PDA

View Full Version : Before man could see the stars



youngjoshuatree
Jan 29th 2009, 07:14 AM
The world had no calander or watch. Could a simple answer to the answer of how old is the world and other topics like evoution be gods days in genesis be thousand years at a time. It seems extremly logic to me. Consider the bible doesnt tell other wise. Religious people use geneolgy to calculate how long the worlds been around. So if you use my theroy it could explain why science is proving the world has been around for a while. It also brings to chance to add in a possible ice age. It alows dinosaurs to come and go. You could even add some form of evolution. You could say on the the day(thousand years at a time) god created mammals he watched them for so long and before he decided to call it a day (as time passed) he gradually let them change into what he wanted to call man. The bodies of aniamls turn to dust on the ground. Which he turned into man..Just an idea to answer some ?'s

Advocatus Dei
Jan 29th 2009, 07:43 AM
So if you use my theroy it could explain why science is proving the world has been around for a while.

I think that you're going to find that some people believe that if it says in the Bible that it took God a day to do something, then it means literally 24 hours as we understand it now.

Which begs the question of why He took so long. God is all powerful so why he would take a complete week to make everything I'm not sure. But I'm banking that others will be able to enlighten you on this.

tango
Jan 29th 2009, 12:46 PM
Looking at the word translated as "day" there's scope for interpretation.

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

From Strong's concordance, the word "Day" (H3117) is listed (boldface is mine):


H3117
יום
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.
so it's not entirely clear whether God made things in neatly defined 24-hour periods (the literal definition above) or in less neatly defined chronological ages (the figurative definition above)

youngjoshuatree
Jan 29th 2009, 03:49 PM
Well never know how long his days were... I belive im quoting the right book, but in in Joshua doesnt he hault the sun from going down, which would inturn not let the day pass?

JC Lamont
Jan 31st 2009, 03:39 AM
To answer what I think your question is:

No, starlight does not prove the age of the earth.

We can see stars 47 billion light years away, but evolution scientists claim the world is "only" 14 billion years old -- quite a descrepency.

In fact, there is less descrepency for Creation.

Creation science has a descrepency for a little less than 14 billion light-years

whereas

Evolutionary science has a descrepency of 33 billion light-years away -- over twice as much

If I'm not mistaken though, science has shown that the universe is expanding (which incidently is supported by the Bible) which would explain why we see stars farther away than the age of the earth -- regardless of how old one believes the earth to be.

Advocatus Dei
Jan 31st 2009, 05:41 AM
We can see stars 47 billion light years away...

If I'm not mistaken though, science has shown that the universe is expanding (which incidently is supported by the Bible) which would explain why we see stars farther away than the age of the earth -- regardless of how old one believes the earth to be.

There's a refutation to the first point in another thread, so I won't repeat it. But you're correct, JC, the Universe is expanding (but I didn't know that the Bible confirmed that). The stars furthest away show what they call red shift which indicates they're traveling away from us. It's called the Doppler effect and it's the visual equivalent of the shift in tone of, say, a railway crossing bell as it would sound to a passenger on the train.

The fact that we can 'see' stars that are older than 4.5 billion years old is because they were formed earlier than the earth. The light that they emit has been heading our way for some time (I believe we'd still see them if the Universe was static).

Itinerant Lurker
Jan 31st 2009, 12:32 PM
To answer what I think your question is:

No, starlight does not prove the age of the earth.

We can see stars 47 billion light years away, but evolution scientists claim the world is "only" 14 billion years old -- quite a descrepency.


What you have to keep in mind is that the starlight we see is very very old, it's a snapshot from millions of years ago as it takes that long for the light leaving a star millions of light years away to reach us. Since that light left the star the universe has continued to expand, according to Hubble's Law, with everything moving away from everything else. So, by now, the stars we see have expanded away from us, that is why scientists say that even though the universe is only 13.4 billion years old we can see light from stars 47 billion years away; they weren't that far away when the light we see from them began it's long journey towards earth, but the stars have been moving away from us during that time so that they are now further away then when the light we see from them was emitted.
http://www.astronomybuff.com/how-can-we-see-galaxies-47-billion-light-years-away-when-the-universe-is-only-13-billion-years-old/

http://www.astronomybuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/universe-inflation-1.jpg


If nothing else, the fact that we can see stars millions of light years away indicates that the universe is very very old.

Luke34
Feb 1st 2009, 07:46 AM
If I'm not mistaken though, science has shown that the universe is expanding (which incidently is supported by the Bible) which would explain why we see stars farther away than the age of the earth -- regardless of how old one believes the earth to be. But "the universe is expanding" isn't a catch-all answer, since the universe is expanding at a certain rate. The calculations work out (http://www.astronomybuff.com/how-can-we-see-galaxies-47-billion-light-years-away-when-the-universe-is-only-13-billion-years-old/) with a given age of approximately 13 billion years. They most certainly would not work with a number over two million times smaller.

Luke34
Feb 1st 2009, 07:47 AM
http://www.astronomybuff.com/how-can-we-see-galaxies-47-billion-light-years-away-when-the-universe-is-only-13-billion-years-old/

If nothing else, the fact that we can see stars millions of light years away indicates that the universe is very very old. Hey, you beat me to both my link and my conclusion. I guess I should read the whole thread from now on.

bosco
Feb 2nd 2009, 05:03 PM
The world had no calander or watch. Could a simple answer to the answer of how old is the world and other topics like evoution be gods days in genesis be thousand years at a time. It seems extremly logic to me. Consider the bible doesnt tell other wise. Religious people use geneolgy to calculate how long the worlds been around. So if you use my theroy it could explain why science is proving the world has been around for a while. It also brings to chance to add in a possible ice age. It alows dinosaurs to come and go. You could even add some form of evolution. You could say on the the day(thousand years at a time) god created mammals he watched them for so long and before he decided to call it a day (as time passed) he gradually let them change into what he wanted to call man. The bodies of aniamls turn to dust on the ground. Which he turned into man..Just an idea to answer some ?'s

You do realize that "a thousand years is as a day" isn't saying "a thousand years IS a day?" It is a metophor, it is merely showing us that God is beyond time.

