LoL…
I seem to recall us having this discussion before…
or was that the age of the Universe?
4.5 billion years. 4.5 billion years. 4.5 billion years. 4.5 billion years.
If the neurons in my brain can’t remember it … maybe the neurons in my finger muscles will…
4.5 billlion years. 4.5 billion years. 4. 5 billion years. 4.5 billion years
4.5 billion years. 4 .5 billion years . 4.5 billion years. 4.5 billion years.
4.5 billion years. 4.5 billion years. 4.5 billion years… 4.5 billion years.
I would have to take exception with you there. The Creator is the foundation, and that is the message on Genesis one, that creation is not the center, but rather God, and as seen in John 1, Christ. The sun and moon are purposely not named, as they had common names that were those of deities, but they are created lights. Genesis reveals to us who the creator is, not what creation is. Now, I think you know that and your statement was perhaps poorly worded, but it is a vivid example of how easy it is to focus on creation rather than the creator, and how the literal/historical reading of Genesis lends itself to that that particular fallacy [quote=“Steve_Buckley, post:26, topic:36755”]
you’re actually challenging the biblical narrative, and saying that God used evolution
[/quote]
The Biblical narrative does not speak to whether or not God used evolution as a mechanism of creation. That is not the purpose or subject of the scripture, and it does not speak any more to evolution that it speaks to relativity, neuroscience, or heliocentrism. We really need to move beyond seeing the scripture as saying what we want it to say, and open our hearts and kidneys to hearing what it says.
Hi JPM.
Curious… I think I’ve just found the problem here…
You changed what I said, based on your assumptions, and preconceptions, instead of just repeating what I said, and in spite of the fact that you actually quoted me.
Please look again at what I said.
I did not say THE foundation.
I said A foundation.
I know full well that YHVH is THE foundation.
That’s actually part of my point. God said quite concisely that he created everything. And he didn’t just leave it to a single statement at the beginning. We see it over and over again, throughout scripture. Which is why I find the idea that we evolved or that “God used evolution” so ludicrous.
If he’d stated it any other way, I’d be more ready to believe you.
So, I’m glad that you’ve taken exception. I take exception with your exception, because you’ve based your premise on something I did not say.
It actually says that he spoke creation into existence. Psalm 33:6-9. It then says that Jesus holds it all together by the word of his power. Hebrews 1:2-4.
Here’s the irony…
I’d PREFER that it said evolution. It’d make those who claim to be scientists, and lovers of science easier to believe.
So, that you actually THINK I want creation to be actually spoken into existence, in the 6 24 hour day cycle it actually stated to have taken place— based on the written word… just shows you are the one who has the presuppositions, and biases.
Seeing the written word as it is tells me that I will one day answer for my life, my actions, inactions, silence, and words.
He’s inviting all of us to believe Him. He’s promised that if we do believe him, he’ll open his treasuries to us. After years of trying to figure it out on my own and learning little of eternal value, I’ll continue to learning what he’s said he’d do-- it carries a far greater eternal weight.
No J. I am not one who wants to see what I read.
Hi G.
I didn’t make anything out of geology.
Nor am I one having a problem trying to make science and the bible fit together.
I am however curious.
Ever read anything on the variable speed of light? Back in the 90’s there were 4 to 6 cosmologists who did research, and 2 of them found evidence that the speed of light changes.
Dr’s J. Maguiejo, Andreas Albrecht, Moffat, and the others’ names I can’t remember. Moffatt was the one who found the evidence.
https://www.google.com/search?num=100&source=hp&ei=gT1IWsSaM9HQjwPOu6C4CQ&q=moffatt+variable+speed+of+light&oq=moffatt%2C+variable+spee&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.33i22i29i30k1.982.9657.0.10889.24.23.0.0.0.0.273.2779.11j7j4.22.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..2.21.2684.0..0j46j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i131i20i264k1j0i20i264k1j0i46k1j0i20i264i46k1j46i20i264k1j0i10k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1.0.70QjEuVKAKg
If his numbers are correct, 10^30 km/s, then the age calculations would place the age of the earth at a much, much, much younger age.
Oh… wait. I forgot. This would be sacrilegious to the realm of science, wouldn’t it? What would all those scientists who promote evolution, and billions of years old think if they learned that the 6000-20,000 years is actually correct?
From what I read, the only thing God is impressed by— is faith in what he said- Hebrews 11:6.
Jesus was clearly impressed by the Roman Centurion who had enough faith to ask him to only say the word, and he would believe. Matt 8:10.
So… God impressed…?
It seems to me that if we want to impress God, we’d do well to start where God says he’s pleased, and Jesus expressed his pleasure.
By believing Him.
p.s. Here’s a secret for you— God’s long known about this too.
I don’t specifically have a problem with an earth that is even trillions of years old. The reason is because I wasn’t there to observe. And as the evidence is not as clear as even evolutionists claim it to be, I find such arguments amusing. and it’s entirely because no one was around… EXCEPT God.
Have a great day, and new years.
Hi Steve,
The Variable Speed of Light (VSL) hypothesis and the inflationary hypothesis are 2 competing ways of solving the horizon problem. According to the inflationary hypothesis, the universe is 13.78 billion years old. According to the VSL hypothesis, the universe is 13.78 billion + 2 or so extra years old.
The reason that astronomers are so convinced that the universe is 13.78 billion years old is that all of the spectrographic observations of light show that the Lorenz Invariant holds. And if the Lorenz Invariant holds, then the speed of light is necessarily constant.
There are only 2 possibilities here:
A completely literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 - 7 is valid, but for some reason God has chosen to make the spectrographic observations of light that reaches us from every corner of the universe give the appearance of a 13.78 billion year history.
