Jump to content


Photo

Theistic Evolution 3.0

theistic evolution literal Genesis

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 February 2018 - 10:26 PM

A revisit to the topic of theistic evolution is probably past due.....

 

In the interest of keeping some other discussions on topic......

 

"Who is God"?

The omniscience omnipotent omnipresent creator of the universe.. The only one who came and dwelt among us and proved his Diety. The Christian God of the Bible... The one that YOU say got it wrong about how HE created the universe and everything else..

Agreed except for the last part.  I say YOU got it wrong when you claim He created the universe only 6000 years ago.

 

 

"What" is the process of evolution."

It is a Fairytale made up by God haters who pretend that over "500 Million Years" While SOME jellyfish remained jellyfish OTHER jellyfish were turning into a HUMAN...

The fact that multiple polls show theistic evolutionists outnumber atheistic evolutionists by at least 2:1 clearly shows the vast majority of evolutionists are not "God haters."

 

 

Check out the name of the website you are on right now.. It fits it perfectly! Wouldnt you have better luck on an Atheist website where everyone agrees with you instead of banging your head against a brick wall here on EFT?

What fun would a debate forum be without differing views?

 

My experience on these forums is that those who actively post are unlikely to change their positions.  The ones who are open to a change in their viewpoint are the lurkers who usually outnumber the participants by a large margin.

 

 

Are you trying to tell us the the Judeo Christian God of the Bible used Billions of Years to turn a Microbe into a Microbiologist?

Pretty much.  Isn't it within His ability to do so? 

 

The overwhelming evidence of God's creation is that it is billions of years old.  Not thousands.

 

 

You must believe very little of what is actually written in the Bible... Which is the God that YOU worship? Isnt that what "Theistic" means?

Truth cannot contradict truth.  God is a not deceptive.  Both His creation and His word must be true.  If we perceive one as being false, then the contradiction must be resolved.

 

I choose the most direct evidence from God that is least subject to the introduction of error by fallible man.  Right now I can walk out in my back yard and see, with my unaided eye, the galaxy Andromeda.  By astronomical standards it's right next door, but it's still 400x more distant than we should be able to see in a 6000 year old universe.

 

Since we've been down this path a number of times, let me preview our next two or three posts .....

1)  You will (correctly) point out that the Bible says a number of times that God stretched the heavens.

2)  I will agree and explain that stretching the heavens will also stretch the light in them.  This would be obvious in a distinct red-shift of the light from distant objects.  We see this red shift, but it's consistent with a universe 13.8 billion years old, not 6,000.  For example, Andromeda should exhibit a red shift by a factor of 400.  Instead, it's blue-shifted.

3)  You have claimed that God could have inserted photons of light for such events as observed supernovae.

4)  I will point out that makes virtually the entire universe nothing more than a deception.

 

The question then becomes: "If God's creation is little more than a deception, how can you trust the Bible at all?"  That is the question that has never been answered.  it is the one that led to a crisis of faith that ultimately led me to decide a literal reading of Genesis is not correct.

 



#2 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 February 2018 - 10:51 PM

 

 

P.S. evolutionist --- Oh, look! we've just discovered some new spiral galaxies nearly 13 billion light years away! It's fantastic.

creationist ---They look very mature like as seen on https://search.aol.c...spiral galaxies

evolutionist: Ridiculous. It's to near the point of origin (Big Bang origin) to be....uh...

creationist --- (smiles and walks away)

 

https://www.space.co...-milky-way.html

 

"These galaxies must somehow be more evolved than other galaxies, and we'd like to know why." (ha, ha, ha,ha, ha!)

It's worth note those galaxies are more than 2,000,000x the distance we should be able to see in the YEC universe with an age of about 6,000 years.  In fact, Calypsis couldn't even explain how we can see the center of THIS galaxy (about 25,000 light years from Earth).

 

Of course, in typical YEC fashion, Calypsis claims we should explain the fine details of galaxy formation before YEC explain how we can see them .......

 

 

I thought we were done here. No such luck with the man who cannot stand to be upstaged.

 

By what documentation does he establish this since we don't have any visible observation of the stars/galaxies at approx. 6,000 yrs ago to make such a comparison & that therefore YEC is refuted?  He has none of course so unless one posits the truthfulness of Moses in Genesis there is no detailed observation of that time as to just how the skies appeared then. At what point God expanded (stretched) the universe after the creation we do not know.  But since this arrogant man won't believe what the Lord inspired in that blessed book we have no such data to verify his claims. As usual, he guesses.

 

I knew that after the discovery BX442 (a mature spiral galaxy 12 bya) a few years ago that there would be more spiral galaxies discovered ( mature spiral galaxies). Why do they all appear mature? Because the universe is young, not very old.  

 

As to his second useless post: He lies again because I do not think all who differ with me are liars: just piasan and the reprobates like him. I do not think that 'What if' or 'Gneiss girl' are liars & they are not six day creationists.

 

Let him therefore post to thin air now. I will. 

One piece of documentation is my research paper on Sn1987a.  At over 167,000 light years, this supernova is the most distant object measured by direct triangulation.  The speed of light at the time and place of Sn1987a has been confirmed to be consistent with current values on Earth by the decay of cobalt-56 in the light spectra of the event.

 

An independent confirmation is a paper published by the astronomer Paul Davies in the journal Nature where he showed the speed of light was within 0.001% of the modern value when it left galaxies 12 billion light years from Earth.

 

Calypsis points to BX422 and acknowledges its 12 billion light year distance.  I agree with him on the distance.  I also agree that other distant galaxies appear to be fully formed.  What Calypsis ignores is that regardless of how those galaxies formed, it still takes 12 billion years for light from them to reach Earth.

 

He has replied with a list of experiments showing various factors that could change the speed of light.  I evaluated the impact of each of them and found it would range from less than 300 years to about 300,000 years in the light travel time.  That is much less than the 59 million year error bar of the 13.8 billion year estimate and can safely be disregarded.

 

Calypsis seems to think if the speed of light fluctuates in the 25th or 26th digit, it's game-over for a billions of years universe.  Forget that fluctuation would be in about the 33rd digit of the speed of light necessary in a "young" creation.

 

Talk about insignificant .......



