Jump to content


Photo

Creationism And Astrophysics.


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#61 Guest_Teller_*

Guest_Teller_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 October 2010 - 06:34 AM

Why do You say You have empirical proof, yet still call it a theory?

View Post


Hi

That's correct. Most modern scientific theories have for all practical purposes been empirically proven.

The word theory comes from the Greek "theoria" meaning "looking at" or "contemplating". The primary original meaning of the word theory in English is the "principles or methods of a science or art". A theory being a "guess" or provisional is only a secondary meaning of the word.

#62 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 16 October 2010 - 07:10 AM

Hi

That's correct. Most modern scientific theories have for all practical purposes been empirically proven.

The word theory comes from the Greek "theoria" meaning "looking at" or "contemplating". The primary original meaning of the word theory in English is the "principles or methods of a science or art". A theory being a "guess" or provisional is only a secondary meaning of the word.

View Post


If they were proven empirically, they wouldn't still be called theories.

I think you are confusing scientific theories with scientific facts.

An example of a scientific theory would be evolution, which hasn't been proven - hence it's called the ''theory of...''

#63 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 October 2010 - 07:22 AM

If they were proven empirically, they wouldn't still be called theories.

I think you are confusing scientific theories with scientific facts.

An example of a scientific theory would be evolution, which hasn't been proven - hence it's called the ''theory of...''

View Post


You don't prove theories. A theory explains what we've observed, and we can't say for sure that we've observed everything.

#64 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 16 October 2010 - 07:53 AM

I would like to discuss what appears to be a major body of evidence against  young earth creationism - astrophysics.

The distances to a large number of astronomical objects have been measured by a variety of methods. Astrophysicists consider the distances to galaxies to be of the order of millions of light years, and the majority of stars within the Milky Way to be up to 100,000 light years away. If this were true, and given the invariance of the speed of light, clearly YEC is false (irrespective of the status of evolution).

Just as one example, a cepheid variable star in the galaxy M81 was observed by the Hubble telescope and measured at about 11 million light years away. See here: http://outreach.atnf...e_cepheids.html

So what is the YEC position in regard to this. Is it:

a ) The speed of light is not invariant, or

b ) All of the objects observed by astronomers, from stars to galaxies to quasars, do in fact exist within 6000 light years of Earth?

I will not try to anticipate responses, other than to say two things:

Firstly, I am well aware that there are quite large error margins inherent in distant parallax measurements, and therefore in the calibration for overlapping distance measurements such as cepheid variables. But I do not think that these would be large enough to get a galaxy 11 Mly way to only 6Kly away. Perhaps I am wrong.

Also, I know that there are large assumptions made when deducing distances to objects beyond the range of parallax. For example it is assumed that the relationship of cepheid variable frequency to luminosity is independent of their distances from Earth. However, in order for this to help creationism you would have to explain why the cepheids within parallax range all conform to a certain relationship between frequency and luminosity, while all those beyond parallax range either follow an entirely randon distribution, or conform to some weird  non-linear relationship between luminosity and distance.

At a very simple level, if you are to argue that all observed galaxies are actually within 6K ly of Earth, you would have to explain why their sizes vary so much. Why are some galaxies apparently smaller than stars? And how could that be considering that galaxies, eg Andromeda, are clearly themselves composed of stars??

View Post

To say this is not a scientific "challenge" to a young universe is to bury one's head in the sand. It would not be a witness to sincere questioners and seekers of truth to simply ignore it.

But I feel that creationists have dealt with the distant starlight problem, just as evolutionists and old earthers "deal with" their own questions and problems. And may I say, I feel that the latter has many more confusing situations than YEC does, because of their chosen geological timescale model.

That said, YEC has actually several different ways to deal with this question. The one I like is model where earth is toward the center of the universe, and there is an actual boundary or extremities of the universe. This would call the general theory of relativity into play, which has to do with the effects of gravity on time. Not being a physicist in any sense, I am generalizing, but the gravity well in the center would cause time to be at a different rate than time at the extremities of the universe.

So light could have an invariant velocity, but time would change. It is suggested by some creation scientists that the Bible is speaking in "local" time. So when the Bible says the stars were created on day four, it is speaking on local (earth) time. But the time on the edges of the universe would be a much faster rate. A 100 years in some parts of space could be a second on earth.

