Big Bang Bible

[Polemicist]

I was browsing through Little Geneva (http://littlegeneva.com/index.php) yesterday and saw a reference to this author, who has built an intriguing and fresh theory (at least to me) that brings the scientific data into harmony with the creation account. A friend (schweppe.org) of mine will probably be shocked to learn that I found this quite intriguing. Schroeder rambles a little bit in this lengthy article (concluding paragraphs excerpted below), but be patient. It's worth the read. He's apparently written a few books on this subject. I'm tempted to buy one now.


The Age of the Universe
by Gerald Schroeder


http://polemics.us/pics/~schroeder.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553354132/polemics-20)

Today, we look at time going backward. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning, relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. Any one of a dozen physics text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning and time today is a million million. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.

The Torah doesn't say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days? If the Torah says we're sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days? No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah's perspective is from the beginning looking forward. Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the universe. Not a bad guess for 3000 years ago.

The way these two figures match up is extraordinary. I'm not speaking as a theologian; I'm making a scientific claim. I didn't pull these numbers out of hat. That's why I led up to the explanation very slowly, so you can follow it step-by-step. Now we can go one step further. Let's look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets exponentially longer. This rate of expansion is quoted in "The Principles of Physical Cosmology," a textbook that is used literally around the world.

(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.)

The calculations come out to be as follows:

The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.

The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.

The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.

The fourth day - one billion years.

The fifth day - one-half billion years.

The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

But there's more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine. [more] (http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html)

[Socratism]

I've read two of his books and although they make fascinating reading as another attempt to support the failed Big Bang by forcing it to fit Genesis, I would not agree with you that"

"They match up close enough to send chills up your spine."

Not.

"When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?"

Yes. It is the fallacy of "the isolated matchup".

The problem is that "matchups" that fail are never reported.

Thus the fact that Lincoln's secretary was named Cleveland? and Cleveland's? secretary was named Lincoln is thought by many to be highly significant, without mentioning thar all the other possible combinations of things in the world may mean nothing.

There are websites devoted to such "meaningful" coincidents.

Yes, I know that I pointed out the coincidence that the oldest living tree was very close in age to the Masoretic implied date of the Flood, but both items in this here can be calculated in a pretty straightforward manner, whereas both numbers in the case you cited are pretty obtuse..

BTW, the Big Bang is not true anyway and the age of the universe is not billions of years.

[TheFiveSolas]

Polemicist,

Regarding the "close match" in the order of days with evolutionary history, is it your view that life started on land as opposed to the sea as the order of the creation days maintains?

Or that vegetation "was created"/evolved prior to the formation of the Sun and Moon?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 02:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92227#post92227)
Polemicist:

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance? Would you be angry if I said the age of the universe is

13.7 billion years old +- 200 million years (about 1.5% error) (http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/pub_papers/firstyear/basic/wmap_basic_results.pdf)
Check out page 31.

[Minnesota]

If you check the web you will find that as of February 2003 the age of the universe has been pegged at 13.7 billion years, give or take .1 billion years.

From one of the web sites

"This photo released by NASA shows a full-sky map of the oldest light in the universe. Colors indicate warmer red and cooler blue spots. NASA called the image the best ¿baby picture¿ of the Universe ever taken. The new cosmic portrait, capturing the afterglow of the Big Bang was captured by scientists using NASA s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe WMAP during a sweeping 12-month observation of the entire sky. One of the biggest surprises revealed in the data is that the first generation of stars to shine in the Universe first ignited only 200 million years after the Big Bang, much earlier than many scientists had expected. In addition, the new portrait precisely pegs the age of the Universe at 13.7 billion years old, with a remarkably small one percent margin of error. Photo: AFP"

[WinAce]

Is there really any reason we should be shoehorning findings from modern science into an ancient creation account of a superstitious group of Middle Easterners?

[Polemicist]

I'm rather a novice at this whole topic because until now I had just taken the "it says six days, that's good enough for me" approach to the whole thing. I just thought this author I stumbled upon had an interesting approach and I wondered if anyone else had heard of it. My post was me thinking out loud. :ponder:

[TheFiveSolas]

Polemicist,

I highly recommend a book by Dr. Russel Humphreys, "Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe". In it, using Einstein's theory of General Relativity coupled with the assumption of a bounded, rather than unbounded, universe, he shows how time is relative to gravity and that with a creation that expands outward from a center point we can account for time, in the billions of years for stars, but by Earth's clocks measure only a few thousand years having elapsed. (How as THAT for a LONG run-on sentence?)

By the way, here are Dr. Humphreys' credentials:


Russel Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics


Education:

B.S. Physics, Duke University - 1963
Ph.D. Physics, Louisiana State University - 1972
Ph.D. dissertation: cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon-nucleon interactions.


Professional Experience:

From 1973 to 1979 I worked at the General Electric Company High Voltage in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. There I designed test and measurement equipment, invented instrumentation, and researched lightning and high-voltage phenomena. I received a U.S. patent and one of Industrial Research magazine's IR-100 awards.

In 1979 I began working as a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. There I have worked in nuclear physics, geophysics, high voltage engineering, pulsed power research, and theoretical atomic and molecular physics. For the first four years, I helped to develop borehole logging probes which used neutron generators and various nuclear radiation detectors to locate uranium and other mineral deposits. I have a U.S. patent for part of that work. From 1983 to 1995 I worked with Sandia's Particle Beam Fusion project [Science 232 (16 May 1986) pp. 831-836 and cover photo]. I was one of the two inventors of the 6 megavolt laser-triggered gas spark gaps used in the project's 100 terawatt particle accelerator, PBFA-II. This class of spark gaps, called "Rimfire" switches, are now coming into general use at many pulsed power facilities nationwide, and earned me one of Sandia's Exceptional Contribution awards. In 1988 I switched jobs within the project to design inertial confinement fusion targets. That work involved theoretical nuclear physics and radiation hydrodynamics in an effort to help the project produce the world's first laboratory-scale thermonuclear fusion. In 1990, Sandia awarded me an award "for excellence in developing and executing new and innovative light ion target theory." From 1995 to the present I have been working in nuclear weapons research.