#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 February 2018 - 04:21 AM

 

 

Piasan: 2)  I will agree and explain that stretching the heavens will also stretch the light in them.  This would be obvious in a distinct red-shift of the light from distant objects.  We see this red shift, but it's consistent with a universe 13.8 billion years old, not 6,000.  For example, Andromeda should exhibit a red shift by a factor of 400.  Instead, it's blue-shifted.

 

Well, "fair enough" on your opening message, I have no real ill will towards you in that it seems to be possible to be Christian and theistic evolutionist and the lad can grow hot headed in his zeal for the Lord.(BK) :D

 

...Though you seem to do more harm to Christianity than good since agreeing with 95% of what atheists say is helping their cause of PRETENDING that science confirms their worldview. It would be more helpful if you could show you believe the "theism" behind the evolution a bit more by acknowledging the miraculous level of design in lifeforms.

 

This part quoted though, it is by no means my area of interest but isn't Andromeda and those with a blue shift, isn't that because they move towards us? Didn't Hubble create a law whereby basically H=VD if I have remembered correctly? (Hubble age = velocity and distance), I might have got that wrong but if I understand it, isn't the red shifted light from galaxies farther away? Don't they also calculate ages which give them an age of the universe younger than some of the galaxies? :P

 

I watched a talk from Humphreys about this and it would seem that if we accept quantized redshift if I have remembered it right, we get bunches of red-shifts also, as we go further from earth, and this is detected as our galaxy being at the centre because you couldn't get the same result if we were not in the centre. So then if we imagine in our minds, the outer galaxies moving faster than the inner at creation, if the centre and starting point was our galaxy.

 

What I'm trying to say is, from the perspective of a miraculous creation, if certain galaxies are created, as the process slows down, if the outer ones had to travel faster than the inner ones, might they not when they slow down, be marginally faster than the inner ones if the inner ones didn't have to travel as far to spread out?

 

So Andromeda because of it's relatively close position, might not have had to be stretched as it was closer to the centre, closer to it's place than was intended for the outer galaxies with the larger red shifts.

 

So then it makes sense if the expansion of the universe was at the centre of the universe, where our galaxy basically is, relatively speaking if we take this data as true. So then if God stretched the heavens in a miraculous creation and the science came later, we might only detect the red shift as it is now, having slowed down. The light itself might only have been created when the stars were, "ready" so to speak, such as on day four is it? Perhaps they first had to be in gaseous formative stage for all we know so that their light was not there to give off in the form of a completed star.

 

All I am saying is we shouldn't rule out a knowledge that is greater than we could ever find out using science methods. See how easy such a miracle would change our interpretation of the evidence my lad.

 

So I hope I have broken the cycle of yours and Bk's and Cal's merry-go-round, with my fresh angle, I am sure my ponderings are only that of a newbie for my approach takes into account the miraculous since God said He created these things, which usually requires.......well.........a miracle usually, for example if He turned water into wine would it be wrong to say it was a miracle? But we can't say creation, a massive event, the biggest miracle ever, had a miraculous element, to your mind?

 

 

 

  Piasan: The ones who are open to a change in their viewpoint are the lurkers who usually outnumber the participants by a large margin.

 

 

Members can lurk too! :D 

 

Lurkers, hear me now an hearken! Mikey Bombadil is a cheery fellow, his jacket is bright blue and his boots are yellow! Hearken now, for your need is near you, be refuted my hearties, for creation is true I tell you!

 

;)



#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 February 2018 - 04:37 AM

This is only 25 minutes long. You may even enjoy it Piasan. 

 


  • Calypsis4 likes this

#5 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,443 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 03 February 2018 - 08:37 AM

 

 

 

Piasan: 2)  I will agree and explain that stretching the heavens will also stretch the light in them.  This would be obvious in a distinct red-shift of the light from distant objects.  We see this red shift, but it's consistent with a universe 13.8 billion years old, not 6,000.  For example, Andromeda should exhibit a red shift by a factor of 400.  Instead, it's blue-shifted.

 

Well, "fair enough" on your opening message, I have no real ill will towards you in that it seems to be possible to be Christian and theistic evolutionist and the lad can grow hot headed in his zeal for the Lord.(BK) :D

 

...Though you seem to do more harm to Christianity than good since agreeing with 95% of what atheists say is helping their cause of PRETENDING that science confirms their worldview. It would be more helpful if you could show you believe the "theism" behind the evolution a bit more by acknowledging the miraculous level of design in lifeforms.

 

This part quoted though, it is by no means my area of interest but isn't Andromeda and those with a blue shift, isn't that because they move towards us? Didn't Hubble create a law whereby basically H=VD if I have remembered correctly? (Hubble age = velocity and distance), I might have got that wrong but if I understand it, isn't the red shifted light from galaxies farther away? Don't they also calculate ages which give them an age of the universe younger than some of the galaxies? :P

 

I watched a talk from Humphreys about this and it would seem that if we accept quantized redshift if I have remembered it right, we get bunches of red-shifts also, as we go further from earth, and this is detected as our galaxy being at the centre because you couldn't get the same result if we were not in the centre. So then if we imagine in our minds, the outer galaxies moving faster than the inner at creation, if the centre and starting point was our galaxy.

 

What I'm trying to say is, from the perspective of a miraculous creation, if certain galaxies are created, as the process slows down, if the outer ones had to travel faster than the inner ones, might they not when they slow down, be marginally faster than the inner ones if the inner ones didn't have to travel as far to spread out?

 

So Andromeda because of it's relatively close position, might not have had to be stretched as it was closer to the centre, closer to it's place than was intended for the outer galaxies with the larger red shifts.

 

So then it makes sense if the expansion of the universe was at the centre of the universe, where our galaxy basically is, relatively speaking if we take this data as true. So then if God stretched the heavens in a miraculous creation and the science came later, we might only detect the red shift as it is now, having slowed down. The light itself might only have been created when the stars were, "ready" so to speak, such as on day four is it? Perhaps they first had to be in gaseous formative stage for all we know so that their light was not there to give off in the form of a completed star.

 

All I am saying is we shouldn't rule out a knowledge that is greater than we could ever find out using science methods. See how easy such a miracle would change our interpretation of the evidence my lad.

 

So I hope I have broken the cycle of yours and Bk's and Cal's merry-go-round, with my fresh angle, I am sure my ponderings are only that of a newbie for my approach takes into account the miraculous since God said He created these things, which usually requires.......well.........a miracle usually, for example if He turned water into wine would it be wrong to say it was a miracle? But we can't say creation, a massive event, the biggest miracle ever, had a miraculous element, to your mind?

