Just so you know, this argument here is not so strong as stated (though easily fixed). There are such a thing as spatial waves and spatial frequencies which have nothing to do with time. The question then becomes whether light is a spatial wave rather than a temporal one. To be sure the evidence that it is a temporal wave rather than a spatial one is overwhelming. It is also part of all the physics of electromagnetism in Maxwell’s equations. As usual YEC is throwing out all of science upon which all our technology is founded.
In some sense there is a contradiction, because things at light speed don’t experience time. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone could make this the foundation of relativity – how space time can accommodate this phenomenon which is both timeless and temporal forcing a difference between the “rest frame” of light which is timeless (and instantaneous) and inertial frames in which it travels at velocity c (if in a vacuum). But then try asking if light is a spatial wave in its own rest frame and then you have the problem that the space (in that direction) is contracted to zero along with the time. Of course like a lot of these other talks about infinity the official position is that the “rest frame” of light is more a mathematical limit than a coherent reality.
No. Just because science uses assumptions in its arguments to generate hypotheses and explanations doesn’t change the fact that the experimental results agree completely with those hypotheses. Unlike the conclusions of philosophy and religion, the conclusions of science do not rest merely upon the premises of some argument.
It is quite true that the more you dig into the logical foundations of physics, the more it seems to unravel. But frankly I think this merely exposes the limitations of logic rather than any mismatch of physics to reality.
We know that the Bible narrative specifically states that in the beginning God “Created” the heavens and the earth.
As a human, i rarely destroy anything tangible i make before ive actually made it…so the idea of blowing something up in order to create is contrary to my habits there (so theres that problem for starters)
Add to the above, why does God need to blow something up in order to create matter from nothing exactly?
Do you get my point here?
God made everything come from absolutely nothing in the first place right?
Even you cannot escape that very obvious fundamental fact of reality. Those here who are Christian and believe in the Big bang know, we must accept that in order for God to be eternal and a creator, he has to be outside of the boundaries of the reality He has created.
Now if you are going to take the position that God is bound by his own creation, then how can he possibly create the universe or even the science? Answer…logic tells us that He cannot…so the fundamental argument there falls flat on its belly.
Next, i have to ask, do you think God values “ALL” life? I do. Given we cannot know whether or not supernovas also “blowup” other life forms in other solar systems, but we can pretty much be assured that its likely that they do, i have to ask you…is God killing off other planets because they have also sinned?
If you answer yes to that question, how many “saviours” are there in existence in this universe? Dont you believe in “ONE” God and “ONE” Christ Jesus who died for the sins of mankind? Very obviously you do…however, if you try to claim that sin has enterred other worlds and corrupted them, how do you explain the fall of “the morning star” down to earth in the New Testament book of Revelation? Satan was cast down here to this earth…so that clearly means that the atonement for sin is here…no where else!
The bible tells us that Christ died once for sin…there are massive theological problems trying to link that with the death and destruction that a supernova imparts on the surrounding life in the universe.
So we are then left with an even bigger problem…perhaps there is no other life…we are it! Again, not biblical!
In the end, you are left with the usual defense for your position…science cant test that!
I am of the view that that is a copout so that we may pretend that the theological implications dont matter, that all you have to do is focus on Jesus. The really big problem now is, if all you have to do is focus on Jesus, why are you here on these forums arguing and demanding the science proves your theology and doctrines? Biologos has no reason to exist if that defense was in fact valid!
Oh one final thought…arguing that science defines the theology is not the way our reality works…we dont make decisions that way. The questions of Epistemology do come first, we only do science BECAUSE we wonder…we dont wonder because the methods of science, which we haven’t even learned yet, tells us to! So doing science does not trump philosophy! (The laws of science are irrelevant,. they do not change wondering that drives us). When we study Maslows hierarchy, the need for self actualisation is at the top only reached after the lower needs have first been met!
What volume of your material posessions began as one thing that was destroyed to make it into something else? Whst happened to the unused bits?
