The crucifixion/passion of Christ

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



BobbyD
Has it been played out thousands of time already throughout the universe? Will it not continue to do so too?

If for instance, on a remote planet across the galaxy where Christ also lived, but looked like (oh, I don't know, let's say) a giraffe, because all the inhabitants of intelligent life on this particular planet looked like giraffes, wouldn't he have been crucified there also? Has this scene not taken place already on thousands of planets across the universe? Get my drift?

If God in his splendor, put this whole time machine known as the universe in motion, with limitless possibilities for intelligent life; and as such allows for limitless possibilties for different physical features of intelligent life elsewhere, wouldn't He also have sent Christ (in some physically different, relative form) to spread His message on these life sustaining planets also?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BobbyD
Has it been played out thousands of time already throughout the universe? Will it not continue to do so too?

If for instance, on a remote planet across the galaxy where Christ also lived, but looked like (oh, I don't know, let's say) a giraffe, because all the inhabitants of intelligent life on this particular planet looked like giraffes, wouldn't he have been crucified there also? Has this scene not taken place already on thousands of planets across the universe? Get my drift?

If God in his splendor, put this whole time machine known as the universe in motion, with limitless possibilities for intelligent life; and as such allows for limitless possibilties for different physical features of intelligent life elsewhere, wouldn't He also have sent Christ (in some physically different, relative form) to spread His message on these life sustaining planets also?

No, you are assuming that the passion is true. Sure Jesus died 2000 years ago, but a lot of people die all the time. Jesus was human and no more divine then any of us.

BobbyD
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, you are assuming that the passion is true. Sure Jesus died 2000 years ago, but a lot of people die all the time. Jesus was human and no more divine then any of us.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, Shaky. ...mean this nicely too. As a Christian, naturally you and I will have to agree to disagree. wink

Bardock42
Originally posted by BobbyD
Has it been played out thousands of time already throughout the universe? Will it not continue to do so too?

If for instance, on a remote planet across the galaxy where Christ also lived, but looked like (oh, I don't know, let's say) a giraffe, because all the inhabitants of intelligent life on this particular planet looked like giraffes, wouldn't he have been crucified there also? Has this scene not taken place already on thousands of planets across the universe? Get my drift?

If God in his splendor, put this whole time machine known as the universe in motion, with limitless possibilities for intelligent life; and as such allows for limitless possibilties for different physical features of intelligent life elsewhere, wouldn't He also have sent Christ (in some physically different, relative form) to spread His message on these life sustaining planets also?

Yeah, he would. So lets see, once we discover alien life we can ask them if they have some jesus dude....and draw our conclusions from there. Although the idea is still ridiculous.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BobbyD
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, Shaky. ...mean this nicely too. As a Christian, naturally you and I will have to agree to disagree. wink

Thank you. big grin

BobbyD
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, he would. So lets see, once we discover alien life we can ask them if they have some jesus dude....and draw our conclusions from there. Although the idea is still ridiculous.

Indeed.....admit it's a bit "out there". ...but throwing it out nonetheless. ...makes for interesting conversation/debate, yes?

Bardock42
Originally posted by BobbyD
Indeed.....admit it's a bit "out there". ...but throwing it out nonetheless. ...makes for interesting conversation/debate, yes?

No. It is a decent idea. It just doesn't give much to debate on. Well. maaybe once JIA enters claiming that a) there ca't be aliens and b) if there were aliens they are inferiour like homosexuals and cannot be saved and God wouldn't like them at all anyways, cause God only likes JIA and who JIA likes.

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by BobbyD
Has it been played out thousands of time already throughout the universe? Will it not continue to do so too?

If for instance, on a remote planet across the galaxy where Christ also lived, but looked like (oh, I don't know, let's say) a giraffe, because all the inhabitants of intelligent life on this particular planet looked like giraffes, wouldn't he have been crucified there also? Has this scene not taken place already on thousands of planets across the universe? Get my drift?

If God in his splendor, put this whole time machine known as the universe in motion, with limitless possibilities for intelligent life; and as such allows for limitless possibilties for different physical features of intelligent life elsewhere, wouldn't He also have sent Christ (in some physically different, relative form) to spread His message on these life sustaining planets also?

