Hence the SEVEN question marks which you left out of the quote snippet. If you can describe the real big bang for my education in that length of space, I would greatly appreciate it…(To be fair, by “That length of space” I mean about 3 lines)…
Just search the BioLogos site for the words:
Chronicles and gbrooks9
… I posted something on that topic just last week or so I believe.
Hi Jonathan-
It’s good that you are here and are asking interesting questions. Your gracious spirit is a manifestation of God’s good work in your life. I pray that I might exhibit the same grace.
I do appreciate that Lisle rejects certain ad hoc arguments for YEC that are essentially appeals for special case miracles.
When Lisle states that work remains to be done on the mathematical details of the gravitational well hypothesis, though, I am puzzled. Ph.D. astronomers like Lisle should be able to make some plausible assumptions to produce a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the effect in short order. Why could Lisle not provide any math? This is not a rhetorical question. I expect scientists to use scientific reasoning, which in astronomy means you are working the mathematical details. No math, no astronomy. Where’s the math?
In any case, in the 10 years since he wrote the article, neither he nor any other YEC scientist has produced any such math. I am thus inclined to discard the gravitational well hypothesis for lack of any attempt to provide even a smidgen of scientific evidence.
Second, Lisle’s portrayal of the cosmic inflation theory is quite inaccurate. Long before the horizon problem was a consideration, an astronomer named de Sitter had proposed an inflationary model that garnered attention from the theorists. In other words, the inflationary model was not something that was invented fresh to solve the horizon problem; it was already a viable astronomical model.
Moreover, the inflation theory predicts a wide variety of data, as this introductory article explains:
It was written about 4 years before Lisle wrote his article. I am at a loss to explain how a Ph.D. astronomer like Lisle would fail to address well-known empirical evidence for the cosmic inflation theory. You would never know from Lisle’s article that the astronomy community already had strong evidence in hand.
Indeed, very strong evidence for cosmic inflation has continued to accumulate in the decade since Lisle’s article was published.
Peace,
Chris Falter
3 Likes
Sorry I didn’t take the question marks as an indication you wanted an answer. Most people use them to indicate they don’t believe what you are saying.
Here are 3 sentences from the Simple English Wikipedia.
The universe began as a very hot, small, and dense superforce , with no stars, atoms, form, or structure. Then about 13.8 billion years ago, space expanded very quickly. This started the formation of atoms, which eventually led to the formation of stars, galaxies and us.
And interestingly enough, the Big Bang also explains the origin of time. As “in the beginning.”
I think the 4 best evidences are:
A) the geological and physical evidence converging on the Earth being 5 billion years old.
B) the polar ice cores (Arctic or Antarctic?) showing visible lines equating to 100,000 years without flooding (so no Great Flood either).
C) the complete and global separation of marine mammals (Like whales) from marine dinosaurs in the fossil record.
D) the pattern of dispersion of speciation in the Australian marsupials compared to all placental mammals, instead, in the rest of the planet.
Hi Jonathan,
Jason Lisle’s article is, unfortunately, a combination of the Omphalos hypothesis, a rejection of the laws of physics themselves, and absurdity.
For starters, he confuses methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism claims that miracles don’t exist. Methodological naturalism only teaches that miracles are not a get-out-of-jail-free card to reject any measurements that you don’t like.
Secondly, his claim that the distant starlight problem is the same as the horizon problem is a joke. The horizon problem concerns distances of 13 billion light years or more, and laws of physics near the limits of what we can investigate. The distant starlight problem concerns distances of just six thousand, and laws of physics that apply on easily measurable scales. The two are separated by six orders of magnitude. It’s like claiming that the sky is blue for the same reason that mouldy cheese is blue.
@Chris_Falter makes some other very good points here. In particular, YEC astronomers need to provide us with some maths. The technical term for physical arguments that don’t provide us with any maths is “hand-waving.”
2 Likes
What really confuses me is: If God used Evolution to create and diversify living things, why didn’t he say so in His word?
@J.E.S,
I think that is because that is not what God was trying to communicate. He was telling us who he is, what our relationship is to him, what our relationship is to each other and the rest of creation. To throw in new and strange concepts of cosmology and science would ruin the message.
