Is that how you use a dictionary? A word can only mean One Thing… and so all the other uses of a word are false?
“Eye Witness” can validly apply to the personal observation of facts which have only one possible interpretation.
Your intent to wall off a vast cosmos of information about the past, in order to defend a Genesis history that was Also never personally seen, is the mark of religious zeal…not the mark of rationality.
You and Ham exploit the limits of epistemology (“how humans know things”) in order to defend what you can never witness yourself.
Unfortunately, all the other kinds of witnessable facts oppose your conclusions.
That is just your assumption that taste comes from a long process. See how your assumptions influence your interpretation?
It is an interpretation that is just as valid as yours. The only difference is we have different assumptions. And please stop characterizing my view as a non-interpretation.
I don’t ignore the ancient history. I just don’t view it in the same extreme way that you do.
But what made you realize that you had misunderstood?
I have mentioned it before and you appear to have chosen to ignore this point, but the Bible strictly viewed as a book of history has problems. Lots of problems. Consider just the genealogies. Why don’t they match? Why do the apologetic writers have to come up with explanations for these mismatches? Why are the genealogies in the LXX considered more accurate than the ones in the Masoretic text? Why is there no record of the children of Israel being in the land of Egypt at the time indicated in the Bible? BTW, there is archaeological evidence that indicates they were there, just not at the time indicated in the Bible.
But I have already addressed this. The fact is that the earth and the universe look very old from every perspective, and they both have a lengthy chain of evidence indicating a deep past.
So as I have pointed out several times, you need an analogy which looks like this.
A false appearance of age from every perspective, no matter what the perspective is
A false appearance of age accompanied by a lengthy chain of evidence indicating a deep past which is actually fictional
You’ve repeatedly advanced analogies, but none of them have matched the topic under discussion.
I’m not trying to get a laugh. What I am trying to show you is that allegories will not say that they are allegories, so trying to find an interpretation of the Genesis creation myth that allows for evolution is like trying to find an interpretation of Aesop’s Fables that says animals don’t talk.
Also, I am not using “myth” in a derogatory manner. Myths have been used to convey truths for a long time now, like Aesop’s fables.
If God gave Adam scars from injuries that he never suffered, would that be deceptive? For the appearance of age in the Earth, we have the same exact thing, which are radiohalos. These are scars in rocks produced by the very slow decay of radioactive isotopes, and they take millions of years to form. The round brown spots in the picture below are radiohalos:
So would God form the Earth with these scars already in the rocks?[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:73, topic:36232”]
Is God obliged to imprint a time stamp on the foreheads of the inaugural couple to keep His reputation for truthfulness?
[/quote]
By putting radiohalos in rocks, God is putting a time stamp in the rocks, and an old one at that.[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:73, topic:36232”]
Why then, if it were so, could a scientist not be expected to believe that even though it appears to him that the earth is billions of years old it is actually only thousands of years old if God told him so in His book?
[/quote]
Scientsts conclude that the Earth is ancient for the same reason that scientists think that the Earth is hurtling through space: because of the evidence.
You seem to have a very dualistic way of thinking about things, Mike. If Genesis 1-3 is to be interpreted in a functional way, it must be 100.0% functional and 0.0% material. If it’s material, it’s 100.0% material and 0.0% functional. Moreover, you contend, a functional interpretation of Genesis 1-3 must exclude the possibility that any other passages of Scripture might have a material perspective on origins.
This also shows up in your very sharp dichotomy between historical and figurative literature.
Philosophers have a name for this kind of thinking: the fallacy of the excluded middle. Perhaps there are some good choices in the middle that you are not seeing because of an unnecessary insistence that all choices must be binary.
In my opinion, the one best thing I can do to help you, Mike, is to show you how you can stop setting up those unnecessary either/or conflicts The Scriptures give us many examples of how we can find something of value in the middle of conflicting tendencies. Take Paul’s teaching on rulers and authorities, for example. He teaches that they try to separate us (unsuccessfully) from the love of God in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:38, rulers, powers). The rulers of this age are coming to nothing (I Cor 2:6). Christ has triumphed over them through the cross (Colossians 2:15). If we were to apply binary, exclude-the-middle thinking to the subject, we would think it imperative to resist the rulers of this age with all of our might in every way possible. But is that what Paul teaches? No. “Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities…” (Titus 3:1) “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” (Romans 13:1,2)
Now let’s turn to the subject of functional vs. material origins. Walton does make the claim that the primary focus of Genesis 1 is God’s establishment of functional order, rather than providing guidance on material origins. Do the passages you cite contradict that? Not in the least. Let’s take a look at them.
By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
He gathers the waters of the sea into jars;
he puts the deep into storehouses.
Let all the earth fear the Lord;
let all the people of the world revere him.
For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm. - Psalm 33:6-9
Does this passage establish a material origins account in our modern scientific sense? I think not, unless you can show me the jars that contain seawater. Does it establish a conflict with a functional order interpretation of Genesis 1-3? Likewise, no. Creation ex nihilo and establishing functional order can co-exist.
