Creationism And Astrophysics.
Posted 19 October 2010 - 05:29 PM
I have A-level physics and maths, and the basics of degree level physics. That is all you need to understand elementary astrophysics. We're talking about the planets, the stars in our solar system and near by galaxies. All of these are observable by simple methods.
If we are only to discuss those subjects in which we are experts then where will that leave you? You certainly couldn't post on this thread as someone who believes that light is not emmited by the sun, or by electric light bulbs, but is, in fact, emmited from the eyes!!
Posted 19 October 2010 - 08:25 PM
Interesting. Similar to the time dilation explanation: the Earth is significantly younger than the rest of the universe.
Maybe I didn't flesh out my thought thoroughly enough. I wasn't hypothesizing that the earth was significantly younger than the universe. I was saying that everything was created at the same time (perhaps billions of years ago).
It was only 6,000 to 10,000 years ago that God started shaping the featureless earth He previously created into the a place of mountains, hills, and continents and then infused it with life.
This could explain why rocks are dated to be so old - though I'm not up on my geology and radiometric dating.
But if most of the universe really is "primordial" but God intervened in the Earth's development specifically, it does raise the question of why.
If you really want answers to that question, there are mounds of books discussing why God would create human beings. I think it comes down to more than Him just "experimenting."
We are currently discovering hundreds of planets orbiting other stars. So the most obvious hypothesis is that the Earth developed in the same way as those other planets.
Or were created at the same time...
It could be that God was required to intervene in order to create the conditions for life. But then I'm sure that if he had wanted to God could have created a universe in which life would come about naturally (if you accept the immense size of the universe).
I think that if God were to do that, He would have to create the universe with different elements then exist in our periodic table - elements that have some sort of "life" or "purpose" infused in them. Although the elements in our universe do behave in a very specific way - binding and arranging themselves without anybody's assistance - it is quite a leap to say that "self arrangement" of elements can lead to something as complex as the first cell. I've got a good quote about this from a book I'm reading about cellular biology if you're interested.
Also, if God created the entire universe 6k years ago then that is definitely something that only God could do. Where as tinkering with the Earth in order to help life is not something only God could do. How do we know it wasn't aliens? Or some other powerful entity? Such an entity could probably masquerade as God if it wanted to.
I think God is the only being able to create life out of nothing. It is feasible that an alien could have "seeded" the earth with thousands of different creatures from its home world. Even if such was the case, God would still be the ultimate creator, because He would have originally created the aliens.
I guess the question is what is so implausible about the naturalistic/scientific explanation of the origin of the Earth, given that the naturalistic/scientific explanation of the origin of the rest of the universe is true?
There is a naturalistic explanation for the rest of the universe, but that doesn't mean it is true. I don't think that quantum mechanics is sufficient to bring something out of nothing. If there is no universe, there isn't any place for quantum mechanics to operate. Quantum mechanics requires space to be able to "do" anything.
Posted 20 October 2010 - 12:06 AM
All of these believed in pre-existant matter/materials before God, from which He used to create from. Justin Martyr and Athenagoras believed this was pre-existing material was water, as do i and i believe there is a straightforward scriptural basis for this.
Note in Genesis 1: 2 that there is the deep of water (Tehom) and God being on the face/surface. What created the water? Nowhere in scripture does it say God created this. The first thing God actually created was the light: ''let there be light'' (Genesis 1: 3), the water was already pre-existant.
There are early church writers who believed things about the Trinity I'm sure you wouldn't agree with. I'm sure they were borrowing from the scientific understanding of the day - which was limited. It wasn't too long ago that people thought bacteria spontaneously generated from nothing.
When it says God created the heavens and the earth, it is understood that the creation of water was a part of the creation of the earth. It doesn't specifically say that God created the earth's iron core - but we know that was part of earth's creation.
Your position brings up too many questions. Is water eternal, while God is not? You mentioned that people can't imagine nothingness. It is equally difficult to imagine eternal, uncreated water.
Your position begs the question of who created God. Did God create Himself? Did He make Himself out of nothing? He would have to exist before He existed to create Himself. Did He spontaneously emerge from nothing? If you believe this, why wouldn't you believe that something infinitely less complex than God - such as the earth - could spontaneously emerge from nothing because of nothing. Why wouldn't you believe that a creature could spontaneously alter its genes to evolve into a different organism?
Posted 22 October 2010 - 11:47 AM
When it says God created the heavens and the earth, it is understood that the creation of water was a part of the creation of the earth.
The earth is not the Earth. The earth capitalized in the sense of the planet or whole world only came about in the 14th century. The 'earth' described in Genesis is only the dry land (see Genesis 1: 9) - ''dry land (earth) appear''. The earth therefore is seperate from the water. This is one of the main reasons why i believe in creatio ex materia and also because contemplating nothing is impossible.
I'll get back to you on your other points.
Posted 27 October 2010 - 05:36 AM
The light you see from stars is what you see during the present moment. If it takes millions of years, then we wouldn't be able to see it as no observer can live millions of years.
Starlight would take millions of years if it was created millions of years ago, however starlight is created now. The light you see from stars is what is being created the very moment you see it.
You have to use simple common sense and logic.
So basically your entire OP which attempts to put a hole in YEC has been debunked.
I am YEC, but why are you using this arguement? What does my birth have to do with when light left a star? It can't leave before my birth, and arrive after my birth? Does that mean the voyager spacecraft is not really 3 billion miles away because a child was born yesterday?
Light travels and has a velocity--just like voyager has a velocity. Are you saying that light has an infinite speed?
Yes, light is created now, at the star. But after the photons leave the star, they travel thrrough space at c--the SPEED of light.
Is anyone going to listen to you if you try to deny this? No creation astronomer is using your hypothesis. Please listen to someone.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users