2 Likes
His word was written by inspired humans. It is unrealistic to expect that these humans would record scientific theories they had no knowledge of. When God revealed new truth to the authors, it was theological not scientific or technological. We don’t find germ theory or plate tectonics in Scripture either.
3 Likes
These examples, however, could have been errors in translation etc.???
@gbrooks9
The first three were for not believing, the last four were for my own very diminutive knowledge of cosmology (is that the right term???)
@Bill_II
It would seem rather out of the way to discuss these things, but, even if the term “evolution” wasn’t used, why wouldn’t God using evolution in creation be more clear to the point that a large portion of Christians today would accept it? Why doesn’t Genesis explain that the universe is billions of years old, for instance, instead of using the term “day,” why not use a term for a much longer period of time (I’m sure words for longer periods of time are supported in Hebrew)? And why say: “And there was evening and there was morning on the # day”? It seems that the text its self was written to make it clear that these are ordinary, 24 hour days…But I digress.
Before we go further…I am rather confused by the way you use the term “inspired.” Could you explain?
@Christy
As in, God did not use evolution to create mankind?..As in he created us specifically, with His own hands, to be the crown of His creation, and to care for it? This shows how special humans are to God. He even permits us to address Him as Father! I would agree that it wouldn’t make sense for God to use evolution, and it would be deceptive for Him to say that he did!
@jpm
@gbrooks9
Sorry, but some of your evidences seem rather vague to me…
A) what is (the best) evidence that seems to point to an old earth?
B) what do you think of the “lost squadron” (a squadron of WWII planes that were found encased in far, far to many layers of ice in Greenland for ice core dating to be accurate?)
C) do you mean: we do not find whales and plesiosaurs and icthyosaurs together in the fossil record?
D) sorry, I’m a bit confused about this one…can you explain in different words?
@jammycakes
Question: Would you consider God creating the world (or creating the big bang in order to do that), or creating life, a miracle?
No, J.E.S., they could not have been errors in translation … unless you want me to say that the reason Genesis describes 6 literal days of creation is because it was an error in translation … and that God originally inspired the story of 6 “epochs” or “periods”, and not days.
Do you follow what I mean?
A) I have given you the Best Evidence… the combination of Geology, Physics and Logic make it impossible for the Earth and all of its oddities to have been created 6000 years ago.
B) I believe you will find that the ice covering any lost planes is age-appropriate. If you know of an article that says it is not age-appropriate, provide the citation or link here … and we can discuss it.
C) Yes, that is roughly what I’m saying: “we do not find whales and plesiosaurs and icthyosaurs together in the fossil record?” Dinosaurs are air-breathing. Whales are air-breathing.
But Evolution tells us that whales could not have existed during the time of dinosaurs.
D) We can talk about Australia later.
@Chris_Falter
As has been said in a previous post (by someone other than me), the universe is a big, big place. I would like to learn a bit more about the universe (and math too) before I write off YEC (as you term it).
Couldn’t God have created an air-breathing water creature (assuming I am not still confused, and have missed the point of your comment entirely)?
@gbrooks9
(finding article for lost planes now)
The two things are not mutually exclusive. That is, most of us around here see evolution as the process by which God formed us with his own hands, to be the crown of his creation. Does that make him less your Father or diminish him in any way? [quote=“J.E.S, post:52, topic:36218”]
it wouldn’t make sense for God to use evolution
[/quote]
If you look at the literal formed from dirt interpretation, would you fault it for not addressing if God has literal hands, how he changed the elemental composition, how he ordered the billions of nucleotides in billions of cells after getting the ingredients right, what kind of dirt he started with etc.? It is sort of weird when you think about it to make it seem sort of like making a gingerbread man. Certainly, the physical process is not addressed in either case in a meaningful way
I think the point here is that God did not say he created through evolution or not in the scripture, but that is the conclusion reached when you look at creation, and God says that creation reflects his glory. In my mind, to say that God did not create through evolution is to call God deceptive.
1 Like
What are you talking about?
If the Dinosaurs were killed in the Flood … then Whales would have been too … and at the same time.
If the Dinosaurs were Not killed in the Flood … then Dinosaurs and Whales would have co-existed even more than we currently imagined, right? And yet we never find them in the same sedimentary layer.
In fact, layers are consistent with 5 billion years of Earth’s history; how do you get all those layers turned into rock in 5000 years?