It all depends on what type of "God" you believe in. As a Christian, I accept the biblical account of creation, so of course -- assuming that I accept this account as factual, it would mean that I believe that God has not created any other form of life in this universe -- since he did not mention himself as creating any such life within the bible.

BobbyD
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
It all depends on what type of "God" you believe in. As a Christian, I accept the biblical account of creation, so of course -- assuming that I accept this account as factual, it would mean that I believe that God has not created any other form of life in this universe -- since he did not mention himself as creating any such life within the bible.

Hmmm....okay.

However, what comes to mind when you think of dinosaurs?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BobbyD
Hmmm....okay.

However, what comes to mind when you think of dinosaurs?

He didn't answer you question. eek!

BobbyD
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He didn't answer you question. eek!

I didn't mean to corner him. My question was merely intended to open his mind, and let him see that the "Good Book" is not meant to be taken literally ALL THE TIME. Sometimes its interpretation is meant to be metaphorical/allegorical.

Shakyamunison

BobbyD

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by BobbyD
Hmmm....okay.

However, what comes to mind when you think of dinosaurs?

What about them? There is no conflict with dinosaurs and the accounts referenced in biblical works -- or is there? You have heard of the term "behemoth" and "leviathan" haven't you? If not, then I'm quite certain, that yourself and others of like minded rationale -- will give a typical response to the question I've posed. One which defines the earth as being "millions" of years old -- which then of course, discounts the entire creation story -- as it is referenced in the bible.

This is assuming of course-- that I am limited to interpreting the belief system you subscribe to as valid, which would seem to be a rather pointless and irrational limitation imposed upon me.

So what then does thou have to attest to regarding the validity of the "assumption" of earth being "billions" of years old? Radiometric dating? Carbon dating? Yes, these methods are extremely accurate when measuring dates above a several thousand year time period -- are they not? He he he..perhaps everyone can see where I'm going with this?

Now, whilst thou ponders about how to respond to my inquiries, do take into account, that my interpretation of life, does indeed -- have historical merit to it.

So how does thou like those apples?

BobbyD
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo


So how does thou like those apples?

Thou likes them apples very mucheth, thank you.

Sorry for making ye defendest thyself. Ye seems to be very open minded. ...was all thoust wanted to hear. Thanks, Thor....um, Shakespeare...er, Usagi. wink

BobbyD
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
So what then does thou have to attest to regarding the validity of the "assumption" of earth being "billions" of years old? Radiometric dating? Carbon dating? Yes, these methods are extremely accurate when measuring dates above a several thousand year time period -- are they not? He he he..perhaps everyone can see where I'm going with this?



However, (if I am understanding you correctly) you and I shall have to agree to disagree that the Earth is older than you believe. wink

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by BobbyD
Has it been played out thousands of time already throughout the universe? Will it not continue to do so too?

That rests on the assumption that Jesus and God exists, as do intelligent aliens, and that they believe in Jesus and God, and need to be saved - did they also fall in the garden? Is Satan acting on other planets? Wouldn't this mean God was lying?

Ultimately I don't think so. Not believing Christian claims, and logic, makes it highly unlikely aliens would be reenacting crucification all over the galaxy.



Am I the only one who thinks trying to crucify a giraffe would be both difficult and funny looking? Why would aliens without out anatomy use a human form of executions and torture?



The operative word being "if."

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
As a Christian, I accept the biblical account of creation, so of course -- assuming that I accept this account as factual, it would mean that I believe that God has not created any other form of life in this universe -- since he did not mention himself as creating any such life within the bible.

because God is limited to your understanding of him? In explaining your interpretation of the dinosaurs, you failed to mention that you believed the biblical creation accounts as literal.

Originally posted by BobbyD
the "Good Book" is not meant to be taken literally ALL THE TIME.

But on whose authority should the difference be drawn? God's? Jesus's? The Pope? Etc? I'm not trying to be an *******, I'm just wondering where the line should be drawn? Maybe between the archaic teachings of the bible that stand in direct opposition to the words spoken by Jesus himself?

Nellinator
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
because God is limited to your understanding of him? In explaining your interpretation of the dinosaurs, you failed to mention that you believed the biblical creation accounts as literal.