Bosco

bosco
Feb 2nd 2009, 05:06 PM
What you have to keep in mind is that the starlight we see is very very old, it's a snapshot from millions of years ago as it takes that long for the light leaving a star millions of light years away to reach us. Since that light left the star the universe has continued to expand, according to Hubble's Law, with everything moving away from everything else. So, by now, the stars we see have expanded away from us, that is why scientists say that even though the universe is only 13.4 billion years old we can see light from stars 47 billion years away; they weren't that far away when the light we see from them began it's long journey towards earth, but the stars have been moving away from us during that time so that they are now further away then when the light we see from them was emitted.
http://www.astronomybuff.com/how-can-we-see-galaxies-47-billion-light-years-away-when-the-universe-is-only-13-billion-years-old/

http://www.astronomybuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/universe-inflation-1.jpg


If nothing else, the fact that we can see stars millions of light years away indicates that the universe is very very old.

Or, when God created mountains which evolution says take millions of years, they were simply mountains when he said it. That Adam wasn't a baby, but a fully formed man skipping 20-30 years by mans logic. That when he created the stars that are many light years away, their light was already shining on earth because God created them that way.

The came equipt, IMHO, with the appearance of age. If not, throw out Genesis, but when you do, don't stop. Because once you remove one book, the rest is nothing but useless paper!

Bosco

Itinerant Lurker
Feb 2nd 2009, 08:40 PM
Or, when God created mountains which evolution says take millions of years, they were simply mountains when he said it. That Adam wasn't a baby, but a fully formed man skipping 20-30 years by mans logic. That when he created the stars that are many light years away, their light was already shining on earth because God created them that way.
Bosco

You can go that way, but you are describing a deceitful god. It's not just that mountains "look" old, it's that their geology contains stories of multiple specific events which took place to form them. Each one of those specific events did not actually occur if God created them with the appearance of age, which would mean that god created a deceitful world.

In the same way, if God created light from stars in transit there are events written into the light and radiation given off by distant objects that did not actually take place. Again, you are left with a deceitful god.

If you take the example of Adam created "already formed" it would be comparable to God creating Adam fully formed with a complete medical history of various illnesses and broken bones. And it's just such a needlessly complex trick he'd be playing on us as well. Mountains don't need to be so complex, they could just of easily been made as solid pieces of rock that look like they were created instantly. Starlight, also, doesn't need to be created "in place". There's no reason we couldn't have had stars created a little closer or just not been able to see all the stars we do. If God had wanted to build an honest creation in six days don't you think He could have made it look like something other than a creation billions of years old? And, building on that, if creation is so unreliable and can't be taken at face value. . .if observation is so inherently flawed. . .why does Paul write that we can learn about the nature of God by "observing what has been made" in Romans 1:20?

crawfish
Feb 2nd 2009, 10:21 PM
You can go that way, but you are describing a deceitful god. It's not just that mountains "look" old, it's that their geology contains stories of multiple specific events which took place to form them. Each one of those specific events did not actually occur if God created them with the appearance of age, which would mean that god created a deceitful world.

In the same way, if God created light from stars in transit there are events written into the light and radiation given off by distant objects that did not actually take place. Again, you are left with a deceitful god.

If you take the example of Adam created "already formed" it would be comparable to God creating Adam fully formed with a complete medical history of various illnesses and broken bones. And it's just such a needlessly complex trick he'd be playing on us as well. Mountains don't need to be so complex, they could just of easily been made as solid pieces of rock that look like they were created instantly. Starlight, also, doesn't need to be created "in place". There's no reason we couldn't have had stars created a little closer or just not been able to see all the stars we do. If God had wanted to build an honest creation in six days don't you think He could have made it look like something other than a creation billions of years old? And, building on that, if creation is so unreliable and can't be taken at face value. . .if observation is so inherently flawed. . .why does Paul write that we can learn about the nature of God by "observing what has been made" in Romans 1:20?

This is a very good point, and one which doesn't get discussed enough. Let's say that God created Adam as a 30-year-old man; that, in itself, might not be deceitful. But what if Adam was created with an apparent history; a scar over his eye, a blotch on his liver from an infection in his teens, etc. Isn't this suggestion of a history that never was deceitful in itself?

The earth and the entire universe does not only have apparent age, it has the "scars" of events that happened during that apparent age. We saw a supernova in 1987 from a star over a hundred thousand light-years away; are we to assume this was a fake event constructed in-process six thousand years ago? I don't think so.

bosco
Feb 2nd 2009, 10:50 PM
You can go that way, but you are describing a deceitful god. It's not just that mountains "look" old, it's that their geology contains stories of multiple specific events which took place to form them. Each one of those specific events did not actually occur if God created them with the appearance of age, which would mean that god created a deceitful world.

In the same way, if God created light from stars in transit there are events written into the light and radiation given off by distant objects that did not actually take place. Again, you are left with a deceitful god.

If you take the example of Adam created "already formed" it would be comparable to God creating Adam fully formed with a complete medical history of various illnesses and broken bones. And it's just such a needlessly complex trick he'd be playing on us as well. Mountains don't need to be so complex, they could just of easily been made as solid pieces of rock that look like they were created instantly. Starlight, also, doesn't need to be created "in place". There's no reason we couldn't have had stars created a little closer or just not been able to see all the stars we do. If God had wanted to build an honest creation in six days don't you think He could have made it look like something other than a creation billions of years old? And, building on that, if creation is so unreliable and can't be taken at face value. . .if observation is so inherently flawed. . .why does Paul write that we can learn about the nature of God by "observing what has been made" in Romans 1:20?

Where you see deceit, I see a God that does not belong to time. You say billions of years....God blinks. You say millions, God takes half a breath. Time is the result of what God created, and, he exists outside of that.

Just wondering, do you believe the entire bible is inspired, or just part of it? If only part, where do you draw the line? Does logic and man's knowledge trump God's Word?

Bosco

Itinerant Lurker
Feb 3rd 2009, 01:28 AM
Where you see deceit, I see a God that does not belong to time. You say billions of years....God blinks. You say millions, God takes half a breath. Time is the result of what God created, and, he exists outside of that.