 

 

 

  Piasan: The ones who are open to a change in their viewpoint are the lurkers who usually outnumber the participants by a large margin.

 

 

Members can lurk too! :D 

 

Lurkers, hear me now an hearken! Mikey Bombadil is a cheery fellow, his jacket is bright blue and his boots are yellow! Hearken now, for your need is near you, be refuted my hearties, for creation is true I tell you!

 

;)

 

 

Though you seem to do more harm to Christianity than good since agreeing with 95% of what atheists say is helping their cause of PRETENDING that science confirms their worldview

 

Yes! Good going, Mike.

 

Why would we feel the need to be open to change (except in claifying details) when we know good and well that what God's Word says about the history of Genesis is truth? it is not a blind faith, it is a faith grounded in evidential truth.

 

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1. Why would we believe otherwise when in fact, not one of the prophets nor the apostles who mentioned the creation, Adam, & Eve, the fall of man, and the flood of Noah ever spoke of those events in anything less than historical facts?

 

Carry on, trooper. I will be watching with great interest.


  • mike the wiz likes this

#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 February 2018 - 08:44 AM

Thanks Calypsis. Good to see you back on the forums, been fun to read some other posters' writings instead of my own. ;) 



#7 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,443 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 04 February 2018 - 03:52 PM



Thanks Calypsis. Good to see you back on the forums, been fun to read some other posters' writings instead of my own. ;) 

 

Piasan did not answer you. And...he avoided what I had brought out about the surprising number of spiral galaxies that were discovered over 12 million light years out. It just keeps getting worse for him but he will never admit it. There should be NO spiral galaxies past the 'red shift desert'. 

 

  redshiftillustration.jpg 

 

Even those existing in the 'red sift desert' is pushing it because spiral galaxies (according to the scientific 'consensus') begin to spin out and become undefinable as spirals after two or three rounds which takes several million years. There really shoudn't be any in the 'red shift desert' either. But there are millions of them. 

 

Quote: "This critical cosmological blind-spot was removed in 2011 by a team using the Frederick C. Gillett Gemini North Telescope located on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, showing that many galaxies in the young Universe are not behaving as they would have expected some 8-11 billion years ago."

 

From: 

Mysteries of "The Redshift Desert" --Why Do Galaxies in the Early Universe Appear Old?

From the Daily Galaxy: http://www.dailygala...appear-old.html

 

Yes, some of them see the problem all right. But almost none of them will admit that their time frame of the universe history is wrong.

 

That video you posted of Dr. Russell Humphries was very good. He sees the value of Tift, Napier/Guthrie, Bell, and others who discovered the quantized (concentric spheres) galaxies spaced from each other at similar intervals throughout the visible universe...but no one has proved them wrong.  P.S. they were all evolutionists. So, if they were correct then the center of the universe is right here in the Milky Way galaxy and it is a strong indication of an intelligent all-powerful Creator God.

 

piasan keeps telling us that nature does not lie and therefore we must believe that 'god's' universe is very old. But...... if the speed of light is not, after all, a constant then his entire thesis on the age of the universe falls.

Speed of light not so constant after all

https://www.sciencen...stant-after-all

 

In the comments of the article we find this exchange:


Paul Wakfer  3 years ago





My concern about the validity of this result is how could they be so certain that the "different paths toward a detector" were of *exactly* the same lengths, down to the needed micrometer accuracy?

 
reply 






A constant with exceptions is not a constant.

Quite!

 

This is for you and my fellow creationist comrades on a Sunday afternoon that I have spare time to type this out. I won't answer the skeptics personally.


  • Blitzking likes this

#8 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 February 2018 - 07:11 PM

 


Thanks Calypsis. Good to see you back on the forums, been fun to read some other posters' writings instead of my own. ;) 

Piasan did not answer you. And...he avoided what I had brought out about the surprising number of spiral galaxies that were discovered over 12 million light years out. It just keeps getting worse for him but he will never admit it. There should be NO spiral galaxies past the 'red shift desert'. 

I'll join Mike that it's good to see Calypsis back.   Mike will be answered next, but since Calypsis hasn't been posting much, I'll address his comments first.

 

For Calypsis' point of the "fully formed Galaxies" 12 billion (not million) light years out....  The first thing that comes to mind is that galactic formation is a process that takes a long time.  The only way to research this process is with computer models.  It's entirely possible the models are wrong or incomplete.  Another possibility is that the universe is actually OLDER than the current estimates.

 

That said, for purposes of discussion, let's assume the galaxies were created "fully formed."  In no way does that address the evidence that it STILL takes 12 billion years for the light from those galaxies to reach Earth.  IOW, it's little more than a diversion.  So, they would be "fully formed at creation" 12 billion years ago.

 

 There should be NO spiral galaxies past the 'red shift desert'. 

Forget red shift.  We don't need to go to those extremely distant galaxies to falsify YEC.  We can do it with the center of THIS galaxy.  At about 25,000 light years from Earth, it's still 4x the distance we should be able to see in a 6,000 year old universe.  We can work outward from there to Sn19887 (over 167,000 light years) and Andromeda (2.4 million light years), then outward to billions of light years.  These distances are measured by parallax, triangulation, and standard candles respectively and they reach to 400x the distance we should be able to see in the YEC (6000 year old) universe.  Any astronomical object beyond 6000 light years will do.  That's more than 99.9999999999% of the universe.

 

 

... spiral galaxies (according to the scientific 'consensus') begin to spin out and become undefinable as spirals after two or three rounds which takes several million years.

It's been some time, but the last time Calypsis brought this up, I found a paper reporting that the spiral arms of a galaxy create density waves that act as positive feedback loops. 

 

For those who don't know what a positive feedback loop is, it's a process in which the amplitude is increased each time.  A microphone "squeal" is a good example.

 

What the positive feedback means is that the older the galaxy gets, the more defined its arms will become.

 

piasan keeps telling us that nature does not lie and therefore we must believe that 'god's' universe is very old.

I'm not telling anyone what "must" believe. I'll leave that to Calypsis.

 

Each of us has our own beliefs for our own reasons.  All I can do is explain why it is that I reject a 6000 year old universe. 

