Posted on 06/01/2010 12:39:32 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
It's about half-way down the page.
I like to look for the scientific explanations that line-up with the Bible. God’s Word is what He claims it to be - inerrant. How could His creation be inerrant when He said that death and destruction entered into it when man sinned eating the forbidden fruit?
So much of what modern science likes to claim is at odds with science itself. There are many stated and unstated assumptions that make most conclusions unreliable. For instance the ‘age’ of the earth and universe using radio isotope dating (assumes no daughter elements when rocks/minerals formed and uniform conditions). What about starlight - we suspect the universe is expanding at the speed of light and we also strongly suspect the big bang indicating a compressed singularity at the beginning. Now if you put the earth at the center of the universe then starlight is not a good indicator of age simply due to the unknown initial conditions and those that affect our present measurements too.
Have any of you read Dr. Russell Humphreys book ‘Starlight and Time’ or have you considered that there are over a hundred natural clocks indicating a young earth and universe (see my FR links page for more)?
A good scientist considers all of the evidence not just that which conforms to his/her own bias.
Exactly! Cosmology conflicts with the alignment of the universe as revealed to us by God through his Holy Word. Therefore, its conclusions are meaningless.
A day has always been a day.
No.
A day has been defined in English (even in King James’ time) as the time it takes Earth to rotate on its axis.
Prior to Gen 1:14, Earth was not.
How many hours were days 1,2, and 3?
So what? In anti-matter world, there’s a one per cent skew toward anti-matter over matter.
I tend to think that God defined the day since He is the ultimate author/source of the revealed Word. Did He not define the 24 hour cycle as a day where there is evening and morning? Do you really think it is any longer or shorter than what He has stated just because the celestial bodies were not there the first 3 days as markers? The more you study His Words in proper context and the original Hebrew the more you’ll find there is no room for any time deviance.
Let’s see - God states that His Word is inerrant, trustworthy and true yet you, morkfork, are willing to twist your arguments with His Word into pretzels in order to ‘not limit God.’
I prefer to trust God’s Word 100%. However, modern-day science is not in the same ballpark in spite of its’ consensus among the ‘highly regarded and highly credentialed’ scientists.
Try this link please. The Bible is trustworthy and true anytime/everytime it intersects w/ science. Your problem is you trust modern-day science more than the Creator God and His Word.
Science in the Bible
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
That’s rich! God walks you through the counting process from 1 to 7 in the first chapters of the Bible and you weakly claim man had to invent math in order to understand His Word.
He records the age of each patriarch and also the ages for each next firstborn son, but mankind had to ‘invent’ addition and subtraction before he could understand the Bible!?!?! You can trust modern-day science to your hearts content but I’ll trust the Bible first and foremost when they tend to dis-agree.
Yeah, and where’s 8, 9 and zero? BTW, the Bible is the “inspired word of God”, not “the dictated word of God”.
Ahhh yes, Dr. Humphrey and his magic bubble that simple observation totally refutes. Because the laws of physics are strange the closer you get to the big bang, therefor the strangeness must extend to 99.999% the way out from the big bang. Or in Dr. Humphrey theory, everything else experiences the four basic forces of nature VERY differently than we do. Which is rather amazing as the galaxies, stars and planets we’ve seen so far seem to follow the same four forces in exact same ratios we do.
Humphrey’s large cosmological constant throws Newton’s theory of gravitation out the window, and Humphrey’s variability of the cosmological constant is at odds with Einstein.
Personally, I’ll defer to my own observation and other scientists poking gaping holes in his theories.
Well Russell Humphreys has made some predictions that have been proven correct with his theory. On the other hand Einstein was at odds w/ Einstein regarding the cosmological constant. More specifically, please, name the scientists ‘poking gaping holes’ in his theory.
Your description in the last post sounds like the old steady-state universe theory, in spite of the evidence accumulating for the big bang. Ho hum the 4 physical constants of the universe could never have changed - Really? Even though modern-science has shed much light for unique conditions for the big bang?!?!
Are said scientists guilty once again of doing biased research and ignoring any/all facts that conflict with their theories?
The point I was trying to make is that Humphrey has us living in a bubble where the rest of the universe is experiencing a totally different form of physics than we are. Which means the forces of nature act differently there than they do here. But the same formula dictating the orbits of stars in a galaxy, and planets around a sun still apply thousands, millions and billions of light years away as they do here.
A perfect example is the collision of supernova ejected material with the visible outer material ejected from SN 1987A twenty thousand years prior. Just about predicted to the day the collision was to occur. Amazing how the same laws apply here as it does 163,000 light years away. But what about this bubble we live in that sooooooo different than the rest of the universe?
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2yy85_nasa-hubble-supernova-1987a_tech
I think you missed the point - the ‘bubble’ done popped. It was basically a white hole inside a black hole approx 1 light year across representing the entire universe at the time of the big bang. Nothing exists outside of this singularity. No one was living inside the ‘bubble’, not until God breathed life into the plants and animals several days later.
I was not arguing against the idea that the rest of the universe conforms to the same laws - just that the laws did not apply to the singularity present w/ the big bang - which would relate Biblically to at least the 1st 3 days of creation (possibly 4 when the sun, earth, moon and stars were formed).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.