The author/s of Genesis assume that to be the case in the first of the two very different accounts we have of the beginning. The second gives no explanation for the heavens and the earth beyond attributing their creation to God and reall begins with the existing earth. Others have been over and over these with you before, I doubt I really need to waste the time myself.
Pardon? This is not my view. Never what I have expressed as my view.
There is life on stars that become supernovas?
Looking at nature local, I wonder what you mean by “values”. Nature is brutal. Get off planet, and it’s even more violent on a much larger scale and much closer up. You don’t need to have an ancient supernova to see that recycling through destruction is par for the course.
Sin has nothing to do with supernovas, or the myriad other destructive forces and processes in existence. Existence is dangerous.
I have been involved in a discussion of this that spanned two fora. You might look at the article linked in the discussion here. The question you raise is, of course, purely speculative and unanswerable, but can lead to some iinteresting ideas if one is willing to leave threats of apostasy, heresy and damnation in the locked safe at home.
The Bible is entirely geocentric in its understanding of the physical world. The authors were unaware of what is “out there” and misunderstood what they did perceive. We have no way of understanding how NT writers would deal with the things we have learned about the cosmos in the last 2000 years.
Revelation is hardly the book to read as straight forward historical accounts.
In that the Bible simply does not address much less understand this line of inquiry.
Again, this is not my position.
However I don’t accept your understanding of theology as ultimate.
This is false on both counts.
I don’t.
Science, by that I mean the study of the natural world and the development of effective and appropriate methods to do that, solves problems. Most basically, the problem of staying alive while having needs met.
Wonder can be part of our response to what we learn, and curiosity is a powerful driver. But no one sponsors incredibly expensive research, because we just want to be more fulfilled.
Be more specific. What “understanding” are you referring to?
Standard quantum mechanics sees light as both wave and particle much the same as other things like electrons, for example. Electrons as point objects moving around in space is not correct. Electrons in atoms are waves according to the spherical solutions of the Schrödinger wave equation. It explains all the atomic structure which produces the periodic table of the elements.
But at the same time, they are quantized in discrete units of energy according to the Plank relation. This is explained more robustly in quantum field theory. This quantized particle aspect is important for interactions like the photo-electric effect, electrons interacting with photons. In such reactions the waves seem to temporarily collapse into point particles somewhat. In reality, it is more like an exchange between wavelike superpositions of many possible point-like particle trajectories and collisions according to the mathematically derived Feynman diagrams. This is directly connected with measurable quantities which are predicted by calculations averaging over all these possible point-like interactions. So which are they? Particles or waves? They are both because no matter how much like a wave they behave they still interact as fixed units of energy i.e. particles.
rather than try to answer all of the above points, which would turn this into a forum all of its own…i think i can mostly focus on the last part of your post as that seems to kinda sumarise what you think/believe:
There is nothing biblical early on (ie before the fall) that gives any statement or even infers that “trouble staying alive” that existence is dangerous. In fact, the opposite could be drawn from the very fact that until they sinned, Adam and Eve did not percieve that they were naked!
Nakedness is an indicator of infallibility, vulnerability…this is absolutely not the case in the creation account in Genesis. A creator making the statement that His creation must obey is not a way to support any claim of vulnerability there…your child doesn’t feel vulnerable because you give them boundaries…even in our sinful reality, quite the opposite is the case i would argue!
In terms of the gospel, how does the study of the natural world solve problems? Problems are not spoken of in the Bible before the fall of mankind…however, they very definately are immediately brought up in the arraignment of Adam and Eve!
It appears to me that you honestly believe that nature preaches the gospel to us…that is simply not true. The heavens declare the glory of God to us, and we innately have right and wrong written on our hearts and in our minds, however, when Christ told his disciples that he would send his comforter…that was to help…not to do the work. This means that the spreading of the gospel is a human task…we have to do the teaching. The bible even plainly says…“when this gospel is taken to all the world, then the end will come”. Im not saying that nature would not cause one to go searching for theological answers…that i do believe, but the answers come from one place…Gods word. We know that God can choose to reveal himself in dreams, but notice that non jews who had dreams in the Bible (Nebuchadnezzar and his grandson Belshazzar are two well known examples) usually needed explanations from Godly people!