Physics Research and Development - Professional:

Currently on nuclear weapons projects. Designed and theoretically analyzed thermonuclear fusion targets using radiation hydrodynamic codes. Designed key high-voltage parts of Sandia's 100-Terawatt Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator II and conducted fusion power experiments on it. Research on low-temperature solids and studies on superconductors. Developed high repetition-rate neutron tube driver and gamma-ray spectrometer for borehole logging applications. Patents on wide-bandwidth electric field sensor and high-voltage neutron tube supply. Designed lightning current waveform recorder which won IR-100 Award. Studied electric fields and ion currents under ultrahigh voltage DC transmission lines. Theoretical studies of velocity dependence of nuclear forces. Ph.D. dissertation: cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon-nucleon interactions.

Scientific Research - Creationist:

Paleomagnetism: Developed theory for rapid reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood; it shared prizes for best technical paper at the First and Second International Conferences on Creationism, 1986 and 1990, and it successfully predicted later measurements.

Geomagnetism: Developed theory for origin of planetary magnetic fields which successfully predicted later spaceprobe measurements, 1983 - present.

Geochemistry: Co-authored paper on sodium accumulation in the ocean; it shared a prize at the Second International Conference on Creationism in 1990 and has challenged evolutionists.

Cosmology: Began development of a relativistic creationist cosmology. The first article won an award at the Third International Conference on Creationism, 1994. Wrote a best-selling book about it, as well as several technical articles defending it and developing it further.

Awards/Honors:

Sandia National Laboratories Award for Excellence 1995.

Sandia National Laboratories Award for Excellence "in developing and executing new and innovative light ion target theory," 1990.

U.S. Patent No. 4,808,368 (Feb 28, 1989) "High voltage supply for neutron tubes in well-logging applications."

Sandia National Laboratories Exceptional Contribution Award, for Rimfire laser-triggered gas-insulated switch, 1988.

Industrial Research Magazine IR-100 award to PBFA-II project, 1986.

Industrial Research Magazine IR-100 award for lightning waveform recorder (to D. R. Humphreys and two others), 1978.

U.S. Patent No. 4,054,835 (Oct. 18, 1977) "Rapid-response electric field sensor."

Winner, Eighteenth Annual Westinghouse National Science Talent Search (1959).


Publications: (partial list)

"Comparison of experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFA II Selected thermal source experiments," Review of Scientific Instruments 63 (October 1992) No. 10.


"Inertial confinement fusion with light ion beams," 13th Internat. Conf. on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Washington, D.C. 1-6, October, 1990.

Reducing aspect ratios in inertial confinement fusion targets," JOWOG 37 Conference, Albuquerque, NM, January 1990. (Contents classified).

"Progress Toward a Superconducting Opening Switch," Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Virginia, 1987, pp. 279-282.

"Scaling relations for the Rimfire multi-stage gas switch," Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, VA, June 29 - August 1, 1987.

"Rimfire: A Six Megavolt Laser-Triggered Gas-Filled Switch for PBFA-II," Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Virginia, June 10-12, 1985, pp. 262-269.

"PBFA II, a 100 TW pulsed power driver for the inertial confinement fusion program," Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Virginia, June 10-12, 1985.

"Uranium Logging with Prompt Fission Neutrons," International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 34 (1983) 261-268.

"Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons," IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, NS-28 (1981) 1691-1695.

"Pulsed neutron gamma ray logging for minerals associated with uranium," 6th Conf. on Small Accelerators in Research and Industry, Denton, TX, November 3-5, 1980. Sandia National Laboratories document no. SAND80-1531.

Wide-range multi-channel analog switch," Nuclear Instruments and Methods 121 (1974) 505-508.

"The 1/g Velocity Dependence of Nucleon-Nucleus Optical Potentials," Nuclear Physics A182 (1972) 580.

"Studies of hadron interactions at energies around 10 TeV using an ionization spectrometer-emulsion chamber combination," Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Cosmic Rays, Budapest 1969, in Acta Physica Acad. Sci. Hungaricae 29 (1970) 497-503.

"Wide-Range multi-input pulse height recording system," Review of Scientific Instruments 38 (1967) 1123-1127.


Lastly, Dr. Humphreys has had his work peer-reviewed and has answered his critics in the peer-reviewed Technical Journal.
If you need them I have online links to the above.

[wienerdog]

The Bible says that God created the universe and "stretched out" the heavens (Job 9:8; Ps. 104:2; Is. 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jer. 10:12; 51:15; Zech. 12:1). That sounds exactly like Big Bang cosmology.

[Woman]

Thus the fact that Lincoln's secretary was named Cleveland? and Cleveland's? secretary was named Lincoln is thought by many to be highly significant...

That would be Kennedy

[Socrates]

Wienerdog:The Bible says that God created the universe and "stretched out" the heavens (Job 9:8; Ps. 104:2; Is. 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jer. 10:12; 51:15; Zech. 12:1). That sounds exactly like Big Bang cosmology.That sounds exactly like Dr Humphreys' cosmology, as TheFiveSolas outlines. It's nothing like big bang mythology, since that has the sun and stars before the Earth while Genesis says the Sun was created on Day 4 and Earth on Day 1.

