Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The universe’s birth certificate
CMI ^ | Alexander Williams

Posted on 02/08/2009 3:10:04 PM PST by GodGunsGuts

The universe’s birth certificate

Once you let go of the Bible as history, all Christian doctrine begins to disintegrate. Dr Nigel Leaves, the Warden and Dean of Studies at John Wollaston Anglican Theological College in Perth (Australia), provides a typical example in The God Problem: Alternatives to Fundamentalism.1 He says ‘the major factor in the waning of the Christian faith is its continuing insistence on a supernatural God—the Almighty, the lawgiver and judge.’ He considers four alternatives to ‘fundamentalism’ (i.e. believing in the God of the Bible), saying, ‘Traditional beliefs about God cannot be sustained in the light of the latest scientific and critical thinking.’ And of course the ‘latest scientific thinking’ rests on the foundation of discounting the time scale of Genesis creation.

But the Bible gives us a measured time scale, an eye-witness record, of history, a foundation far more secure than any modern scientific estimate. A measurement wins over an estimate any day!

The earth’s ‘birth certificate’

My birth certificate gives me a measured time scale for my age. It is an eye-witnessed statement that I was born on 28 January 1946, and other eye-witnesses have maintained a record of the earth having circled the sun 61 times since then. Likewise, the Bible gives us a ‘birth certificate’ for the universe—an eye-witness statement that God created it in six ordinary-length days in the time of Adam. The family histories and patriarchal ages in Genesis continue this record. God then confirmed it to Moses and wrote it down with His own finger in stone in the Sabbath Commandment (Exodus 20:11; 31:18; 32:16).

Jesus then confirmed the authenticity of the OT scriptures—in detail and in its entirety2—by correctly predicting his own death and resurrection on their foundation. That is, death entered the world only as the penalty for Adam’s sin at the Fall, and Jesus, the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5:6–21) took our place and paid that penalty for us, thus restoring us to eternal life. Once the penalty was paid, death no longer had any hold on Him and He rose from the dead. Jesus’ Resurrection authenticates Genesis as real history. The Resurrection of Jesus, an attested fact of history (Acts 17:31)3, is thus our guarantee of the measured biblical time scale for the universe (Luke 24:27,44).

Scientists must assume and infer

No scientist has any alternative or better ‘birth certificate’ for the earth or the universe. All scientific estimates of earth and universe age require a whole lot of assumptions. The key assumption is uniformitarianism, which is atheism disguised as science, because it assumes no miraculous interventions in history.4 Christians have no reason to accept, and every reason to reject, atheistic assumptions about the universe.

Jesus’ Resurrection validates the accuracy of the Bible, especially its history of Creation and Fall. No Bible scholar since Jesus has risen from the dead to validate any alternative point of view. Don’t let anyone steal from you this precious gift that God has given us in the Bible.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bible; catholic; christian; creation; evolution; fundamentalist; genesis; intelligentdesign; jesus; judeochristian; moralabsolutes; resurrection; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-145 next last
To: tpanther

Do you feel better now that you’ve had your rant?


101 posted on 02/09/2009 9:18:09 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Riodacat
Yes, I did assume you were a "big bang" theorist. When you make assertions like the below, what else is there to assume?

What is not open for debate is that the universe is at least 10 - 15 billion years old. And what is not open for debate is that the speed of light has been established and verified at 186,000 miles per hr.

When you make assertions like the above, what else is there to assume? Hence my question "What are the Big Bang assertions/assumptions about the speed of light and the mass of the universe in the first 1 second of the "event"?" Reckon how old the universe appeared 1 year after this "explosion". In my mind, this causes significant concern for the assertions about the universe's "age".

The scripture mentions 10 times of the LORD "stretching" out the heavens, to wit:

Isaiah 45:12 It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.

I reckond that he stretched out the streams of light from "distant" stars in the same way, if not at the same time.

102 posted on 02/09/2009 9:30:10 AM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: DB; editor-surveyor

God isn’t a deciever. That’s why that argument against the age of the earth and God creating it is the epitome of a strawman if I ever saw one.

The fact that that stupid argument keeps getting trotted out by the evos shows a major disconnect in their reasoning ability.

Since the position that God put stuff there just to deceive mankind is just so ludicrous, then clearly it is wrong and should be discarded for the crap it is. Then one needs to look for other reasons that things seem to indicate an older earth than making up some kind of nonsense argument and defeating it, thinking that you’ve proved something to your opponents.

You’ve proved something alright, but not what you’re thinking.


103 posted on 02/09/2009 9:32:36 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Darwin Fish; GodGunsGuts
This creationist stuff is a good part of the reason conservatives keep losing elections.

In your dreams.

Just for kicks, would you like to provide some sources to back up your contention, like any good scientist should do?

104 posted on 02/09/2009 9:36:15 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Nipplemancer; GodGunsGuts
Denying science is a bigger folly than denying god.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

So much material, so little time......