A figurative or metaphorical interpretation of Genesis is more appropriate, and the 13.78 billion year history written in the spectrographic lines is real.
Wishing you and yours a 2018 full of God’s blessing.
Chris
The subject of this thread is the unnecessarily hostile, and sometimes venomously sarcastic, tone of some Young Earth Creationists. Were you aware of that, Steve?
Of course, many YEC proponents are not that way. Also, hostility knows no borders, so there are proponents of every view who sometimes fall prey to that temptation. We are all in need of God’s grace.
Best wishes for 2018,
Chris
The change in the speed of light is connected to General and Special Relativity.
As the speed of light changes (as perceived by someone not traveling in the same frame of reference) so does time. Thus it becomes impossible to identify changes in the speed of light within one’s own frame of reference.
@Steve_Buckley, read some articles on General Relativity.
That’s what God inspired humans to write. Not quite the same thing.[quote=“Steve_Buckley, post:33, topic:36755”]
I’d PREFER that it said evolution. It’d make those who claim to be scientists, and lovers of science easier to believe.
[/quote]
Then you seem to be saying that your acceptance or rejection of scientific theories has nothing to do with the actual evidence. Rather, you accept or reject scientific findings based on their conformity to your religious beliefs.[quote=“Steve_Buckley, post:33, topic:36755”]
He’s inviting all of us to believe Him. He’s promised that if we do believe him, he’ll open his treasuries to us.
[/quote]
Do you include listening to the Creation itself in that process?
Hi G.
So, you haven’t read the articles I referenced?
Did you have some specific research on GR/SR that you wanted me to read?
Because without something specific, I can’t just pick an article, as it may contradict your claim, and then I’d be accused of confirmation bias.
According to the research done by Moffatt and company, they found evidence that the speed of light changed.
Hi Steve,
You seem to have overlooked my analysis of Moffat’s Variable Speed of Light hypothesis. That’s understandable, these threads can get very complex and hard to read. For your edification, here’s a link:
In order to support a young earth, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the speed of light has changed. You need to be able to demonstrate that the changes were large enough, and recent enough, to squeeze the evidence for 13.8 billion years’ worth of light travel into just six thousand.
This isn’t about evolutionary presuppositions. This is about mathematics and measurement.
Why don’t you read the published research article and find out.
Good morning J.
Exactly.
And as the radiometric dating equation is dependent on the speed of light, the faster the speed of light, the shorter the time required.
Here’s a university’s website discussing this.
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm
Hi Chris.
No. I did not overlook it. I didn’t see it. I only saw a couple of emails, and I did not see one showing your post.
And…?
Is God not capable of ensuring that humans are accurately inspired, to accurately write down the information?
I think this is the actual issue here.
We’re talking the God, who inhabits eternity, yet dwells with those who are humble and contrite. Isaiah 57:15.
We’re talking the God who holds the cosmos in the span of his hand. Isa. 40:12.
We’re talking the God who spoke the cosmos into existence, Psalm 33:9.
We’re talking the God who formed man from the dust, and fashioned the woman from the side of man. Gen. 1:26-2:7.
We’re talking the God who became a man, dwelled among us, and then gave himself over to be killed to take on our sin, and be raised again, as to justify us, 100% by him. Romans 4.
We are not talking some man-made concoction, who’s too inept to handle beyond what man is incapable of fathoming.
Either he’s able to accurately inspire, so that we accurately document it, or he’s not.
And if he’s not— how can we know what can, or cannot be trusted as reliable information?
If he cannot be relied on to ensure that we get the creation of the cosmos correct, how can we trust him to accurately detail the rest of the narrative, the future, past, or present?
And I have to admit— this took me over 35 years to realize.
Either God is able to ensure that we are accurately inspired to accurately document the important things or he’s not.
After 40 years of testing, applying, etc… I believe that he is indeed capable of doing EXACTLY that.
I believe that he’s able to, and indeed motivated to…
Accurately inspire, and accurately ensure that we accurately get the correct information.
You now have to decide for you— is he? Can he? Did he?
If not, then why do you believe?
If he is— don’t you think it’d be worth your while to make sure you resolve your conflicts with his written testimony?
Hi Steve,
I’ve no idea where you’re getting the link between the radiometric dating equation and the speed of light from — it isn’t mentioned anywhere in the article that you linked to.
In any case, what you’ve said doesn’t address my point: you need to demonstrate not only that the speed of light has changed, but that it has changed by a factor of many millions within the past six thousand years.
Moffatt et al don’t come anywhere close to demonstrating that.
While this is a nice discussion of radiometric dating I also didn’t seen any mention of the speed of light. Can you point out where you think this was stated?
This was stated:
Is God not capable of inspiring humans to write allegorical and metaphorical myths that speak of deeper spiritual truths? And I don’t use the term “myth” in a negative sense. Myths have been a vital part of human experience and philosophy for millennia, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with something being a myth. Even Jesus taught in parables.[quote=“Steve_Buckley, post:46, topic:36755”]
Either he’s able to accurately inspire, so that we accurately document it, or he’s not.
And if he’s not— how can we know what can, or cannot be trusted as reliable information?
[/quote]
Perhaps you should look at it from the other end. Instead of focusing what God can do, why don’t you focus on what God did do? To put it another way, if we can’t trust God’s creation to tell us the truth, then why should we trust God’s word? It would seem to me that the best option is to reconcile the creation and the word so they say the same thing instead of clinging to a position where the creation is at odds with your interpretation of the Bible.
[They say] “We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it.” You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so.–Willam of Conches
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.