WinAce:Is there really any reason we should be shoehorning findings from modern science into an ancient creation account of a superstitious group of Middle Easterners?Oh far better to kowtow to a superstitious non-scientist Westerner like Winace :poke:

For a critique of Schroeder's Scripture-twisting, see www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4355news8-1-2000.asp

[SlaveOfGod]

AS I said in another thread I just found this site and ddecided to participate... and I can'yt believe the things you people are arguing about....


Does the Bible say God created the universe in a Big Bang?
Does the bible say the Universe was created how many billion years ago?
The answer to both of those is NO, so just move on. It is disgusting to see so many unbielevers dounting the holy writings, with no care for the future of their souls... but I guess I'll be happy when they discover how wrong they were in the 'end'. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Moderator Note:
Slave, if you insist on simply ranting and raving there is a special forum just for such things. The Janitor's Closet.

[efta777]

Today @ 01:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92648#post92648)
SlaveOfGod:

but I guess I'll be happy when they discover how wrong they were in the 'end'. :lol: :lol: :lol:

This makes you happy? As I Christian I find this rather disturbing. Why not pray for their souls and do whatever it takes so that they don't have to find out, eh?

[SlaveOfGod]

Today @ 09:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92651#post92651)
efta777:



This makes you happy? As I Christian I find this rather disturbing. Why not pray for their souls and do whatever it takes so that they don't have to find out, eh?

Pfff I'm sure you are nothing more than those, liberal, tree- hugging, homo-loving, liberal, leftist, compromising chatholic Christians... It's your type that's to blame for the way the world has turned out. The Lord has told us before how we should treat heathens... we should slay them all, crush their babies skulls on the rocks, rape their women, and rip their pregnant women apart... do you not read your bible? Do you want to join Darwind and the satan-worshipping atheists? In any case I don't want to debate this any more on this thread...

[WinAce]

I got called superstitious. That's a good one!

Of course, since "Socrates" hasn't bothered to reveal his credentials (if any), I think it's safe to say that he's as much a "scientist" as Kent Hovind. And probably a worse chess player.

[Socratism]

It seems typical that evolutionists are obsessed with "credentials" as opposed to evidence and sound thinking.

This reminds me of the ending of the "Wizard of Oz" where the scarecrow finally gets his "credentials".

[Polemicist]

Five Solas and Socrates,

Thanks for the ideas on further study. As I stated in my last post, I'm in a sort of discovery mode on this. But as with everything else, in my opinion, the Bible is the standard and whenever the Bible appears to contradict science, I typically default to our science being faulty and reject exegetical gymnastics to make the two meet. In this case, I had never really thought about the time/relativity angle.

I'm sure to those who have thoroughly studied this stuff, I really appear naive. That's fine. The more I learn, the more I know what I don't know. [last sentence courtesy of Cliche-O-Matic] :cool:

[TheFiveSolas]

Winace:
Of course, since "Socrates" hasn't bothered to reveal his credentials (if any), I think it's safe to say that he's as much a "scientist" as Kent Hovind.


I suggest you read the post that Dee Dee left at the "A Call to Socretes (purposefully misspelled by thread starter)" thread. She has been able to verify that Socrates has a Ph.D. in Chemistry from an accredited secular university.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=91854#post91854

So much for your fallacious claim equating him with the infamous "Dr." Kent Hovind who really does lie about his credentials.

[Dee Dee Warren]

SlaveofGod, trollers get put in "moderate" status. You have earned the privilege.

[wienerdog]

I would reiterate that the Bible says that the universe began to exist, and God stretched or is stretching it out. Big Bang cosmology states the universe began to exist and is expanding outward from a point of zero volume. These seem to be describing the same process. The order of events in Genesis 1 versus those according to modern science are a different issue.

[Socratism]

Today @ 05:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93071#post93071)
wienerdog:

I would reiterate that the Bible says that the universe began to exist, and God stretched or is stretching it out. Big Bang cosmology states the universe began to exist and is expanding outward from a point of zero volume. These seem to be idescribing the same process. The order of events in Genesis 1 versus those according to modern science are a different issue.

The clinker in that is that the Big Bang says that the universe is still expanding while both the evidence and scripture iseem to indicate that it is not.

I will admit that none of this is conclusive, but it is worth considering. One wouldn't want to commit the error of Galileo's day where the Church backed the wrong scientific theory.

[Joe_Sixpack]

"It seems typical that evolutionists are obsessed with "credentials" as opposed to evidence and sound thinking."

Wasn't it Socrates that disparaged WinAce as "superstitious non-scientist Westerner like Winace?" That whole "non-scientist" part seems to show a little obsession "with "credentials" as opposed to evidence and sound thinking," doesn't it?

[lostseptember]

If God didn't create the universe with a process like the "Big Bang" then how did He create it?

[QED]

how did He create it?

That is the question that started science working on such problems. So far, we have gotten a few answers:
- most likely with a big bang, or something very similar
- created the stars and earth through the laws of physics, such as gravitation and the nuclear forces
- created life (by some means, possibly chemical evolution) on the earth
- created the various kinds of life through descent with variation and natural selection.

Since those answers don't suit certain interpretations of scripture, there are those who wish they could change the rules of how we go about finding the answers, so we can get the ones they like.

[Socratism]

Today @ 10:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93193#post93193)
lostseptember:

If God didn't create the universe with a process like the "Big Bang" then how did He create it?

The problem with your question may be that there is a hidden assumption in it that the act of creating the universe had to have some element of material processes in it that we are familiar with from our investigations of the current material world.

That may be the case, but on the other hand it may not.