Parroting defenses which are, in the vast majority of cases, poorly referenced , lousy academics, and not consistent with other well known and self revealed biblical doctrines…it ends up causing a dilemma where one ends up a basket case of nonsense unsupported by either side of the debate between atheism and Christianity with you stuck in the middle wallowing around in the mud. Both sides find extreme flaws and faults in your world view…and that is highly problematic (unless you are mormon i suppose)
Do you know that in private conversations with individuals from this forum and im never suprised when the same criticisms are repeated over and over again…“its as if the population here are blind to the obvious when it comes to what the bible actually says”. You guys have gotten so good at explaining away sound bible theology that you dont even believe that you do it anymore…and then have the audacity to tell me, im adding to the text.
I find it incredible that an individual who has been raised with literacy and numerous skills, is incapable of exercising common sense when reading plain language in order to realise that what they are believing there is just plain wrong. When something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck…its almost 100% certain…its a flaming duck…so why blindly continue to claim its a horse?
the Bible 100% states, God reveals Himself to us in his Word. Part of that revelation are clearly the narratives in the Old Testament that many here do not believe ever happene literally (and yet those same individuals complain that God must be lying if they are taken literally??? Right based on what biblical evidence there? Answer: no valid relevant biblical themes with referenced texts are ever cited supporting such claims. The best ive seen are single isolated straw plucking exercises with some of the worst theological extrapolations ive seen in my life.
One area where we seem to digress is the Old Testament. A lot of evangelicals have the wrong idea that the Old Testament Covenant has gone…honestly, this is complete nonsense…i have proven its nonsense with overwhelming number of bible themes and statements. Whether you agree or not, the New Testament is not a free pass…it requires a comittment to the Old Testament teachings.
We know that fundamentallyl, Christ came to fulfill the Old Testament…he didnt come the live it for 33 years and then chuck the whole lot out the window.
Contrary to the some dimwitted idiots in Christianity, fulfill does not mean do away with! It has never meant that and the over riding biblical theme has always been, and remains that the wages of sin is death. It has always been death since Genesis chapter 2..nothing has changed there.
hose who are not saved at the time of the end…all of these individuals will die!
Proof of the above statement I make there is the statement by the apostle Paul in Romans 6:23.
If we also look at the story of Ananias and Sapphira being struck down dead at the feet of Peter…(please dont tell me you dont believe that their deaths really happened there? You do believe that text is literal right??)
exactly…and no YEC believes that God has changed any rules…only you say that without any actual evidence…you need to provide evidence that proves we are claiming God has changed the rules in order to support our world view there.
BTW, where you are going with that defense isnt going to bode well for you…i can cause it to fall in a heap with a single word
“MIRACLES”
Christs bodily resurrection from irreversible cellular death to a fully conscious state (seems God changed the rules there)
Christ rising against gravity up into the sky…against the laws of gravity (seems God changed the rules there)
Christ ascending into heaven (from descriptions later in the New Testament, as well as the Old) we have to accept that this requires a journey in the vacuum of space…(seems God changed the rules there)
As ive posted before…what is easier to accept scientifically?
a body, that after 3 days has very clearly entered a state of cellular death, being raised back to full consciousness?
that an environmental phenomenon moved a Vampire military jet such that it ended up around a flag pole?
Before you attempt to do that, just know, the vast majority of google AI responses i provide here have the URL references ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE of the image.
Any individual can see those references and look them up!
Given that, my responses are valid evidence.
I use AI because I embrace technology.
I love AI and what it does for all of our lives.