But on whose authority should the difference be drawn? God's? Jesus's? The Pope? Etc? I'm not trying to be an *******, I'm just wondering where the line should be drawn? Maybe between the archaic teachings of the bible that stand in direct opposition to the words spoken by Jesus himself?
Sometimes the Bible uses obvious metaphors. Sometimes they are not obvious. Some Hebrew words can mean more than one thing (such as day or age). It is important to consider all the possible meanings and then see which ones are in concordance with the literal. Understanding the meaning is much more important than understanding the details.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Nellinator
Sometimes the Bible uses obvious metaphors. Sometimes they are not obvious. Some Hebrew words can mean more than one thing (such as day or age). It is important to consider all the possible meanings and then see which ones are in concordance with the literal. Understanding the meaning is much more important than understanding the details.

and who are we, flawed human beings, to decide which metaphores are "obvious" and which have secret, hidden meanings that should be pondered over and put to the test of time? How important is considering the "possible meanings" when the truth has been declared by God, and the humans that have to rely on his representatives on earth to let them in on the secret? And if by literal, you mean what Jesus said, well there's a huge difference between what Jesus "said" and what is practiced by christians. And I agree. The meaning is much more important. But then why do so many christians get caught up in the details?

Nellinator
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
and who are we, flawed human beings, to decide which metaphores are "obvious" and which have secret, hidden meanings that should be pondered over and put to the test of time? How important is considering the "possible meanings" when the truth has been declared by God, and the humans that have to rely on his representatives on earth to let them in on the secret? And if by literal, you mean what Jesus said, well there's a huge difference between what Jesus "said" and what is practiced by christians. And I agree. The meaning is much more important. But then why do so many christians get caught up in the details?
I meant that some statements obviously contain metaphors, not that the meaning of the metaphor is obvious.
You raise some good points. It is a shame and a pity that so many Christians are hypocritical, and I realize it is what pushes many people away. I think a lot of Christians get caught in the details and miss the big picture.
Some Christians need to stop worrying about what they eat and start going out and helping and loving people.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Nellinator
I meant that some statements obviously contain metaphors, not that the meaning of the metaphor is obvious.
You raise some good points. It is a shame and a pity that so many Christians are hypocritical, and I realize it is what pushes many people away. I think a lot of Christians get caught in the details and miss the big picture.
Some Christians need to stop worrying about what they eat and start going out and helping and loving people.

well said. but such a position should be true of all religion. Not just christianity.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
well said. but such a position should be true of all religion. Not just christianity.
Indeed.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Nellinator
Indeed.

well, when i said "well said" I was referring to your meaning. Not your metaphore. Now, you might be saying, "there was no metaphore". But, why wouldn't earlier christians do teh same as I just did? Is there a metaphore, isn't there? "Just to be safe, we'll take it all at face value"

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
because God is limited to your understanding of him? In explaining your interpretation of the dinosaurs, you failed to mention that you believed the biblical creation accounts as literal.


I apologize - I should have given more detail and clarity regarding my beliefs. Tis not my belief that God is limited - no indeed he is not, however, my knowledge of him, as well as my understanding of him, is the limiting factor.

Question - What does thou think the terms "literal", "metaphorical", and "allogorical" mean - to the one who created speech? Or by what authourity does any human terminology have - over the one who's very spoken word created this mystery we call life? (Of course one is assuming with these questions, that God is the Creator, not man)

So to put it literally- (which I must clarify again, I'm figuratively speaking, as the term "literal" can only truly be applied to the human perspective) our minds have little understanding, and our words have little authourity regarding any aspect of God.

Can everyone realise where I'm going with this? If not, then let me further extrapolate -

7 days to God, does indeed mean 7 days - As God being fully righteous, does not lie. But from the human perspective - and with our limited knowledge of what a "day" truly is, it is quite possible - or more appropiately termed, quite evident - that this limited knowledge of ours does not fully grasp the concept of what a "day" actually is, atleast from God's perspective.

So what does thou think of those grapes? Are they sour to thy tastebuds? Perhaps they are - for not everyone has a palate capable of ingesting truth. However to myself, they are a delicacy -- much sweeter than the sweetest of honeys or nectors.

