17 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo what? The point is that there are a lot of stars, because it says so in the Holy Bible.
Wasn't Abraham before the time of money? If so, I very much doubt that he could count up to 50.
As for the descendants of Abraham, there are over 10 billion times less of them than the number of stars that we know about.
17 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsIt also says pi is 3 which is plainly bollox. I have come to the conclusion that this bible has as much truth in it as a politician's speeches. In fact, I had to go outside and count some stars just to make sure that there are a lot of them because it says so in the bible.
So what? The point is that there are a lot of stars, because it says so in the Holy Bible.
17 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsBut at that time the stars were countable. The Babylonians had star catalogues which kind of guarantees that they were counting them. Unless you are suggesting Abraham had access to a telescope?
That does not say there will be more than 10, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 descendants. It only indicates that there will be so many that he want be able to number them, like the stars and the sand.
18 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI think we all know there are a lot of stars, and don't need to read the Bible to find that out.
So what? The point is that there are a lot of stars, because it says so in the Holy Bible.
Your claim however, was that you found out about galaxies from the Bible, a claim I find somewhat questionable.
So do you believe galaxies exist? Do you believe they consist of stars rotating around each other? Do you believe stars are similar to our sun?
If you believe any of the above, then you have believed something told to you by astronomers. Why did you believe them when you know perfectly well they are totally wrong about the most basic facts?
18 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KeplerIt does not say anything about pi, however, 3 is one of the many approximate valuses of pi. Don't waste your time counting stars, they are totally uncountable by man.
It also says pi is 3 which is plainly bollox. I have come to the conclusion that this bible has as much truth in it as a politician's speeches. In fact, I had to go outside and count some stars just to make sure that there are a lot of them because it says so in the bible.
18 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe following is a simple definition of galaxy by the Free Online dictionary:
I think we all know there are a lot of stars, and don't need to read the Bible to find that out.
Your claim however, was that you found out about galaxies from the Bible, a claim I find somewhat questionable.
So do you believe galaxies exist? Do you believe they consist of stars rotating around each other? Do you believe stars are similar to our sun?
I ...[text shortened]... ou believe them when you know perfectly well they are totally wrong about the most basic facts?
gal·ax·y
n. pl. gal·ax·ies
1.
a. Any of numerous large-scale aggregates of stars, gas, and dust that constitute the universe, containing an average of 100 billion solar masses and ranging in diameter from 1,500 to 300,000 light-years. Also called nebula.
b. often Galaxy The Milky Way.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/galaxy
I already told you that "galaxy" is a word made up by man to refer to the qrouping of stars made by God. I never said I learned everything I believe about stars, galaxies, or anything else just from the Holy Bible alone. But I reject things as unbelieveable, if it seems to contradict what is said in the Holy Bible.
The Holy Bible reveals some things about stars that could allow for galaxies, although that word has never been used to translate any portion of the Holy Bible with respect to stars. So I have no objection to the fact that there are many stars in the heaven or universe moving is some predetermined course by God, just like the constellations mentioned in that Holy Book.
What I do object to is the theory of evilution and you know why.
19 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsBut you are accepting as fact, claims by astronomers even when they could not possibly be right as their most basic assumptions are outright wrong. You have even stated that they have 'deceived minds'.
I already told you that "galaxy" is a word made up by man to refer to the qrouping of stars made by God. I never said I learned everything I believe about stars, galaxies, or anything else just from the Holy Bible alone. But I reject things as unbelieveable, if it seems to contradict what is said in the Holy Bible.
You even seem quite happy with the definition of a galaxy being up to 300,000 light years across, which quite clearly contradicts your claim that the universe is much younger than 300,000 years.
19 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadThese distances are just estimates besed on assumptions anyway. Those distances don't reflect how old the stars are either. A little older than 6,000 years is satisfying to me.
But you are accepting as fact, claims by astronomers even when they could not possibly be right as their most basic assumptions are outright wrong. You have even stated that they have 'deceived minds'.
You even seem quite happy with the definition of a galaxy being up to 300,000 light years across, which quite clearly contradicts your claim that the universe is much younger than 300,000 years.
19 Apr 13
Sorry I will try to find the source but I can tell you it was a secular / non religious source. Basically the gist was that observations showed that galaxies appeared to be more formed or mature than expected in the distance universe as we know looking deep into space is looking into the past. The only answer for the YECer is that God did indeed stretch the universe out during or after the initial creation. We know time and space are like a fabric that is malleable that can be warped by mass. My only issue is the same as always it would be deceptive if the objects out in space never actually existed an the light was created in transit I just can't buy that.
Manny
19 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsDude? are you claiming Galaxies don't exist ? You can see em through a telescope LOL
The following is a simple definition of galaxy by the Free Online dictionary:
gal·ax·y
n. pl. gal·ax·ies
1.
a. Any of numerous large-scale aggregates of stars, gas, and dust that constitute the universe, containing an average of 100 billion solar masses and ranging in diameter from 1,500 to 300,000 light-years. Also called nebula.
b. often Galaxy Th ...[text shortened]... ntioned in that Holy Book.
What I do object to is the theory of evilution and you know why.
Manny
19 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsOf course they are countable, just like the natural numbers, you know, the ones we count with. Let me show you how. You start with 1 and then go to 2. With me so far? Not running out of fingers and toes yet? Good, we proceed to 3 and then 4 and so on. Being countable does not mean you ever reach the end though, just as you can never exhaust the natural numbers. You can still count them though.
It does not say anything about pi, however, 3 is one of the many approximate valuses of pi. Don't waste your time counting stars, they are totally uncountable by man.
In the case of stars, if we are still talking about naked eye visibility then you can count AND total them. About 5,600 depending on your eyesight and conditions at your observing site. Since the mark 1 eyeball is all that your biblical chaps had available for observing then that seems a reasonable figure for what the author had in mind when he said the stars were innumerable. Maybe he lacked the necessary finger sand toes to count that high?
19 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsMy point exactly, so it begs the question as to why you gave a definition that you know is false.
These distances are just estimates besed on assumptions anyway.
Those distances don't reflect how old the stars are either. A little older than 6,000 years is satisfying to me
What about how big they are, or what they are made of etc? Surely you should dismiss everything the astronomers tell you as everything they tell you is based on the same estimates and assumptions that you claim are wrong. Not just a little bit wrong, but billions of times wrong.
19 Apr 13
Originally posted by menace71Have you ever done so? I bet RJ hasn't. I am pretty sure I haven't seen the distinctive galaxy shape through a telescope myself. Both of us must rely on the astronomers for this information. But the astronomers can't be trusted as some of the most fundamental things they say are clearly outright wrong.
Dude? are you claiming Galaxies don't exist ? You can see em through a telescope LOL
If there really are as many stars as astronomers claim to have seen (over 10^22) and they have to fit inside a sphere with a radius of approx 6,000 light years. There is no way those stars can be anywhere near as big as astronomers claim. In fact, they must be smaller than most planets.