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 ...
Well Shroeder doesn’t use any facts from either science or the bible, and to me he has to explain away:
Genesis 1:5 (King James Version)
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And
Exodus 20:8-11 (King James Version)
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
There’s actually a number of problems with Schroeder’s assumptions- http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4355news8-1-2000.asp
Schroeder actually addresses your first point in the article on the above link. Concerning Day One, he says:
Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" - but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet - the root of "erev" - is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder." The Torah's word for "morning" - "boker" - is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes "bikoret", orderly, able to be discerned. That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. - I Corinthians 13:12
(I'm heading out now, but I look forward to reading your reply!)
How can this be a 'problem'? It's not mentioned that God 'created' the sun on the 4'th, but rather it's ismply the first itme hte sun is mentioned.
[[Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" - but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet - the root of "erev" - is chaos.]]
Thisp oint is addressed in thel ink I gave- it doesn't mean chaos as asserted.
[[That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos.]]
This is a stretch of hte origninal words and intents
[[Order never arises from disorder spontaneously.]]
Not that htis is relevent to hte discussion, but I think this isn't entriely true- order can hypothetically accidently arise from disorder- small insignificant orders can arise by htrowing multicolored confetti into a wind tunnel, there 'might' arise some orderly patterns- but again, this is insignifcant to the order described in life. Some life orders 'might' arise accidently from chaos- but again- insignifcant to hte discussussion- just a side note
[[I will however point out that the Sabbath is also prophecy:]]
Well, I don't htink we can attribute it being prohpecy to all previous Sabbaths simpyl because there is a future prophecy about the occassion as well. Adam's presence and essence was both a physical reality, and had a prophetic meaning at hte same time The prophesy about 'Adams' didn't do away with hte phyisical reality of the first Adam.
concernign the light though, there is an undergraduate who really made a stir in the scientific comunity by hypothesisisng about how 'the light' came about before hte sun- It turns out that tremendous pressure on Water causes a spontanious illumination which has been verified via experiments. He contends that this could have been 'the light' before the sun was created-
however, the problem I see with htat hypothesis is that the light woudl have been continuous, and NOT divided as God said the light and dark were on the first day
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day
The following is from the Scholar and commentator Barnes concerning the words in quesiton concerning night and day which Nachmanides assigns different meaning to by takign hte root and attempting to make it mean what the whole word does not mean in context and htroughout God's word elsewhere:
ereb, “evening, sunset.” A space of time before and after sunset arebayim, “two evenings,” a certain time before sunset, and the time between sunset and the end of twilight. be yn ha arbayim “the interval between the two evenings, from sunset to the end of twilight,” according to the Karaites and Samaritans; “from sun declining to sunset,” according to the Pharisees and Rabbinists. It might be the time from the beginning of the one to the beginning of the other, from the end of the one to the end of the other, or from the beginning of the one to the end of the other. The last is the most suitable for all the passages in which it occurs. These are ten in number, all in the law Exo_12:6; Exo_16:12; Exo_29:31, Exo_29:41; Exo_30:8; Lev_23:5; Num_9:3, Num_9:5,Num_9:8; Num_28:4. The slaying of the evening lamb and of the passover lamb, the eating of the latter and the lighting of the lamps, took place in the interval so designated.
At the end of this portion of the sacred text we have the first ? (p). This is explained in the Introduction, Section VII.
The first day’s work is the calling of light into being. Here the design is evidently to remove one of the defects mentioned in the preceding verse, - “and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” The scene of this creative act is therefore coincident with that of the darkness it is intended to displace. The interference of supernatural power to cause the presence of light in this region, intimates that the powers of nature were inadequate to this effect. But it does not determine whether or not light had already existed elsewhere, and had even at one time penetrated into this now darkened region, and was still prevailing in the other realms of space beyond the face of the deep. Nor does it determine whether by a change of the polar axis, by the rarefaction of the gaseous medium above, or by what other means, light was made to visit this region of the globe with its agreeable and quickening influences. We only read that it did not then illuminate the deep of waters, and that by the potent word of God it was then summoned into being. This is an act of creative power, for it is a calling into existence what had previously no existence in that place, and was not owing to the mere development of nature. Hence, the act of omnipotence here recorded is not at variance with the existence of light among the elements of that universe of nature, the absolute creation of which is affirmed in the first verse.