In the latter case we may have to depend only on what He said in His Word for any more information other than that He was responsible for creating it. Maybe that's why He made sure so many people would get to see such a revelation.

He chose a particular people to be the medium by which His word would be preserved for all of future mankind, and by golly I think they actually dood it !!!

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 09:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92654#post92654)
WinAce:

I got called superstitious. That's a good one!

Of course, since "Socrates" hasn't bothered to reveal his credentials (if any), I think it's safe to say that he's as much a "scientist" as Kent Hovind. And probably a worse chess player.

Why don't you debate him? Since he is so ignorant and all a High intellectual 18 year old Atheist like you should have no problem taking him on! (Just doing what you do!)

Blake

[Socratism]

Today @ 11:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93251#post93251)
QED:

That is the question that started science working on such problems. So far, we have gotten a few answers:
- most likely with a big bang, or something very similar
- created the stars and earth through the laws of physics, such as gravitation and the nuclear forces
- created life (by some means, possibly chemical evolution) on the earth
- created the various kinds of life through descent with variation and natural selection.

Since those answers don't suit certain interpretations of scripture, there are those who wish they could change the rules of how we go about finding the answers, so we can get the ones they like.

The problem as I see it is that some people believe that current theories are more infallible than other people do.

For example, from a scientific standpoint it appears more likely that the current state of the universe is static not expanding. This does not address whether it once was expanded, only its current state today.

Is is not clear how the first stars were formed, since any early "condensation" process, prior to the point where gravitational condensation can start is still a great mystery spawning many different hypotheses, including pressure waves from exploding supernovae that couldn't have been around when the first stars were formed..

It is not clear how the Earth (or any planet for that matter) could have formed, for essentially the same reason that we do not know how stars first formed.

We do not know how the Moon was formed either. The current theory is an unlikely collision with another body. One might ask why the "nebula" theory has been abandoned.

It is not clear how life could have been created by natural processes from lifeless chemicals. The answer may well be that the process was not "natural".

Finally, it is not clear how copying errors in DNA could have produced the DNA/RNA/protein "factories" prior to the time that the "factories" were in operation to copy anything.

On the other hand if we ever dare to contemplate that perhaps God had a hand in some of these things, and that He used methods and processes that are not familiar to us, then that might open up a Pandora's Box I fear, for some child out there might ask why we just don't take His word for it that it was done as described in the first few chapters of Genesis?

[Socratism]

Wasn't it Socrates that disparaged WinAce as "superstitious non-scientist Westerner like Winace?" That whole "non-scientist" part seems to show a little obsession "with "credentials" as opposed to evidence and sound thinking," doesn't it?

No, it sounded more like an "insult born of frustration" than an "obsession" to me. .

I should add that I am generally not in favor of deliberate insults, although I will admit that frustration has gotten to me also at times in the past.

[bhukkadakota]

just because science cant explain it at the moment
doesnt immediatly mean god made the earth

you just need to wait until some bright scientist come up with a explanation. and when we can observe the creation of another planet, maybe we will find how the gases get in there.

and since the earth is revolving around the sun, i think everyone agrees the sun mustve been there first, otherwise earth couldnt have revolved around it.

[Joe_Sixpack]

"No, it sounded more like an "insult born of frustration" than an "obsession" to me. .

I should add that I am generally not in favor of deliberate insults, although I will admit that frustration has gotten to me also at times in the past."

So, in other words, it is excusable for Socrates to insult someone, right, but it is not excusable for someone else, right? I mean, it would not be right for me to call you, for example, a "superstitious non-scientist" in order to disparage your views of physics and astronomy, right?

But, then again, maybe I am frustrated having spent years getting an advanced degree in physics to see someone with no background in the field bash it without much understanding of the topics beyond having read a few websites. So, then, would my frustration be warranted as Socrates is understandable in your mind? Or are you comfortable putting out a double standard?

Just curious...

[Socratism]

Today @ 01:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93332#post93332)
bhukkadakota:

just because science cant explain it at the moment
doesnt immediatly mean god made the earth

Certainly ttrue, but there needs to be some balance in this area, for the impression given to the public is that these things are known beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is why many Christians feel they must water down what scripture clearly says in order to be respected by their peers. Approval by society is normally desirable of course, but not if it negatively affects approval by God.


you just need to wait until some bright scientist come up with a explanation. and when we can observe the creation of another planet, maybe we will find how the gases get in there.

Until that happens I prefer another explanation.


and since the earth is revolving around the sun, i think everyone agrees the sun mustve been there first, otherwise earth couldnt have revolved around it.

Since the nebula theory is no longer accepted, another explanation is needed and none have been forthcoming as yet.

As you said yourself, "when we can observe the creation of another planet".

Until then, why are you so certain that God did not do what He said He did?

Personally I give consideration to the possibility that God deliberately chose to create (and then record) in ways that would be clearly inconsistent with naturalistic explanations, thus forcing people to make a choice whether to believe Him or fallible theories of men.

[WinAce]

Today @ 12:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93280#post93280)
Blake Reas:

Why don't you debate him?

In due time. Of course, a debate with Socrates is likely to amount to an insult contest, and we all know the Aussies have a richer repertoire of those than Americans. :teeth:

[lostseptember]

Why does it have to be natural processes OR creation? It's just my opinion, but wouldn't the "laws of nature" have to be created too, and first? I agree that alone "the big bang" isn't very convincing (because it still leaves out the question of where did the original material come from). (I don't know a lot about physics so Joe 6 let us know the latest on this please) But the idea of God creating the matter and the laws to govern the uses of that matter is very satisfying to me!
I've read enough posts to realize that Socrates, you and I are not likely to agree on this. We both agree on the Who but not the how.

