Posted on 06/10/2005 9:40:20 PM PDT by orionblamblam
I am a Creationist: God created the Universe approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
On what basis do you arrive at such arrogant condescension?
It'd be nice if that was put into practice on FR. But far too often, someone will declare that evolutionists are evil/communists/Greenpeaceres/athiests/pagans/whatever.
Is there a reason that you (once again) left our discussion in midstream?
I'm beginning to think that you are unable to maintain a rational discussion on this subject.........
"Still another group (my group) – says that God was the only observer of creation week and thus those 6 days must be viewed from inception space/time coordinates (inflationary theory and relativity). Using that formula, 6 days at the inception coordinates equals approximately 15 billion years at our space/time coordinates, Genesis 1-3 apply to heaven and earth and Adams’ time begins when he is banished to mortality in Genesis 4 (6000 years ago). "
So are you saying that if we viewed from a "bubble" as it were from God's shoulder we would see 15 billion years flashing by in the space or 6@ 24 hour days at least in terms of time as we experienced it from such a "bubble"? And and in our "bubble"'s time frame we would view heavens forming and stars scattering forth, atmospheres forming, mountains rising and falling as land separated from seas and life forming as it were thru a high speed film?(millions of years flashing by in minutes)?
Again - you're lumping things together. A group of people with shared beliefs should be allowed to define their belief system. Outsiders can then call them whatever they wish to.
" Darwin's theory of evolution (and inevitably all other science as well). "
Now I doubt you are going to see Creationists calling for the banning of mathematics,physics,or Geology from the classrooms just because Evolution draws upon these for supportive tools and data. I don't think science itself would be threatened if Evolution itself suddenly were debunked....the whole of science would not suddenly be threatened if evolution suddenly disappeared from man's consciousness. Evolution is not a foundational pillar of science but it depends on other foundational pillars in science for its very survival as theoretical thought!
If evolution were debunked, it would be by a scientific theory [ What's a Scientific Theory?] that: (a) explains the evidence better than evolution does; (b) explains additional phenomena that evolution can't explain; and (c) is consistent with all other branches of science. So far, because all the evidence yet discovered fits into and supports the theory of evolution, there's nothing on the horizon that can do the job. But scientists are open-minded.
You may find this useful: How to argue against a scientific theory.
> Outsiders can then call them whatever they wish to.
That's the whole *point* of this thread.
Whenever I'm asked if I believe in Creation, the answer is an unequivocal yes. When asked if I believe that is happened in 6 rotations of our earth on its axis, I make mention of the fact that my favorite hymn begins with the words, "A thousand ages in thy sight are like an evening gone." For the time being we all see through a glass darkly, but one day all will be made clear.
I understand your posting and feelings regarding the scientific nature regarding evolution...but that was not my point...my point was that should evolution be debunked either by better theory OR Deux Ex Machina revelation that science would not totally crumble...evolution is not a foundational science the way math,physics, geology, and chemistry our as examples. I don't think Creationists are going to picket a high school chemistry class!
Based on my experience with creationists over a few years in these threads, the truly hard-core variety, or full-blown creationists, would do exactly that. (Evolution first, then the rest.) They already don't like geology, because geologists think the earth is billions of years old (and they were coming to that conclusion before Darwin). They don't like astronomy for the same reason. They don't like physics because they don't like the results of radiometric dating -- how horrible that it supports the age of the earth! And they definitely don't like the speed of light, as it indicates the universe is more than 6,000 years old. As for chemistry, the example you used, well ... they already don't like organic chemistry, because they don't like how a complex molecule can self-assemble itself. They much prefer that angels are required to do such work. Whenever a creationist realizes there's something in science that doesn't jibe with his personal reading of scripture, he'll oppose it. Guaranteed.
> my point was that should evolution be debunked either by better theory OR Deux Ex Machina revelation that science would not totally crumble
Actaully, it would. If the nature of reality coudl be fiddled with at whim, all the basic precepts of science can thus obviously be changed without warning. "Pi" could go to 4 for a few minutes. And at that point, observation would cease to have any validity to it whatsoever. Someone *today* says they saw a gint pink flower-breathing dragon dancing with Dom Delouise... he's a nut. But in a Deux Ex Machina world, what reason for doubt is there?
No! Adaptation, not evolution. I believe I covered that.
"{Based on my experience with creationists over a few years in these threads, the truly hard-core variety, or full-blown creationists, would "
Well most of us who tend toward a Creationist view wouldn't attack the basic sciences. We would argue more against those who attempt to twist the sciences in attempt to support socialist, enslaving utilitarian policies that would destroy age old values and to weaken the family structures of this nation. If evolution had remained just some dusty bit of educational flotsom the way some people viewed history or Spanish class... in other words just some subject to get thru school in order to pass, most folks wouldn't even pay attention to it.
Yet some have attempted(not necessarily science trained either) and continue to twist the science of evolution to fit social policy, to even justify moral dissolution of our nation. And how-ever luddite it may appear to you, that is what many religious folk are opposing....not Evolution for Evolution's sake , but rather the virtue numbing effects such a deliberate twisting of the science has had on our nation!
The rights and priledges you and I enjoy in discussing this interesting topic were birthed from a Judeo-Christian consenses via our constituion and Bill of rights...not a modern scientific consenses!
Well now that would depend on what Deus ex Machina revealed...If it simply revealed that it created life and set in motions the principles of its variations, mutations, adaptations and extinctions of various sub groups it doen't destroy mathematics nor sets at naught the three sided triangle. Salt remains salt...and A will still = C if A=B and B=C. 1+1 will still =2 and what objects that exist can never again be said to have not existed. Evolution may be scientifically strengthened or set at naught, but if set at nought the basic fundamentals of reason and logic will remain firm and strong. Yes and vinegar and Bicarb will still fizzle when mixed!
The fundamentals don't change unless Deus Ex Machina should declare it so...
Now Science can't speak to Deus ex Machina as this is tautologous in concept and can't de demonstrated or falsified...I undestand this.
It can be said truthfully that our universe such as it is will continue in its current state tending towards randomness and disorder unless an out side force should act upon it to change it.
Science can make no predictions FOR THE EXISTENCE of Transcendent applied activity upon the Universe nor should proper scientists make BIASED PREDICTIONS AGAINST SUCH ACTIVITY!(that is and still stay true to science)
Plain sense interpretations of scripture taken out of context don't convince me. These passages don't add up to the conclusion you make at the end.
The problem here is one of interpretation. I also believe that even for the Faithful "our finite minds cannot successfully accomplish the task, and that we will often get it wrong". This is because I don't think there is more than one true interpretation. Truth is objective and eternal.
When disputes arise, there needs to be an authority that settles the dispute. Over time a group dedicated and specifically educated and with the help of the Holy Spirit has the teaching authority to settle disputes. This provides the best method by which fallible humans can discern infallible teachings. The Apostle Peter did not believe scripture was for private interpretation. True teachers are the Apostles and those who have followed in the Apostolic succession.
If I decide to reject the teaching authority of two thousand years to go with my own interpretations then that would be me making my own truth.
I don't think I'd describe it as a "bubble" - but the concept is based on relativity and the inflationary theory:
If I were there at the space/time coordinates of inception when God (the only observer of Creation) made a beginning and I sent you a message on a photon - in the equivalent of one elapsed earth day at my coordinates you would receive it. But from your perspective (if you existed at that time) the message would have taken 8 billion years to get to you.
You would receive the message on the second day at 12 billion years from your coordinates, and so on - up to approximately 15 billion years for 6 days.
For more on this:
(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)
And still no answer to the question.
Sigh. It's like talking with Galloway!
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.