Hello Y'all!

George here.

I'm 69 years old.

Christ is Lord! Accepting that He is who He claims was very experiential for me, which was when I was about 8.

My degree is M.E. ('74). My career is in the road construction industry.

My hobby is astronomy.

I noticed this forum allows for strong and varied opinions, inevitable for any honest religion. I think this is a good policy. I hope there will be several opinions I hold that may be helpful to others, balancing out the ones that aren't. *wink*

Hi George! Good to see you here.
“Christ is Lord” - Amen

welcome

Nice to meet you and glad the Lord led you to CC! You're at the right place for a variety of topics and ideas. Enjoy looking around and God bless you and your family!

Welcome!

Great avatar photo.

Thanks to all for the welcome!

It is an image taken from a rover on Mars. The atmosphere on Mars is almost a vacuum and only the larger molecules (e.g. CO2) remain. These large molecules are just the right size to cause red light to scatter in all directions but allow the blue light to continue forward.

The opposite is true on Earth, which is also just right to give us the beautiful blue that blesses us.

Welcome, dear brother George! It is good to hear that your relationship with God is experiential.

I too find Astronomy and Cosmology interesting.

I am a young-earther who believes that, not only was the Earth created in mature form, but also the entire cosmos. I do not ascribe to the idea that the first distant starlight took many years to reach earth, nor that anything that exists anywhere is more than 10,000 years old. The past teaches us that the there is no security in acceptance of the general consensus. People so often confuse scientific theory with scientific fact. This causes some to be subconsciously dumbed-down and block headed. I believe that it is time for intelligent Christians to cast off the yoke of atheistic science-so-called once and for all and forevermore.

I know. That's why I said it.

Few know what you know. Not many understand what is known as "selective scattering".

I only learned about it in my "quest for the color of the Sun". It was, IMO, a perfect adventure for an amateur astronomer.

Heliochromology, the study of the Sun's color, reveals that science can indeed lose focus on things that should get more scrutiny rather than get caught in group think. [Heliochromology is a bit tongue-n-check. I felt I needed a seven syllable word to gain any credibility in the astronomy forum where I, with others, conducted my resolution to the color conundrum. ]

The Sun just "ain't yeller" contrary to all those prior textbooks that strongly suggest it is yellow, along with a plethora of erroneously colored art work for the Sun.

I only mention it in this thread to support the view that science is not to be treated as fact, though most science is not on sand but on solid rock. You can't design a bridge on wishy-washy physics. Scrutiny should always be welcome in the realm of science, though this isn't the case in religion. The difference can be very important.

To others --- see, didn't I tell you that YEC folks are usually great!

Nice to hear it because i'm a loner on this in my limited circles.

And I will bet a donut that this is because of your view of certain chapters in Genesis, right? Faith should always trump science if that faith is truly in Truth itself. It's up to science to wake-up.

I too favor a literal interpretation since modern astronomy does support, IMO, an Earth forming in a void (within the accretion disk) and the Sun being that light that was commanded come forth to give Earth both Day and Night.

Certainly this is true if we consider all general consensuses. This is why "herd mentality" is a pejorative.

But it can be argued that most general consensuses are on solid ground. Engineers have little choice to think otherwise and their handbooks would not be handbooks if the vast amount of empirical evidence didn't justify their establishment.

So, like the Sun's color, we need to always scrutinize the science before giving too much weight to any one hypothesis or theory. This is what science itself is supposed to do.

Yes, and I just posted this same thing, oddly enough.

It might help if I share my views of science since when one understands its limits then less challenges will likely be improperly flung at it, and vice versa.

To have a hypothesis or a theory, it must be one that is objective-based. Objectivity means things that can be tested by others. If I perform a test that gets a cool result, but then no one else on the planet, including me, can replicate the result, then I have no objective-basis to argue for a hypothesis. I can offer it, alternatively, as supposition, and hope somebody can replicate it enough to make it objective.

The other side is subjectivity. Philosophy and religion are subjective-based realms that may or may not include objective evidence (facts) that often support their claim, though sometimes the opposite is true.

But do we dump all science including the bullet-proof equations for gravity and the Maxwell equations, etc.?

I think it's fine to make any particular claim for science demonstrate enough logical arguments and empirical evidence that would make it more credible than not. No science can be absolute, or truth, or even proven, so it's really a matter of how demonstrably probable it is, IMO.

Let me ask you Mr. Sun, if I may.

Why IS the sun considered a yellow star? This is something I've never understood. I get the light scattering thing in Earth's and Mars' atmosphere, and how different frequencies respond to atoms, molecules and dust. But... the sun? Yellow??

You might want to engage Mr Mitaze. He, you see, is above it all.

Christ is LORD.

I have good friend thing going on with the CHRIST

So I eat a A Valid Calorie Count , A Snivkers Counts.

I am going to eat a Snickers and count it As Cloriarasies I ate.

I am Eating the Snickers, YUM YUM GOOD.

SO you want to Talk about GOD? The Most Importantant Thing?