[Warcraft3]

Socratism:

Certainly ttrue, but there needs to be some balance in this area, for the impression given to the public is that these things are known beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is why many Christians feel they must water down what scripture clearly says in order to be respected by their peers. Approval by society is normally desirable of course, but not if it negatively affects approval by God.
I certainly do not feel the need to water down anything in scripture so that I might be respected by my peers. Even if I still held the YEC position my peers would respect me. And I do not think scripture clearly teaches YEC by any means. In fact I think YEC is the second worse (I find the gap theory to be a bit worse) view of Genesis scripturally. I find the day-age view, the framework view, and the days of proclamation view to all be scripturally surperiour.


Personally I give consideration to the possibility that God deliberately chose to create (and then record) in ways that would be clearly inconsistent with naturalistic explanations, thus forcing people to make a choice whether to believe Him or fallible theories of men.
I find this view somewhat erroneous since I think scripture clearly teaches that God sustains the creation through largely natural means and only rarely overrides the laws of nature. Moreover, if the heavens do indeed declare the glory of God than I see a problem with Gods method being "clearly inconsistent with naturalistic explanations".


Russ

[WinAce]

Today @ 06:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93650#post93650)
lostseptember:

But the idea of God creating the matter and the laws to govern the uses of that matter is very satisfying to me!

It was satisfying to me too, but then I realized I had to invoke a meta-god to explain god (and an ultra-god to explain that, ad infinitum) to be consistent in my explanations.

Nowadays, it's much simpler because I realized the value of parsimony.

http://users.adelphia.net/~ybechor/sig_occam.gif

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 07:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93717#post93717)
WinAce:



It was satisfying to me too, but then I realized I had to invoke a meta-god to explain god (and an ultra-god to explain that, ad infinitum) to be consistent in my explanations.

Nowadays, it's much simpler because I realized the value of parsimony.

http://users.adelphia.net/~ybechor/sig_occam.gif

Are you saying you believe the universe is eternal or did not actually have a beginning? Or do you believe the universe is its own cause? Or something else?


Russ

[WinAce]

I'm not currently sure enough to align myself with any of the alternatives. All I know is that no one has successfully argued a single reason why deities are immune to the paradoxes of existence universes supposedly face.

They've said that nothing can exist eternally, then turned around and, without breaking a beat, said that their god exists eternally. They've said that the universe is geared for the production of carbon-based life, while ignoring the fact that any criteria they use to infer the universe is designed will also say their god was designed.

They've said that nothing can begin without a cause while ignoring the fact that their theology requires a cause-less beginning of the universe. When pressed, I've never seen anyone explain how a non-physical entity can affect physical objects, since doing so would require a physical mechanism.

They've said a lot of things that is considered nonsense for good reason. =)

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 08:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93743#post93743)
WinAce:

I'm not currently sure enough to align myself with any of the alternatives.
Understandable.


All I know is that no one has successfully argued a single reason why deities are immune to the paradoxes of existence universes supposedly face.
Well the concept of God (at least mine) is an entity who exists independent of matter, energy, space, and time and so is not confined to those dimensions. So I see no paradox with such a concept.


They've said that nothing can exist eternally, then turned around and, without breaking a beat, said that their god exists eternally.
Well again, if He is not confined to time and exists outside of it then the "eternal" problem disappears.


They've said that the universe is geared for the production of carbon-based life, while ignoring the fact that any criteria they use to infer the universe is designed will also say their god was designed.
Okay if you are going to talk about the anthropic principle I really think we have to limit what we are investigating to the known universe. Im not sure I would then apply those criteria to the cause of the universe itself.


They've said that nothing can begin without a cause while ignoring the fact that their theology requires a cause-less beginning of the universe.
Yeah again, this whole issue of cause and effect may be meaningless outside of matter,energy,space, and time so I do not see this as a big problem.


When pressed, I've never seen anyone explain how a non-physical entity can affect physical objects, since doing so would require a physical mechanism.
Well I think that the physical realm is not so simple as we think. Quantum physics certainly gives us a different view of reality than classical mechanics does. Perhaps the "mechanism" that God uses to interact with our universe is something we will never be able to detect. Or maybe someday we will have a glimpse of it, who knows. Time will tell.


They've said a lot of things that is considered nonsense for good reason. =)
Nonsense statements are not limited to theists, WinAce. Atheists have made plenty of "nonsense" statements as well.


Russ

[lostseptember]

As a human being my understanding of words like time, eternity, beginning and end are limited to my frame of reference. What does God think of these words..I wouldn't presume to answer for Him. My ability to understand God's universe is simillar to an amoeba understanding mine! A friend asked me once if I thought science could prove that God exists. My answer was not at this point in human development.

[WinAce]

Yesterday @ 08:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93777#post93777)
steadele:

Well the concept of God (at least mine) is an entity who exists independent of matter, energy, space, and time and so is not confined to those dimensions. So I see no paradox with such a concept.

The definition itself is extremely problematic. I could define a universe to exist uncaused suspended in hyperspace, but that wouldn't make me right or escape the questions. At best it would amount to defining the problem away without really addressing it.


Okay if you are going to talk about the anthropic principle I really think we have to limit what we are investigating to the known universe. Im not sure I would then apply those criteria to the cause of the universe itself.

Why not? Unless someone can demonstrate that any claimed explanation for the "anthropic coincidences" is more parsimonious than leaving them unexplained, they have little argument. The god hypothesis explains them but introduces an entity at least as complex as the universe itself (as does the multiverse hypothesis). If we're to go that route, we can cut out the middlemen pending independent verification of their existence.