Ok but we're not merely talking about time here, we're talking about a visible record of events exceeding six thousand years in breadth. So just talking about how God doesn't care about time the same we do doesn't really make your point. God makes the claim that we can learn about him from observing creation, if God is a god of truth then the stories He built into that creation should be true, and the stories we find in creation point towards an old earth.



Just wondering, do you believe the entire bible is inspired, or just part of it? If only part, where do you draw the line? Does logic and man's knowledge trump God's Word?


I believe God revealed the creation story in a way that His audience at the time could understand. That same scripture you are insisting I interpret ultra-literally also claims that human beings can rely on observation to learn about God. God is the one who built our brains so that we could understand his creation, I don't think He did this just so that we could stick our heads in the sand.


Bosco[/quote]

bosco
Feb 3rd 2009, 03:20 AM
Ok but we're not merely talking about time here, we're talking about a visible record of events exceeding six thousand years in breadth. So just talking about how God doesn't care about time the same we do doesn't really make your point. God makes the claim that we can learn about him from observing creation, if God is a god of truth then the stories He built into that creation should be true, and the stories we find in creation point towards an old earth.

Fine, here is some observation. The atmospheric mix is just right to support life. The essential ingredient for life, water, covers 2/3rds of the planet. The moon placed in the perfect place so that the severity of storms, and a host of other things, are kept at bay. The outer gas giants so gravitationally strong, protect us from life ending meteor strikes. The right mineral amounts in our grounds to support fruit, which just happens to carry the ingredients necessary for good health. The oceans, lakes, and rivers teaming with fish, also filled with protein and Omega 3 fatty acids, essential for life. The sun giving us the compound which allows our bodies to create and use vitamin D-3, known for heart and immune health, as well as many others health items. The sun is in the perfect position to support life, not too cold, not too hot. You realize I can spend all night listing items like these.

So we observe the beauty of the mountains and oceans, the valleys and open land, we understand that 100 million forms of life are on this planet. We have two choices Lurker, accept that Genesis is a fraud casting doubt on ALL of scripture, or we take God at his word. I have made my choice, you need to make yours.


I believe God revealed the creation story in a way that His audience at the time could understand. That same scripture you are insisting I interpret ultra-literally also claims that human beings can rely on observation to learn about God. God is the one who built our brains so that we could understand his creation, I don't think He did this just so that we could stick our heads in the sand.

His audiance at that time? Does God change? Does he not know the end from the beginning? His Word is everlasting, His audience you and I as much as Adam or Moses.

Where did you get the idea that God made our brains to understand his creation. We don't understand his creation, and until we can travel at faster than light speeds and observe, we will NEVER understand all his creation. There is a difference Lurker between using creation to understand (as best we can) the creator...and understanding creation itself. We were made to serve God, to love God, to desire to understand his will and walk as a member of his family.

Talk to you later. I would like to take this further if you don't mind.

Bosco

Itinerant Lurker
Feb 3rd 2009, 03:54 AM
Fine, here is some observation. The atmospheric mix is just right to support life. The essential ingredient for life, water, covers 2/3rds of the planet. The moon placed in the perfect place so that the severity of storms, and a host of other things, are kept at bay. The outer gas giants so gravitationally strong, protect us from life ending meteor strikes. The right mineral amounts in our grounds to support fruit, which just happens to carry the ingredients necessary for good health. The oceans, lakes, and rivers teaming with fish, also filled with protein and Omega 3 fatty acids, essential for life. The sun giving us the compound which allows our bodies to create and use vitamin D-3, known for heart and immune health, as well as many others health items. The sun is in the perfect position to support life, not too cold, not too hot. You realize I can spend all night listing items like these.


And I could spend another night listing more. . .are you under the impression that I don't see the universe as a created thing? I'm arguing about the method/time frame of creation, not the nature of the universe as a creation.



So we observe the beauty of the mountains and oceans, the valleys and open land, we understand that 100 million forms of life are on this planet. We have two choices Lurker, accept that Genesis is a fraud casting doubt on ALL of scripture, or we take God at his word. I have made my choice, you need to make yours.


To. . .make my choice about what? I very easily reconcile Genesis with a more consistent view of the reliability of observation without having to view Genesis as a "fraud" so I'm unaware of this radical existential conflict you're referring to. If we can take God at his word then observation should line up with revelation. If, however, observation conflicts with revelation something has to give; either the observation is wrong, the revelation is wrong, or the interpretation is wrong.



His audiance at that time? Does God change? Does he not know the end from the beginning? His Word is everlasting, His audience you and I as much as Adam or Moses.


Yes, His audience at the time the account was recorded is not the same as the audience who reads that same account today. God chose to reveal Himself at given points in actual time in ways relevant to the people who lived at those times. There is no way iron age human beings would have been able to understand concepts like billions of years, tectonic plates, heliocentrism with all it's implications, gravitational forces, uplift & subduction, ect ect.



Where did you get the idea that God made our brains to understand his creation. We don't understand his creation,


Yes, actually, we do. We have been able to explain the vast majority of observable phenomena in our world through careful observation. That thing you're typing on right now is a direct result of our brain's ability to understand the physical laws and properties of the universe.



and until we can travel at faster than light speeds and observe, we will NEVER understand all his creation.


Well, it goes without saying that we don't understand every corner of the universe. But out of the vast majority of phenomena we observe we've been able to explain most and the historical trend of scientific understanding is definitely trending towards understanding larger and larger chunks of the physical universe.

Those areas that elude us are elusive because of external constraints of distance and time that may yet be overcome not by some internal restriction on our ability to understand.

Advocatus Dei
Feb 3rd 2009, 03:59 AM
You realize I can spend all night listing items like these.

You don't need to. You are arguing the weak anthropic principle. Roger Penrose said: “"The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate time”.

Your arguments are based on your assumption that the Universe has been created for us (look, it’s just right!), whereas we are a product of God’s universe, so everything, by definition must be suited to our existence. The fact that we have been evolving for literally billions of years means that conditions as we find them now could not have been anything other than suitable for our existence.

This is blindingly, blazingly, magnificently crystal clear to most of us who do not hold the bible to be inerrant. Unfortunately, if you put a limit of 6,000 years on the whole of existence, then it’s going to make absolutley no sense to you at all.