BobbyD
Originally posted by Nellinator
Sometimes the Bible uses obvious metaphors. Sometimes they are not obvious. Some Hebrew words can mean more than one thing (such as day or age). It is important to consider all the possible meanings and then see which ones are in concordance with the literal. Understanding the meaning is much more important than understanding the details.

...couldn't have said it better, Nelly (not to get off the topic here...).

BobbyD
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
But on whose authority should the difference be drawn? God's? Jesus's? The Pope? Etc? I'm not trying to be an *******, I'm just wondering where the line should be drawn? Maybe between the archaic teachings of the bible that stand in direct opposition to the words spoken by Jesus himself?

That is an excellent series of questions for which I have no answer. To each their own?

Council#13
Originally posted by BobbyD
Has it been played out thousands of time already throughout the universe? Will it not continue to do so too?

If for instance, on a remote planet across the galaxy where Christ also lived, but looked like (oh, I don't know, let's say) a giraffe, because all the inhabitants of intelligent life on this particular planet looked like giraffes, wouldn't he have been crucified there also? Has this scene not taken place already on thousands of planets across the universe? Get my drift?

If God in his splendor, put this whole time machine known as the universe in motion, with limitless possibilities for intelligent life; and as such allows for limitless possibilties for different physical features of intelligent life elsewhere, wouldn't He also have sent Christ (in some physically different, relative form) to spread His message on these life sustaining planets also?

Christ died for us on Earth, so God probably had a few others on the few other planets that had intelligent life on them.

BobbyD
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Am I the only one who thinks trying to crucify a giraffe would be both difficult and funny looking? Why would aliens without out anatomy use a human form of executions and torture?

Silly, I just needed an example for illustrative purposes. roll eyes (sarcastic) stick out tongue

BobbyD
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
The meaning is much more important. But then why do so many christians get caught up in the details?

Very good question, I might add.

Soooo.......we can continually challenge ourselves to be the best possible Christians? Not to be satisfied with the status quo all the time?

Man law? confused

BobbyD
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
So what does thou think of those grapes? Are they sour to thy tastebuds? Perhaps they are - for not everyone has a palate capable of ingesting truth. However to myself, they are a delicacy -- much sweeter than the sweetest of honeys or nectors.

Thou ist a poet, and doust not knoweth it. wink

BobbyD
Originally posted by Council#13
Christ died for us on Earth, so God probably had a few others on the few other planets that had intelligent life on them.

So Council-like me, you too feel that the possibility COULD exist, however likely or unlikely. Is that what I'm getting?

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Nellinator
Some Christians need to stop worrying about what they eat and start going out and helping and loving people.


And sometimes, as sweet as it may taste to one's palate - the "truth" -- can sometimes hurt. wink

BobbyD
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
And sometimes, as sweet as it may taste to one's palate - the "truth" -- can sometimes hurt. wink

Indeed. Truer words were never spoken.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
And sometimes, as sweet as it may taste to one's palate - the "truth" -- can sometimes hurt. wink

It is not the true that hurts; it is the loss of delusion that causes the pain.

BobbyD
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is not the true that hurts; it is the loss of delusion that causes the pain.

Interesting.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BobbyD
Interesting.

It's kind of like falling of a cliff; it is not the fall that kills you, but the sudden stop at the bottom.

BobbyD
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's kind of like falling of a cliff; it is not the fall that kills you, but the sudden stop at the bottom.

Anesthesia anyone?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BobbyD
Anesthesia anyone?

sad Are you making fun of me?

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is not the true that hurts; it is the loss of delusion that causes the pain.

Only the wise fool understands that it is not the loss of his delusion that causes himself pain, but rather the realisation of the truth presented before him.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Only the wise fool understands that it is not the loss of his delusion that causes himself pain, but rather the realisation of the truth presented before him.

confused You lost me now.

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
confused You lost me now.

The fool is thought to be wise when he keeps silent, even when he does not understand what is being said.

Good day to you Shakyamunison. God bless.

BobbyD
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
sad Are you making fun of me?

No, Shaky. ....mocking you slightly? Yes.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BobbyD
No, Shaky. ....mocking you slightly? Yes.

Please give me some anesthesia .

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
The fool is thought to be wise when he keeps silent, even when he does not understand what is being said.