Yeah again, this whole issue of cause and effect may be meaningless outside of matter,energy,space, and time so I do not see this as a big problem.

True, causality need not hold outside of its own frame of reference. This is just one of the many reasons cosmological arguments appear woeful failures.


Well I think that the physical realm is not so simple as we think. Quantum physics certainly gives us a different view of reality than classical mechanics does. Perhaps the "mechanism" that God uses to interact with our universe is something we will never be able to detect. Or maybe someday we will have a glimpse of it, who knows. Time will tell.

If it produces a physical effect, it's empirically detectable. If it doesn't, it's superfluous to our existence anyway. Should there be any actual mechanisms underlying paranormal manifestations, we should be able to detect their effects even if the mode of action remains unknown.

This is why I think theists should be pushing for more double-blind medical prayer studies, ghost detection apparati and other scientific study of the hypothetical extra-universal forces they think exist. They've met with abysmal unsuccess so far, though.


Nonsense statements are not limited to theists, WinAce. Atheists have made plenty of "nonsense" statements as well.

Of course they have. I've made a couple of quotable doozies myself =)

[Socratism]

I find the day-age view, the framework view, and the days of proclamation view to all be scripturally surperiour.[to YEC]

Since some of these "interpretations" are relatively recent it would seem strange that God would have left so many believers "hanging" for so many millenia with an account that was not straightforward.

Besides, there are many scriptural references outside of Genesis, including many in the NT, that also conflict with current scientific theories of Origins. I am not aware of any scientific Origin theories that do not assume a "natural" origin for life, at least at the protocell on up stage, or that humans did not develop from ape-like ancestors.

Frankly, I myself tried for many years to resist the straightforward account of Genesis, because it seemed too much like a fairytale. In fact I must admit that in my youth I became an agnostic and remained so for most of my life.

Something happened a few years ago that swept away my agnosticism and caused me to believe firmly in the reality of Jesus Christ. However, I remained an agnostic with respect to the "fabulous" portions of scripture, especially those in the OT. In effect I dismissed the OT in favor of the New.

All that changed in the years after I first looked in detail into the foundations of the theory of evolution. I had gotten interested in reading about the latest findings in molecular biology, and realized almost in a flash that people had been deluding themselves into thinking that such marvels could be generated by "random mutations plus natural selection". By that time in my life I had long experience in some of the most complex physical fields of technology. For me, it was unthinkable that any firm foundation principle of evolution was essentially totally missing.

In other words, I realized that evolution from a hypothetical primitive protocell was not true, even though everyone I knew was assuming as I had that it was.

These life altering events caused me to reconsider some of the scriptural myths I had rejected in my childhood. This process has continued for some years now, culminating in my "discovery" that there are no physical reasons that the myths could not have occurred pretty much as reported.

I can appreciate why many do not share this view. It seemed dubious to me originally and the feeling was not dispelled without an enormous amount of research and careful thought over the past couple of decades, an effort that has covered specific subtopics in the hundreds. The effort continues, for as I have mentioned here before, as soon as one evolutionary idea or explanation falls out of favor a new one (or more) arises to replace it. Yet the very foundation of the theory, random mutations plus natural selection, has never been shown to be adequate to support the weight of such an otherwise imposing edifice.

More recently I have turned my attention to astronomy and the cosmos.

Here it is deja vu all over again.

[lostseptember]

WinAce
I think we would disagree on which is the simpler explanation for the universe. In my opinion Occum's Razor more closely supports creation than evolution.

Socratism (or is it Socrates?)
I think I understand what you are saying since I also have had a very long road coming to what I now believe. Except for me it the opposite of your experience. For more than thirty years (yeah, I'm getting old!) I held a literalist view of the Bible. I finally just couldn't hang on to it anymore, it was too painful. Today, I can honestly say that I have never felt closer to God and my desire to follow the Lord Jesus appears to be leading me to seminary!

Please don't think I'm saying that it's all easy now, it's not. There's ALOT about the Bible I can't begin to understand, but learning a little bit as I go along is such a joy!

Finally, I agree that the universe is much to complex to have just happened through a multitude (understatement) of random occurances. I believe that God had a very well thought out plan.
Maybe like planting a garden, He planted all the seeds and is still tending them today.

[garthoverman]

Yesterday @ 12:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93727#post93727)
steadele:

Are you saying you believe the universe is eternal or did not actually have a beginning? Or do you believe the universe is its own cause? Or something else?
Hello, Russ. I hope you won't mind if I offer you my two cents in regard to your questions here.

Where "eternal" = "exists for all time values that make sense," the universe qualifies. IOW, there is a finite search area in the past in which spatio-temporal relations exist (i.e. time has a beginning). If there exists an "outside" to the spatio-temporal manifold, then the universe exists there as well by definition.

We can tell that time had a beginning, but this does not let us conclude that the universe had a beginning. It seems a beginning to the universe would require a state of absolute non-existence from which existence would then proceed, however every indication points to the impossibility of such a state of absolute non-existence or "nothingness" from which the universe might begin. Therefore no beginning and no cause.

Yours,
Garth

*eddited two ficks speling

[QED]

Yesterday @ 06:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94367#post94367)
Socratism:



Since some of these "interpretations" are relatively recent it would seem strange that God would have left so many believers "hanging" for so many millenia with an account that was not straightforward.

The Bible warns against pride. Only those believers who were proud enough to think that their interpretation of Genesis was 100% correct as a guide to natural history would have been left "hanging" on this issue. To others, since the issue of the age of the earth is tangential at best, and irrelevant at most, they lost nothing by assuming a literalistic interpretation.