BroRog
Feb 3rd 2009, 04:58 AM
If I make a movie about WWII and I use cars, tanks, and uniforms from that period, am I being deceitful? What if I use actors that weren't born in the 1940's, but dressed them in period costumes and aged them with makeup? What if I aged everything so that it would be the perfect backdrop to tell my story? Would I be deceitful then?

Itinerant Lurker
Feb 3rd 2009, 05:49 AM
If I make a movie about WWII and I use cars, tanks, and uniforms from that period, am I being deceitful? What if I use actors that weren't born in the 1940's, but dressed them in period costumes and aged them with makeup? What if I aged everything so that it would be the perfect backdrop to tell my story? Would I be deceitful then?

If you make a movie about WWII you are depicting events that actually did occur. If you made a movie about WWII centering around a battle that didn't actually happen featuring historical figures that didn't actually exist and tried to pass it off as "historically accurate" you'd probably be labeled as somewhat deceitful.

BroRog
Feb 3rd 2009, 07:42 PM
If you make a movie about WWII you are depicting events that actually did occur. If you made a movie about WWII centering around a battle that didn't actually happen featuring historical figures that didn't actually exist and tried to pass it off as "historically accurate" you'd probably be labeled as somewhat deceitful.

The talk is about God and his creation. We can only know what it's like for God to create by analogy to how we create things. If God had made the rocks look millions of years old even when the earth is much younger, I can't accuse God of being deceitful without knowing his reason for doing so. By analogy, we can suppose that God had a narrative reason to create a back drop such that things appeared to be older than they are. Given the logic of the creative act, we can not fault God for doing this.

Our unstated, underlying assumption is that if WE were creating an earth, we would create the earth such that those creatures who live there can determine its age by inspection. But we can not assume that God would do the same thing. As it stands, God created the earth to look a particular age, but he tells us in advance that it isn't that age. He might have a good reason, a reason based in the art of creativity, which dictated his final design.

By your analogy, God would be deceitful if he intentionally tried to fool us into thinking the earth was millions of years old when it wasn't. But the Bible tells us it wasn't. So if he told us in advance that the earth was much younger than it appears, then he wasn't being deceitful. If he had aged the earth but didn't tell anybody, that might be deceitful. But then again, a director or script writer doesn't need to explicitly tell the audience that while the props look 50 years old, they were made yesterday.

bosco
Feb 3rd 2009, 09:20 PM
You don't need to. You are arguing the weak anthropic principle. Roger Penrose said: ď"The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate timeĒ.

Your arguments are based on your assumption that the Universe has been created for us (look, itís just right!), whereas we are a product of Godís universe, so everything, by definition must be suited to our existence. The fact that we have been evolving for literally billions of years means that conditions as we find them now could not have been anything other than suitable for our existence.

This is blindingly, blazingly, magnificently crystal clear to most of us who do not hold the bible to be inerrant. Unfortunately, if you put a limit of 6,000 years on the whole of existence, then itís going to make absolutley no sense to you at all.

If you do not hold the bible to be inerrent, why call yourself a Christian? You checked that box when you signed up here I see. If you do not hold to that position of inerrency, the need for a Messiah, Messiah himself, the fall of man...nothing has a reliable basis to hold on to. You become your own God by picking and chosing the form you want God to appear in.

As to your last point, as I stated previously, I left the "church" for a number of years and did nothing BUT study evolution, the Big Bang, and other scientific explanations as to why we are here. I spent a good thousand+ hours reading book after book, staying up until 3:00 - 4:00 in the morning scouring the net for information. In the end something became crystal clear, to believe in God requires faith. To believe in a Big Bang requires....faith.

I am still a little amazed you call yourself a Christian. Without the bible there is nothing other than our own imagination and logic, that can dictate what God can and can't be.

Bosco

bosco
Feb 3rd 2009, 09:46 PM
And I could spend another night listing more. . .are you under the impression that I don't see the universe as a created thing? I'm arguing about the method/time frame of creation, not the nature of the universe as a creation.

Scripture tells us that God spoke the world into existence and did so in 6 days. You, apparently, do not believe the 6 days were literal. Yet, in Hebrews there is an often overlooked verse dealing with Sabbath. In it, it says that we are to work 6 days and rest one, "as God did his." My point isn't should you keep Sabbath, my point is that is NT confirmation that the 6 days are literal.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water

For ME Lurker, if I had to take a leap of faith in one direction or the other, I chose God. You choose what works for you. Know this though, our mission is not to determine the age of the earth, nor the how's and why's as to why it is as it is...we are called to become students of the gospel and then teachers of it.


To. . .make my choice about what? I very easily reconcile Genesis with a more consistent view of the reliability of observation without having to view Genesis as a "fraud" so I'm unaware of this radical existential conflict you're referring to. If we can take God at his word then observation should line up with revelation. If, however, observation conflicts with revelation something has to give; either the observation is wrong, the revelation is wrong, or the interpretation is wrong.

Agreed.


Yes, His audience at the time the account was recorded is not the same as the audience who reads that same account today. God chose to reveal Himself at given points in actual time in ways relevant to the people who lived at those times. There is no way iron age human beings would have been able to understand concepts like billions of years, tectonic plates, heliocentrism with all it's implications, gravitational forces, uplift & subduction, ect ect.

But God is all knowing, eternal, and knew you and I would have this discussion. The record of Genesis is a record, albeit one with some left out answers to natural questions, that was given to all of mankind. We are not the end all either when it comes to knowledge, many will come after us and scoff at our technology in the same way we shudder to think of wars fought with swords.


Yes, actually, we do. We have been able to explain the vast majority of observable phenomena in our world through careful observation. That thing you're typing on right now is a direct result of our brain's ability to understand the physical laws and properties of the universe.

I think "vast majority" is an overstatement. Some believe the end of the world is 2012. Do you know why? Many believe that is when our solar system drops below the galactic plane and thus will cause a massive pole shift and threaten life as we know it. While I have read some science articles that have confirmed the drop below the plane, I would ask....how are the physics any different below the imaginary line than above? Does gravity flow in only a horizontal direction, or from all directions? Point is, we don't ultimately know what will happen. There is SO much we don't know, to say "vast majority" just seems a stretch to me.


