the bounds historical Evangelical Christian Faith. I know of no mainline denomination that would not accept my statement of faith in full fellowship in the faith (except perhaps that I am Protestant instead of Catholic )


Jim

[Carrikature]

This perspective is neither evangelical nor biblical. As Jim said, this is a deistic perspective.

Biblically, there is no "machine" and no "play" button. Rather, the universe is continually held together by God. It cannot exist for a nanosecond unless He actively upholds it. This is how my evangelical OEC and TE friends view it.

It's just an analogy. I already explained why it's not deistic. Your portrayal of "held together by God" isn't biblical, either.

[Duragizer]

No Jorge - the evidence itself demands an evolutionary conclusion. You have it all backwards. The early geologists STARTED believing in a 10,000 year old Earth and a global flood. The evidence is what undid their position. I started as a YEC and anti-evolution. I had no desire to be anything else, and my current position is the result of looking for evidence to SUPPORT that position - and likewise, the evidence forced a different conclusion.

Jorge likes setting up and attacking strawmen of his creation instead of engaging with the real people behind the straw. After all, it's impossible to adhere steadfast to fundamentalist dogma if your opponents aren't dehumanized into simplistic, black-vs.-white caricatures.

[Roy]

The truth is that I do not (now or ever) emphatically-dogmatically deny the possibility that planets and/or stars may form naturally. You keep missing that point. My position is simply that I do not believe that they can

Such a pity that my sig is occupied.