[Warcraft3]

WinAce:


The definition itself is extremely problematic. I could define a universe to exist uncaused suspended in hyperspace, but that wouldn't make me right or escape the questions. At best it would amount to defining the problem away without really addressing it.
Any definition which goes beyond the (ten?) dimensions of our universe is problematic from a certain point of view, and since many attempts to address the question of ultimate origin do exactly that, I do not see this as "explaining the problem away". The answer may lie outside the known dimensions of the universe, so addressing the issue does touch on matters which are more philisophical in nature than scietific. This is not a "problem" though, its just the nature of the question.



Why not? Unless someone can demonstrate that any claimed explanation for the "anthropic coincidences" is more parsimonious than leaving them unexplained, they have little argument. The god hypothesis explains them but introduces an entity at least as complex as the universe itself (as does the multiverse hypothesis). If we're to go that route, we can cut out the middlemen pending independent verification of their existence.
Okay first of all the answer does not have to be "parsimonious", since the thing we are trying to explain is the universe itself. Why cant the cause be as complex as the universe, if it is fundamentaly different? Since the cause of the universe might exist independent of the universe and be fundamentally different than how do we even compare the complexities of the two? What would be the basis for comparison? I think "comparisons" lose all practical meaning here.


True, causality need not hold outside of its own frame of reference. This is just one of the many reasons cosmological arguments appear woeful failures.
Im not sure if you mean cosmological arguments in general or those from a theistic perspective, but I do not think either is a complete failutre. We are attempting to explain these things to the best of our ability. Its quite an undertaking you know, so yeah current explanations have problems, but so what? Lets keep on trying to come up with answers (even if they do enter the realm of philosophy or theology).



If it produces a physical effect, it's empirically detectable. If it doesn't, it's superfluous to our existence anyway. Should there be any actual mechanisms underlying paranormal manifestations, we should be able to detect their effects even if the mode of action remains unknown.
And I would argue that there is some evidense out there in favor of God.


This is why I think theists should be pushing for more double-blind medical prayer studies, ghost detection apparati and other scientific study of the hypothetical extra-universal forces they think exist. They've met with abysmal unsuccess so far, though.
Yeah Ive read some of those studies and Ive also read some of the articles skeptical of them. Some of the stuff is bunk, but not all of it is. So I wouldnt call it an "abysmal unsuccess".


Of course they have. I've made a couple of quotable doozies myself =)
LOL Yeah I have done that myself as well.


Russ

[Warcraft3]

Garthoverman:


Hello, Russ. I hope you won't mind if I offer you my two cents in regard to your questions here.
Of course not.


Where "eternal" = "exists for all time values that make sense,"; the universe qualifies. IOW, there is a finite search area in the past in which spatio-temporal relations exist (i.e. time has a beginning). If there exists an "outside" to the spatio-temporal manifold, then the universe exists there as well by definition.
I disagree that the universe necessarily has to exist there as well. Our (ten) or so dimensions may be a subset of other undetectable dimensions. So maybe our universe "exists" in those dimensions, but only as a noninteracting subset. Or maybe there is a "dimensional" barrier between the two sets making them independent subsets of a larger set. Of course Im not a mathematican or a cosmologist so Im just talking out of my backside here.:shrug:


We can tell that time had a beginning, but this does not let us conclude that the universe had a beginning. It seems a beginning to the universe would require a state of absolute non-existence from which existence would then proceed, however every indication points to the impossibility of such a state of absolute non-existence or "nothingness" from which the universe might begin. Therefore no beginning and no cause.
Well there are plenty of Scientists that disagree with you on that one (and some who agree), so I wouldnt say that either conclusion is crystal clear. Of course you know which one I take.
:teeth:


Russ

[Warcraft3]

Socratism:


Since some of these "interpretations" are relatively recent it would seem strange that God would have left so many believers "hanging" for so many millenia with an account that was not straightforward.
Yes "some" of them are "relatively" recent. But there are enough "questionable" statements about the exact nature of the days among the fathers to at least leave the possibility open for a different interpretation.
I also think Genesis is very straightforward with regard to showing that the nature of the "days" in Genesis are not ordinary days as we know them. As I have stated before, my orthodox friends (including the priest or father) told me that they saw enough support among the church fathers to allow my interpretation. They said there was enough dissent and questioning among the writings about the exact nature of the days to allow a non-24 hour position.
I agree with them 100%.


russ

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 11:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94929#post94929)
steadele:

Socratism:

Yes "some" of them are "relatively" recent. But there are enough "questionable" statements about the exact nature of the days among the fathers to at least leave the possibility open for a different interpretation.
I also think Genesis is very straightforward with regard to showing that the nature of the "days" in Genesis are not ordinary days as we know them. As I have stated before, my orthodox friends (including the priest or father) told me that they saw enough support among the church fathers to allow my interpretation. They said there was enough dissent and questioning among the writings about the exact nature of the days to allow a non-24 hour position.
I agree with them 100%.
russ

I would agree that Augustine in particular disagreed with a straightforward interpretation of 6 days for creation. He instead felt that creation occurred instantaneously. This was probably due to the fact that his education was in the Greek tradition and that he did not become a believer until the middle years of his life. Thus he brought a lot of pagan baggage to his ideas.

Other early fathers of the church also disagreed with the six day account in Gensis, but many agreed with it. So we should not base our beliefs by cherrypicking any one side in this dispute.

My own viewpoint is of course that scripture itself on the subject is written in such a way as to make it almost impossible to believe that the days were not normal rotations of the Earth. That is certainly the straightforward interpretation and it is questioned in this day by people who feel that science has "proved" that the Earth is billions of years old.