 

Basically:

1)  God is not deceptive.

2)  Truth cannot contradict truth.  Therefore, both His creation and His word must be true.

3)  God's creation has all the marks of being billions of years old, not thousands.

4)  A literal reading of the Bible .... specifically Bishop Ussher's chronology .... indicates a creation about 6000 years old.

5)  Because of (2), we must reconcile the difference between (3) and (4).

6)  Based on the evidence of God's creation, which is much less to the fallibilities of human error than the Bible, I have chosen to believe the creative event took place billions of years ago, not thousands.

 

But...... if the speed of light is not, after all, a constant then his entire thesis on the age of the universe falls.

Speed of light not so constant after all

https://www.sciencen...stant-after-all

First, I've never claimed the speed of light is "constant."  Just that it is "consistent."  Keep in mind, YEC would need the average speed of light to be 2,000,000x the current value to solve the light travel time problem.  Consistency of "c" has been verified using the decay rates of radioisotopes in the spectra of distant objects,  These measurements are only be within a few percent so lack the precision to show c is constant.  The best I know of was a paper published in 2002 showing the value for the speed of light when it left galaxies 12 billion light years from Earth was within 0.001% of the accepted value.

 

Next, from Calypsis' source:

...the speed of light, one of the most important constants in physics, should be thought of as a limit rather than an invariable rate for light zipping through a vacuum ... the speed of light, one of the most important constants in physics, should be thought of as a limit rather than an invariable rate for light zipping through a vacuum....

((Pi comments:  and now for the important part ))

The researchers produced pairs of photons and sent them on different paths toward a detector. One photon zipped straight through a fiber. The other photon went through a pair of devices that manipulated the structure of the light and then switched it back. Had structure not mattered, the two photons would have arrived at the same time. But that didn’t happen. Measurements revealed that the structured light consistently arrived several micrometers late per meter of distance traveled.  (Emphasis Pi's)

 

In other words, Calypsis needs to show an average speed of light 2,000,000 times faster and he gives an example in which light slows down.  :think:

 

All the paper really says is we should consider "c" a "limit" or maximum velocity.  I'm fine with that ....

 

This is for you and my fellow creationist comrades on a Sunday afternoon that I have spare time to type this out. I won't answer the skeptics personally.

:bananawave:



#9 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 04 February 2018 - 08:17 PM

A revisit to the topic of theistic evolution is probably past due.....

In the interest of keeping some other discussions on topic......
 

"Who is God"?
The omniscience omnipotent omnipresent creator of the universe.. The only one who came and dwelt among us and proved his Diety. The Christian God of the Bible... The one that YOU say got it wrong about how HE created the universe and everything else..

Agreed except for the last part. I say YOU got it wrong when you claim He created the universe only 6000 years ago.


"What" is the process of evolution."
It is a Fairytale made up by God haters who pretend that over "500 Million Years" While SOME jellyfish remained jellyfish OTHER jellyfish were turning into a HUMAN...

The fact that multiple polls show theistic evolutionists outnumber atheistic evolutionists by at least 2:1 clearly shows the vast majority of evolutionists are not "God haters."


Check out the name of the website you are on right now.. It fits it perfectly! Wouldnt you have better luck on an Atheist website where everyone agrees with you instead of banging your head against a brick wall here on EFT?

What fun would a debate forum be without differing views?

My experience on these forums is that those who actively post are unlikely to change their positions. The ones who are open to a change in their viewpoint are the lurkers who usually outnumber the participants by a large margin.


Are you trying to tell us the the Judeo Christian God of the Bible used Billions of Years to turn a Microbe into a Microbiologist?

Pretty much. Isn't it within His ability to do so?

The overwhelming evidence of God's creation is that it is billions of years old. Not thousands.


You must believe very little of what is actually written in the Bible... Which is the God that YOU worship? Isnt that what "Theistic" means?

Truth cannot contradict truth. God is a not deceptive. Both His creation and His word must be true. If we perceive one as being false, then the contradiction must be resolved.

I choose the most direct evidence from God that is least subject to the introduction of error by fallible man. Right now I can walk out in my back yard and see, with my unaided eye, the galaxy Andromeda. By astronomical standards it's right next door, but it's still 400x more distant than we should be able to see in a 6000 year old universe.

Since we've been down this path a number of times, let me preview our next two or three posts .....
1) You will (correctly) point out that the Bible says a number of times that God stretched the heavens.
2) I will agree and explain that stretching the heavens will also stretch the light in them. This would be obvious in a distinct red-shift of the light from distant objects. We see this red shift, but it's consistent with a universe 13.8 billion years old, not 6,000. For example, Andromeda should exhibit a red shift by a factor of 400. Instead, it's blue-shifted.
3) You have claimed that God could have inserted photons of light for such events as observed supernovae.
4) I will point out that makes virtually the entire universe nothing more than a deception.

The question then becomes: "If God's creation is little more than a deception, how can you trust the Bible at all?" That is the question that has never been answered. it is the one that led to a crisis of faith that ultimately led me to decide a literal reading of Genesis is not correct.

It is a Fairytale made up by God haters who pretend that over "500 Million Years" While SOME jellyfish remained jellyfish OTHER jellyfish were turning into a HUMAN...

"The fact that multiple polls show theistic evolutionists outnumber atheistic evolutionists by at least 2:1 clearly shows the vast majority of evolutionists are not "God haters."


You need to quit with the Dishonest Quote mines and Editorialization of my posts... Now read Carefully because the words matter...


I said that Evolution was MADE UP BY GOD HATERS. I NEVER SAID that Evolutionists ARE God haters (Although a large percentage of them are) I said it was INVENTED by God haters like Darwin who harbored resentment over the death of his Child (ren)... and Huxley "God interfered with our S@xual mores"

We are well aware that there are many brainwashed and indoctrinated Oval-Earthers who have been duped and also manage to convince themselves (So they claim) that it is perfectly reasonable to call the Judeo Christian God of the Bible a Liar about HIS creation but Worship him as the Infallible Holy Creator anyway.....

 

Are you trying to tell us the the Judeo Christian God of the Bible used Billions of Years to turn a Microbe into a Microbiologist?

 

"Pretty much. Isn't it within His ability to do so?"

 

Yes, but COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT (As you surely know by now) It Matter ZERO if Man says how God COULD HAVE done it..

