Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8972 total)
151 online now:
DrJones*, JonF, vimesey (3 members, 148 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,493 Year: 7,241/23,288 Month: 1,147/1,214 Week: 159/303 Day: 35/44 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Could asteroids lead to the extinction of YECism ?
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 46 of 137 (722488)
03-21-2014 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tangle
03-21-2014 7:17 AM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
Tangle writes:

Don't try to change history Faith.

Pretty much all 19th century Western scientists believed what you believe about the age of the earth. They only very grudgingly changed their collective minds over time when they were presented with the overwhelming evidence. That's what science does and faith doesn't.


Not true. The age of the earth was fairly well accepted in the 19th century, at least from the middle of the century onward. Even conservative Christians generally accepted the evidence for the age of the earth.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2014 7:17 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 03-21-2014 6:48 PM kbertsche has responded
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2014 7:24 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 51 of 137 (722528)
03-21-2014 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
03-21-2014 6:48 PM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
Faith writes:

Kbertsche writes:

Even conservative Christians generally accepted the evidence for the age of the earth.


I'm sure some did, again meaning for the millions-of-years age of the earth, and they had the Bible-twisting effects of the Tubingen school of theology to push them in that direction too, the whole Liberal Christian movement that got underway about that same time; but those who continued in the traditional understanding of the Bible and its inerrancy could not accept the Old Earth, and that remains the same to this day.

Sorry, but on this you are completely wrong. Where did you get your bogus information? Can you support your claim?

From about the mid-19th to mid-20th century, most conservative Christians accepted the geologic evidence for an old earth and incorporated it into a view known as the "Gap Theory".  This view was popularized by Thomas Chalmers in the early 19th century, and became the de facto view of conservative Christians after C.I. Scofield incorporated it into his reference Bible in the early 20th century.  As Bernard Ramm wrote in 1954 (see the wikipedia article referenced above):

quote:
"The gap theory has become the standard interpretation throughout hyper-orthodoxy, appearing in an endless stream of books, booklets, Bible studies, and periodical articles. In fact, it has become so sacrosanct with some that to question it is equivalent to tampering with Sacred Scripture or to manifest modernistic leanings".

Who held to an old earth in this period (mid-19th to mid-20th century)?  Most of the conservative Christian scholars and Bible teachers, including most of the scholars who opposed the Tuebingen school and modernism. Here are a few of them:

James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000). Pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia; chairman of International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.
William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925). Prominent anti-evolutionist; prosecutor in Scopes “monkey trial”.
A.A. Hodge (1823-1886). Old Princeton Theologian.
Charles Hodge (1797-1878). Old Princeton Theologian.
H. A. Ironside (1876-1951). Bible preacher, commentator, and author.
C.S. Lewis (1898-1963). Literature professor and Christian apologist.
J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937).  Theologian.
J. Vernon McGee (1904-1988). Founder of Thru the Bible ministry.
C.I. Scofield (1843-1921).  Known for his Scofield Reference Bible.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892). Known as “the prince of preachers”.
R.A. Torrey (1856-1928). Editor of "The Fundamentals"
Benjamin B. Warfield (1851-1921). Theologian; Champion of biblical inerrancy.
Edward J. Young (1907-1968). Theologian; Champion of biblical inerrancy.
 


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 03-21-2014 6:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 3:00 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 68 of 137 (722565)
03-22-2014 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
03-22-2014 3:00 AM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
Faith writes:

And can you point me to the actual evidence that those on your list supported the Old Earth? I'd be particularly interested in Spurgeon, Boice, Machen, Warfield and Hodge.

First, I should clarify what I said previously.  Not all of these men held to the Gap Theory; some held to the Day-Age view and at least one held to Theistic Evolution.

C.H. Spurgeon's Gap Theory views were expressed in a number of places, including one which a leading YEC group tried to cover up, as documented  on the page "Why Doesn't Answers in Genesis Tell You the Truth?"

C.H. Spurgeon writes:

In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion.