Well, it goes without saying that we don't understand every corner of the universe. But out of the vast majority of phenomena we observe we've been able to explain most and the historical trend of scientific understanding is definitely trending towards understanding larger and larger chunks of the physical universe.

Agreed, but we havn't observed the vast majority of phenomena. What we have observed we can talk about, but most (by far) of the phenomena that exists is beyond our technological limits.


Those areas that elude us are elusive because of external constraints of distance and time that may yet be overcome not by some internal restriction on our ability to understand.

Again, agreed. The closest star to earth is over 20 trillion miles away and is one of 500 billion stars in THIS galaxy. Add in another 500 billion galaxies each containing hundreds of billions of stars....we don't know squat my friend.

Please do not think I am attacking you, I am not. Just trying to get a good idea as to where you are coming from.

Bosco

crawfish
Feb 3rd 2009, 10:52 PM
If you do not hold the bible to be inerrent, why call yourself a Christian? You checked that box when you signed up here I see. If you do not hold to that position of inerrency, the need for a Messiah, Messiah himself, the fall of man...nothing has a reliable basis to hold on to. You become your own God by picking and chosing the form you want God to appear in.

What do you consider "inerrant"? I hold that scripture is inerrant in that it is exactly what God intended, and inerrant for its intended use only.

For instance, one might try to read into Genesis 38 and assume that since Onan was punished for pulling out early in relation with his dead brother's wife, it affirms that as effective birth control. In reality, the story is completely unconcerned that this is not, in fact, true, and it can still lead to pregnancy. Scriptural error is therefore in the interpretation and NOT in the text itself.

The question then follows: when Genesis 1 speaks of creation, does it truly mean it happened in six 24-hour increments, or is it actually a parable used to communicate spiritual matters of creation to an early, scientifically illiterate audience? If the latter, then you can take the story quite literally without believing in a young earth.

The method used to see Genesis 1 (and other verses) as allegorical is a method used by all of us at points in scripture. Martin Luther didn't accept a heliocentric solar system based on Joshua 10:13; yet it's not too hard fo us to understand that the "sun stopping" is a statement of human perspective rather than scientific truth.

Bick
Feb 4th 2009, 12:45 AM
For an intelligent setting forth, and perhaps answering many of the above questions, go to reasons.org.

Reasons to Believe is headed by Hugh Ross, PHD in astronomy, who is one of the co-ministers in his church.

His latest book is a good one. It is "Why the Universe is the Way it Is"

Much info is available at the web site above.

Advocatus Dei
Feb 4th 2009, 02:58 AM
If you do not hold the bible to be inerrent, why call yourself a Christian?

Thanks, Crawfish. Saved me some typing time.


I spent a good thousand+ hours reading book after book, staying up until 3:00 - 4:00 in the morning scouring the net for information.

All that book learning must have set up a pretty convincing case as opposed to all that weak evidence for a YE. But there must have been this nagging problem buzzing around in the back of your mind - I can't be a real Christian unless I reject all this evidence. Maybe since you did reject it you think your belief is a lot stronger: "Look what I believe. Now that takes faith!".

If that's the case, then whatever floats your boat, friend. I've got no objection about what you personally believe. Just don't try to get this stuff taught in schools, OK?

Itinerant Lurker
Feb 4th 2009, 04:17 AM
I can't accuse God of being deceitful without knowing his reason for doing so.


I can, having a reason to be deceitful doesn't change the fact that you are still being deceitful. A universe that was made specifically to appear old would be deceitful.



Our unstated, underlying assumption is that if WE were creating an earth, we would create the earth such that those creatures who live there can determine its age by inspection. But we can not assume that God would do the same thing.


Except that he did, he created a world in which multiple lines of evidence from geology to radioactive decay to the fossil record all point towards a very old earth. And he made sure to build our brains in such a way that we would be able to understand it.



As it stands, God created the earth to look a particular age, but he tells us in advance that it isn't that age.


You are assuming that your argument is valid in order to use that to support your argument. . .do you see how circular this is?



By your analogy, God would be deceitful if he intentionally tried to fool us into thinking the earth was millions of years old when it wasn't.


Yes, that is correct.



But the Bible tells us it wasn't.


Um. . .no, not mine.

[quote[
So if he told us in advance that the earth was much younger than it appears, then he wasn't being deceitful.
[/quote]

Actually that is the very definition of deceit; it would be like me claiming I built you a house in two days then gave you a time stamped home video showing me taking two months to make your house. I dare say you wouldn't view me as a pinnacle of honesty after such an episode, no matter what my motivations were.

bosco
Feb 4th 2009, 03:15 PM
What do you consider "inerrant"? I hold that scripture is inerrant in that it is exactly what God intended, and inerrant for its intended use only.

For instance, one might try to read into Genesis 38 and assume that since Onan was punished for pulling out early in relation with his dead brother's wife, it affirms that as effective birth control. In reality, the story is completely unconcerned that this is not, in fact, true, and it can still lead to pregnancy. Scriptural error is therefore in the interpretation and NOT in the text itself.

The question then follows: when Genesis 1 speaks of creation, does it truly mean it happened in six 24-hour increments, or is it actually a parable used to communicate spiritual matters of creation to an early, scientifically illiterate audience? If the latter, then you can take the story quite literally without believing in a young earth.

The method used to see Genesis 1 (and other verses) as allegorical is a method used by all of us at points in scripture. Martin Luther didn't accept a heliocentric solar system based on Joshua 10:13; yet it's not too hard fo us to understand that the "sun stopping" is a statement of human perspective rather than scientific truth.

However Lurker meant it...I was quoting him.

Bosco

bosco
Feb 4th 2009, 03:18 PM
All that book learning must have set up a pretty convincing case as opposed to all that weak evidence for a YE. But there must have been this nagging problem buzzing around in the back of your mind - I can't be a real Christian unless I reject all this evidence. Maybe since you did reject it you think your belief is a lot stronger: "Look what I believe. Now that takes faith!".

If that's the case, then whatever floats your boat, friend. I've got no objection about what you personally believe. Just don't try to get this stuff taught in schools, OK?