The whole thing borders on philosophy, yet Einstein's math confirms that it may be true. The bottom line, there are some things are minds can not conceive, and I think this is one of them. If there is math that confirms a possibility of solving the distant starlight problem, then it is a smaller assumption than my scientific counterparts (evos) assuming life came from primordial soup, and that solar system is the result of a "big bang."

#65 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 16 October 2010 - 08:34 AM

Hi :) response in green within the quote of your post. I have to edit in the rest as my family is stealing the computer from me. :D

I concur with MamaElephant.

I explicitly stated that I wanted to discuss creationist ideas about the starlight problem. If anyone is possesed of sufficient masochism to wish to discuss the absurd and whimsical beliefs of Casseritides then may I request that they do so elsewhere. (I would also draw the attention of the moderators to any further posts by Casseritides on this thread).

@MamaElephant

Unfortunately I am having some trouble viewing the Creation Answer Booklet PDF (I just get an error message and then my whole browser crashes - there's an issue with my software, which I'll try to resolve). I will try to get you some more information later if I can. At the moment I am short on time. A mother's work is never done.  B) But I have read the AIG link you posted, so I will now raise some points from that for discussion.

Here's the link again: http://www.answersin...starlight-prove

That creationist page offers four responses to the starlight problem. Here they are with my initial thoughts:

1) The speed of light may not be invariant.

The AIG page more or less rejects this as a reasonable argument for creationists to make. I would simply remind people that it would not be sufficient for a creationist to show that the speed of light has decreased - they would have to show that it had done so to the huge degree that would be required to reduce the age of the universe by a factor of 1,000,000. Such a decrease ought to have been observed in the measurements of c that have been made over the last 100 years or so. No such decrease has been observed.

2) Time dilation.

The second response seems to argue that the passage of time on Earth may be slower than in the rest of the universe. This is the most interesting response to me as it does seem plausible in terms of general relativity. I have two questions/comments:

    i) The argument suggests that God has placed the Earth in a "special" position in the universe. So astrophysicists would be broadly correct about the overall age of the universe. But why would God carry out this suggested "stretching of time"? What purpose would it serve? And is the creationist argument that this "time stretching" would be empirically distinguishable from the current scientific consensus? If not then it is an argument from non-naturalism (see point 4). If so then:

    ii) If the Earth really is at the centre of the universe (and thus at the bottom of a "gravity well") then that ought to be empirically detectable. This is good news as it means that the issue can be settled. But initially I would say that such a configuration would mean that you would expect the density of galaxies in the universe to get higher the closer you got to Earth (just as the density of material increases as you get closer to the Earth's core (a gravity well)). This is at odds with what is observed - the homogeneity of material in the universe (at larger scales).

    In addition (contrary to what Casseritides has claimed) relativity is an exact empirical science. The maths is incredibly difficult, involving tensor analysis, but nevertheless, it should be possible to calculate how deep and steep the Earth's gravity well would need to be in order to dilate time enough that the distant universe was 1,000,000 times older than the Earth. It would have to be incredibly steep to allow a significant time dilation to take effect even when observing objects within our own galaxy, which is believed to be about 100,000 light years across. Where are the calculations? The information that I have is from articles written for the layman. Unfortunately I do not have a subscription to the scientific journal. I doubt I could understand much in it anyway... not a science major here.  :P

3) Clock Synchronization

This seems similar to the time dilation question, but I found it harder to understand. I would need further explanation in order to discuss it.

4) Naturalism is an assumption.

I agree with this. I do not wish to argue against the possiblility of supernatural events. I would, however, suggest that by their nature supernatural events might be beyond the ability of science to detect. It would make creationism a lot less convincing to me if it simply picked the science that suited it, but when faced with incontrovertible scientific evidence against it, fell back on "naturalism is only an assumption". If so then the science that creationism accepted would be just as questionable as that which it did not. How would we know where the boundary between the natural and supernatural lay?

Ok - I wanted to avoid posting walls of text (sorry), which was why I invited creationists to briefly summarise their views. But as MamaElephant was the only one to offer something substantial I thought I'd start with that. I'd invite other evolutionists to take this as a starting point.

View Post



There's evidence that the stars a millions of light years away. 
Hypotheses explain specific phenomena and generally constitute theories.  In fact, hypotheses are formed using theories sometimes.  There isn't a ladder of increasing certainty where hypotheses is a rung below theory.

