Creation vs. Evolution - which view do you hold to?

[Pate]

Let's vote on this topic.

I chose "Old universe, old earth, intermediate form between progressive creation and theistic evolution", though I also am open to the possibilities of progressive creation and some not very extreme form of theistic evolution.

[Yog^sothoth]

my view isn't on that list. :bawl:

i feel so alone.

[Pate]

Yog^sothoth, what's your view on this matter?

[TheFiveSolas]

Yog,
Mine isn't either.

Pate,
I hold to the view that was put forth by Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (a theoretical physicist at Sandia National Laboratories) in his book Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe.

I'll quote the AnswersInGenesis.org website summary of his findings:


He has developed a new cosmology which uses the same theoretical foundation, namely Einstein’s theory of general relativity, as do all modern cosmologies including the big-bang cosmologies. Dr Humphreys changes one assumption in the big bang cosmology, and that is that matter in the universe is unbounded, that is, all space is completely filled with matter. This is not how non-experts normally imagine the cosmos. This is based on another assumption called the cosmological principle, which states that an observer’s view of the universe depends neither on direction in which he looks nor on his location. He replaces those assumptions with another — a universe whose matter is bounded, that is, matter surrounded by empty space for some distance beyond the matter. That is how non-experts normally imagine the cosmos, but not how expert cosmologists picture it.

This results in a cosmology which allows for the formation of the universe in the biblical time-frame as well as the travelling of light to earth from stars billions of light years distant. This is because general relativity shows that time is different in different reference frames with different gravitational fields. So God made the universe in six ordinary days in earth’s reference frame, but the light had ample time to travel in an extraterrestrial reference frame. His book is written at a layman’s level, but has a technical appendix.


As stated his book is written to the layman, but does contain two technical papers in the appendix. These technical papers have been peer-reviewed and the criticisms responded to. Here is the link for anyone that would like to read the criticisms and his responses.

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

[Epoetker]

Voted for "I don't know." Why?

Because talking confidently about a supposedly billion years gone history with no dispassionately intelligent observers present without a heck of a lot more knowledge is a fool's errand. Indeed, it gives good reason to run into ongoing arguments :argue:

and yell really loudly: "Your current knowledge is useless for debate! We need more RESEARCH!!!":rant:

Because, really, if my experience at ARN is any indication, that's exactly where arguments end up going; "I'm SURE more sequence comparisons will support my predictions," or, "I'm SURE the next discovery of the existence of a complex photosynthesizing molecule in a putatively hostile environment will support my thoery of origins," or "Hey, don't these findings of a stick insect re-evolving its wings REPEATEDLY challenge a few commonly accepted views of them having been only given enough time to have evolved them once? Or that mutations will necessarily mess up any unnecessary silent genetic info?"

http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/stickinsect012003.htm
:o
Not to mention the fact that both creationary and evolutionary theories can be stretched really, REALLY wide to accept almost any findings-denials notwithstanding.

And talking confident nonsense about what my personal Designer may or may not do is also rather foolish-the God that plans and knows the lives of all his people surely shouldn't have too much difficulty with supernaturally knocking around a few amino acids for His own purposes-or ensuring the survival of His servants during a global hydrological catastrophe.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not above and beyond sniping at the same assumptions when they're held as gospel truth by certain skeptics-science provides enough material to contradict or question those beliefs as it is;)

But trying to ask whether I've come up with a gigantic logical alternative to currently accepted origins theories isn't going to get you very far in assaulting my faith when a certain much more verifiable miracle that explains both the miraculous and non-miraculous events in the universe much better than any other two-bit 19th century writer could exists.

Because unless my mental outlook is prepared to accept the validity of reason and the usefulness of sentient life (and there's been nothing from the Skeptical camp to support this-special thanks to H.G. Wells for showing me the dreariness of athe-agnosticism long before I started debating the issues) I'm not even going to waste time debating.