Actually, all that evidence did was lead me to the conclusion I shared yesterday. It takes as much faith to believe in an old earth, as it does a young. Seeing Hebrews shares some scripture about us working 6 days and resting one as God did....and since our days are literal, I would think the author of Hebrews who likely knew Christ also believed in a YE.

Bosco

crawfish
Feb 4th 2009, 09:38 PM
Actually, all that evidence did was lead me to the conclusion I shared yesterday. It takes as much faith to believe in an old earth, as it does a young. Seeing Hebrews shares some scripture about us working 6 days and resting one as God did....and since our days are literal, I would think the author of Hebrews who likely knew Christ also believed in a YE.

Bosco

Not true. Only one with preconceived or biased notions about the age of the earth could look at the data and come to a different conclusion than it is very old.

Itinerant Lurker
Feb 5th 2009, 03:44 AM
However Lurker meant it...I was quoting him.

Bosco

I simply don't think an explanation of an event needs to be literal in order to be accurate. I'll throw out my as-of-yet unanswered pygmies and ATM example. Say you travel around through Zaire-Brazzaville or Gabon and you happen upon a still somewhat isolated band of pygmies who want to know what an ATM is. Could you give a literal explanation using literally accurate terms like "electricity", "fiber optics", "credit", or "international banks" and be understood? Of course not, what you'd end up with would be a literally accurate description that no one would understand and probably would laugh at. Instead you would relate these literal terms to things that are familiar to your audience; "Credit is like. . ." ect. What you would end up with would be an accurate description of an ATM machine that was useful while not being literally accurate.

Here's another example; Various bible translators in Africa run into problems translating passages like "white as snow" because many people in Africa have no idea what snow is. Usually they get around this by changing "snow" to something that still conveys the essential meaning of whiteness or purity while at the same time being more familiar to the audience. So instead of "white as snow" some local African translations might read "white as Kapok." (a white cotton like fiber produced around the seed pods of African Kapok trees). By making a description audience specific you increase it's comprehensibility. Compare these two sentences:

"Toenail the 7" galvanized into the rafter tails with an inside miter above the entrance and be sure to use the 3x4 painted downspouts to avoid any electrolysis"

and

"Nail the large piece of gutter onto the edge of the roof and be sure to cover the entrance, use large downspouts that are painted so there won't be any reactions between the metal and aluminum."

Both those sentences say, essentially, the same thing. The first is far more literally accurate, but it uses a lot of technical terms which laymen not associated with seamless gutter construction probably wouldn't be familiar with, which is why the second sentence is far more comprehensible without being as word for word accurate or descriptive.

bosco
Feb 5th 2009, 03:27 PM
I simply don't think an explanation of an event needs to be literal in order to be accurate. I'll throw out my as-of-yet unanswered pygmies and ATM example. Say you travel around through Zaire-Brazzaville or Gabon and you happen upon a still somewhat isolated band of pygmies who want to know what an ATM is. Could you give a literal explanation using literally accurate terms like "electricity", "fiber optics", "credit", or "international banks" and be understood? Of course not, what you'd end up with would be a literally accurate description that no one would understand and probably would laugh at. Instead you would relate these literal terms to things that are familiar to your audience; "Credit is like. . ." ect. What you would end up with would be an accurate description of an ATM machine that was useful while not being literally accurate.

Here's another example; Various bible translators in Africa run into problems translating passages like "white as snow" because many people in Africa have no idea what snow is. Usually they get around this by changing "snow" to something that still conveys the essential meaning of whiteness or purity while at the same time being more familiar to the audience. So instead of "white as snow" some local African translations might read "white as Kapok." (a white cotton like fiber produced around the seed pods of African Kapok trees). By making a description audience specific you increase it's comprehensibility. Compare these two sentences:

"Toenail the 7" galvanized into the rafter tails with an inside miter above the entrance and be sure to use the 3x4 painted downspouts to avoid any electrolysis"

and

"Nail the large piece of gutter onto the edge of the roof and be sure to cover the entrance, use large downspouts that are painted so there won't be any reactions between the metal and aluminum."

Both those sentences say, essentially, the same thing. The first is far more literally accurate, but it uses a lot of technical terms which laymen not associated with seamless gutter construction probably wouldn't be familiar with, which is why the second sentence is far more comprehensible without being as word for word accurate or descriptive.

I do appreciate you mind Lurker! Look, the bottom line in our discussion lies on the two words: six days. Are they literal, did God create the world ready to be inhabited, which by default gives it the appearance of age, or are the 6 days not literal and it took 15 billion years to get where we are?

While I agree that dating rocks and bones show millions of years, I am also aware that events around a place like Mt. St. Helens happened and things were created that conventional wisdom says takes millions, or at least hundreds of thouands of years.

Personally, I see our work week likened to creation week in both the OT and NT. (which then points to 6 24 hours periods) I do not deny that God is capable of creating a universe ready to be habitable the moment he is done, and that he has the power to do it in 6 days....or even instantly if he had wished. We have prophets that have God saying he orders the rain, while conventional wisdom says that it rains when enough moisture is collected and under certain conditions, it falls to earth. Did God order the buildup of clouds and moisture, or is that a random unrelated event? He says he did it, he ordered it, science explains it away as a natural event. Which is right?

Bosco

bosco
Feb 5th 2009, 03:34 PM
Not true. Only one with preconceived or biased notions about the age of the earth could look at the data and come to a different conclusion than it is very old.

Crawfish, I see you too have clicked on the "Yes, I am a Christian" button. Do you then trust the bible, or man? I have no preconceived or biased notions, as stated, I left the church and studied this over a few years. In the end, I came back to God, though in a way I will not share here, and that is where I am.

Is it biased to count the geneology back to Adam and see it has been 6000 years since his creation? No, it is simply what the bible is saying in that regard. There has been, according to the bible, 6000 +/- years since Adam to today. Again, no bias, that is what it says. Are the days prior to Adam's creation longer than 6 days? That is where the question is, but from Adam on, there is no biblical question only a clearly given answer.

