Well, just so this thread doesn't remain as merely a bunch of non-Creationists talking to each other and patting themselves on the back, I'll jump in. I generally ignore this type of thread, because I know it's really a waste of my time since no-one who is already committed to a non-Biblical stance on the universe is likely to listen to a Biblical stance, but this thread is so boringly monotonous as yet that it needs a bit of the opposing viewpoint to pep it up.

First, Tim, thanx for classifying stellar evolution as a theory. So many people forget that little detail, or the actual definition of the word theory. Anyway, as support for your theory, you'll be happy to give two or three examples of stars that have evolved exactly according to that theory, with documentation, won't you? Thought not.

Stellar evolution looks at all the different types of stars that we see, and hypothesises that there must be some overarching explanation for why this one is a red giant and that one is a yellow near-dwarf. The theory 'explains' that there is a progression from one to the other, with all the other variations either along the way or as minor offshoots from the 'main sequence'. Yet we have exactly zero evidence that any star has ever changed states along this so-called sequence. The red giant stars that we see today have always been red giant stars for as far back as we have observational accounts; likewise, the sun is exactly the same today as the earliest descriptions of it we have. It's never gotten larger nor smaller, brighter nor dimmer, redder nor greener. Ditto for all the other varieties.

Yes, we have stars that do change: we call them novas and supernovas. But these changes are all we see, we do not have any evidence that any star has ever followed the 'main sequence' or any standardly-accepted offshoot thereof. The idea that there must be some sort of explanation that derives one stellar type from another is strictly an imaginative creation that isn't called for by the known facts.

And Nebularain, while there are certainly a lot of liberal and/or secular interpreters who support your contention about the interpretation of 'yom' in Genesis 1, it remains that only by begging the question can they support that argument. There is no proof, or even realistic argument, that 'yom' there means anything other than a 24-hour day. The liberal interpretation came about solely to try to find Biblical support for modern evolutionary theories; since the Bible doesn't support evolution in any form, the words have to be twisted in order to make it appear to do so. Hence, the creation of the "Age-Day" theory for those who want to have their cake and eat it, too.

Xriso, you'll be able to clarify that remark about "numerous Biblical creation accounts," I'm sure? There's only one account in the Bible of creation, Genesis 1. I realise that there are plenty of people who try to make hay over the supposed inconsistencies between the "two accounts" in Genesis 1 and 2, without realising (or perhaps, ignoring) that Genesis 2 isn't an account of creation but of God's dealings with the first human couple. The only creation detail in Genesis 2 is the specific creation of Eve, which was glossed over in Genesis 1 as being included in the overall creation of mankind.

And Traztx, is God to be blamed because mankind invents theories that require billions of years to work out, when the evidence of the stars themselves in no way requires such theories? God created the stars as they are; men look up at them and, desiring to deny God, make up a story about how the stars must have been formed through a multi-billion-year process. But other than the so-called end results of that process, there is no evidence of the process itself. And the end results--the stars, the planets, the nebulae, etc.--don't require that one particular process to be here. So blaming God for the "appearance" of billions of years, when it was men who created the perception of a need for billions of years in the first place, is rather naive.

Okay, I'm done. You may commence firing.

The (When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained) Curtmudgeon