This "proof" has been vastly overrated as far as I have been able to determine.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 03:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94921#post94921)
steadele:

I disagree that the universe necessarily has to exist there as well. Our (ten) or so dimensions may be a subset of other undetectable dimensions. So maybe our universe "exists" in those dimensions, but only as a noninteracting subset. Or maybe there is a "dimensional" barrier between the two sets making them independent subsets of a larger set. Of course Im not a mathematican or a cosmologist so Im just talking out of my backside here.:shrug:
LOL! My main point is that people tend to reify "the universe" into "something which exists" instead of "everything which exists" - the latter being the most valid definition. It may be the case that our physical experience is contained within a subset of the real universe, however this does not mean that "the universe" is limited to "the physical universe." Rather, I prefer "the real universe" which may incorporate non-physical, immaterial, yet real aspects of the universe. Still, it seems that any comprehensive theory of reality (which includes religions) must regard the universe at once monistically and holistically, as opposed to the notion that it exists seperate from another realm of existence.

I understand that even scientists and cosmologists themselves contribute to the reification of "the universe," expecially with the latest-and-greatest cosmological models that contend with a "multiverse" which is a (theoretically) infinite collection "universes" that compose the entire Universe. Really, when the cosmologists talk about many universes, what they really mean by "universe" in this sense is "a patch of space-time roughly equivalent in scale as the one we presently observe." There may be many of the "patches" existing, and they may or may not exist independantly, yet they are all part of the Universe which is literally all that exists.



Well there are plenty of Scientists that disagree with you on that one (and some who agree), so I wouldnt say that either conclusion is crystal clear. Of course you know which one I take.
:teeth:
That is certainly true.

Yours,
Garth

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 11:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95277#post95277)
garthoverman:


LOL! My main point is that people tend to reify "the universe" into "something which exists" instead of "everything which exists" - the latter being the most valid definition. It may be the case that our physical experience is contained within a subset of the real universe, however this does not mean that "the universe" is limited to "the physical universe." Rather, I prefer "the real universe" which may incorporate non-physical, immaterial, yet real aspects of the universe. Still, it seems that any comprehensive theory of reality (which includes religions) must regard the universe at once monistically and holistically, as opposed to the notion that it exists seperate from another realm of existence.
Oh okay I see what you are saying now. You are making a distinction between the physical universe and the real universe. Yeah Im not sure where I stand on the "beginning" of the real universe, but I do think the physical universe did have a beginning. I guess I see the physical universe kind of coming out of the "real"one, and so the physical universe is just a subset of the larger reality.


I understand that even scientists and cosmologists themselves contribute to the reification of "the universe," expecially with the latest-and-greatest cosmological models that contend with a "multiverse" which is a (theoretically) infinite collection "universes" that compose the entire Universe. Really, when the cosmologists talk about many universes, what they really mean by "universe" in this sense is "a patch of space-time roughly equivalent in scale as the one we presently observe." There may be many of the "patches" existing, and they may or may not exist independantly, yet they are all part of the Universe which is literally all that exists.
I currently do not believe the multiverse theory myself, although it does make for some interesting science fiction. It is an interesting view to be sure, but I am not convinced by it.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I think I see your position a bit clearer now.


Russ

[garthoverman]

Today @ 05:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95328#post95328)
steadele:


Oh okay I see what you are saying now. You are making a distinction between the physical universe and the real universe. Yeah Im not sure where I stand on the "beginning" of the real universe, but I do think the physical universe did have a beginning. I guess I see the physical universe kind of coming out of the "real"one, and so the physical universe is just a subset of the larger reality.
As far as I can tell, if the real universe contains all that really exists, and we propose that a beginning really exists, the the universe must contain its beginning by definition, and that is impossible in the sense that we typically consider beginnings. Beginnings actually presuppose the existence of time, yet time doesn't necessarily exist in every part of the universe. In fact, time may not have objective existence at all. Time seems to be a characteristic of experience within the physical universe, however as I mentioned before, the real universe likely contains the physical universe but is not identical to it. So where time may NOT exist within the real universe, the concepts of 'beginning,' 'end,' 'eternity,' etc... are truly meaningless.



I currently do not believe the multiverse theory myself, although it does make for some interesting science fiction. It is an interesting view to be sure, but I am not convinced by it.
Well there are several different version of multiverse theories. The ekpyrotic model describes universes expanding and contracting in an endless series of Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch, etc... or even two "branes" (sub-universes) colliding to produce the Big Bang.

The other multiverse theory relates to quantum mechanics and collapse of the wave function. In this model, the probabilities associated with quantum superposition each represent unique probable universes. Presently we obseve the actualization of only one of those probabilites when the wave function collapses, however the theory proposes that EVERY probability actualizes in some universe, and that the collapse of the wave function represents a divergence of universes into mutliple new universes. An illustration will help:

At event E, the process E(x) has probable outcomes A, B, and C. We can calculate the probabilities associated with A, B, and C, but we cannot predict with certainty which will actually happen. E(x) takes place, the outcome we observe is A. Typically we simply assume that B and C did NOT happen. The mutliverse theory, however, supposes that B and C really do happen, each in different universes! IOW, A, B, and C are all going to happen at E(x), we simply do not observe the universes where 2 out of the 3 happen.

I hope that helps a bit. Sometimes when describing this stuff people end up more confused than when the original question was asked.:hrm:

Yours,
Garth

[Warcraft3]

garthoverman:


I hope that helps a bit. Sometimes when describing this stuff people end up more confused than when the original question was asked.:hrm:

Yours,
Garth

No need to worry in my case........I took quantum mechanics along with many other math and physics courses for my EE degree (and of course I also took alot of EE classes). Ive heard of both theories you have mentioned before, though I am more familiar with the quantum one.


Russ