Right let me start again on the stars and light speed issue.

Well as I said, this is not a simple matter to explain. And let me stress, the following is no proof against evolution. It is merely a completely different theory of cosmology developed by a very intelligent, respected scientist, using the same mathematics and physics totally accepted by all cosmologists (including of course Einsteins various theories) and accepts (along with vitually all physicists) that there has been universe expansion in the past. These are all scientific processes that we all agree on. Where he differs from the various Big Bang theories is in the assumptions which Big Bangers make which are wholly unverifiable; instead he makes assumptions (again, admittedly unverifiable) based on what we find in Genesis. (As previously mentioned, Evolutionist theorists gather their assumptions from one unverifiable framework (naturalism) and creationists from another).This new cosmology seems to explain in one swoop all of the observations used to support the 'big bang', including progressive reshift, and cosmic microwave radiation.

Now, I'm sure you will want to understand this properly, Dirtyape, being openminded on the issue and happy to challange any idea that comes your way. I hope.  So, as I said, I'd like to suggest that you get your hands on the book Starlight and Time by Dr Russell Humphreys. This is because there is absolutely no way I can condense the workings of the theory into a postable amount and make it make sense! Humphreys holds a Ph.D in physics from Lousiana State University, and works at Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear phyics, geophysics, pulsedpower research and theoritical atomic and nulcear physics. He holds two patents, and has been awarded twice by Sandia for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory.

What I can do, if locating the book is to much of an ask, is perhaps, if you ask nicely, pdf a condensed overview of the theory that I have, and provide a link to it.

Needless to say, it is a remarkable theory, one which provides the necessary explanations to your questions. It has, of course been vigourously  opposed by believers in the big bang, who have claimed to found flaws in it (Conner, SR and Page DN, 1998, Starlight and Time is the Big Bang, CEN Technical Journal 12(2):195-212. However Humphreys has succesfully defended it, and developed it further (Humphreys DR 1998. New vistas of space time rebut the critics. CEN Technical Journal 12920:195-212.

Obviously, discussion on it is not to be expected to be found widely in evolutionary based science publications, as it does not incorporate Naturalist assumptions. (Remember guys, no more "but everyone believes in the big bang" refutations please, as remember: a majority opinion provides only comfort in ones beliefs, but not additional evidence or proof).

Right hold it there, I have to pick some friends up from the rollingstones concert; I have all my "attacking" material ready and waiting (doubt me at your peril!)-Im itching to get it down, If only I had the selfcontrol to only respond to posts which have involved effort induced thought processes!

With regards to the distance of stars and the speed of light dirty ape, as I suggested, this is not a simple matter to explain. First of all, I'd like to suggest to you that you get your hands on the book Starlight and Time by Dr Russell Humphreys. He holds a Ph.D in physics from Lousiana State University, and works at Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear phyics, geophysics, pulsedpower research and theoritical atomic and nulcear physics.

Hang on gotta go will finish later.

Light travels at 299,792,458 m/s.
How then has the light from galaxies which are 13 billion light years away reached us if the universe was created under 10,000 years ago?

Well done Dirtyape, here is a real issue, one that has been perhaps the most debated issue among young earth scientists. I address this in my next post.

And as for making assumptions, you will find that it is an inevitability to make assumptions when describing the universe.

Yippee! My point is getting through. Yes all theories require assumptions, and especially when theorising about the past;  and our assumptions are going to be based on unscientific  personal biases, just as the very famous Stephen Jay Gould pointed out in the quote I have already posted (people, I read your posts, please read mine).

The bible itself is based upon the assumption that it is in fact the word of god and not some fairy tale written a long time ago by 12 drunk shepards. Given that you cannot ever prove that it is the word of god - I would say your entire arguement is assumption.[

We have been through this before: you are correct to a degree; just as you have to assume that life formed from non life, and assume that gradual increases in genetic information are possible, although evolutionists admit that they will probably never be able prove it. (I'll address this further in next post). Read on: both our theories originate from frameworks, not evidence.

Genesis merely provides a framework, just as "we evolved using the rules of naturalism" is the framework of the evolutionary theory. Both are general ideas, around which we interpret the evidence we have;  you may choose to believe the Genesis account was made up by men. The "We Evolved Using Only the Rules of Naturalism" framework was also created by men. And don't think for a second that infact evolutionists came to that framework because of "evidence"; No, as the well reknowned evolutionists quoted above admitted, the framework is taken as a given. Infact, they even admit that when Darwin made it popular, he basically promoted "wicked lies" to popularise it. Its only since then that they have supposedly come up with evidence that "fits".  Here it is again: Kenneth Hsu, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 56(5): 729-730 (1986) although not a creationist stated after reading Darwin's The Origin of Species that "I agree...that Darwinism contains "wicked lies"; it is not a "natural law" formulated on the basis of factual evidence but a dogma, reflecting the dominating social philosophy of the last century". And no informed evolutionist would refute this.

Let me paraphrase the above paragraph to make my point clear: Creationists admit the Genesis account is a framework, which we test with evidence which in turn uses the scientific method, and to which we apply theories; Evolutionists (when pressed) admit that their theory is also based on a framework made by men, the framework being "We evolved via the rules of naturalism", and further admit that this framework was originally brought about by popular social philosophy, not evidence.

After all that, it is a matter of choosing which assumptions are supported by the evidence; and remember before you say "of course the evidence supports evolution!", remember that the evidence itself can be interpreted completely differently based on assumptions! If this is to hard for you to comprehend, then I suggest you read some excellent materials listed below to start you off:

Refuting Evolution 2 (What PBS and the Scientific community don't want you to know)(2002) by Dr. Jonathan Sarfarti (who incidently is a NZer based in the US, with a Ph.D in physical chemistry from Victoria University, and has contributed numerous technical papers in his field. He is a former New Zealand national chess champion, and incidently was not a Christian until he had decided there was more evidence for a young earth). The fact that the book is aimed at Christians does nothing to diminish his logic.

Also, Evolution: The fossils still say no! (1995) by Dr Duane T Gish, Ph.D (Biochemistry, Uni of California, Berkeley) also an author of numerous techincal articles in his field, and member of American Chemical Society and Fellow of the American Institute of Chemists.

Also, Michael Denton's:Evolution: A theory in crisis (he holds both an M.D. and a Ph.D from different UK universities, and incidently is not a creationist, he merely devastates the possibility of Evolution).

And don't think you prove anything by criticsing authors because they suggest and apply different assumptions, which happen to be suggested by a historical/religious document. It is good scientific process to apply different assumptions to see if they infact provide a better explanation. Neither does doing a google search to find an some evolutionist criticising them for not being "scientific" but merely religious, as we have already discussed that these bleatings are based on the fact that the ideas don't conform to the rules of Naturalism.

And remember, I bother to read evolutionary material. How about you try reading something you don't already agree with, if you really don't want to have your mind made for you by mainstream media?