Then take your own advice and stop talking.

BobbyD
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please give me some anesthesia .

laughing

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Tis not my belief that God is limited - no indeed he is not, however, my knowledge of him, as well as my understanding of him, is the limiting factor.



and the catch 22 lives on.....

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
and the catch 22 lives on.....

They don't see it. eek!

Alliance
Is they saw it they would have dealt with it already.

Or they're jsut ignoring it because they CANT deal with it.

King Kandy
Might be hard to crucify a giraffe.

JesusIsAlive

Capt_Fantastic

BobbyD
Originally posted by King Kandy
Might be hard to crucify a giraffe.

Another one?

Yes, of course, silly-we know. roll eyes (sarcastic)

BobbyD
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Interesting question BobbyD however the Scriptures indicate that Jesus will never die for sins again. He is done doing this forever.

Could it be that He is only done doing this for (US) humans forever? confused

office jesus
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
What about them? There is no conflict with dinosaurs and the accounts referenced in biblical works -- or is there? You have heard of the term "behemoth" and "leviathan" haven't you? If not, then I'm quite certain, that yourself and others of like minded rationale -- will give a typical response to the question I've posed. One which defines the earth as being "millions" of years old -- which then of course, discounts the entire creation story -- as it is referenced in the bible.

This is assuming of course-- that I am limited to interpreting the belief system you subscribe to as valid, which would seem to be a rather pointless and irrational limitation imposed upon me.

So what then does thou have to attest to regarding the validity of the "assumption" of earth being "billions" of years old? Radiometric dating? Carbon dating? Yes, these methods are extremely accurate when measuring dates above a several thousand year time period -- are they not? He he he..perhaps everyone can see where I'm going with this?

Now, whilst thou ponders about how to respond to my inquiries, do take into account, that my interpretation of life, does indeed -- have historical merit to it.

So how does thou like those apples?

..But the Earth IS billions of years old. There's no other evidence to disprove otherwise.

BobbyD
Originally posted by office jesus
..But the Earth IS billions of years old. There's no other evidence to disprove otherwise.

Okay, let's not turn this into a science thread now. wink

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BobbyD
Okay, let's not turn this into a science thread now. wink

Why? Do you fear science?

BobbyD
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why? Do you fear science?

No, just you. *runs*

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BobbyD
No, just you. *runs*

Don't be afraid of me. cool I have lots anesthesia for you. laughing out loud

Nellinator
Originally posted by office jesus
..But the Earth IS billions of years old. There's no other evidence to disprove otherwise.
Actually there is. An interesting theory actually... Not sure how much of it I believe given our limited knowledge of fission-fusion. Also, it was conducted by a secular institution by secular scientist to the best of my knowledge.

It is something about the volume of the sun decreasing at a certain rate each year. If the rate it is currently decreasing at was consistent throught the last few billion years, the sun would have been so large that it would have consumed Earth as few as two billion years ago. Or something like that... Interesting thought. I think I will need to look into it more...

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by BobbyD
Silly, I just needed an example for illustrative purposes. roll eyes (sarcastic) stick out tongue

I know that, it just made me giggle, just imagine some Roman soldiers trying to attach a giraffe to a cross.

BobbyD
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I know that, it just made me giggle, just imagine some Roman soldiers trying to attach a giraffe to a cross.

But, it'd be giraffes nailing giraffes, no? Besides, I'm sure on whatever planet it would be, if this is true, that there is an apparatus more practical for crucifixion of its kind. erm

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Nellinator
Actually there is. An interesting theory actually... Not sure how much of it I believe given our limited knowledge of fission-fusion. Also, it was conducted by a secular institution by secular scientist to the best of my knowledge.

It is something about the volume of the sun decreasing at a certain rate each year. If the rate it is currently decreasing at was consistent throught the last few billion years, the sun would have been so large that it would have consumed Earth as few as two billion years ago. Or something like that... Interesting thought. I think I will need to look into it more...

Yes, please look it up, and provide a link.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Nellinator
Actually there is. An interesting theory actually... Not sure how much of it I believe given our limited knowledge of fission-fusion. Also, it was conducted by a secular institution by secular scientist to the best of my knowledge.