Spurgeon also alluded to the Gap Theory in his "Treasury of David" commentary on Ps. 104:6:

C.H. Spurgeon writes:

Verse 6. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment. The new born earth was wrapped in aqueous swaddling bands. In the first ages, ere man appeared, the proud waters ruled the whole earth. The waters stood above the mountains, no dry land was visible, vapour as from a steaming cauldron covered all. Geologists inform us of this as a discovery, but the Holy Spirit had revealed the fact long before. ...

Boice's views were expressed in a number of places.  He went into great detail in his "Genesis: An Expositional Commentary" Vol 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982).  In his chapter 6 on Theistic Evolution, he noted that it was defended by B.B. Warfield and James Orr.  In chapter 7 on the Gap Theory, he noted that it was held by Custance, Chalmers, Pember, Pink, Rimmer, Scofield, DeHaan, and Barnhouse.  Finally, in chapter 9, on Progressive Creationism (also known as the day-age view), Boice clarified that this was the view that he himself held:

James Montgomery Boice writes:

First, we have dismissed atheistic evolution and have come close to dismissing theistic evolution as well. ...

Second, we have suggested that any view that makes the earth a relatively new thing (on the order of twelve thousand to twenty thousand years old) flies in the face of too much varied and independent evidence to be tenable.  Some would dispute this, of course.  But in my judgement the earth and universe are indeed billions of years old.

Third, we have shown the possibility of God's  having formed the earth and its life in a series of creative days representing long periods.  In view of the apparent age of the earth, this is not only possible--it is probable. ...

The views of Hodge, Warfield, Machen, and Young are mentioned by the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary in explaining why they do not take a narrow, dogmatic interpretation regarding the age of the earth, in the document "Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation"

WTS Faculty writes:

The 19th century Princetonians, who regarded themselves as upholders of Reformed orthodoxy and of the Westminster Standards, expressed broad views of Genesis 1 which have frequently been discussed. In particular, neither Charles Hodge, nor his son, A. A. Hodge, nor B. B. Warfield regarded the six 24 hour day view of creation as exegetically required by a careful reading of Genesis 1. The Princeton tradition refrained from dogmatic insistence on a single necessary meaning for "day" (yôm) in Genesis 1.

Westminster Theological Seminary has always seen itself as continuing to honor the Princeton legacy. This was confirmed by the founder of the institution, Dr. J. Gresham Machen, when he stated in connection with the days of Genesis 1: "It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each. We may think of them rather as very long periods of time."

Professor Edward J. Young, often regarded as the epitome of conservative exegetical orthodoxy in this matter, while holding that a chronological sequence is taught by Genesis 1, nevertheless made abundantly clear that chronological sequence should not be equated with or confused with chronological duration ...

Charles Hodge, in his "Systematic Theology", Chapter X, "Creation" made positive comments toward both the Gap Theory and the Day-Age Theory:

Charles Hodge writes:

... God, we are told, “created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Here it is clearly intimated that the universe, when first created, was in a state of chaos, and that by the life-giving, organizing power of the Spirit of God, it was gradually moulded into the wonderful cosmos which we now behold. ... There is, therefore, according to the Scriptures, not only an immediate, instantaneous creation ex nihilo by the simple word of God, but a mediate, progressive creation; the power of God working in union with second causes.
...
Admitting the facts to be as geologists would have us to believe, two methods of reconciling the Mosaic account with those facts have been adopted. First, some understand the first verse to refer to the original creation of the matter of the universe in the indefinite past, and what follows to refer to the last reorganizing change in the state of our earth to fit it for the habitation of man. Second, the word day as used throughout the chapter is understood of geological periods of indefinite duration.
...
It is of course admitted that, taking this account by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other. Now it is urged that if the word “day” be taken in the sense of “an indefinite period of time,” a sense which it undoubtedly has in other parts of Scripture, there is not only no discrepancy between the Mosaic account of the creation and the assumed facts of geology, but there is a most marvellous coincidence between them.

B.B. Warfield did not hold to the Gap Theory, but to a form of theistic evolution.  This can be seen in his own writings, "Evolution, Science, and Scripture: Selected Writings" edited by Noll and Livingstone. (It is disputed, however, whether or not Warfield switched from theistic evolution to the day-age theory later in his life.)

For more individuals, see the list of "Notable Christians Open to an Old-universe, Old-earth Perspective"

Edited by kbertsche, : Fixed WTS link

Edited by kbertsche, : Fixed beyondcreationscience link


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 3:00 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 7:03 PM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 93 of 137 (722638)
03-23-2014 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
03-22-2014 7:03 PM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
Faith writes:


Thank you VERY much for assembling all that information, I truly appreciate it and it's information I really need to know. From my point of view it's very sad but I still need to know it. My original post assumed, as I guess many do, that Christians holding Old Earth views must also be influenced by Liberal Christianity, that got started in Tubingen, because to my mind they both require bending the scripture to accommodate a worldly belief. So it's important to know that there are different sources of such ideas. Thanks again.


As Bernard Ramm said just before "The Genesis Flood" was published, the Gap Theory had become the de facto orthodox position for the most conservative and fundamental of Protestant Christians. This included those who were strongly anti-modernism and those who were strongly anti-evolution (e.g. Wm Jennings Bryan, Charles Hodge, Harry Rimmer). It even included John Whitcomb himself, until a hydrologist persuaded him to accept an unscientific theory from a Christian cult (SDA) and to rework it into a form acceptable to conservative Evangelicals.

You'll find a lot more information on this history from Ron Numbers' book "The Creationists". Ron Numbers was raised an SDA so has the "inside story" on lots of the goings-on.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 7:03 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 7:32 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 96 of 137 (722644)
03-23-2014 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
03-23-2014 7:23 PM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
Faith writes:

I would have said that YECism as you call it goes back to Ussher's dating of the age of the earth, I wouldn't have connected it with the SDAs. I thought, as I said, that anyone who accepted the Old Earth was thinking like a "liberal Christian" which was a theological trend that started in the mid 19th century in Germany. kbertsche's list includes some of the greatest names in orthodox Christianity that I wouldn't have expected to give in to the Old Earth.


Note that the date of Day 1 of Genesis is a different question from the age of the earth. Most of those who accepted the Gap Theory also held to literal Days in Genesis, and accepted something close to Ussher's dating. The original Scofield Reference Bible incorporated Ussher's dates, and literal days, yet affirmed an old earth and old universe. I.e. many who held to Ussher's chronology also held to an old earth.

If this does not make sense to you, you need to read up on the Gap Theory. The Gap Theory views the Days of Genesis as a recent re-creation, not the original creation. It views the original creation as occurring eons earlier and evidenced in earth geology.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 7:23 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 9:41 PM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 98 of 137 (722650)
03-23-2014 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
03-23-2014 9:41 PM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
Faith writes:

So what does this mean though? They apparently think of the creation of Adam and Eve as a special creation of God, and not as the culmination of evolutionary processes for starters, right? BUT they also, or some of them, Spurgeon apparently for instance, from the link you provided earlier, seem to think that animals had lived for millions of years before human beings were created. From what Spurgeon said that doesn't necessarily imply evolution, just many different kinds of animals that didn't exist in the present, which I suppose he gathered from the fossil record, understood already as a sequence of ages, but it does imply that animals did die during those millions of years.


Observation 1: the first thing created in Gen 1 is light (1:3), BUT a watery abyss (presumably over an earth of some sort) already existed (1:2). The creation of this water (and earth) is not described in Gen 1. When/how was it created? We aren't told.
Observation 2: the Fall of Adam & Eve was NOT the first sin in God's creation. Satan must have fallen earlier, since he was the tempter of Adam & Eve.

When did Satan fall? How did the earth get into the desolate, empty state described in Gen 1:2? It's not TOO big of a stretch to ascribe this state to a cosmic judgment in the wake of Satan's fall. (Though this is completely speculative; there is no biblical suggestion that Satan's fall would have affected the physical creation.). Hence, the basic idea of the Gap Theory: God created the entire universe long ago (Gen 1:1), it was put in a chaotic state when Satan fell (1:2), and then it was re-created recently, in six Days (1:3ff).

This view has no problem fitting old geology; this geology is just a remnant of the original creation. As evidence mounted for old biology, it was postulated that the original creation included animals which were destroyed at Satan's fall and then re-created in Gen 1:3ff. Evidence for ancient hominids (e.g. Neanderthal) and evidence that homo sapiens was more than 6000 years old started to cause concern; some Gap Theorists proposed "pre-Adamic men", and others began to question their whole approach.

Those who held the Gap Theory were pretty strongly anti-evolution. They certainly did not see evolution in the re-creation (Gen 1:3ff), and I don't think they saw it in the original creation, either. They DID see death of animals over millions of years in the original creation, but I'm not sure what they ascribed this to. Satan hadn't fallen yet, so why did animals die? (I'm not an expert on the Gap Theory; this would be a good question to research.) In the re-creation, they probably did not see animal death until Adam's fall, but I'm not sure that they all viewed it this way.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 9:41 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 03-24-2014 5:19 AM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 03-24-2014 5:45 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 104 of 137 (723087)
03-26-2014 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by ringo
03-26-2014 11:44 AM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
ringo writes:

The problem, though, is that it's the Bible that's wrong, not the earth. If your faith rests on the Bible, then yes, your house is built on sand.


More accurately, it's some interpretations of the Bible that are wrong, just as in Galileo's day his opponents wrongly interpreted the Bible to teach geocentrism.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 03-26-2014 11:44 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 03-26-2014 3:47 PM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 03-27-2014 11:36 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 127 of 137 (723194)
03-27-2014 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by ringo
03-27-2014 11:36 AM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
ringo writes:

Geocentrism is a particularly bad example. While the Bible might not specifically dictate geocentrism, it certainly doesn't specify otherwise either. It's vague enough that you could shoehorn almost any shape of universe into it.


EXACTLY! The Bible is not trying to teach ANY particular "shape" for the universe; it's not concerned about the shape of the universe.

I believe the same is true for the age of the universe. The Bible is not trying to teach ANY particular timetable for creation. The Bible is concerned about WHO created the universe and WHY, not WHEN or HOW. (Note: Genesis does appear to explain "how" God created the universe, but this is a "how" in theological terms, which addresses more the "why" and the "who". It is not a "how" in modern scientific, mechanistic terms.)


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 03-27-2014 11:36 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2014 4:04 PM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 130 by ringo, posted 03-28-2014 11:34 AM kbertsche has responded
 Message 133 by Diomedes, posted 03-30-2014 5:57 PM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 131 of 137 (723285)
03-28-2014 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ringo
03-28-2014 11:34 AM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
ringo writes:

kbertsche writes:


The Bible is not trying to teach ANY particular timetable for creation.


So day-age scenarios and gap scenarios are as big a waste of time as young-earth creationism.

No, my statement doesn't imply this. These scenarios do not try to derive a timetable for creation from the Bible. They get their timetables from modern science.

These scenarios (as well as the "Framework", "Days of proclamation", and "Ancient near eastern cosmology" views) are useful in trying to think through the issues and in trying to see how the biblical account can be consistent with modern science.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ringo, posted 03-28-2014 11:34 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by ringo, posted 03-29-2014 11:46 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 134 of 137 (723349)
03-30-2014 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Diomedes
03-30-2014 5:57 PM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
Diomedes writes:

Are you familiar with the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy?

In a nutshell, energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. Merely transformed from type to another.


Yes, conservation of mass-energy is very basic physics.

Diomedes writes:

What people in religious circles have difficulty grasping is that while the universe as we know it had a point of origin, the energy that comprises space and time had no point of creation by virtue of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Energy, by its inherent properties cannot be created.

If one wants to ascribe a divine source for creation of the universe, they have to concede that while god could have potentially set certain things in motion, he actually could have not 'created' anything. At least, not in the sense of creation from scratch, so to speak.


We seem to agree that our universe had a beginning. But I don't follow where you are going from here. Are you suggesting that the mass-energy that makes up our universe did NOT have a beginning, that it was eternal? If so, how do you reconcile this with our universe having a beginning? Or are you using conservation of mass-energy to reject the Big Bang?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Diomedes, posted 03-30-2014 5:57 PM Diomedes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Diomedes, posted 03-31-2014 9:26 AM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 136 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-31-2014 9:57 AM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 137 by ringo, posted 03-31-2014 12:19 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020