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 ...
I see.
So “fundamentalists hijacking science” is “dishonest” and “impure”, while godless liberals hijacking science to suit their ideological ends get a complete free pass and is of no significance or consequence to you.
I got that from your first response but thanks for clarifying.
Where I fault the OEC is in failing to acknowledge that they must accept 2 more assumptions than the YECs to hold the OEC position. First, OECs must assume that the first verse does not include the 6 days of creation but covers a vast expanse of undetermined time. YECs assume that it does include the 6 days of creation and there is no expanse of undetermined time. So both positions have 1 assumption each.
Then the OECs must add the assumption that the sun, moon, stars, galaxies and other celestial bodies were created in the first verse before they are named as being created on the 4th Day but were somehow hidden. Otherwise, OECs just have the earth sitting in empty space for assumed vast periods of time for no apparent reason. This is the second assumption OECs must make and this is where the OEC argument begins to weaken.
The third assumption OECs must make is that the reference to creating the sun, moon and stars on the 4th Day does not represent an actual act of creation, but merely an act of revealing.
Basically, OECs must add 2 additional assumptions than the YECs, one of which requires that they depart from a literal reading of Genesis wrt the creation of celestial bodies on the 4th Day, in order to reconcile the Biblical account to the OEC account.
This is where the OECs compromise and place the word of men wrt long-ages above the Word of God. This is an inferior position from a Christian perspective. It is also inferior from a purely logical perspective as you must hold that 3 assumptions are correct for the OEC position vs 1 for the YEC position.
Make sense?
One of the veteran crevo posters observed long ago that doubting Thomas should be the patron saint of scientists because he demanded physical evidence.
But, in my view, both extremes in the debate put a lot of weight on physical evidence.
We Christians know that Jesus Christ is God incarnated in the body of a virgin, that He died for our sins, resurrected on the third day – that while in the flesh, He raised the dead, healed the sick, made the blind see, walked on water and so forth.
Since we know all of this is Truth, I see no cause to be alarmed if we don’t yet understand the description of Creation week in Genesis – or how Jonas survived in the belly of a whale - the prophecies in the book of Revelation - and so on.
After all, there is only One Great Commandment - to love God surpassingly above all else.
Physical evidence is just that, physical.
Yeah, and its a good point(s). A couple of things though,
“Otherwise, OECs just have the earth sitting in empty space for assumed vast periods of time for no apparent reason.”
A reason I can see is the earth might’ve had to cool from a molten state and adsorb a number of meteor hits like the moon has before the earth reached the condition of Gen.!:2.
How long was that? Unknown if 1:1 is a statement of the origins of heaven and earth before the preparation of the earth for habitation by man.
I skipped ahead to this comment because I want to take this up with you at a later time.
“The third assumption OECs must make is that the reference to creating the sun, moon and stars on the 4th Day does not represent an actual act of creation, but merely an act of revealing.”
Before I come back to you I would ask a favor, an easy one:
Would you look up the meaning of at least three words? (1) create Gen.1:1,
(2)made Gen. 1:7, 16 and (3) set Gen. 1:17.
It has a bearing on the subject and it’s easier for you to look them up than for me to copy and paste.
Here’s where to look:
Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionary - HTML BibleKing James Bible Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionary Index. Send To Printer. Hebrew Dictionary, Greek Dictionary. 1 (’ab) to 100 (’agmown) ...
www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRINDEX.htm - 14k
Just find “Main Bible Index” and go from there.
I use this site as it’s easy to navigate.
If you’ll do that then we can take our discussion a bit further. Agreed?
But, in my view, both extremes in the debate put a lot of weight on physical evidence.
Faith does rest on evidence as well. For all that evos like to say that faith can only be faith without evidence, a cursory reading of the gospels does not bear that out. Jesus stated that the miracles He did bore witness to the fact that He was who He said He was. He never chided people for believing after seeing the evidence, Thomas being a case in point. He didn't tell him that he had no faith, but rather gave him the best proof there was to bolster his faith.
So the Bird Flu virus is not mutating?
If Obama says something, I don't have to hear it to know he's lying or exagerating. If CRI writes something, I don't have to see it to know that it's garbage.
However, I did read it. Sure enough, the very first sentence was a lie.
Because it contradicts what God has revealed to us through his creation. You and GGG ignore how God has spoken to us through his revelation and cling to a man-made tradition.
Who are you going to believe, your warped theology or God's revelation? I'll stick with God.
Your turn to get back to me on your in-depth word study.
Thank you. The bad thing is that many of them believe that all Christians are ignorant and/or liars about science. I have to get them past that first.
Why would that scare me? It doesn't scare me any more than the bogeyman under my bed. Both are fantasies.
Um, no. The main argument for it is that we can see it in nature. Google "bird flu virus mutation" for an example.
Can you think for yourself or are you only capable of cutting and pasting from dubious sites?
Space is not nothing. Space has dimensions to it. You can move in it.
Before God initiated the Big Bang, there was nothing -- not even space.
“God's time is not our time” [excerpt]Incorrect on the basis of a false premise.
==Can you think for yourself or are you only capable of cutting and pasting from dubious sites?
That means alot coming from someone who licks the boots of Temple of Darwin fanatics because he craves the approval of men more than approval of God.
PS You never did answer my question. How does it feel to know that you were deceived by the fidgety-Ross into thinking that Augustine was talking about Young Earth Creationists, when he was really talking about Old-Earth (read: “pagan”) compromisers such as yourself?
And speaking of cutting and pasting...
You have no idea of the damage that you do to Christianity.
From Augustine to the DallasMikes of the WORLD:
“Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
Augustine is describing the old-earth compromisers, but you don’t even understand that you — not creation scientists — are the ones hurting the cause of Christ and preventing others from believing.
Augustine—The City of God Against the Pagans (aka old-earth compromisers like DallasMike):
II Of the Falseness of the history which ascribes many thousands of years to times gone by
“Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. … They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.”
No Heavens and Earth as we know them for sure. But there was certainly something. God to name one.
I'm not very bright, so can someone here explain in simple layman's terms exactly what the universe is expanding in to.
Your question presumes something outside of observable space-time. We have no way of answering that question, if it is indeed a coherent question, in a way that “what happened before the beginning” is not.
All we can say is that observable space-time has been occupying an increasingly greater volume. That fact does not require another larger, non-space to contain it, nor could we speak meaningfully about it in any scientific sense, since our physical laws could not be presumed operative outside our own observed universe.
Absolutely!
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.