Post deleted
Randy, would you be willing to explain your ideas? This is the closest youâve gotten in a thread Iâve personally be involved with. Maybe youâve published this derivation somewhere? An equation that has bits and pieces of cosmological equations seems to me that you derived this equation somehow, though the a^2 is a bit misleading given that the variable âaâ generally represents something else in most cosmology equations.
I actually saw this argument for the first time at a different site yesterday. Gerald Schroeder is an MIT-trained physicist, but worked in Israel for many years. He is of the Jewish faith, but is still trying to reconcile Genesis with science, just as the Torah, rather than the Bible. Despite his qualifications, I remain skeptical of his hypothesis, but you can watch it here: In the Beginning - Finding Parity Between the Bible and Science in Creation p1/2 - YouTube
This is a matter of vocabulary. And the YECs love to play with word meanings.
Do you accept that âspeciationâ ⌠even if it is just producing a larger, or smaller, or hairier version of the original animal, is âmacro-evolutionâ?
If you say it has to be a âbig changeâ to be called Macro Evolution ⌠I would say it doesnât have to be anything like that to prove speciation. And you either âget itâ or you donât. I canât do hand-stands to convince you.
.
.
.
There are several good examples on Earth of Ring Species - where sub-populations have become relatively isolated from each other so long ⌠that there is a de-facto reduction in reproductive compatibility between ends of a population range.
One could say⌠thatâs just because they are so far from each other ⌠but there are other cases where the terminal ends have extended all the way around a barrier that they are now in contact with the other end of their populationâs range!
And the rate of successful reproduction is dramatically lower than with the adjacent sub-populations that extend towards the middle of the range.
When you look at a Ring Species ⌠and see the populations separating themselves apart from the other groups ⌠you are literally seeing âevolutionary timeâ extending in front of you.
There are no rules that tell a chromosome when they have to stop evolving. There is no way to convince a gene that he (or she) canât keep changing like this ⌠because it will create a new species.
And once you have two populations that no longer exchange genetic information through mating ⌠you have macro-evolution - - because each group is now on itâs own evolutionary path into the future.
Let me know if you donât understand the significance of what Iâm saying here.
I wouldnât call it a hypothesis but more of an apologetic. The problem with his âmethodâ is if you take the actual estimate of the age of the universe in days and divide by his magic number you get creation in 4.9 days. Doesnât fit with 6 days very well does it? BTW, Dr. Schroeder doesnât mention it, but his estimate for the age of the universe is 5.3 trillion days which when divided by 1 trillion yields not surprisingly 5.3 days. He takes a more round about way to get there which hides this.
I am surprised that Zola didnât pick up on it, but the good doctor also took Adam out of the 6 days of creation and then the doctor somehow equated the age of the earth with the age of the universe. So assuming Adam wasnât the first human and applying his method in reverse you get humans were created some 2.5 B years ago. That is really pushing our origin back in time or an indication his method doesnât work.
I need to come up with a catchy title for this rule. When you divide a large number by another large number donât be surprised if the result is a small number.
3 Likes
Yes. Why not. God sees the earth as ~6000 years old. Canât imagine where he got that number.
Very true, and at the risk of being redundant, if you really want to use that terminology, then as someone stated elsewhere, evolutionists also only believe in âmicroevolutionâ in that only small changes happen. They just happen a lot over a long period of time. That is why AiG is more dogmatic about the age of the earth than anything else, because their house is built on that foundation.
Sigh. I told myself I would not post today, and now Iâve gone and done so. It is an illness.
3 Likes
If permineralization has taken place then you canât us 14C dating. Even with 14C dating it has an upper limit of about 35-50,000 years, depending on the quality of the sample. Environmental contamination is always a problem with 14C dating, especially with fossils that have incorporated environmental carbonates like fossils have.
As to dating the planet, I donât see why that is a problem. A fossil is going to be younger than the rocks below it and older than the rocks above it, unless you think dinosaurs had burial rites. The ratios of isotopes in rocks donât change just because we expect them to be old. They are what they are. If creationists are claiming that scientists are purposefully reporting false data, then they should go out to those same rocks and measure the isotopes themselves. I am guessing they wonât because they know the dates are good.
2 Likes
Post deleted
Post deleted
Post deleted
Well, I think I should be able to state that hominids evolved over a few million years⌠and God created humans in one day.
Works for me. Spread the news!
If you count years by counting solar cycles, you cannot have it both ways. Solomon said the Sun is radiant and sets. And going to the place of him he is radiant again. Indeed, in the Solomonâs days, the Sun moved East through the stars of the ecliptic to rise next the same star again next year. Counting the circuit of the Sun cannot be billions and also 6,000.
On the other hand, the world can be very old yet only have orbited the Sun 6,000 times. How could that be? If you stop imagining that time exists, then you end up using the ancient system of the biblical prophets. All early people used natureâs changes to record when things happened, not time. Ancient calendars and clocks were not designed to measure time. They were dynamically adjusted to fit natureâs never ending changes. Early languages, like Biblical Hebrew, had no words for time or verb tenses to order events âin time.â If you check the text in the original languages, you will find that the Bible never once mentions a time continuum. The ancients monitored changes, not time. Time and change are diametrically opposite worldviews.
In the ancient worldview, the earliest days and years were eons and throughout earth history days and years keep shortening. See Genesis 47:9 where Jacob says the days and years of the son are shorter and worse than those of the fathers. The Bible repeatedly uses eon word for the Old Testament era. Eons were not time. They were how ponderously slow days and years were for the patriarchs.
For example, Job 14 lists six geological phenomena that corresponded to a lifetime in his days. He says man who is born of woman is of few days. Then he compares a lifetime to the Mediterranean (Hebrew word West) drying. Indeed, drill cores find a couple of hundred meters under the plankton oozes, hundreds of meters of rock salt. After the drill cores punch through the rock salt, gypsum and stromatolites, they find plankton oozes again. One drill core found cross bedded desert sands with dried ocean ooze, thousands of meters below the modern sea level. Two other of Jobâs lifetime markers were âwater wears away rocks and washes away the dust of the Earth.â Indeed, all around the Med we find that ancient river incised deep canyons as they rushed down to the desiccated Med. For example, the Russian engineer Ivan Chumokov drilled the Nile river bed for the foundation of the Aswan dam. He found that the ancient Nile canyon, a thousand kilometers from the sea, was 200 meters lower than the modern sea level. Just north of Cairo, the Nile canyon was 2500 meters deep, cut into rock. This is deeper than the Grand Canyon. Later, if filled the vast canyon up with silt to form a great delta. Job compared a lifetime to water washes away the dust of the Earth. Indeed, it sure does. Scientists estimate that the Mediterranean dried between 23 million and 5.3 million years ago. Job could not have lived more than 5300 biblical years ago. These are not contradictions in the ancient changing worldview.
https://www.livescience.com/42115-giant-salt-crisis-explained.html
Job ended his poem on the brevity of life by claiming their faces intensely continued to change until God takes them away. Indeed, if you lived long enough to watch the ocean dry, which we calculate as 18 million years, you too would grow thick Neanderthal brows from vast age in few years. The skull is the only part of our skeleton that keeps growing with age. Neanderthal child skulls look like those of modern children, but sometimes with wear on baby teeth as though they were octogenarians, in few years.
Change and time are diametrically opposite worldviews. We confirm the ancient worldview along with creation day four with the visible history of galaxies. The clocks and the orbits accelerate together as billions of galaxies become spreading things (raqiya) exactly as in the Hebrew text for day four.
The problem is not the literal biblical text. It is the historical foundational assumption upon which science was founded. The disciples of Friar Thomas built a great system of measuring on his metaphysic that matter is not continually changing itself. Even the definition of time and most mathematical measuring units were contrived on the scholastic metaphysics.
Yet we can see how the orbits and the clocks keep on accelerating as the properties of all matter keep shifting in the visible history of galaxies. Billions of galaxies, at many ranges, continue to become raqiya (spreading things). Of course what is visible violated the historical dogma upon which science was founded. This is certainly whey scientists invent incredible myths about invisible matter and vacuums that adjust the frequencies of passing light. They were trained to think using their definition of time that was built on the medieval metaphysics.
The Earth is incredibly ancient, exactly as the text repeatedly states. Yet we have only orbited the Sun a few thousand times because change is real and time is merely philosophy.
Victor
Can we expand this a bit? I would like to add â55 years, 2 months, and 22 days,â and â666 days,â âSeven Days in May,â â500 Days of Summer,â and â42.â Those should all fit too, right?
3 Likes
There is no âGolden Frame of Referenceâ. All time is relative. However, time beats at the same rate in each frame of reference. There is simply no way for 6,000 years of time to pass in our frame of reference and still have light from stars billions of light years away reaching our eyes. The rate of expansion needed to create that amount of space between us and those distant galaxies in 6,000 years would require a speed greater than the speed of light. This means that we wouldnât see them, but we do see them. There had to be the passage of 13.7 billion years in the Earthâs frame of reference in order to see the galaxies we do see and the CMB we do see.
1 Like
I know I am going to kick myself for asking this question but I must.
Victor, how do you explain the many lines of evidence that show that the earth has orbited the sun for many more than a few thousands of times?
Post deleted
Are you saying that there really was 13.799 billion years in an imaginary time coordinate where the universe followed todayâs laws of Physics and then God just started counting time for us 6,000 years ago? Or rereading your post it is parts of the universe further away from us appear to have more time passing than those locally? Or none of the above?
What exactly occurred in the past 6,000 years of local time and/or how does this relate to events that took place on Earth?
1 Like
Visible evidence is more important than assumption dependent evidence. The Bible says light reveals the truth and exposes error (Ephesians 5:13). Since we did not see the Earthâs orbit long ago, those âevidencesâ depend on fundamental assumptions.
Here are some of my rules for understanding creation.
-
I ask God for wisdom. I try not to make scientific theories fit the Bible. He says he wonât give me wisdom if I am double minded. Besides, theories fail, but Godâs word does not.
-
When studying creation, I look up the grammar. I do not accept what others says it means. Traditional interpretations may be the problem. For example, nine times in Genesis 1, the text uses the word raqiya. It is used both for the atmosphere (days 2 and 5) and the astronomical objects, day 4.The Septuagint sometimes interpreted this with the Greek word stereoma, for crystalline spheres in the sky. That tradition affected the later translation: firmament. Yet the word is the noun of the verb to spread out. Grammar must be primary in interpretation.
-
I try to focus on the evidence the Bible itself mentions. For example when Job lists the evidence for a lifetime, I look up his words and grammar. Another example, 12 time the biblical God mentions sky evidence for what he does. He even commands us in the imperative to lift up our eyes and look at what he does. The evidence the Bible mentions is far more important than mathematics or genetics theories.
-
If the text makes broad statements about the universe or predicts false ideas for the last days, I try to focus on the first and exclude the latter.
Have a nice day,
Victor