View Post



To say this is not a scientific "challenge" to a young universe is to bury one's head in the sand.  It would not be a witness to sincere questioners and seekers of truth to simply ignore it. 

But I feel that creationists have dealt with the distant starlight problem, just as evolutionists and old earthers "deal with" their own questions and problems.  And may I say, I feel that the latter has many more confusing situations than YEC does, because of their chosen geological timescale model.

That said, YEC has actually several different ways to deal with this question.  The one I like is model where earth is toward the center of the universe, and there is an actual boundary or extremities of the universe.  This would call the general theory of relativity into play, which has to do with the effects of gravity on time.  Not being a physicist in any sense, I am generalizing, but the gravity well in the center would cause time to be at a different rate than time at the extremities of the universe.

So light could have an invariant velocity, but time would change.  It is suggested by some creation scientists that the Bible is speaking in "local" time.  So when the Bible says the stars were created on day four, it is speaking on local (earth) time.  But the time on the edges of the universe would be a much faster rate.  A 100 years  in some parts of space could be a second on earth.

The whole thing borders on philosophy, yet Einstein's math confirms that it may be true.  The bottom line, there are some things are minds can not conceive, and I think this is one of them.  If there is math that confirms a possibility of solving the distant starlight problem, then it is a smaller assumption  than my scientific counterparts (evos) assuming life came from primordial soup, and that solar system is the result of a "big bang."

View Post



#66 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 16 October 2010 - 08:25 PM

Okay, here is a link that I found:

http://creationwiki....ical_relativity

This shows how we can see distant starlight as a direct consequence of the way that God stretched out the universe during creation week. The model involves the usual 4 dimensions and adds a new 5th dimension, the velocity of the expansion of the cosmos.

Here is another that was recommended and there are many at the bottom of that first link: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508367

I have not taken any time on this link trying to understand it myself, but it looks like the thing you have been asking for. Enjoy.



QUOTE(UB313 @ Oct 15 2010, 01:36 PM)
Unfortunately I am having some trouble viewing the Creation Answer Booklet PDF (I just get an error message and then my whole browser crashes - there's an issue with my software, which I'll try to resolve). I will try to get you some more information later if I can. At the moment I am short on time. A mother's work is never done. wink.gif But I have read the AIG link you posted, so I will now raise some points from that for discussion.


2) Time dilation.

The second response seems to argue that the passage of time on Earth may be slower than in the rest of the universe. This is the most interesting response to me as it does seem plausible in terms of general relativity. I have two questions/comments:

i) The argument suggests that God has placed the Earth in a "special" position in the universe. So astrophysicists would be broadly correct about the overall age of the universe. But why would God carry out this suggested "stretching of time"? What purpose would it serve? And is the creationist argument that this "time stretching" would be empirically distinguishable from the current scientific consensus? If not then it is an argument from non-naturalism (see point 4). If so then:

ii) If the Earth really is at the centre of the universe (and thus at the bottom of a "gravity well") then that ought to be empirically detectable. This is good news as it means that the issue can be settled. But initially I would say that such a configuration would mean that you would expect the density of galaxies in the universe to get higher the closer you got to Earth (just as the density of material increases as you get closer to the Earth's core (a gravity well)). This is at odds with what is observed - the homogeneity of material in the universe (at larger scales).

In addition (contrary to what Casseritides has claimed) relativity is an exact empirical science. The maths is incredibly difficult, involving tensor analysis, but nevertheless, it should be possible to calculate how deep and steep the Earth's gravity well would need to be in order to dilate time enough that the distant universe was 1,000,000 times older than the Earth. It would have to be incredibly steep to allow a significant time dilation to take effect even when observing objects within our own galaxy, which is believed to be about 100,000 light years across. Where are the calculations?* When I read that chapter in the Creation Answers book (which is written for the layman so no calculations there) I was under the impression that this time dilation was more pronounced in the past. I could be wrong though.

There is evidence of a finite universe. If you do not see it in the links provided I can search for that.


QUOTE(tharock220 @ Oct 16 2010, 01:39 AM)
There's evidence that the stars a millions of light years away.
Hypotheses explain specific phenomena and generally constitute theories. In fact, hypotheses are formed using theories sometimes. There isn't a ladder of increasing certainty where hypotheses is a rung below theory.
* I will remember this while reading the hypothesis of a YEC. ;)




QUOTE(AFJ @ Oct 16 2010, 10:53 AM)
To say this is not a scientific "challenge" to a young universe is to bury one's head in the sand. It would not be a witness to sincere questioners and seekers of truth to simply ignore it.