Ah, Sovereign Lord, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you. - Jeremiah 32:17
Is Jeremiah giving a material origins account in the modern scientific sense? Well, does God really have arms like you and me? But He did make the heavens, yes. Does this mean we are wrong to think that He also established functional order in the heavens?
In Matthew 19:3-9, Jesus teaches us that God made man and woman:
“Male and female created He them…What God has put together, let no man render asunder.”
This actually describes functional order, in fact. Jesus describes something that goes beyond the bare fact of creation ex nihilo: God established relationship and purpose (functional order). Man and woman become one functional unit that should not be split.
[L]ong ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. - 2 Peter 3:5-6
I hate to say it, Mike, but you entirely missed the point of Asimov’s article. He was not arguing that science holds no future surprises, be they minor or major. He was saying that the future surprises will not obliterate the observations previously made by the scientific method. There are billions of observations that support the near-sphericity of the earth, so …
Science is not going to show us that the earth has been shaped like a Frisbee or a cube all this time. Ever.
If we cannot make statements like that with confidence, then we can make no confident statements about anything. The fact that your premises have led you to argue that science might someday show the earth to be flat should be an urgent wake-up call. Your premises have led you to a very bad place. You need to re-examine your premises.
I’m sorry Mike, but that is simply incorrect. The “appearance of age” seen in nature comes from measurement and mathematics. You can have perceptions of Mount Everest as being small and insignificant when you’re flying over it in an aeroplane, but when you measure it, you get an unambiguous and unequivocal figure of 8,848 metres. Similarly, if you measure the age of the earth, you get an unambiguous and unequivocal figure of 4.54±0.05 billion years. That’s a very precise and exact figure, and you don’t get very precise and exact figures from mere perceptions.
The wedding guests at Cana didn’t have any way of telling how old the wine was. They didn’t have a spare accelerator mass spectrometer in the back room to carbon date the stuff, and even if they had, they didn’t have anyone who knew how to use it. All they had was their taste buds, and taste buds are notoriously inaccurate at figuring out how old things are.
(Incidentally, does anyone know of any double-blind studies to see whether old wine really does taste better than new?)
I am pretty sure it would taste different. Better would be in the tongue of the drinker.
Also “best” may refer to how the wine was made not the age. Especially since best appeared to refer to more expensive. It could refer to the grapes used, the way the grapes were pressed, fermented, or stored. And I just had a thought, given the storage conditions older wine probably was turning to vinegar. I don’t know if that would be considered a good or a bad thing.
@gbrooks9,
In response to the appearance of age, Stephen Hawking has much to say in a June 2017 letter about the Big Bang’s Cosmic Inflation. The Big Bang is currently the accepted view in cosmology for the origin of our universe.
Hawking and 33 of the leading cosmologists signed a letter stating that there are 9,000 scientists that have written 14,000 peer reviewed papers that reference Cosmic Inflation which is necessary for the math of the Big Bang to work. Without Cosmic Inflation, the Big Bang goes poof. Cosmic Inflation is when our universe grows 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times in size in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of 1 second to account for the known size of the universe.
So in minus 10 to the 30th of a second the currently accepted view is that our Universe expanded a mind blowing amount in an infinitesimal amount of time. The same as if an object the size of a Ping Pong ball (1.57" in diameter) grew to a size that could encapsulate 422 Milky Way Galaxies!!
This IS the appearance of age on steroids!
Please, why is the answer about the appearance of age a resounding NO when it is mandatory. Do you disagree with Hawking and the 9,000 cosmologists and 15,000 peer reviewed papers?
It’s not really clear to me what you are attempting to conclude.
Have physicists identified mind-boggling phenomena?: Yes. Check.
Does time change with the expansion of Space/Time?: Yes. Check.
Does this sentence seem reasonable from the viewpoint of physics:
"… in minus 10 to the 30th of a second the currently accepted view is that our Universe expanded a mind blowing amount in an infinitesimal amount of time. [Equivalent to a Ping Pong ball growing to the size of 422 galaxies the size of the Milky Way!]
Yes. Check.
Does this sound reasonable: “Item (3) IS the appearance of age - - on steroids!”: No. It is the appearance of rapid inflation. This does not affect aging for anyone within the universe, where general relativity keeps Time correlated to Space.
Analysis of Item (4):
Physicists and Cosmologists know the timeline of the Universe very well. If you give them a radius or diameter … they can tell you immediately how old the Universe was at that time.
This is not the same as having a dozen or more “age testing methods” concluding that the Earth is a certain age … when in fact it is not that age. There is fundamental, comprehensive and thorough agreement about the age of the earth.
The earliest light we see is the cosmic microwave background which was produce about 300,000 years after the initial inflation of the universe. We don’t see any of the light produced in the first moments of the Big Bang because it was instantly absorbed by the high density of matter in the very early universe. It wasn’t until the universe cooled to the point where hydrogen atoms formed that light could finally travel freely without being absorbed by charged particles like free protons and electrons.
