Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
UB313

Creationism And Astrophysics.

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

63705[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

63655[/snapback]

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Casseritides, what then is your expertise? You post a lot, on a lot of different subjects, so...

 

I have A-level physics and maths, and the basics of degree level physics. That is all you need to understand elementary astrophysics. We're talking about the planets, the stars in our solar system and near by galaxies. All of these are observable by simple methods.

 

If we are only to discuss those subjects in which we are experts then where will that leave you? You certainly couldn't post on this thread as someone who believes that light is not emmited by the sun, or by electric light bulbs, but is, in fact, emmited from the eyes!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Maybe I didn't flesh out my thought thoroughly enough. I wasn't hypothesizing that the earth was significantly younger than the universe. I was saying that everything was created at the same time (perhaps billions of years ago).

 

It was only 6,000 to 10,000 years ago that God started shaping the featureless earth He previously created into the a place of mountains, hills, and continents and then infused it with life.

 

This could explain why rocks are dated to be so old - though I'm not up on my geology and radiometric dating.

 

 

But if most of the universe really is "primordial" but God intervened in the Earth's development specifically, it does raise the question of why.

If you really want answers to that question, there are mounds of books discussing why God would create human beings. I think it comes down to more than Him just "experimenting."

 

We are currently discovering hundreds of planets orbiting other stars. So the most obvious hypothesis is that the Earth developed in the same way as those other planets.

Or were created at the same time...

 

It could be that God was required to intervene in order to create the conditions for life. But then I'm sure that if he had wanted to God could have created a universe in which life would come about naturally (if you accept the immense size of the universe).

I think that if God were to do that, He would have to create the universe with different elements then exist in our periodic table - elements that have some sort of "life" or "purpose" infused in them. Although the elements in our universe do behave in a very specific way - binding and arranging themselves without anybody's assistance - it is quite a leap to say that "self arrangement" of elements can lead to something as complex as the first cell. I've got a good quote about this from a book I'm reading about cellular biology if you're interested.

 

Also, if God created the entire universe 6k years ago then that is definitely something that only God could do. Where as tinkering with the Earth in order to help life is not something only God could do. How do we know it wasn't aliens? Or some other powerful entity? Such an entity could probably masquerade as God if it wanted to.

I think God is the only being able to create life out of nothing. It is feasible that an alien could have "seeded" the earth with thousands of different creatures from its home world. Even if such was the case, God would still be the ultimate creator, because He would have originally created the aliens.

 

 

I guess the question is what is so implausible about the naturalistic/scientific explanation of the origin of the Earth, given that the naturalistic/scientific explanation of the origin of the rest of the universe is true?

 

There is a naturalistic explanation for the rest of the universe, but that doesn't mean it is true. I don't think that quantum mechanics is sufficient to bring something out of nothing. If there is no universe, there isn't any place for quantum mechanics to operate. Quantum mechanics requires space to be able to "do" anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of these believed in pre-existant matter/materials before God, from which He used to create from. Justin Martyr and Athenagoras believed this was pre-existing material was water, as do i and i believe there is a straightforward scriptural basis for this.

 

Note in Genesis 1: 2 that there is the deep of water (Tehom) and God being on the face/surface. What created the water? Nowhere in scripture does it say God created this. The first thing God actually created was the light:  ''let there be light'' (Genesis 1: 3), the water was already pre-existant.

There are early church writers who believed things about the Trinity I'm sure you wouldn't agree with. I'm sure they were borrowing from the scientific understanding of the day - which was limited. It wasn't too long ago that people thought bacteria spontaneously generated from nothing.

 

When it says God created the heavens and the earth, it is understood that the creation of water was a part of the creation of the earth. It doesn't specifically say that God created the earth's iron core - but we know that was part of earth's creation.

 

Your position brings up too many questions. Is water eternal, while God is not? You mentioned that people can't imagine nothingness. It is equally difficult to imagine eternal, uncreated water.

 

Your position begs the question of who created God. Did God create Himself? Did He make Himself out of nothing? He would have to exist before He existed to create Himself. Did He spontaneously emerge from nothing? If you believe this, why wouldn't you believe that something infinitely less complex than God - such as the earth - could spontaneously emerge from nothing because of nothing. Why wouldn't you believe that a creature could spontaneously alter its genes to evolve into a different organism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it says God created the heavens and the earth, it is understood that the creation of water was a part of the creation of the earth.

The earth is not the Earth. The earth capitalized in the sense of the planet or whole world only came about in the 14th century. The 'earth' described in Genesis is only the dry land (see Genesis 1: 9) - ''dry land (earth) appear''. The earth therefore is seperate from the water. This is one of the main reasons why i believe in creatio ex materia and also because contemplating nothing is impossible.

 

I'll get back to you on your other points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The light you see from stars is what you see during the present moment. If it takes millions of years, then we wouldn't be able to see it as no observer can live millions of years.

 

Starlight would take millions of years if it was created millions of years ago, however starlight is created now. The light you see from stars is what is being created the very moment you see it.

 

You have to use simple common sense and logic.

 

So basically your entire OP which attempts to put a hole in YEC has been debunked.

63450[/snapback]

Cass,

 

I am YEC, but why are you using this arguement? What does my birth have to do with when light left a star? It can't leave before my birth, and arrive after my birth? Does that mean the voyager spacecraft is not really 3 billion miles away because a child was born yesterday?

 

Light travels and has a velocity--just like voyager has a velocity. Are you saying that light has an infinite speed?

 

Yes, light is created now, at the star. But after the photons leave the star, they travel thrrough space at c--the SPEED of light.

 

Is anyone going to listen to you if you try to deny this? No creation astronomer is using your hypothesis. Please listen to someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms