Posted on 01/30/2009 10:54:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Since the Big Bang story of the origin of the universe has been refuted by a host of external observations and internal contradictions,1 secular science has been forced to postulate additional, exceedingly improbable events to keep it afloat. One of these is “inflation,” which attempts to explain the apparent uniformity of the universe.2 But new observations by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe are forcing cosmologists to revamp inflation, at the cost of inventing yet another miraculous event to prop it up...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
What's not in question is the fact that you cannot distinguish between Scripture and your misinterpretations of Scripture.
Just common sense. A big explosion “created” everything that exists now? Come on now. Nothing like that has ever been observed. You might as well say everything evolved from some strawberry jello a space alien discarded in his space trash. That’s stupid isn’t it?
I know my daughter has an exceptional faith and she too is surrounded by people who criticize and ridicule some if not all Christians. She is an IACUC manager apparently in your area.
I say she has an exceptional faith because she, like my mother before her, never again picks up a burden which she has laid down before Christ. She simply trusts Him with it.
For me, it is a continual battle to resist the urge to pick it up again and worry about it or try to fix it myself - as if to tell God I don't trust Him. And so every time that happens, I must repent and confess and lay it down once more.
People like her - and you - and TXnMA - are forever being challenged by a high percentage of people around you who believe God is just a hypothesis.
If you didn't know His Name, if you don't know Him - you couldn't do it.
It is a calling, in my view, as surely as a missionary or a preacher.
I pray for God's rich blessings for all of you, no matter what your calling.
To God be the glory!
You know........really?
It wasn’t Hugh Ross. It was the leading Creation scientist of the nineties. He didn’t seem to understand chemistry or physics.
I saw him at Washington University and his presentation was not at all what I expected. Full of major errors.
Thanks for the interesting links. I enjoy reading real science, and layman's terms are fine for me. What I don't enjoy are mutual insults which provide no help in sorting out the conflicting claims.
In the above instance, for example, I don't see a "lie," but rather conflicting claims. There is a distinction between the observations and the theories. In the first instance you mention, what is observed is the fact that all galaxies are receding away from us, and the further away they are, the faster they are receding. One theory to explain that observation is "inflation."
The inflation theory was developed decades after the Hubbell observations in order to account for growing anomalies in the Big Bang theory. It seems to do a good job explaining some of these anomalies, but it can't be observed directly. For example, the theory posits an "inflaton," but the proposed candidate has not worked out.
My point being that people can differ on the theories used to account for observational data without being "liars." The YEC author points to the glass of Big Bang theory being half empty, while you see it as half full. I've read articles by some other famous creationist writer who is a huge proponent of the Big Bang. Hopefully these 2 creationists can disagree about the Big Bang without hurling personal accusations at each other, and hopefully scientists who support aspects of the standard model can do the same.
That is not true and you know it.
Thanks for the kind words, Maximilian. Normally I would agree with you. However, the problem is that the YEC writer that GGG points to makes 3 lies in the very first sentence alone and goes downhill from there. There is not a conflicting claim, but rather (1) an incredibly ignorant piece of writing; or (2) a total lie. The YEC author want you to believe that the Big Bang theory is half empty, but in reality, it's 99% full.
You've seen the Global Warming bunch twist facts and lie to make people believe that there is a catastrophe in the making. The YEC do the same thing by injecting scientific doubt where there is none.
I have tried talking reasonably to GGG in the past. However, he is not open to reason. A few weeks back, I offered to read some YEC books if he would read some science books. Because of work, it won't be for another week before I'm able to read some YEC books. I'm open-minded, but because of my education and career, I've seen the damage that YEC does.
Excellent post, TXnMA. I can see why GGG doesn’t like you. He hates being confronted with the truth.
It's in areas like these where I part ways with the Theory of Evolution. While evolution is a fact, the proponents of "our ancestors were amoebas" make what I consider an tremendously unwarranted leap.
I've been saying for years that my problem with the grand theory of evolution is not based on religion, but science.
TXnMA, you're a physical chemist -- what do you think about evolution? My personal experience has been that biologists (but not biochemists) are more likely to believe the theory of evolution as currently taught, but that chemists often say, "wait a minute, things aren't quite that simple."
Really? I'm shocked, shocked, I'll tell ya'. A YEC who doesn't understand science? I'd have to see it to believe it.
Why are you still bugging me? I have no interest in listening to your slimy wormtongue any longer.
But for the record:
Here is where you said that Augustine claimed that biblical creationists were hurting the cause of Christ:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=51#85
Here is where I demonstrated that you were just parroting one of a multitude of deliberately misleading fidgety-Rossisms without checking your source...as it turns out, not only was Augustine a young earth creationist, but he also faught against heretical Christians who were trying to slip “pagan” old age arguments into the biblical creation account:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=51#97
Now get behind me, liar.
But since biology cannot be separated from the chemistry that forms it if the chemistry doesn't work neither will the biology. Nothing can crawl out the slime if the chemistry is impossible.
In following some the links to bird flu it appears that the flu virus is particularly subject to mutation and change by gene swapping so that's just normal for them.
Do you then believe that 'without form' means that oceans existed on top of a molten earth? Or are you splitting that one sentence to separate 'without form' from 'darkness on the face of the deep' (meaning sea) to be separated by vast quantities of unobserved time.
"(Take care; you are dealing with believing Christians who also just happen to be scientists...)"
Really? You're quite indistinguishable from run-of-the-mill naturalists.
Yes you are. There is no progression in the Scripture for the formation of the earth, but there are progressive steps of the creative days. Hard to believe you can't see that.
"But I will assume that you haven't found what create, set, or form mean as used in Genesis and that rather prevents us going further to my point."
You would be wrong, but I understand why you won't get to your point.
"In your previous post you mistook one term for another and as long as you do we're talking about two different things."
So, your point is that the sun, moon, stars and galaxies were created in verse 1. Isn't that what I said in post 202? It's clear that you are engaging in obfuscation to avoid the weakness of your position.
"As for my assuming that the earth was formed in a molten staten state, do you assume it wasn't?"
No, I don't assume it was formed in a molten state. There is absolutely no scriptural reason to do that, only man's argument for doing so and that's the problem we are discussing.
"Are you keeping score by tallying assumptions? Two for you and three for me, the lessor wins something?"
You simply aren't paying attention. I continue to point out the growing number of undocumented assumptions that you must invoke to claim a scriptural foundation for your OEC claim vs the single assumption in a YEC claim. More assumptions means more compromises of Scripture to get to a demonstrably weaker OEC position. Please try to remember this.
"If you are not going to do what I asked as a favor to aid our discussion, O.K., but if you don't understand the terms used in Genesis, it going to make it very difficult to continue."
I told you I did it and asked you to go ahead and make your point. You refuse. It's clear you equate 'understanding the terms' with your particular position as a defined truth. If I don't accept your position, I don't 'understand the terms', by definition. Should the discussion get to the point where we simply disagree on the meaning of the terms, your position falls apart because it is based on a defined truth and you are trying to avoid that. Anybody can see that.
I know what an AU is and the excerpt I quoted is not enhanced by your addition. There is no evidence for any expansion of the solar system. That experiment simply proved it on the scale of 1 AU.
"At least scientists -- even Christian ones -- (unlike your ilk) have the intellectual honesty and integrity to admit and publish the limits of their abilities, their measurements, their data -- and their understanding..."
Then I await you and your ilk's evidence for the observed expansion of the solar system.
GodGunsGuts: I have been asking you about your educational and career background for weeks. Yet, you refuse to tell me anything. Why are you complaining when I don't answer you immediately when you never answer anything? I have given you word studies on yom several times in the past. You've always ignored them because they conflict with your medieval young-earth viewpoint. The next time you whine about a word study, point to this post.
=============
GourmetDan: The word study you asked for is quite easy. And, to help you out, I am going to do the word study for you that I asked you to do. Every Christian who is intellectually capable (pretty much everyone) should be able to do a word study. I'll use Genesis 1:5 as the example because the remainder of the "days" are identical:
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day. (Genesis 1:5)
I only studied Hebrew for a year and I freely admit that I am not even conversant, much less fluent. However, one of the things that is immediately obvious to the newest of students is that Hebrew has less words than English. That is why so many Hebrew words have multiple meanings.
ערב `ereb means evening.
בקר boqer means morning.
שני sheniy is an ordinal number meaning second.
יום yowm has a multitude of meanings (we'll assume now for the sake of YEC folks that it means a literal, 24-hour day.
The literal Hebrew translation says "evening, morning, a second day."
Note that yom does not use the definite article the. It does not mean the second day (hayyom sheniy), but rather a second day (yom sheniy). For what it's worth, my career over the past several years has changed so that the bulk of my time is spent writing about technical subjects rather than actually performing technical tasks. The presence or absence of a definite article may not mean a lot to some people, but it does to writers. More about this later.
Note also that the creation story includes ordinal numbers describing each "day." More about this later, too.
The Hebrew definition of yom
Now for the word study on yom. According to Strong's Concordance, it has these meanings:
1) day, time, year
a) day (as opposed to night)
b) day (24 hour period)
1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
2) as a division of time
a) a working day, a day's journey
c) days, lifetime (pl.)
d) time, period (general)
e) year
f) temporal references
1) today
2) yesterday
3) tomorrow
These definitions are agreed upon by Christian and Jewish scholars alike.
A few of many examples where yom does not mean a literal 24-hour day
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day (yom) that the Lord God made earth and heaven. (Genesis 2:4)
So did God create the earth in one day or six? Is the Bible wrong or are YECs interpreting yom wrongly?
In the course of time (yom) Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. (Genesis 4:3)
Here, yom is referring to a period of time.
Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel forty years (yom). (I Kings 11:42)
So did Solomon reign for forty 24-hour days or forty years? In this verse, yom means year.
Go now, write it on a tablet for them, inscribe it on a scroll, that for the days (yom) to come it may be an everlasting witness. (Isaiah 30:8)
The Bible used the word yom to mean forever.
I myself will guarantee his safety; you can hold me personally responsible for him. If I do not bring him back to you and set him here before you, I will bear the blame before you all my life (yom). (Genesis 43:9)
Here, yom means a lifetime or, in quite a few translations, forever. This year, I'm doing the Bible in a Year program by having portions emailed to me each day and listening to it on an MP3 player that my wife gave me for Christmas. I believe that staying in God's word is critical for the Christian life. I heard Genesis 43:9 last week and, to my ears, it sounds like forever best fits the context.
Now I stayed on the mountain forty days (yom) and nights, as I did the first time (yom)... (Deuteronomy 10:10)
In this verse, yom means a literal 24-hour day in one place and 40 days in another place.
The scientific evidence for an old universe and old earth
This is too vast of a subject to cover. The simple fact is that all of the scientific evidence points to an earth that is about 4.5 billion years old and a universe that is between 14 and 15 billion years old. Here are just a few examples of very wrong Young-Earth Creationist myths:
Radiometric decay could have been faster in the past: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Someone brought this up on a previous thread. I and others responded that if radioactive decay in not generally linear (there are some well-known and well-studied exceptions), then it would have had to have been many orders of magnitude larger 6,000 years. Guess what happens when radioactive decay is very fast? A nuclear bomb!
Polonium halos prove that that the earth is young: Wrong.
The earth's magnetic field is declining and proves the earth is young: Wrong. The geological evidence proves that the earth's magnetic field has flipped many times in the past.
The recession of the moon proves a young earth: Wrong.
Growing body of evidence contradicts Big Bang: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The article that GGG referred to in this post claims this. It's simply not true. Yes, there are disagreements, but most are relatively minor. Just as Einstein improved upon Newton's theory of physics, scientists will certainly improve on the Big Bang Theory. It is extremely unlikely that it will be thrown out.
The speed of light used to be faster: Wrong.
Helium diffusion rates prove the earth is young: Wrong. Russell Humphreys is a hero to YECs. Yet he so badly misrepresents evidence and data that he has become a laughingstock. Now, GGG will tell you that Hugh Ross is afraid to debate Humphreys. The very opposite is true. Humphreys refuses to debate in front of an audience that includes trained scientists. Why do you suppose that may be?
There are no authenticated reports of meteorites embedded in sedimentary material: Wrong.
The sun is shrinking, proving that the earth is young: Wrong.
The Hebrew word yom combined with an ordinal always refers to a 24 hour day: Wrong. "Zechariah 14:7 contains the word yom combined with an ordinal (number one, echad), exactly as seen in Genesis 1:5." This fits with my observation that YECs understand the Bible about as much as they understand science. They have to create new (and demonstably false) theories about Hebrew grammar to fit with their belief about yom meaning a 24-hour day in the creation account.
Summary
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. (Psalm 19:1)
As I pointed out in an earlier post, there were three untruths in the very first sentence of the article posted by GGG. Were these untruths intentional or unintentional? Given the fact that virtually every YEC article I've read either mistates the evidence, makes claims that contradict known facts, and has a title that is patently untrue, I have to believe that the majority are lying and they know it. I'll grant you that some are merely misinformed or ignorant, but if I posted an article saying that new evidence proves that the earth is not spherical, would you think that I was lying or merely lacking in understanding?
God speaks to us through general revelation in his creation, and through special revelation in his word. All truth is God's truth. He does not lie to us through his creation any more than he lies to us in the Bible.
As I showed above, Young-Earth Creationists would have you believe that God is lying to us through his creation. Why? In order to fit their medieval interpretation that "day" as used in the first two chapters of Genesis has to mean a literal 24-hour period. In the first part of this post, I pointed out the absence of the definite article the in the Hebrew. A literal translation goes something like this:
On day one, God created...
On a second day, God created...
On a third day, God created...
Because of the lack of the definite article, the Bible does not indicate that the days were consecutive. Much time could have passed between "day" three and "day" four. Again, this is consistent with scientific observations.
Why not accept God's truth as revealed to us through his creation and his word? Why cling to an obviously wrong interpretation of the Bible? I have seen many doubt their faith when their YEC views were confronted by reality (my first degree was from Baylor University, a Christian college). Today, I have to convince my peers that not all Christians are anti-intellectual and anti-science. I have seen the damage done by YECs -- that's why I'm so passionate about battling it.
Ilk. That's a really polite word.
TXnMA and I have both written to you that expansion is observable on an intergalactic scale, not on a scale as small as the solar system. What part do you not understand? Read this.
At Earth’s surface, the outward acceleration away from the planet’s center is but a fraction (0.1 with 29 zeros after the decimal point) of inward gravitational acceleration — but it’s present.
Do you realize how tiny a number 0.000000000000000000000000000001 is? And, as I explained to you before, on a local scale, chemical and gravitational bonds are much, much stronger than the expansion rate.
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.