105 posted on 02/09/2009 9:38:08 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Nipplemancer
Science and religion are mutually incompatible.

Only if you want it to be that way. It doesn't have to be and isn't for many of us Christians who are scientists.

106 posted on 02/09/2009 9:40:55 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Exposing liberalism is good for eveyone.


107 posted on 02/09/2009 9:48:23 AM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Nipplemancer; GodGunsGuts
Newton also believed in alchemy, as in turning base metals such as lead into gold.

So what? Newton was practicing the accepted science of the day. That's all.

I've seen nothing in Scripture that indicates that that can happen, so his belief in alchemy can not be connected to his belief in God or the Bible.

His belief in alchemy doesn't cut into his credibility in other scientific areas. Why disparage him for not knowing something that we know now? That's intellectually dishonest.

108 posted on 02/09/2009 9:53:18 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62; GodGunsGuts

GGG was talking about interpretation.

Sure the universe is currently observable and people write down what they observe, just like you say the ancients did.

If the writings of the authors of the NT are to be discredited because of what they may have observed, that should hold true for ALL accounts of anything. Recording it as it happens is no guarantee of increased accuracy anyway.


109 posted on 02/09/2009 9:56:00 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

Sophistry isn’t.


110 posted on 02/09/2009 9:59:13 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
I reckond that he stretched out the streams of light from "distant" stars in the same way, if not at the same time.

And why couldn't that have taken several billion years.
It is you who are making assumptions.
You state that known facts are not true because your interpretation of Genesis conflicts with reality.
As for the quote "Isaiah 45:12 It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts."
Where does that give any time paramters?
Facts are facts. Adjust your interpretation of the bible to match reality, else you'll be delusional.

111 posted on 02/09/2009 11:15:31 AM PST by Riodacat (Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

I believe you’ve got it.


112 posted on 02/09/2009 12:04:40 PM PST by StAntKnee (It's a show about NOTHING!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

You’re right.

Bottom line, to paraphrase a terrific Seinfeld episode, I’m not offended because I’m a fallen-away Catholic; I’m offended because the bozos don’t make any sense attacking Christianity while being reverent toward raven stories.

Nice talking with you.


113 posted on 02/09/2009 12:08:04 PM PST by StAntKnee (It's a show about NOTHING!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray; Just mythoughts
Read this. And this.

"Why does Moses break the calendar into two parts - 'The days of old, and the years of the many generations?' Because, 'Consider the days of old' is the Six Days of Genesis. 'The years of the many generations' is all the time from Adam forward." --Nachmanides, 1200AD

114 posted on 02/09/2009 1:07:47 PM PST by dan1123 (Liberals sell it as "speech which is hateful" but it's really "speech I hate".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: StAntKnee

“I believe you’ve got it.”

I’m sorry to be this way but, What comment are you referring to?


115 posted on 02/09/2009 1:25:11 PM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
“Then who is Jesus and why should I believe what he has to say about faith?”

You accept Jesus on faith, don't you? The only evidence that Jesus was the son of God is the Bible and since no one can prove scientifically or otherwise that what is written in the Bible is true, it must be accepted on faith. I've never met a Christian who believed in God because someone had shown them scientifically of his existence. God is accepted as real by people who have seen the changes in their life through their faith and personal connection to God. If one could prove the existence of God scientifically faith would be unnecessary, and the most critical element in our relationship with God would be lost. A friend of mine who had struggled with drug addiction well into his 30's woke up one morning, pulled out the bible and after several days of reading and praying quit drugs for good. No one proved to him that God existed, he simply felt the powerful presence of God through prayer and the bible, and it changed his life. No scientific evidence was required. His faith is what keeps him clean.

116 posted on 02/09/2009 1:25:51 PM PST by yazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: yazoo

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

If the Bible is not to be believed about creation, it’s not to be believed.


117 posted on 02/09/2009 1:30:06 PM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: StAntKnee

Don’t bother answering my last post. I figured out what I got right.


118 posted on 02/09/2009 1:31:49 PM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Phillipian

“The miracles show the character of God, the sovereignty of God, the kindness of God, the power of God, the mercy of God, etc.”

That is precisely what I was trying to say, only you said it better. To sit around debating whether or not the miracles were genuine misses the larger and more important point of what God was telling us with the miracles. I believe one needs to start with the belief that Jesus was the son of God. If that is accepted everything he did is true. If one tries to accept Jesus was the son of God because he performed miracles I think the point is missed. Jesus didn’t perform miracles to prove he was the son of God, but to demonstrate the character of God as you pointed out.


119 posted on 02/09/2009 1:35:16 PM PST by yazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I’ve read your post to me several times. Frankly I’m not sure what you are saying.

Can you try again.


120 posted on 02/09/2009 1:59:36 PM PST by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-145 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson