Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" on astrophysics?
bambooguy
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 76 (32908)
02-23-2003 1:13 AM


Darwin,
I am new to the list or I would have replied earlier. As you can tell, we creationists don't have our act together when it comes to cosmology. I know of one prominent creationist that said the second law of thermodynamics proves that stars can't form themselves, God had to make them personally. As a physicist such blatant disregard of science riles me, as a creationist it does even more.
I think that there is no real problem between cosmology and Christianity. They don't really contradict each other, cosmology says that the universe exists by this and that law and Christianity says God created those laws. Not very contradictory in my opinion.
So the problem between Cosmology and Creationists (not Creationism) lies in the interpretation of Genesis 1. Are you familiar with this passage? In the first two verses it says, 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters." This may be confusing to you since these verses appear to contradict 'literal' interpretations of this passage, because it seems clear that the planet we call Earth existed before the traditional 6 days of Genesis 1.
I think that the literal interpretation of this passage does not disagree with the science of cosmology. This chapter in Genesis deals exclusively with modifications to the planet 'Earth'. Just because God put humans here 6,000 yrs ago doesn't mean that the planet itself isn't older!
I think that this rift between cosmology and creationism is largely an internal problem, within Christianity. It allows atheists to poke fun at us, not because of the actual idea of creation but for our ludicrous ideas. Such disregard of scientific principles is not Christian. Christianity is rational, much more rational than science alone.
Evan

  
bambooguy
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 76 (32909)
02-23-2003 1:20 AM


Addendum:
Oh, now I know what YEC means!! I guess I would be both YEC and OEC (old earth creation). The planet is older, but the life & humans are young. Get my drift?
Evan

  
bambooguy
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 76 (32930)
02-23-2003 12:03 PM


Mike,
I'm slightly confused by your arguments. I'm not trying to prove the age of the world. The question I was answering was how can light from 15 billion light years away reach the earth if it's only 6,000 years old. The question was how creationists can reconcile this dilemma with their beliefs. As a creationist, I have thought through this problem so I gave my perspective. I am not accepting or rejecting the scientific evidence, so there is no need for me to give scientific proofs. I'm not trying to further the knowledge of science, I'm trying to further the knowledge of this particular Biblical passage.
I am examing traditional creationist views (i.e. the universe is only 6,000 yrs old) and comparing them to the views of cosmology (i.e. the universe is 15 billion yrs old). I'm not supporting either position. I'm merely pointing out that a literal understanding of this passage does not conflict with accepted cosmological views.
So your observation that I chose biased information is correct. I chose suitable evidence, literary proofs for literary content and not scientific proofs for literary content. I have not heard your evidence on why the Genesis 1 passage conflicts with cosmology. If you have a literary interpretation of this passage that is more accurate than the one I have presented, I'm all ears. Use evidence. Use logic and literary criticism. This is a literary passage, not a scientific law.
Furthermore, the my biblical rejection of biological 'Evolution' does not affect my views on cosmic 'evolution'. Cosmology is a separate discipline from biology; they rely on different methodology and logic. And the logic of modern cosmology is alot better than modern biology. Cosmology fits the criteria for science (i.e. not self-refuting), unlike evolutionary biological theories which do not. If you would like to hear my proofs for this statement, I will be happy to share them with you. But perhaps we should move to a different forum since this area deals exclusively with cosmology.
Evan
P.S. Again I wish to reiterate that I do not believe that Biblical creationism has any conflict with modern cosmology. That is why most creationist's arguments center around biology, and why most of their arguments regarding cosmology are ludicrous.

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 02-23-2003 12:09 PM bambooguy has not replied
 Message 48 by Coragyps, posted 02-23-2003 12:59 PM bambooguy has not replied
 Message 49 by John, posted 02-23-2003 1:54 PM bambooguy has replied

  
bambooguy
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 76 (32990)
02-23-2003 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by John
02-23-2003 1:54 PM


First I wanna thank Percy for his help using the forum. Thank you so much, and I'll reply to your letter on the other thread when I get the chance.
I would like to clear up some confusion. I am -not- saying that 'yowm' means an indefinite length of time. I don't think that the 6 days of Genesis are eras. Yes, they're real days. What I'm surmising is that the action on these days may signify modifications to the Earth and it's atmosphere, not the entire universe.
This interpretation would say that Genesis 1:1 is the record of the creation of the universe outside of the earth's biosphere (but there wasn't one at the time because there wasn't any life!). But this didn't necessarily occur on the first day or all at the same time. It merely means that God created the universe first at the beginning of time, before the rest of the chapter. Between verse 1 and verse 2 there may be some time. Who knows how much, 6 hrs, a billion years, or 15 billion years. The text doesn't say.
It may also be that the entire universe was created in 6 days, there is that possibility in the text. And if God did, would he be decieving us? No, how do we know what a 15 billion year old universe looks like? If God really did create the universe in 6 days, we don't know that it looks identical to a 15 billion year old universe, because we've never seen one!
But until we hear from God on the correct interpretation of this text, there's no reason to alienate modern cosmology.
Evan
P.S. Coragyps, good question. Give me some time to think about it, I haven't thought about this interpretation from that angle. Preliminarily, I would say that this is not a problem. The Bible doesn't give specific dates for the dawn of humanity. Some guy in the 15th century thought up a 6000 year old age for the earth. I don't think that the Bible demands this age, but let me check on it.
P.S.S. John, one consequence of this theory would be that there would be normal days on Days 1,2,&3, because the sun was already there (it was created in verse 1). I can explain some of the problems with my interpretation (like the meaning of day 4) later. However, to do them right I have alot of passages to cover, it may take me awhile to write it all out :-)
P.S.S.S. Wanted to clarify something that slipped through my edits. When I said that cosmology and biology had different methodologies, what I meant to say was that cosmology and evolution (only interspecies) have different methodologies & logic. Cosmology starts with a principle (General Relativity, Quantum mechanics, etc.) and speculates what the past would be like. Evolution starts with how the world is today (i.e. species have similarities) and tries to find principles that would make this happen. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that you can accept cosmic 'evolution' without accepting biological interspecies 'evolution'.
Sorry for the confusion, my mistake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by John, posted 02-23-2003 1:54 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Coragyps, posted 02-23-2003 11:16 PM bambooguy has replied