Cosmic inflation theory is not something that got proposed ad hoc. Long before Young Earth Creationists tried to explain how light from a galaxy 13.2 billion light years distant could be reconciled with a universe only 7000 years old, and long before the horizon problem, the magnetic-monopole problem, and the flatness problem were identified by cosmologists, physicist Willem de Sitter derived an inflationary universe (called a de Sitter universe) from the Einstein field equations of general relativity.* The brief inflationary epoch is explained by the presence of the cosmological constant, which (as its name suggests) remains constant in the cosmological models even to this day.
The inflationary epoch could only create the appearance of age to someone who does not understand how to solve the Einstein field equations of general relativity. Once you understand the relationship between those equations and the de Sitter universe, the notion that an inflationary epoch could create an appearance of age problem is laughable.
I say this as someone who does not understand how to solve the Einstein field equations. I just decided to trust the cosmologists on this one. I was acquainted with a few of them during my years at Princeton. Every once in a while they would emerge from Fine Tower and squint their eyes in the sunlight. They spent a lot of time at Fine Tower.
Peace,
Chris Falter
*And the Dutch continue to make major contributions to astronomy and cosmology, as @Casper_Hesp proves!
My point here is that cosmic Inflation is only a mathematical solution to a problem with the size of the universe. Our current visible universe could not have come from the Big Bang without an event that doesn’t fit natural law. Either solution, rapid inflation or young earth requires faith in the unknown. Cosmologists are battling as we type what theory to adopt. Whether it is an eternal expansion and contraction of the same universe or a multiverse, how can Christians be so certain when there is so much confusion amongst the best and brightest in the field? The Max Planck Institute’s Jean-Luc Lehners, who is the group leader in Theoretical Cosmology, admits that he doesn’t know.
It doesn’t take faith in the unknown to measure the distance to other galaxies and stars. It also does not take faith to measure the redshift in their spectra, the brightness of type Ia supernovae, or the speed of light. With these data points in hand, one can only conclude that the universe is billions of years old and has been expanding during that time.
If the rate of expansion between two points is greater than the speed of light then you will simply not see those distant points. That is part of de Sitter’s work as well. Therefore, inflation doesn’t solve the problems that YECs run into in the field of astronomy. If there was rapid expansion 6,000 years ago, then we would only be able to see stars that were 6,000 light years away at the point where that rapid expansion stopped. That doesn’t even cover most of the stars in our own galaxy, much less the billions of galaxies we see in our telescopes.
Inflation has nothing to do with the appearance of age. So you know the universe went from much smaller than a proton to about 4 inches… 4 inches! It also does nothing for the known size of the universe. We’re talking about a 4 inch growth which yes, was super huge from where it was at the beginning of inflation but it is an understandable mistake to imagine that inflation is a magical event that accounts for the size of the universe. At the end of inflation, the universe was 4 inches big and approximately 10^27 K hot. There is a nice correlation between the size of the universe and the temperature of the universe which is T~1/r (where r is the radius of the universe). We can measure the redshift of galaxies back quite far and date them to be quite old, affirming that it is 13.8 billion years of a fairly constant redshift that brings the universe from 4 inches to its current size. Here is a graph of some current redshift measurements:
The x-axis goes from z=0.01 (or an object 140 million light years away) to z=1 (or an object 7 billion light years away). This shows us the history of our universes expansion with the error bars getting larger further away indicating that our universe is also now slightly accelerating.
This is not true at all. Here is an article written by an actual Cosmologist describing these articles on Scientific American: Is Inflationary Cosmology Science? – Sean Carroll. Believe it or not, despite him being convinced that Big Bang Cosmology is affirmed beyond all reasonable doubt, he isn’t completely sold on inflation. The Big Bang does not need cosmic inflation to account for all of its other smashing predictions:
The Cosmic Microwave Background
Redshift of galaxies
Amazing predictions and measurements of Hydrogen, Helium, Deuterium and even Lithium
When adding inflation the story gets even sweeter which even looking at what is called E-mode polarization from the CMB signal affirming an actual inflation event to odds greater than 900,000,000 to 1.
Here are two quotes from former Christians related to these topics:
I was so incredibly @#$^&* off when I got to college and realized how much I had been lied to about science by my church. I sometimes think that if I hadn’t been a biblical literalist before, I might not be an atheist now. They were kind of working against themselves in the end.
contrary to what churchgoers claim, church is not a good place for learning - especially when it comes to science
Aren’t all of these statements that frame YEC as “laughable” based on the presupposition that we understand dark matter, dark energy, gravity and even something so basic as mass? Of the known particles (12 now 13), how many do we understand? One more was found in the last 30 days. Please give the name of anyone on earth that understands even 10% of the known universe and how it actually has operated in the last 6,000 years. 1 million dollar prize for the winner.
