The fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis 1 explains creation as happening in 6 Earth Days or less than .02 Solar Years or about 2% of one orbit around a star that hadn't been created yet.



This is a ProtoPlanetary Disk or proplyd. In this pic, however, we can see 2 additional stars peeping through the disk.



This is DG Tau B (Tau meaning "Taurus"). It is a plasma jet that issues from the poles of a forming star. Atheist scientists will swear there is an ignited star supposedly obscurred by the central region known as a "dust lane." I disagree with that. The geometry of the matter flowing into the star suggests otherwise. Considerations of singularities, as Hawking would describe them, would also suggest otherwise, but to get Stephen Hawking to admit to that would be tougher than getting him to stand up from his wheelchair.

These are some Hubble Space Telescope pics of star systems forming. Where arguments arise between between guys like me and the mainstream scientists is what these mean. These tell me that the star is not ignited prior to the formation of the planets and quite a few other observations tell me that the Bible, meaning Genesis, gives us an accurate version of how star systems, including ours, got here. It can get very complex, so it's best to discuss one aspect at a time.

Without taking a position either way (except that I "believe" in the scientific process, or paradigm as it relates to knowledge), I just have to say that, in my opinion, matters of faith cannot and should not be discussed in the context of empiricism. Such "arguments" are not only counter-productive to all parties, they are without meaning.

This was mostly as a response to a standpoint Dave made in the "Dillemna/Myth" thread. As for me, I simply believe that what is there often contains a lot more than meets the eye, whether written or photographic. We have the right to believe whatever we want, but whatever we believe can and will be used against us... somewhere.

Wait, you are presenting a cosmic proof of Genesis?

Here is a cosmic proof!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaLW7qBr ... re=related

I can't "tube" on this machine. (It sinks every time )

I don't know if "proof" is a perfect descriptor, but evidence might suggest that a planet just might be teeming with life before the star ignites.

However we got here, will not be fully known until we get there. But am very sure that this ''all creation is asking us to dance'' is how they above wish for all of us.

Asking Us To Dance
http://youtu.be/HrEpPaNyDx8

Evidence might suggest that Willie Nelson and Bill Maher do not smoke pot, I would not bet on it!!!!!

And Newtonian Physics might evidence that a stainless steel bowl of Jello poured from a batch made in a same gage stainless steel 10 liter pot, both pot and bowl placed in the same fridge at the same time, will gel quicker. Would you bet on that?

You have to remember which time zone you're in here, Doc.

Yes, absolutely. And that would be Celery Time

If there was a Father and a son, was there a Mother or any Daughters?

Neat pics. Very interesting.

Hey, I like to play with silly string! It's cool!

This is just silly unless you are suggesting life unlike what has been observed on the planet Earth?
(Sorry, there I go again questioning things I find questionable)

Questioning is normal. Constantly demeaning someone, explicitly or implicitly, suggests a power trip and, as I've mentioned, mental illness. It's okay. It's something that has to be worked around, I can see, if we want to share with you. You seem reasonably articulate, but it's hard to believe you are an expert in chemistry, politics and now astrophysics.

Those Hubble shots have a story behind each one. NASA and the Hubble Team are good, but not perfect. They are missing some implicite geometry in the shots, it seems, still we are at their mercy to tell us straight up data such as the angle of the shots, keeping in mind most of them are of the atheist religion.

How's about answering the question I posed to you about the simple physics of Jello? It has a bit to do with showing you how a chunk of ice, evolving dust, and accreting "earth" could bear life more advanced than your unimaginative assessment declares, even devoid of an ignited, brilliant star.