  
bambooguy
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 76 (33112)
02-25-2003 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Coragyps
02-23-2003 11:16 PM


Coragyps,
Good observation. I need to further clarify what I mean (gee, this is harder than it looks!). Yes, some cosmology starts from the current state of the universe and then invents laws to explain how we got to our current state. But not any that influence the age of the earth.
The only cosmolgical law that would influence the age of the universe, to my knowledge, is Hubble's Law. If you take Hubble's Law, that the universe is expanding, and reverse it, you end up with the Big Bang. This is a present principle attempting to prove the state of the past.
Science must find it's scientific principles in the present. You must find your laws or principles first, with physical expermental data. Then you may apply these principles to the past or future.
Any other way contradicts the scientific method.
Evolution is a case in point. The evolutionary theories regarding the emergence of life have not been experimentally proven. As of yet, no life has emerged from our scientists' test tubes. Until life is produced in the laboratory, evolution will be very different from ideas like the Big Bang. This does not necessarily mean that life could not emerge from test tubes, but it does mean that until expermental data is acquired such ideas are unscientific.
As an end to all this, I feel that this particular branch of the thread's tree has gone off topic. We could move it to another thread? I think it would help this discussion by not allowing the thread's other discussions to interfere.
Evan
P.S. Howdy Mark!
P.S.S. Mike, your latest letter is even more confusing than the one before. I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't ask you any question, I answered Darwin Storm's question. I am -not- trying to accept the evidence of an old universe. It has no relation to what I was talking about. I would be happy to discuss any topic you want, including the one you suggested. But, as I have said before, I think we should do it on a separate thread, since your topic is unrelated to the current topic & forum (see my previous letters).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Coragyps, posted 02-23-2003 11:16 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 02-25-2003 2:27 AM bambooguy has replied

  
bambooguy
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 76 (33509)
03-02-2003 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by PaulK
02-25-2003 2:27 AM


PaulK,
The Big Bang does have experimental data. The universe appears to be receding (redshifts) away from itself. So it may have been closer last year, or a decade ago, or a millenium ago, or a million years back, or a billion. If you go as far back as possible, you eventually come to a place where everything is at the same spot. This is the essential part of the Big Bang, everything used to be alot closer, maybe even as close as a singularity!
Albiogenesis, on the other hand, does not have any observable data. Some people have made amino acids in test tubes, but no life.
Also, Darwinian Evolution doesn't have any experimental data for macrospecies evolution (actually neither does the 'Hopeful Monster' approach). Yes, some fruitflies have been turned into a different breeding group of fruitflies. But no apes into humans or fish into frogs, at least not yet.
Evan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 02-25-2003 2:27 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Coragyps, posted 03-02-2003 10:03 PM bambooguy has not replied
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2003 2:29 AM bambooguy has replied

  
bambooguy
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 76 (33534)
03-03-2003 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by PaulK
03-03-2003 2:29 AM


I'm sorry, I didn't mean to use two words, experimental and observational. I meant observational data regarding the Big Bang, macrospecies evolution, and abiogenesis. I used the words as synonyms.
I am unaware of any observational data for macrospecies evolution or abiogenesis. If you can enlighten me, I would be grateful.
Evan
P.S. I am not aware of any scientist who claims to have formed life through random chemical interactions. Chemical compounds are not life anymore than rocks are.
P.S.S. On the same note, I know of no macrospecies evolution that has been done in an experiment. Interspecies yes, sometimes even dividing one species into two separate species, but no macrospecies evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2003 2:29 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Admin, posted 03-03-2003 10:22 AM bambooguy has replied
 Message 64 by Coragyps, posted 03-03-2003 10:26 AM bambooguy has not replied
 Message 65 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2003 10:44 AM bambooguy has not replied

  
bambooguy
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 76 (33543)
03-03-2003 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Admin
03-03-2003 10:22 AM


Thank you Admin,
What I'm trying to say is that a fruitfly species that evolves from another fruitfly species is not what many evolutionists are supporting. They're supporting an evolution from one-celled creatures to multi-celled creatures and beyond. Macrospecies evolution is probably not the right word for this. I can see how it's confusing. Sorry.
To clarify, by analogy, I can create two species of dogs by killing all the breeds inbetween Great Danes and Chihuahuas. But this doesn't prove that dogs can evolve into cats, or any other creature. You need to observe bacteria evolving into algae, fish evolving into amphibians, lizards evolving into birds, land mammals evolving into whales, sparrows evolving into woodpeckers, something of this magnitude. I haven't heard of anybody doing this yet. Maybe I'm wrong.
Evan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Admin, posted 03-03-2003 10:22 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Coragyps, posted 03-03-2003 12:15 PM bambooguy has not replied
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 03-03-2003 8:36 PM bambooguy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024