Bosco

crawfish
Feb 5th 2009, 10:02 PM
Crawfish, I see you too have clicked on the "Yes, I am a Christian" button. Do you then trust the bible, or man? I have no preconceived or biased notions, as stated, I left the church and studied this over a few years. In the end, I came back to God, though in a way I will not share here, and that is where I am.

Is it biased to count the geneology back to Adam and see it has been 6000 years since his creation? No, it is simply what the bible is saying in that regard. There has been, according to the bible, 6000 +/- years since Adam to today. Again, no bias, that is what it says. Are the days prior to Adam's creation longer than 6 days? That is where the question is, but from Adam on, there is no biblical question only a clearly given answer.

Bosco

I repeat - no one without preconceived notions would look at the physical data and feel that the earth is any less than millions of years old. The only reason to question it is questionable bible interpretation.

By the way, it's quite insulting for you to question my Christianity like that. You do not know me.

Itinerant Lurker
Feb 5th 2009, 10:59 PM
I do appreciate you mind Lurker! Look, the bottom line in our discussion lies on the two words: six days. Are they literal, did God create the world ready to be inhabited, which by default gives it the appearance of age, or are the 6 days not literal and it took 15 billion years to get where we are?


Why, exactly, does a world ready to be inhabited have to, by default, appear to be old? Is there a particular reason God could not have created elements without a certain built in amount of radioactive decay? Is there a reason why God could not have created mountains as solid pieces of monolithic rock instead of composed of layers of sedimentary and metamorphic layers which depict eons of uplift and/or subduction? I would think it would be much easier to create a young earth to look young than a young earth to look old. . .or is God limited by a "default" setting?



While I agree that dating rocks and bones show millions of years, I am also aware that events around a place like Mt. St. Helens happened and things were created that conventional wisdom says takes millions, or at least hundreds of thouands of years.


Nope. We see catastrophic events many orders of magnitude greater than Mt. St. Helens in the geological record. Uniformitarianism very easily incorporates such events into it's framework in a way that better explains the history of the world than catastrophism. If all the geological features we see were caused by sudden catastrophic events we should be able to find evidence of such events like we do for Mt. St. Helens. We do not.



We have prophets that have God saying he orders the rain, while conventional wisdom says that it rains when enough moisture is collected and under certain conditions, it falls to earth. Did God order the buildup of clouds and moisture, or is that a random unrelated event? He says he did it, he ordered it, science explains it away as a natural event. Which is right?

Bosco

Is it possible he "ordered it" by creating a set of physical laws built into his universe so that evaporation, condensation, and percipitation would take place? Seems like a pretty easily solved problem you're posing there to me.

bosco
Feb 7th 2009, 07:27 AM
Why, exactly, does a world ready to be inhabited have to, by default, appear to be old? Is there a particular reason God could not have created elements without a certain built in amount of radioactive decay? Is there a reason why God could not have created mountains as solid pieces of monolithic rock instead of composed of layers of sedimentary and metamorphic layers which depict eons of uplift and/or subduction? I would think it would be much easier to create a young earth to look young than a young earth to look old. . .or is God limited by a "default" setting?

For the same reason that Adam did not appear as a baby when he was one day old. If God created the earth ready to use, than things that science says takes millions of year to develope, a mountain range for example, would be in place when he speaks it thus having the appearance of age.

Bosco

bosco
Feb 7th 2009, 07:33 AM
I repeat - no one without preconceived notions would look at the physical data and feel that the earth is any less than millions of years old. The only reason to question it is questionable bible interpretation.

By the way, it's quite insulting for you to question my Christianity like that. You do not know me.

I didn't question a thing, that is your interpretation. I pointed out that you clicked on being a Christian and then asked you a question based on that point. Do you believe the bible or man?

Without "pre-conceived notions" I can count the years of geneologies and see that from Adam to us it has been 6000 years.(+/-) That is not an interpretation, an ideology, nor a preconceived notion or idea. It is simple math. Now, did it take 15 billion years to get to Adam? Your case can be made from that standpoint. But from Adam on, scripture is clear in it's math.

Take care.
Bosco

danezal
Feb 7th 2009, 09:09 AM
this is my favorite subject. from the time i was a young lad, the heavens, in all its splendor, has simply amazed me. the thing about it is, that we know more about the universe than ever. we are a blessed generation in that we are the first to see the earth as it sits in its orbit!
science and theology can live side by side if we have the right understanding. the first verse in the bible (gen 1:1) ends with a period. that's significant. if we really look at verse two. we would notice that something happened to the earth. the key is the condition of the earth, without form, void, darkness covering. the "without form" and "void" are translated from the hebrew "tohu" and "bohu". look those words up, ugly defs. compare gen 1:2 to isaiah 45:18 (tohu translated vain). so if GOD didn't create the earth in vain (tohu), logic says something must've happened and scripture says it too.
GOD apparently created angels before he created the universe (see job 38:4-7) and then we get to gen 1:1. we don't really know how long ago that was and since angels are immortal the universe and the earth could have been created millions or billions of years ago. isaiah 14:12-14, jude 1:6, and 2Peter 2:4 fill in the gap for us. satan was placed on the earth with his angels but of course they rebelled (Peter said they didn't stay where they were, but left). look at the description in isaiah and notice where satan is coming from and where he was trying to go.
The angels inhabited the earth before man, and the angels' sin caused the condition we see the earth in gen 1:2! in gen 1:2 GOD, in six days, reshaped the earth for a habitation for man (psalms 104:30).
GOD created the universe to be inhabited. the angels forfeited their chance, hence, GOD created man in His image in order to reproduce Himself. the creation of man is not yet complete! first comes the physical, then the spiritual (1Cor 15:38-46). think of it. born again and not of flesh but spirit (john 3:6) just like GOD because we will be GOD, born into the GOD kingdom living eternally.
now, wouldn't it be nice if the Christ said to you, "Thou faithful servant, go and be over that Galaxy!

1 Corinthians 2:9 ( NKJV )
9But as it is written: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

Isaiah 9:7 ( NKJV )
7 Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

for now the scientist just see the universe expanding, but the verse above explains why!

danezal

Itinerant Lurker
Feb 7th 2009, 11:57 AM
For the same reason that Adam did not appear as a baby when he was one day old. If God created the earth ready to use, than things that science says takes millions of year to develope, a mountain range for example, would be in place when he speaks it thus having the appearance of age.