The ONLY THING that should matter is HOW HE SAID HE DID IT!!!   Trying to try to Shove Satan's Lie of Evolution into the Bible is blasphemous beyond

belief, Yes that's right... Calling God a Liar and claiming that YOU know better than he does about something is called Blasphemy..

I am surprised the monitors allow you to continue to get away with this behaviour... You use every trick in the book to try to discredit the Bible while asserting that you carry the banner of Christ... I dont buy it for one minute.. Jesus warned us and told us to be discerning and wise.. He also said "By thy fruits ye shall know them"

 

End of Story..

 

I am done with this for now... Carry on boys...



#10 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 February 2018 - 09:15 PM

 

Piasan: 2)  I will agree and explain that stretching the heavens will also stretch the light in them.  This would be obvious in a distinct red-shift of the light from distant objects.  We see this red shift, but it's consistent with a universe 13.8 billion years old, not 6,000.  For example, Andromeda should exhibit a red shift by a factor of 400.  Instead, it's blue-shifted.

Well, "fair enough" on your opening message, I have no real ill will towards you in that it seems to be possible to be Christian and theistic evolutionist and the lad can grow hot headed in his zeal for the Lord.(BK) :D

Despite what you may think, I have no ill will toward you at all.  Yeah, I pick on you sometimes about the logic stuff and I apologize if I took it too far. 

 

BTW, I did go to at least one of those logic test sites you mentioned.  It had three tests and our scores were identical for the first two.   On the third, we were within a couple points.  You are far superior to me in terms of knowing the names of the fallacies.  After all, it's been a long time since I studied logic.  But I still recognize a flawed logical argument as well as you do.  Oh yeah, one more thing.... the site I went to confirmed something I said before ... that you can have a valid logical argument based on a false premise.

 

 

...Though you seem to do more harm to Christianity than good since agreeing with 95% of what atheists say is helping their cause of PRETENDING that science confirms their worldview.

I hate to point this out, but in regards to the difference between TE and YEC, the science I normally discuss DOES confirm their worldview in that the universe / earth are billions of years old not thousands.  It shouldn't be surprising I'd agree with their SCIENTIFIC claims 95% of the time.

 

It's not a new problem.  One of the early church philosophers, St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo pointed out 1600 years ago:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs,
stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing
situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

 

From that perspective, I would argue the YEC worldview does far more damage to Christianity than TE.

 

It would be more helpful if you could show you believe the "theism" behind the evolution a bit more by acknowledging the miraculous level of design in lifeforms.

What I believe is that the natural sciences will never be able to explain either the origin of either life or the universe.  I have repeatedly pointed out that the design argument is good philosophy. 

 

For me to accept the design argument as biological science, it would be necessary for the design advocates to differentiate between a section of DNA that is the result of intelligent input and one that is the result of natural mutation.  This should not be an impossibly high bar since humans are now able to manipulate DNA.



#11 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 February 2018 - 09:55 PM

I said that Evolution was MADE UP BY GOD HATERS. I NEVER SAID that Evolutionists ARE God haters (Although a large percentage of them are) I said it was INVENTED by God haters like Darwin who harbored resentment over the death of his Child (ren)... and Huxley "God interfered with our S@xual mores"

That's nice.... my arguments come more from Newton and Augustine than Darwin and Huxley.

 

 

We are well aware that there are many brainwashed and indoctrinated Oval-Earthers who have been duped and also manage to convince themselves (So they claim) that it is perfectly reasonable to call the Judeo Christian God of the Bible a Liar about HIS creation but Worship him as the Infallible Holy Creator anyway.....

Since when is a story delivered in poetry and metaphor a lie?

 

 

I am surprised the monitors allow you to continue to get away with this behaviour...

Do you mean behavior like calling those who disagree with you "brainwashed," "mentally disturbed," "indoctrinated," "deceptive," "dishonest," and "liar?"



#12 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 04 February 2018 - 10:26 PM

It is a Fairytale made up by God haters....

 

FYI, the co-founder of evolutionary theory along with Darwin was Alfred Russel Wallace, who was a devout believer. Long story short Darwin basically didn't want to publish his results, but Alfred Russel Wallace independently came up with the same basic idea. Behind the scenes correspondence between the two occurred, and they agreed to co-author the initial paper introducing their idea of evolution to the scientific community. Wallace was even a bit hesitant about some of the conclusions of evolution because it went against his faith, particularly in regards to human evolution IIRC.

 

Even Darwin wasn't some bloodlust God hater. It should be noted that much of the fundamental concepts of his evolutionary theory were formed before his daughter fell sick and died. While his views were theologically liberal in this context, and his doubts increased over time, near the end of his life he said that he was never an atheist but an agnostic. For much of his life I would describe him as a deist where God was the first cause, and then let the laws of nature handle it from there.

 

Since I know this "fairytale" of yours includes the big bang, the guy who first proposed it within the context of modern physics was Georges Lemaitre. He was not only an astronomer/physicist but a Catholic priest as well. I know you have deep theological disagreements with Catholicism, but calling Catholics God haters would be a bit extreme. Ironically it was atheist scientists that originally rejected the big bang because they thought it gave too much leverage to theism.

 

In addition, one idea of science that gravely challenges YEC is the idea that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference; if we see a galaxy 10 billion light years away we know the light took 10 billion years to reach us (this has been fleshed out with various tests on the speed of light changing over time, and the speed of light has remained consistent). This is a key part of Einstein's Relativity. Einstein was not an atheist, he even said (paraphrasing) 'atheism is stupid'. Einstein was a variant of pantheism (Spinoza's God). I've even seen those 'religious scientist' lists some evangelical types come up with have Einstein as one of them.
 



#13 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 February 2018 - 10:51 PM

This part quoted though, it is by no means my area of interest but isn't Andromeda and those with a blue shift, isn't that because they move towards us? Didn't Hubble create a law whereby basically H=VD if I have remembered correctly? (Hubble age = velocity and distance), I might have got that wrong but if I understand it, isn't the red shifted light from galaxies farther away? Don't they also calculate ages which give them an age of the universe younger than some of the galaxies?

I appreciate your willingness to step out of your comfort zone. 