But I feel that creationists have dealt with the distant starlight problem,

The whole thing borders on philosophy, yet Einstein's math confirms that it may be true. The bottom line, there are some things are minds can not conceive, and I think this is one of them. If there is math that confirms a possibility of solving the distant starlight problem, then it is a smaller assumption than my scientific counterparts (evos) assuming life came from primordial soup, and that solar system is the result of a "big bang."
*
Yes. Thank you.

#67 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 17 October 2010 - 04:48 PM

Here's a hypotheses:

I believe you can be a literal young earth creationist and still have a universe that is millions of years old.

Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth - resulting in a flat surfaced earth that was covered in water.

There could have been a billion year gap between this event and when God started shaping the earth. Perhaps the universe was a playground for the angels in the beginning. I believe that when God started molding the earth to make it habitable for carbon based life, this formation period was a literal 6 days - but there could have been a long time between when God initially formed the universe and when He started shaping the earth into its present form.

The creation week illustrates some of God's creation habits that could support this theory.

God took a pre-made flat planet and pushed the land around to form continents. Why didn't He speak it into existence that way in the first place? Perhaps because the initial formation was a previous event. Similarly, God used pre-made dust to form man.

If the earth and the universe was pre-constructed at some much earlier time, my guess is that the stars would be pre-existing bodies too.

Whenever God formed the stars into the light emitting bodies they are today, I see no reason why God couldn't have immediately brought the distant light to earth. This makes sense from an aesthetic standpoint. Otherwise, Adam wouldn't be able to enjoy the light of distant stars for another million or so years. I think God could have supernaturally enabled a much sooner viewing time.

#68 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 17 October 2010 - 06:03 PM

Air-run, great minds think alike. :D B)

Though I believe the universe to be more than 6,000 years old I found the explanation in the Answers book to be very interesting. ... Then there is another explanation that some who believe in the literal truth of the Bible (me  :lol: ) have: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and after that the 6 creative days took place. In addition, the age of the universe has very little to do with belief in either creation or evolution.  :)

View Post



Here's a hypotheses:

I believe you can be a literal young earth creationist and still have a universe that is millions of years old.

Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth - resulting in a flat surfaced earth that was covered in water.

There could have been a billion year gap between this event and when God started shaping the earth.  Perhaps the universe was a playground for the angels in the beginning.  I believe that when God started molding the earth to make it habitable for carbon based life, this formation period was a literal 6 days - but there could have been a long time between when God initially formed the universe and when He started shaping the earth into its present form.

The creation week illustrates some of God's creation habits that could support this theory.

God took a pre-made flat planet and pushed the land around to form continents.  Why didn't He speak it into existence that way in the first place?  Perhaps because the initial formation was a previous event.  Similarly, God used pre-made dust to form man.

If the earth and the universe was pre-constructed at some much earlier time, my guess is that the stars would be pre-existing bodies too.

Whenever God formed the stars into the light emitting bodies they are today, I see no reason why God couldn't have immediately brought the distant light to earth.  This makes sense from an aesthetic standpoint.  Otherwise, Adam wouldn't be able to enjoy the light of distant stars for another million or so years.  I think God could have supernaturally enabled a much sooner viewing time.

View Post



#69 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 18 October 2010 - 02:17 AM

Here's a hypotheses:

I believe you can be a literal young earth creationist and still have a universe that is millions of years old.

Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth - resulting in a flat surfaced earth that was covered in water.

There could have been a billion year gap between this event and when God started shaping the earth.  Perhaps the universe was a playground for the angels in the beginning.  I believe that when God started molding the earth to make it habitable for carbon based life, this formation period was a literal 6 days - but there could have been a long time between when God initially formed the universe and when He started shaping the earth into its present form.


The problem is your translation of Genesis 1: 1. The Hebrew word mistranslated ''created'' actually means ''prepared'' or ''in the act of making'' not actually created. The most literal (correct) translation of Genesis 1: 1 therefore reads (Young's Literal Translation):

''In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth''

Rashi knew this, amongst many other early Jewish and Christian scholars:

''...to state that these (heaven and earth) were created first; for if it intended to point this out, it should have been written Barishona bara, "At first God created..." Because wherever the word reshith occurs in Scripture, it is in the construct state''- Rashi, Commentary On Genesis 1: 1

So nothing is actually created in Genesis 1: 1.

#70 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 18 October 2010 - 02:26 AM

Though I believe the universe to be more than 6,000 years old I found the explanation in the Answers book to be very interesting. ... Then there is another explanation that some who believe in the literal truth of the Bible (me   ) have:


But you quite clearly aren't a Biblical literalist. You deny Jesus was God and are a polytheist (believing that God and Jesus are two seperate beings).

You are just giving a bad name to literalists, and misrepresenting us.

#71 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 18 October 2010 - 07:48 AM

Never mind.... I thought I was previewing but accidently submitted instead. Moderators, is this permitted? If this is permitted then I can post a rebuttal.

#72 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 18 October 2010 - 05:01 PM

The problem is your translation of Genesis 1: 1. The Hebrew word mistranslated ''created'' actually means ''prepared'' or ''in the act of making'' not actually created. The most literal (correct) translation of Genesis 1: 1 therefore reads (Young's Literal Translation):

''In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth''


That doesn't seem to fit with how the verses unfold.

Also, Young's Literal is the only version that translates it that way. I won't say that majority makes right - but it should indicate that the translators of all the other versions didn't see it this way.

The Hebrew word bara' does indeed mean "create" or "fashion."

I'm not sure that you would want to hinge your interpretation of Genesis 1:1, or any part of the Bible, on the musings of Rashi - a Jewish scholar. I only say that because Jews typically take much more of the Bible as allegorical than do Christians. Most Jews don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

Jews also have ancient Rabbinical tradition and extra-Biblical stories to try and make sense of the Old Testament. One of the traditions is that God first made fire and water. He later used the fire and water to form the earth. One reason Rashi has a different interpretation of Gen. 1:1 is that the literal reading doesn't allow for this ancient tradition of earth's formation. I'm sure you don't agree that God made the earth out of previously created fire and water...

#73 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 18 October 2010 - 05:53 PM

That doesn't seem to fit with how the verses unfold.

Also, Young's Literal is the only version that translates it that way.  I won't say that majority makes right - but it should indicate that the translators of all the other versions didn't see it this way.


There are other translations, including Ferrar Fenton's Holy Bible in Modern English (1853) which translates bara as ''created what produced''. So what is described is the creation (start) of what is being produced or brought forth i.e being the constructive state/process and not a completed act.

Why this makes sense is because if you go to Genesis 1: 2 we read that the earth is empty/without form. If you believe the earth is created in Genesis 1: 1, how can it be without form in Genesis 1: 2? The obvious answer is that nothing is created in Genesis 1: 1 but is being prepared, and is the in the constructive state - so there is no contradiction.

I'm not sure that you would want to hinge your interpretation of Genesis 1:1, or any part of the Bible, on the musings of Rashi - a Jewish scholar.  I only say that because Jews typically take much more of the Bible as allegorical than do Christians.  Most Jews don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

Jews also have ancient Rabbinical tradition and extra-Biblical stories to try and make sense of the Old Testament.  One of the traditions is that God first made fire and water.  He later used the fire and water to form the earth.  One reason Rashi has a different interpretation of Gen. 1:1 is that the literal reading doesn't allow for this ancient tradition of earth's formation.  I'm sure you don't agree that God made the earth out of previously created fire and water...

View Post


Old thread:
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3507

I believe in creatio ex materia. I don't believe God created the water, but that it was a pre-existant material. Several Church Fathers also took the same view.

#74 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 18 October 2010 - 11:14 PM

Wow, I just read through some of that thread...

Creatio ex Materia: The belief God created out of pre-existing materials, that existed before God.


You believe that material substances existed before God existed???

That seems like dangerous grounds my friend.

That implies that God has a beginning - which a literal interpretation of the Bible clearly indicates that God has no beginning.

That implies that things existed that God did not create.

The Bible says: "By Him all things were created" (Colossians 1:16)

I don't see how you can claim to be a Biblical literalist and hold to those ideas...

#75 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 19 October 2010 - 02:58 AM

How can there be any "before God"? He's eternal. The alpha and omega. He has always been and will always be! He is neither caused/created, but the source of all things. He IS.