It is something about the volume of the sun decreasing at a certain rate each year. If the rate it is currently decreasing at was consistent throught the last few billion years, the sun would have been so large that it would have consumed Earth as few as two billion years ago. Or something like that... Interesting thought. I think I will need to look into it more...

Actually that theory considered is dodgy to the extreme, and debunked. Firstly it doesn't work according to how we know suns die, the speed light travels from stars, how they consume the materials they are composed of and so on. Essentially the only workable aspect is that our sun, like others, might contract and expand in small ways - but not the consistant decrease the authors implied would mean our sun would have disapeared long ago if the sun was older then a few thousand years.

Two of the most obvious aspects are shown here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

Incidently it is a claim that Kent Hovind has gone one about before (though he didn't come up with it) - but Hovind likes preaching theories that were debunked long ago...

"It should be noted that many of his fellow young-earthers consider him to be an embarrassment and that many of his arguments can be found in Arguments we think creationists should NOT use published by the young-earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis."

xmarksthespot
The fact that many cultures had no concept of a crucified son-deity, before the advent of missionaries. The possibility of any extraterrestrial sentient sapient species with likely a very different physiology suited to their own natural environment, would have a story of a crucified (crucifixion only being a relevant means of execution for organisms of human or similar physiology) figure as son and deity, is negligible.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Actually that theory considered is dodgy to the extreme, and debunked. Firstly it doesn't work according to how we know suns die, the speed light travels from stars, how they consume the materials they are composed of and so on. Essentially the only workable aspect is that our sun, like others, might contract and expand in small ways - but not the consistant decrease the authors implied would mean our sun would have disapeared long ago if the sun was older then a few thousand years.

Two of the most obvious aspects are shown here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

Incidently it is a claim that Kent Hovind has gone one about before (though he didn't come up with it) - but Hovind likes preaching theories that were debunked long ago...

"It should be noted that many of his fellow young-earthers consider him to be an embarrassment and that many of his arguments can be found in Arguments we think creationists should NOT use published by the young-earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis."
I am not over familiar with the theory. And although it may disagree with our current understanding of how suns die it may call for further research. Like I said, I am not sure that it is true (actually I doubt it), but I don't throw it out. I was not intending to use it as an argument for creationism, just throwing the idea out there.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Nellinator
I am not over familiar with the theory. And although it may disagree with our current understanding of how suns die it may call for further research. Like I said, I am not sure that it is true (actually I doubt it), but I don't throw it out. I was not intending to use it as an argument for creationism, just throwing the idea out there.

I know, but I am familiar with it - simply through reading the works of credible scientists who have worked at debunking various young earth claims, and done so comprehensively. The theory the sun is decreasing at a rate that would put its age billions of years lower then it is has no credibility. There is no evidence to support it, the evidence once used has been shown as misinterpreted, and the theory in no way fits with the current evidenced theories on the life of stars.

It is possible to throw out theories when they have been systematically broken down and rendered completely without relevance. Plenty theories far more believable have gone that way in the past, and this one has done the same, the only difference being it never had any credibility.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I know, but I am familiar with it - simply through reading the works of credible scientists who have worked at debunking various young earth claims, and done so comprehensively. The theory the sun is decreasing at a rate that would put its age billions of years lower then it is has no credibility. There is no evidence to support it, the evidence once used has been shown as misinterpreted, and the theory in no way fits with the current evidenced theories on the life of stars.

It is possible to throw out theories when they have been systematically broken down and rendered completely without relevance. Plenty theories far more believable have gone that way in the past, and this one has done the same, the only difference being it never had any credibility.
I only became aware of it recently and have yet to hear the debunking evidence. I'll take your word for it though.

Alliance
Originally posted by Nellinator
Actually there is. An interesting theory actually... Not sure how much of it I believe given our limited knowledge of fission-fusion. Also, it was conducted by a secular institution by secular scientist to the best of my knowledge.

It is something about the volume of the sun decreasing at a certain rate each year. If the rate it is currently decreasing at was consistent throught the last few billion years, the sun would have been so large that it would have consumed Earth as few as two billion years ago. Or something like that... Interesting thought. I think I will need to look into it more...

Samura's assessment of this is correct.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.