 

The light is redshifted more with distance and this is attributed to the Doppler effect.  It's basically the same way police radars work.  More distant galaxies show greater red shifts.  The currently estimated value for the "Hubble Constant" is about 70/km/sec/Mpc.  Putting it a different way, it's about 70km/sec for every 3.24 million light years from Earth.

 

 

I watched a talk from Humphreys about this and it would seem that if we accept quantized redshift if I have remembered it right, we get bunches of red-shifts also, as we go further from earth, and this is detected as our galaxy being at the centre because you couldn't get the same result if we were not in the centre. So then if we imagine in our minds, the outer galaxies moving faster than the inner at creation, if the centre and starting point was our galaxy.

Actually, in an expanding universe you can't tell where the center is.  That's because space itself is expanding.  Wherever you are, everything is moving away from you and it appears to be the center.  It's like stretching a rubber sheet.  If you have access to a copier, make a bunch of random marks on a piece of paper.  Make two copies, one at 100% and one at 110%.  Then pick any of the marks as the center you will see the other marks seem to stretch out from that mark.  I used to have a link to an example, but can't find it right now.

 

 

What I'm trying to say is, from the perspective of a miraculous creation, if certain galaxies are created, as the process slows down, if the outer ones had to travel faster than the inner ones, might they not when they slow down, be marginally faster than the inner ones if the inner ones didn't have to travel as far to spread out?

I understand where you're going with this, but you need to understand that in astronomical terms, the "inner" ones are too far to explain without major redshifts.

 

 

So Andromeda because of it's relatively close position, might not have had to be stretched as it was closer to the centre, closer to it's place than was intended for the outer galaxies with the larger red shifts.

But we can measure distances to 5 billion light years using standard candles.

 

 

So then it makes sense if the expansion of the universe was at the centre of the universe, where our galaxy basically is, relatively speaking if we take this data as true. So then if God stretched the heavens in a miraculous creation and the science came later, we might only detect the red shift as it is now, having slowed down. The light itself might only have been created when the stars were, "ready" so to speak, such as on day four is it? Perhaps they first had to be in gaseous formative stage for all we know so that their light was not there to give off in the form of a completed star.

I won't argue against a claim that we are at the center of the universe.  It's irrelevant to my issue with YEC.

 

The problem with your argument is that if you stretch the heavens (and thus, the light in them) the light will stay stretched as long as the heavens are.  Use my "rubber band" example.  Make marks on a rubber band representing a light wave.  Stretch the band and the marks move apart.  They don't go back together until you relax the rubber band and let it return to the original length.  Same with space.  Slowing down doesn't work until the light leaving the source has time to travel the distance.

 

 

All I am saying is we shouldn't rule out a knowledge that is greater than we could ever find out using science methods. See how easy such a miracle would change our interpretation of the evidence my lad.

"My lad"   I'm not sure if I should be insulted of flattered.  :)

 

Certain events, even if miraculous, should leave evidence.  Stretching the heavens is one of them.  The evidence of stretching is insufficient for a 6000 year universe.  The only real alternative would be for God to create images of objects that don't exist and events that never happened.  For God to do that causes serious philosophical and theological problems about the very nature of God.

 

How is it possible to place any trust at all in the Bible if virtually all of God's creation consists of events that never took place and objects that don't exist?

 

 

So I hope I have broken the cycle of yours and Bk's and Cal's merry-go-round, with my fresh angle, I am sure my ponderings are only that of a newbie for my approach takes into account the miraculous since God said He created these things, which usually requires.......well.........a miracle usually, for example if He turned water into wine would it be wrong to say it was a miracle? But we can't say creation, a massive event, the biggest miracle ever, had a miraculous element, to your mind?

Again, I appreciate your input.

 

The difference is that we don't expect to have any evidence of God having turned water into wine; healings by Christ; fishes and loaves; walking on water; etc.  In contrast, we can reasonably have clear evidence for a 6000 year creation; stretching the heavens; or a global flood.

 

Here are a couple interesting questions that I'm sure you've seen before....

 

Would Adam have a belly button?  

Would a created tree in the Garden of Eden have rings?


  • mike the wiz likes this

#14 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,443 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 05 February 2018 - 11:58 AM

Blitzking, on 01 Feb 2018 - 3:11 PM, said:snapback.png


You must believe very little of what is actually written in the Bible... Which is the God that YOU worship? Isnt that what "Theistic" means?

 

piasan: Truth cannot contradict truth. God is a not deceptive. Both His creation and His word must be true. If we perceive one as being false, then the contradiction must be resolved.

 

Blitzking, he doesn't have the truth to begin with & neither do his reprobate neo-Darwinian buddies.

 

zapata2_zpsu4uhg8p7.jpg

 

The Zapata footprint.

How does any honest geologist take an obviously human footprint found in an obscure place embedded in 250 million yr old rock and call it anything but a problem for evolution? At least the Smithsonian was honest enough to call this print 'problematica'. There are many of these found around the world. I have quite a lot of documentation of them in my files.

https://search.aol.c...nt problematica

 

Below are some tracks from the Paluxy River Beds in Texas. Evolutionists have no trouble accepting the dino track but the human track they deny is legitimate even though it is only inches from the dino track and dug up at the same time. Is a little prejudice involved here? No, a lot of prejudice is involved here.

 

humanfootprint04_zpshnfs34qu.jpg

 

 

Here's another; Hammerincretaceousrock_zps888ae5fa.jpg

 

A human made sledge hammer embedded in cretaceous rock. Cretaceous age .. (Supposedly long before man was around to make such hammers  --- from about 141 million years ago until 65 million years ago.

 

Still more; a fossil bee and its recent offspring. No evolutionary change on any level. I can post dozens of these comparisons in everything from bats all the way down to bacteria. No evolutionary change in any of them.

 

licefossil_zps2d8fac9f.png

 

So who is being deceptive about age? Nature or piasan & his evil comrades in evolution?


  • Blitzking likes this

#15 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 05 February 2018 - 06:20 PM

It is a Fairytale made up by God haters....


FYI, the co-founder of evolutionary theory along with Darwin was Alfred Russel Wallace, who was a devout believer. Long story short Darwin basically didn't want to publish his results, but Alfred Russel Wallace independently came up with the same basic idea. Behind the scenes correspondence between the two occurred, and they agreed to co-author the initial paper introducing their idea of evolution to the scientific community. Wallace was even a bit hesitant about some of the conclusions of evolution because it went against his faith, particularly in regards to human evolution IIRC.