#76 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 19 October 2010 - 05:15 AM

Wow, I just read through some of that thread...
You believe that material substances existed before God existed???


As several early Christians did. A few examples: Justin Martyr (1 Apology 59), Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, 5. 14), Athenagoras (Plea for the Christians, 14), Basil of Caesarea (Hexaemeron, 2. 2). 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.

This fact was known to numerous early Christians, but also most Jews (Rabbis amd Talmudists). Philo commentated on it (On the Creation, 7-12) followed by later authors such as Rashi and Gersonides (who i quoted in the other thread).

A passage from the Wisdom of Solomon 11: 7, a deuterocanonical text remarks:

‘‘For thy almighty hand which made the world out of formless matter.’’

Therefore God created from pre-existing matter which was not shaped/formed. What God in Genesis 1: 1 is doing is preparing to create, and we read in Genesis 1: 2 of the pre-existant materials He uses (i.e the water) for the creation.

I don't see how you can claim to be a Biblical literalist and hold to those ideas...


The earliest Christians and Jews did, see the sources i referenced. I am interested in Apostolic Christianity, or Christianity in its original truest form, not modern ideas which Christianity has embraced.

#77 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 19 October 2010 - 06:46 AM

I am interested in Apostolic Christianity, or Christianity in its original truest form, not modern ideas which Christianity has embraced.

View Post

In order to get Christianity in its truest Apostolic form you would need to get your information from the Apostles and before their death. Christians were warned about a great apostasy by the apostles and it was starting before the Bible was completed, so anything after that would not be something to base one's faith on. I base my views on the inspired word of God. Nothing less.

#78 UB313

UB313

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 19 October 2010 - 02:53 PM

Here's a hypotheses:

I believe you can be a literal young earth creationist and still have a universe that is millions of years old.

Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth - resulting in a flat surfaced earth that was covered in water.

There could have been a billion year gap between this event and when God started shaping the earth.  Perhaps the universe was a playground for the angels in the beginning.  I believe that when God started molding the earth to make it habitable for carbon based life, this formation period was a literal 6 days - but there could have been a long time between when God initially formed the universe and when He started shaping the earth into its present form.

The creation week illustrates some of God's creation habits that could support this theory.

God took a pre-made flat planet and pushed the land around to form continents.  Why didn't He speak it into existence that way in the first place?  Perhaps because the initial formation was a previous event.  Similarly, God used pre-made dust to form man.

If the earth and the universe was pre-constructed at some much earlier time, my guess is that the stars would be pre-existing bodies too.

Whenever God formed the stars into the light emitting bodies they are today, I see no reason why God couldn't have immediately brought the distant light to earth.  This makes sense from an aesthetic standpoint.  Otherwise, Adam wouldn't be able to enjoy the light of distant stars for another million or so years.  I think God could have supernaturally enabled a much sooner viewing time.

View Post


Interesting. Similar to the time dilation explanation: the Earth is significantly younger than the rest of the universe.

I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. Presumably this hypothesis could be confirmed by the evidence.

The thing is that if God created the entire universe 6k years ago, I wouldn't ask "why did God choose that time to create it?" That is just when God decided to create the universe. Likewise if he created the universe 12 billiion years ago all in one go.

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.

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.

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).

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 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?

#79 UB313

UB313

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 19 October 2010 - 03:28 PM

@MamaElephant

Thx for the links, I'm lookin at them now. I too am a layman when it comes to advanced cosmology! So I wouldn't even want to start trying to asses the validity of that maths. I could probably follow it if someone explained it carefully...

I might post that link to an evolutionist forum to see if there is anyone with the expertise to asses it, if that's ok. (I won't link to this thread or mention EFT). I'm well aware that evos can be very dogmatic, but there must be a way of settling this mathematically.

#80 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 19 October 2010 - 04:34 PM

I too am a layman when it comes to advanced cosmology! So I wouldn't even want to start trying to asses the validity of that maths.


Odd comming from a ''layman'', you self admit know nothing or very little on advanced cosmology (atleast you are honest to admit) but at the same time claim creationism is not consistent with the evidence of astrophysics.

Earlier in this thread you wrote in bold (twice):

So far it appears that creationism is not consistent with the evidence provided by astrophysics.


And this just shows your ignorance/biasness.

You know absolutely nothing about a field of science (as you have admitted) but believe the evidence is against creation. I don't think you are in any position to make such statements.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users