Ugggh- ignore my previous two posts- the last one worked for osme reaason- this site doesn’t like Hebrew text for some reason it appears.
and htis from the great JFB commentator concernign the 4’th day light:
Gen 1:16 -
two great lights — In consequence of the day being reckoned as commencing at sunset - the moon, which would be seen first in the horizon, would appear “a great light,” compared with the little twinkling stars; while its pale benign radiance would be eclipsed by the dazzling splendor of the sun; when his resplendent orb rose in the morning and gradually attained its meridian blaze of glory, it would appear “the greater light” that ruled the day. Both these lights may be said to be “made” on the fourth day - not created, indeed, for it is a different word that is here used, but constituted, appointed to the important and necessary office of serving as luminaries to the world, and regulating by their motions and their influence the progress and divisions of time.
“One word- Binocular vision”
Rolls eyes.....
Well... that’s two words to start with...
Reasonable explanations and explanations that fit the data are two entirely different things.
I know. Begats x 25= 6000, or something approximating that.
Jewish tribal records predating a written language aren't exactly the kind of evidence that I would want to rely on in casting off good scientfic data.
Ah, the Ramban. You win 27 bonus points for knowing your Jewish scholars and recognizing their wisdom!
I read once where the Apostle Paul would be well-known today even if Christ had not confronted him on the road to Damascus. Paul was a brilliant student of the great Gamaliel -- considered to be one of the greatest Jewish scholars ever -- and probably would have been his successor in the Sanhedrin.
I like to think that Paul really did take Gamaliel's place in a spiritual sense. Considering that Gamaliel once saved Paul and Peter's life (Acts 5:34-39), I also wonder whether Gamaliel was a secret follower of Jesus.
Just a thought and opinion, not a hill I would die upon.
You and me both. After I re-read your post, I wondered how I could have forgotten this wonderful quote of yours:
Science without religion would be, to me, far less enjoyable!
How very true.
Nope, the literial Hebrew says "evening, morning, second day". There's no 'the' there but neither is there an 'a'.
"In this verse, yom means a literal 24-hour day in one place and 40 days in another place."
Which is why you want to do a word-study focused on yom and not on 'evening, morning, second day', etc.
"Guess what happens when radioactive decay is very fast? A nuclear bomb!",/i>
Nope. That relies on the assumption that nuclear energies are based on nuclear-time and not dynamic-time. If they are based on dynamic-time and are related to the ZPE, then faster decay simply means the same (or less) energy spread out over more events occurring during the same amount of dynamic-time in the past.
"The speed of light used to be faster."
Probably. If you are going to discount Setterfield's work, you should probably use his site, rather than t.o. (which is notoriously incomplete and biased). Barry Setterfield
"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."
That doesn't help you as it refers to a single day there as well.
"This fits with my observation that YECs understand the Bible about as much as they understand science."
I would say this fits with my observation that OECs insert as many unobserved assumptions into the Bible as the philosophical naturalists insert into their 'scientific' theories.
"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."
You assume an 'a' when there is none, your example of an ordinal yom does indeed refer to a single day, you focus on definitions of yom alone and ignore the references to evening & morning, you cannot distinguish between observation and assumption in science and you place the word of talk.origins above the Word of God.
You are just another confused OEC who only supports the damage done by the philosophical naturalists. Your God is indistinguishable from no god at all and that's just how the boys at t.o. like it.
Then why didn't you complain when TXnMA used it in reference to me in post #276?
Are you an unmitigated hypocrite?
"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?"
Again, you don't know the difference between an interpretation and an assumption. What you think you 'observe' are interpretations of red-shift, not observations of expansion and certainly not measured expansion.
Since I clearly said in post # 274 when I wrote TO YOU, "Expansion is invisible where it can be measured yet assumed where it cannot" the question is what part do you not understand?
Ah, I see. Either I agree w/ you or I am 'anti-intellectual'. LOL! And the condescension was nice too.
Oh, and then you project 'fear of educated people' and 'scientific illiteracy' onto me. How very 'superior' of you. I would bet this is your ultimate 'argument'. Ridicule and ad hominem.
Just how long is that nose you're looking down?
Oh, but I do understand the terminology. And I understand when people misdirect the conversation away into weak arguments and pretend they are the only 'reasonable' interpretation.
I also understand when people insert meaning that is not in Scripture and when they equate interpretation with observation and assumption with measurement in science.
Thanks for the detailed response. Could you give me the specific Bible verses that tell you Adam was created sometime time around a quarter of a billion years ago. I have read the Bible many times over, and I have never run into a single verse suggesting that Adam is older than creation week. Are you getting this information from the Bible, or some other source?