Bosco

That still does not answer the question, again it would be like God creating Adam not just fully formed but fully formed with a medical history complete with scar tissue and hospital charts. Why aren't mountains just blocks of monolithic rock instead of succesive layers of sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous rock which bear testament to eons of geological processes? Why are there so many layers of sedimentary rock in the geological column? None of this is necessary in order for earth to be "ready to use" if God created the world in a week, but it is necessary if the landscape of the world was formed over a long period of time from geological forces. Why was it necessary for the world to appear old in order to be "ready to use"?

crawfish
Feb 7th 2009, 08:57 PM
I didn't question a thing, that is your interpretation. I pointed out that you clicked on being a Christian and then asked you a question based on that point. Do you believe the bible or man?

Without "pre-conceived notions" I can count the years of geneologies and see that from Adam to us it has been 6000 years.(+/-) That is not an interpretation, an ideology, nor a preconceived notion or idea. It is simple math. Now, did it take 15 billion years to get to Adam? Your case can be made from that standpoint. But from Adam on, scripture is clear in it's math.

Take care.
Bosco

First, you question implies that the question of "bible vs. man" is simple. It is absolutely not. You could tell me that pi is 3.14159265<and on>, and I could tell you that it must be exactly 3 based on 1 Kings 7:24. If you disagree with me, I say "do you believe man or the bible"?

Of course this discrepancy is remarkably easy to deal with. Which doesn't belie the fact that any compromise you come up with to make both sides agree is still less literal than accepting it as 3. I clicked "I am a Christian" because I believe that Christ lived, died for my sins and rose from the dead, and I have dedicated myself to him. I believe that the bible is God's word. I do not believe that all of it was meant to be taken literally, but even when it's not it still has the same power.

NOBODY claims it took 15 million years to get to Adam. I am not talking biblical evidence, I'm talking physical evidence - NOBODY would look at the plethora of scientific evidence and determine that the earth/universe is only 6000 years old without believing first that scripture says it did.

Philemon9
Feb 7th 2009, 09:22 PM
I didn't question a thing, that is your interpretation. I pointed out that you clicked on being a Christian and then asked you a question based on that point. Do you believe the bible or man?


Mathew 13:31-32
He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches."

Bosco - should the bold portion above be taken literally or allegorically? We know today the mustard seed is not nearly the smallest, as an orchid seed is nearly dust-like in size for example. Am I guilty of 'believing man' when I say this? After all, it appears that it flies in the face of what the Bible says in these two versus. If I'm not guilty, then how is it different from a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Soupy
Feb 8th 2009, 08:24 PM
Hey Philemon9 that the portion you have made bold is not the 'smallest' of all seeds but the 'least' of all seeds in the KJV, a subtle difference I know but for claritys sake I thought worth mentioning.

Least has more meanings to it than just 'smallest', it also means 'of lesser importance' and so on ...

crawfish
Feb 8th 2009, 10:41 PM
Hey Philemon9 that the portion you have made bold is not the 'smallest' of all seeds but the 'least' of all seeds in the KJV, a subtle difference I know but for claritys sake I thought worth mentioning.

Least has more meanings to it than just 'smallest', it also means 'of lesser importance' and so on ...

That would actually not be literally true either; there are many other seeds who would have had less importance in the daily lives of his contemporaries. Hwever, you have to judge it by its use as a comparison with "greatest", and going by the Strong's definition the best possible meanings are contrasting size.

It's likely Jesus was talking in terms of seeds that would be purposefully planted in a garden. You have to stretch a little out of "what was said" into "what was implied" to reach this conclusion, of course, but the both Philemon9 and I were making was that there are verses that are not intended to be taken to a complete literal extent.

imon32red
Feb 13th 2009, 08:08 PM
The world had no calander or watch. Could a simple answer to the answer of how old is the world and other topics like evoution be gods days in genesis be thousand years at a time. It seems extremly logic to me. Consider the bible doesnt tell other wise. Religious people use geneolgy to calculate how long the worlds been around. So if you use my theroy it could explain why science is proving the world has been around for a while. It also brings to chance to add in a possible ice age. It alows dinosaurs to come and go. You could even add some form of evolution. You could say on the the day(thousand years at a time) god created mammals he watched them for so long and before he decided to call it a day (as time passed) he gradually let them change into what he wanted to call man. The bodies of aniamls turn to dust on the ground. Which he turned into man..Just an idea to answer some ?'s

The Bible refers to the Book of Enoch which we no longer have intact. However fragments and forms of the Book of Enoch are turning up all the time. Although they have not been preserved as one unique book, there are two common strains, and each strain has common ideas. One of them is that each of God's days is 1000 earth years. This idea is common in the pseudographia. Also this theme is repeated in some of the early Christian Books that didn't make the Bible.

Sirus
Feb 14th 2009, 08:16 PM
Well....I'm confused. When was there a time when man could not see the stars? I do realize God creating the stars on the 4th 24 hour day and man on the 6th 24 hour day on the surface could pose a problem, if it takes 4 years for light from the closest star to reach the earth what could man see?, but this is really not a problem at all since God created the heavens and the earth 'in the beginning' so there were already stars for light and for times signs and seasons. The problem is assuming the 1st 24 hour day includes 'in the beginning'.

Itinerant Lurker
Feb 15th 2009, 06:18 PM
Well....I'm confused. When was there a time when man could not see the stars? I do realize God creating the stars on the 4th 24 hour day and man on the 6th 24 hour day on the surface could pose a problem, if it takes 4 years for light from the closest star to reach the earth what could man see?, but this is really not a problem at all since God created the heavens and the earth 'in the beginning' so there were already stars for light and for times signs and seasons. The problem is assuming the 1st 24 hour day includes 'in the beginning'.

Actually it only takes 8 minutes for light from the closest star (the sun!) to reach earth but that's just being plain old nit picky. In any event you're right, the nearest star to the sun is Proxima Centauri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri) which is 4.2 light years away.

http://kisd.de/~krystian/starmap/ (http://kisd.de/%7Ekrystian/starmap/)