Blue stars are stars that burn up their fuel at a very high rate. A blue star therefore cannot continue (given their material mass) to exist much beyond about 100,000 years. Given the abundance of blue stars that still exist coupled with their remaining mass, the universe would have an age in low 1000s of years. The scientists who reject creation six thousand years ago have had to create an “ort cloud” where new stars are “born” that they have no evidence for at all.
In an observably expanding universe, the “birth” of a new star requires within it a gathering and gravity-compression of material which has no beginning mass to begin the gathering of material – like having your cake and eating it at the same time. I am not a scientist, so maybe some scientists have come up with a logical means to support the “birth” of new stars. So I went hunting for scientists who might do that, and what I found are scientists who are abandoning the modern, popularised ship to embrace logical astrophysics supported by lots of evidence, such as explained by Dr. Lyle. Have a watch, it might change your life.
What I presented in astrophysical observation has nothing to do with the ancient word "Yom," yet it strikes completely out of logic "a billion years." Comets and blue stars both attest to creation in the low 1000s of years.
You are welcome to accept any philosophy you like, just as I am. And I have chosen to stand firmly upon God's word, testing all else by His word, including the possible age of blue stars, comets, new stars etc. etc. etc.
So between us it would seem that we hold different worldviews - if this intrigues you, have a watch of Dr, Lisle's presentation mentioned already and you may see that my purposeful avoidance of quoting God's word does not strike God's word out of that difference between our worldviews.
I don't see "aboriginal" in any of both posts, and all I do see in my words related to yours is
Given the abundance of blue stars that still exist coupled with their remaining mass, the universe would have an age in low 1000s of years.
If you have a disagreement with these observations, maybe you would post something that refutes the observations on the same plane of thought as the observations.
Nonetheless, this request does not obligate you to respond, let alone refute creation in the low 1000s of years ago. You are as welcome to any philosphy you like as I am.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index