I fail to see why whenever there's a conflict between science and Scripture, it's presumed that Scripture is wrong by default and that what man observes and concludes is the absolute truth.
...
Did it not ever occur to you that man's interpretation of what he sees is wrong?
I agree with you 100%, metmom. God could have created the universe in an instant just the way it is today. But the record that God has left us in his creation tells us that he did not do that.
There is no disagreement between an old universe and the Bible. The notion that it has to be science or the Bible is a false choice promoted by certain very vocal groups of Christians. God did not lie to us in the Bible or in his creation.
It is certainly possible, and even probable, that man's interpretation of what we see is wrong. But how wrong? A little bit wrong or totally off the wall wrong?
Suppose you have a tree in your backyard and you ask 12 different people to measure its height. Each of the 12 people use different methods to measure the heigh. One person uses a crane to lift them to the top of the tree and drop down a measuring tape. Another uses the shadow method. Another uses a clinometer. Another uses a height stick, and so on.
If all 12 tree height measurement results ranged from 77'-3'' to 77'-6'', you would be happy with the agreement of the measurements and believe that you have a pretty good idea of how tall the tree is.
If one person told you that the tree was 12 feet tall, another that the tree was 23 tall, another that the tree was 157 feet tall and so on, you would be right to doubt the measurements.
Scientists don't use just one method to determine the age of the earth or the age of the universe. They use a number of methods from many different, unrelated branches of science to do so. See here for a partial listing. And by partial, I mean really, really partial. All of the many measurement methods are in close agreement. If the different methods yielded widely varying results, then we would have have reason to doubt.
We know the following:
The Bible does not claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old or that it was created in six, literal 24-hour days. That is a wrong, human interpretation of scripture. I'm not going to be divisive among Christian denominations, but look at how different groups have split over the interpretation of scripture. Obviously not all interpretations are correct.
I could show you many, many other Bible word and passage studies that strongly suggest an old earth. For example, Psalms 90:2 says that the mountains were "born" after God "brought forth" the earth. Being born is a process that takes time and involves a lot of change.
Christians have rejected science in the past because they believed that it contradicted God's word. Galileo was condemned by Christians because of his theory that the earth revolved around the sun. Christians used scripture to support their belief that the sun revolved around the earth! I'm not a big fan of citing Wikipedia, but whoever wrote the article did a pretty good job.
If Christians have wrongly interpreted scripture in the past when it comes to science, isn't there at least a good likelihood that some Christians today are wrongly interpreting scripture regarding scientific discoveries?
- God does not deceive us through his creation or his word. He does not lie to us in any way.
- God's creation shows us that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14 to 15 billion years old. Yes, there are discrepancies, but they are minor. If all these different ways of measuring the age of the earth and the universe are in close agreement, and they do not contradict the Bible, shouldn't we accept them?
Not only do I remember it, I still stand by it. I guess you don't think you have to actually say what your position is. To do that would open it up to dismantling. I am well familiar with that technique. The naturalists use it extensively.
"It was the fact that the word “create” doesn’t appear (you’re attempting to insert it) in this description of the fourth day that prompted my request to research the words used but since you either haven’t or cannot understand what you’ve read its clear that you need time to do a bit of catch up research."
Scripture uses the same word 'asah' for the sun, moon and stars in verse 16 as it does in verse 26 when man is created. It then uses the term 'bara' for the creation of man in verse 27. Now, how could man be 'asah' first and then 'bara' second? Isn't it your contention that only 'bara' is creation and 'asah' is something else? Explain this.
Then what do we do with Gen 2:3 when God blessed the 7th Day of his 'bara' and 'asah'? Don't you mean that he blessed some day in the 20 billionth year after finishing his 'bara' and 'asah' since you don't believe in 7 literal days. Is Scripture lying here or are you?
"Come back when you have and we’ll have something to discuss."
You should be trying to trying to get out of this conversation as fast as you can. The longer you talk, the more inconsistencies in word treatment we will find.
Depends on how you define science.
If you define science as observation, testing and repetition; it is impossible to 'refute' YEC just as it is impossible to 'refute' OEC. Both are philosophical positions.
If you define science as philosophical naturalism where interpretation and assumption are on equal standing with observation, testing and repetition then you can say anything you want.
It's pretty clear which definition of 'science' you are using.
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.