Even Darwin wasn't some bloodlust God hater. It should be noted that much of the fundamental concepts of his evolutionary theory were formed before his daughter fell sick and died. While his views were theologically liberal in this context, and his doubts increased over time, near the end of his life he said that he was never an atheist but an agnostic. For much of his life I would describe him as a deist where God was the first cause, and then let the laws of nature handle it from there.

Since I know this "fairytale" of yours includes the big bang, the guy who first proposed it within the context of modern physics was Georges Lemaitre. He was not only an astronomer/physicist but a Catholic priest as well. I know you have deep theological disagreements with Catholicism, but calling Catholics God haters would be a bit extreme. Ironically it was atheist scientists that originally rejected the big bang because they thought it gave too much leverage to theism.

In addition, one idea of science that gravely challenges YEC is the idea that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference; if we see a galaxy 10 billion light years away we know the light took 10 billion years to reach us (this has been fleshed out with various tests on the speed of light changing over time, and the speed of light has remained consistent). This is a key part of Einstein's Relativity. Einstein was not an atheist, he even said (paraphrasing) 'atheism is stupid'. Einstein was a variant of pantheism (Spinoza's God). I've even seen those 'religious scientist' lists some evangelical types come up with have Einstein as one of them.


"I know you have deep theological disagreements with Catholicism, but calling Catholics God haters would be a bit extreme."

I Agree.. I dont think you should call Catholics "God Haters" I know I never would do such a thing myself..

I said that God Haters invented the TOE... You do remember my term for Theistic Evolutionists dont you? It is not God Haters.. It is Oval-Earthers.. I hope that helps the apparent confusion..


"In addition, one idea of science that gravely challenges YEC is the idea that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference;"

I Agree.. It WOULD challenge a young universe. UNLESS God told us that he "Streches out the Heavens" In fact, he didnt just say it once.. But Fifteen Times! Sounds like he was really trying to make a point to me.. Arent you glad he said it to clear up the confusion? Maybe we should believe him..



Since Creation Week the heavens have expanded. The Bible consistently uses the term “stretching the heavens” a total of 17 times!

NOTE: The Hebrew word for “bowed/stretched” is (natah), shown at:
http://cf.blueletter...186&Version=kjv


Very few Bible instructions or commandments are repeated more than two or three times. Most teachings are given only once, in fact. (Almost nothing is repeated more than 4 or 5 times.) Thus - it is very interesting (and speaks directly to our modern times!) that the phrase: "The Lord has stretched [or bowed] the Heavens..." is stated in Scripture an incredible 17 times!

Here are the 17 Bible verses:

2 Samuel 22:10 “He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness was under his feet.”

Job 9:8 “Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.”

Job 26:7 “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”

Job 37:18 “Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?”

Psalm 18:9 “He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet.”

Psalm 104:2 “Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain.”

Psalm 144:5 “Bow thy heavens, O LORD, and come down: touch the mountains, and they shall smoke.”

Isaiah 40:22 “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.”

Isaiah 42:5 “Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein.”

Isaiah 44:24 “Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.”

Isaiah 45:12 “I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.”

Isaiah 48:13 “Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.”

Isaiah 51:13 “And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where is the fury of the oppressor?”

Jeremiah 10:12 “He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.”

Jeremiah 51:15 “He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.”

Ezekiel 1:22 “And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the color of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.”

Zechariah 12:1 “The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.”


Distant starlight makes sense now, doesn't it? The whole universe has been stretched! Dimensional folding, like curtains above. The Bible has been right all along. No "static universe" out there. The former “Steady State theory" for the universe was unbiblical, and therefore in error. The scientists were wrong about science - again! Whenever the Bible and the scientists disagree … just give the scientists more time.

Here is more information about science, discussing how the Lord "bowed--stretched the Heavens":
“The Nature of Cosmic Reality: Stretching the Heavens” http://www.khouse.or...icles/1999/245/

Time after time - we see the Holy Bible's account of ancient history
and our universe consistent, and confirmed by science and by logic.

Also see: Evidence for a Young World,
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.


P.S. Topsoil - if … the evolutionists are correct that all the sedimentary layers were put down slowly over eons, how come we never find remnants of topsoil between the many built-up layers? Burying, getting slowly deeper (according to their theory) shouldn’t we find some portions of buried topsoil somewhere? …

The Earth’s deep sedimentary layers were laid down quickly, in one year, during the Great Flood, only 4,400 years ago. Josephus (a Jewish Bible historian from 2,000 years ago) also referred to other historians: (section #6) http://www.creationi...usAntiq01.Flood


"The Lord has 'Stretched the Heavens' Since Creation Week"
<http://www.creationi...retched_en.htm>

#16 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 06 February 2018 - 12:50 AM

 


 In addition, one idea of science that gravely challenges YEC is the idea that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference; if we see a galaxy 10 billion light years away we know the light took 10 billion years to reach us (this has been fleshed out with various tests on the speed of light changing over time, and the speed of light has remained consistent). This is a key part of Einstein's Relativity. Einstein was not an atheist, he even said (paraphrasing) 'atheism is stupid'. Einstein was a variant of pantheism (Spinoza's God). I've even seen those 'religious scientist' lists some evangelical types come up with have Einstein as one of them.
I Agree.. It WOULD challenge a young universe. UNLESS God told us that he "Streches out the Heavens" In fact, he didnt just say it once.. But Fifteen Times! Sounds like he was really trying to make a point to me.. Arent you glad he said it to clear up the confusion? Maybe we should believe him..

Since Creation Week the heavens have expanded. The Bible consistently uses the term “stretching the heavens” a total of 17 times!
....
Distant starlight makes sense now, doesn't it? The whole universe has been stretched! Dimensional folding, like curtains above. The Bible has been right all along. No "static universe" out there. The former “Steady State theory" for the universe was unbiblical, and therefore in error. The scientists were wrong about science - again! Whenever the Bible and the scientists disagree … just give the scientists more time.

Yes, Blitz, the heavens have been stretched.  I've agreed with this every single time you have mentioned it.  Which is probably more times than the Bible does.   In fact, I've pointed out that science has even measured the amount of stretching in the heavens. 

 

The Bible statements that the heavens have been stretched have been confirmed by science.

