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

To: mnehring
1. I believe in God. 2. I have accepted Jesus as my Savior. 3. I try to keep an open mind regarding science and history. 4. I believe that the Bible is the word of God, transcribed and translated by men and therefore subject to human flaws - as evidenced by the multiple translations with multiple differences. 5. Creation is relative. 6. If everything came from a "big bang", God must have created it, no matter how long it took. Now for some questions:

1) If these core samples are up to 11,000 feet long, was the Earth smaller in diameter all these millions of years ago and as such, spinning faster? 2) If the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years, how large was the diameter of the Earth when it began to form, wouldn't it have been smaller (and spinning faster) when the lowest layers were put down, and wouldn't it have taken more than twice as long as accepted to form the deposits, then erode them? 3) If the "big bang" is to be believed and everything started from one speck billions of light years away, how fast did this planet's elements travel to arrive at this point in space, stop (while others went farther), form, develop life, develop intelligence, and develop technology to see light that took 187 billion years to arrive here from that "big bang"? 4) If evolution theory is to be believed, why have some things not evolved, seemingly forever? Is evolution "selective"? Why are we not continuing to evolve?

I don't expect finite answers, as nobody knows the answers except God and that is how it should remain.

33 posted on 05/01/2009 12:18:47 PM PDT by bonnieblue4me (You can put lipstick on a donkey (or a dimrat), but it is still an ass!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: bonnieblue4me
If these core samples are up to 11,000 feet long, was the Earth smaller in diameter all these millions of years ago...

(also for 2) Some areas shrink, other areas grow (tectonics, erosion, sedimentation, etc), on a planetary scale these are tiny fractions of a difference.

Re: 4, not sure what you are getting at, nothing 'stopped' in order to do this.

If evolution theory is to be believed, why have some things not evolved, seemingly forever? Is evolution "selective"? Why are we not continuing to evolve?

Who says it isn't happening all around us all the time. Heck, this week we've seen it all over the news on a micro scale with the new strain flu virus. We even cause it through selective breeding of livestock, pets, and plants. These are things we can all see even on our limited timescale.

IMHO, God created an amazing system of creation that reveals him through complexity and order. His creation doesn't trick us into not believing in Him as some may imply. The more we gain knowledge, the more we learn about Him, not the opposite.

36 posted on 05/01/2009 12:29:52 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: bonnieblue4me; mnehring
3) If the "big bang" is to be believed and everything started from one speck billions of light years away, how fast did this planet's elements travel to arrive at this point in space, stop (while others went farther), form, develop life, develop intelligence, and develop technology to see light that took 187 billion years to arrive here from that "big bang"? [Emphasis added by ancesthntr]

The elements which compose Earth, this solar system, this galaxy, etc. have NOT stopped at this point in space (or any other, ever). They (of which we are a part) are moving. Away from the galactic center, up and down through the galaxy, and away from other galaxies (at roughly the speed of light).

Nothing took 187 billion years. The age of the universe according to the best scientific estimates of our day is somewhere between 15 and 16 billion years, and according to the Talmud is roughly 15 3/4 billion years. You're off by an order of magnitude.

As to the development of life, let alone intelligent life, I cannot explain that. Dr. Schroeder (see my posts above) states that it is statistically nearly impossible for matter to have transformed by random action from inorganic to organic, and he attributes that act to G-d (many eons ago, I might add).

As to the development of technology, that is damned near a given when you understand that the nature of intelligence is to master its own environment as much as possible. It is a matter of a geometric progression, once intelligence arose (although being land-based, where fire is possible, is a huge help - porpoises and whales are intelligent, but they're not exactly competition to us for global mastery). As to what gave rise to intelligence...see the paragraph above (though such may have also been inevitable once organic matter came into existence - I simply don't know).

As I've mentioned in posts above, there is IMHO, no dichotomy between science and my religion (Judaism) on the issue of the age of the universe or the order of the unfolding of Creation. The opinions of the majority of people on FR on this issue are based in the teachings of Christianity, which are themselves based on the Hebrew Bible's Book of Genesis (31 lines worth). You can have a robust faith in G-d while still understanding that science is not entirely wrong (or even mostly wrong, or is even mostly correct).

50 posted on 05/01/2009 2:19:28 PM PDT by Ancesthntr (Tyrant: "Spartans, lay down your weapons." Free man: "Persian, come and get them!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: bonnieblue4me

1 & 2: the earth’s diameter(and mass) has remain unchanged since the formation of the moon (caused by a collision with massive object roughly the size of mars). Erosion moves material from one place to another. it’s not as if all the dirt and rocks in the grand canyon just dissappeared as the water passed through.
3: nuclear fusion created the elements that comprise this planet and all others. they are released from the cores of stars when they go supernova.
4: old models don’t necessarily need to disappear for new ones to propagate. new traits that enhance survival or reproductive success do not take away from the previous species’ ability to reproduce, nor does it necessarily mean that it creates a new competitor for resources.


61 posted on 05/04/2009 3:14:14 PM PDT by Nipplemancer (Abolish the DEA !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

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