The trouble with those who are afraid of it, and people like yourself who are frustrated by it, those individuals are not willing to get educated on how to know the difference between useful information and a con…all they see are pretty pictures (which is rather narrow minded) and cant be bothered typing the URL into a browser to check the references!
My posting AI images as references also stops the dimwits here from straw plucking phrases out of responses (thus taking them out of context). Far too many people are good at that, thus my posting google AI references prevents that habit
Not perceiving one’s nakedness is not really related to whether things are safe! I could hike naked along the Pacific Crest Trail and that doesn’t make it any more or less safe than if I wore all the best clothing and gear.
Consider if Adam had decided to curl up next to an elephant for a nap and the elephant had rolled over in its sleep. Would Adam not have been crushed? or does your version of Eden suspend the normal laws God selected for this world?
“Safe” is a relative term.
It seems you’re using the common distinction among naturists that “naked” means exposed and vulnerable while “nude” just indicates being unclothed. But that doesn’t fit with the scriptures; indeed Genesis could be read as indicating that until they fell, Adam and Eve were not naked (they were just nude).
One of the Catholic mystcs wrote to the effect that nature teaches the Gospel, but one can only see the Gospel in nature when the Gospel has made one more alive than nature.
So does evolution, for those with eyes to see.
But a six-day Creation is not a doctrine! You’re confusing what the scripture teaches with the words it uses to do so. It’s as if I used the illustration of a shovel and gravel to instruct on a point of baking and someone decided I meant to use an actual shovel and real gravel for making pastry!
That’s what I think every time I read the same old YEC arguments: they have never actually addressed the text.
That’s because Hebrews clearly tells us that the Old Covenant is dead, and because the Holy Spirit reduced it all to just four admonitions.
You say you rely on the Bible but you’re great at ignoring parts of it!
But it does: when I pour water into a jug, when the jug is full the pouring is done away with – to keep pouring would add nothing because the jug is already full. The same is true when I pour concrete into a form – I don’t keep on piling concrete once the form is full.
Jesus filled full the demands of the Old Covenant, and trying to keep adding to it is not just a waste of time but an insult to God our Father.
Easily refuted: Flood geology requires changing the rules. A young earth requires changing the rules.
Nope – birds do it, balloons do it, kites do it, clouds do it. The change wasn’t in gravity or against gravity, it was in Christ’s body which was no longer subject to the same rules. We have no idea – and science cannot say – what a Resurrected body is subject to; to indulge a bit of my own science fiction, maybe mass is no longer a constant for a Resurrected body!
And I don’t think measurable quantities have anything at all to do with the resurrected spiritual body. I think the spiritual body is to the physical body composed of atoms, as reality is to a computer simulation composed of computer bits. I think the physical universe is like an instructive computer simulation designed to teach students something – a completely temporary existence with a very limited purpose. Well… perhaps more like a womb since I think it is our origin and necessary for the beginning of our existence.
Biblehub does not use the Masoretic Text. They use the Westminster Leningrad Codex which contains the Masoretic Text and uses Tiberian vocalization.
The English translation provided is also not directly translated (AI didn’t translate it) from the Masoretic Text, but it matches the King James Version which was translated primarily from the Masoretic Text, but also consulted the Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, and the Peshitta.
A few notes:
What Lisle claims is that light travels at infinite speed towards each observer and at c/2 away from each observer. So if two of your friends simultaneously try to hit you in laser tag, one from the east and one from the west, you instantly are hit by both, but at the same time the same light is traveling away at c/2 from their viewpoints. Mathematically you can make it work (ignoring the issues of seeing things at different ages, like the gravitational lensing or the fact that the distant universe looks younger), but having the light traveling at both infinity and c/2 at the same time seems problematic.
Given the laws of nature that God has created, it takes a few rounds of stars going through supernovae and neutron stars colliding to have enough of the various elements that we need to exist. Rather than ask why God did things that way, we might instead conclude that His intended display of wisdom, creativity, and power has required over 13 billion years and at least one entire universe.