 

We aren't arguing about whether or not the heavens have been stretched.  The dispute is how much they have been stretched.

 

Next comes the part you haven't had much luck with ......

The stretching of the heavens leaves evidence it has taken place.  When the heavens stretch, everything in them will stretch as well.  That is what made it possible for astronomers to confirm the heavens are stretching and measure it.

 

The problem is that the stretching we see is far to little for it to explain how we see objects like Sn1987a and Andromeda in only 6,000 years.  The light from Sn1987a should be stretched by a factor of more than 18x and Andromeda should be about 400x.  The light from Sn1987a shows negligible stretching and the light from Andromeda is compressed, not stretched.

 

Notice, we don't even have to discuss galaxies billions of light years from Earth.  It shouldn't even be possible to see the center of THIS galaxy.

 

Nor does the method by which the creative event by God took place matter.  The evidence is independent of the means by which creation took place.

 

 

 

Also see: Evidence for a Young World,
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Dealt with most of it before.  Guess I'll have to do it again....  in another post.



#17 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 06 February 2018 - 06:53 AM

"I know you have deep theological disagreements with Catholicism, but calling Catholics God haters would be a bit extreme."

I Agree.. I dont think you should call Catholics "God Haters" I know I never would do such a thing myself..

I said that God Haters invented the TOE... You do remember my term for Theistic Evolutionists dont you? It is not God Haters.. It is Oval-Earthers.. I hope that helps the apparent confusion..

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but by TOE don't you mean everything from the big bang to human evolution to everything in between?

 

If so, then there is a disconnect between your two statements; it was a Catholic priest that first proposed the big bang within the context of modern physics/cosmology.

 

Also, the co-founder of ToE along with Darwin was a devout Christian.

 

Darwin himself said he was never an atheist but an agnostic, and for most of his life I would describe him as a deist. Are deists and agnostics God haters in your book? Is everyone who is not a Christian a God hater?

 

"In addition, one idea of science that gravely challenges YEC is the idea that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference;"

I Agree.. It WOULD challenge a young universe. UNLESS God told us that he "Streches out the Heavens" In fact, he didnt just say it once.. But Fifteen Times! Sounds like he was really trying to make a point to me.. Arent you glad he said it to clear up the confusion? Maybe we should believe him..


Since Creation Week the heavens have expanded. The Bible consistently uses the term “stretching the heavens” a total of 17 times!

NOTE: The Hebrew word for “bowed/stretched” is (natah), shown at:
http://cf.blueletter...186&Version=kjv


Very few Bible instructions or commandments are repeated more than two or three times. Most teachings are given only once, in fact. (Almost nothing is repeated more than 4 or 5 times.) Thus - it is very interesting (and speaks directly to our modern times!) that the phrase: "The Lord has stretched [or bowed] the Heavens..." is stated in Scripture an incredible 17 times!

Here are the 17 Bible verses:

 

...................

 

Distant starlight makes sense now, doesn't it? The whole universe has been stretched! Dimensional folding, like curtains above. The Bible has been right all along. No "static universe" out there. The former “Steady State theory" for the universe was unbiblical, and therefore in error. The scientists were wrong about science - again! Whenever the Bible and the scientists disagree … just give the scientists more time.

Here is more information about science, discussing how the Lord "bowed--stretched the Heavens":
“The Nature of Cosmic Reality: Stretching the Heavens” http://www.khouse.or...icles/1999/245/

Time after time - we see the Holy Bible's account of ancient history
and our universe consistent, and confirmed by science and by logic.

Also see: Evidence for a Young World,
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

 

Ditto to everything Piasan has said on this topic.

 

We know the "heavens" have been stretched; this is why we see red shift in a clear pattern for distant astronomical objects. Unfortunately, the red shift does not indicate 6,000 years or anything in the ballpark. Distant starlight doesn't make sense in your worldview. On the surface, sure, it sounds like the stretching of the heavens covers it, but upon closer inspection, it does not. 

 

P.S. Topsoil - if … the evolutionists are correct that all the sedimentary layers were put down slowly over eons, how come we never find remnants of topsoil between the many built-up layers? Burying, getting slowly deeper (according to their theory) shouldn’t we find some portions of buried topsoil somewhere? …

The Earth’s deep sedimentary layers were laid down quickly, in one year, during the Great Flood, only 4,400 years ago. Josephus (a Jewish Bible historian from 2,000 years ago) also referred to other historians: (section #6) http://www.creationi...usAntiq01.Flood

 

Geology is not my area and I'll leave others to deal with that for now.

 

I do know that not all layers were put down slowly over eons; catastrophes are part of the picture too - I don't think any modern geologist would disagree. As for the global flood, why don't we see a global sediment layer all around the world dating to ~4,400 years ago?
 



#18 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 07 February 2018 - 01:06 AM

 

Also see: Evidence for a Young World,
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Dealt with most of it before.  Guess I'll have to do it again....  in another post.

 

OK, first, the link to Humphreys' article which Blitz didn't provide:

http://www.icr.org/a...or-young-world/

 

Humphreys' first "evidence" is that spiral galaxies "wind up" too fast.  Basically, this is the claim that within a few rotations, spiral galaxies will lose their shape.  As I've pointed out before, there is research showing the spiral arms form a positive feedback loop which would make them self-sustaining.

Here's an article about a research paper showing exactly that .....

New supercomputer simulations show how spiral galaxies like the Milky Way get, and keep, their skinny, star-studded arms ... scientists used powerful software to model the formation of stand-alone disk galaxies and follow up to 100 million hypothetical stellar particles being tugged at by gravity and other astrophysical forces. .... The team found that giant molecular clouds, which often serve as star factories, can instigate the formation of spiral arms. While the clouds act as initial "perturbers," the researchers say they also can help sustain a spiral galaxy's arms indefinitely. ... D'Onghia said. "It proves that once the arms are generated through these clouds, they can exist on their own through (the influence of) gravity, even in the extreme when the perturbations are no longer there."

 

 

 

For his second "evidence" Humphreys says:

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas

 

According to a NASA astrophysicist, supernova remnants "fade into the interstellar medium" after only about 100,000 years, not the "over a million years" Humphreys claims.  This effectively makes the number we see equivalent to 70,000 years worth of remnants. ... not too far from the 100,000 year limit NASA's astrophysicist says.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users