Yes but what about the solid firmament? And whether pigs have wings?
I didnât place that stipulation on you. But let me just answer the questions you wonât for youâŚ
Yes, you believe that the appearance of design apparent in Stonehenge indicates design.
No, you donât believe the appearance of design apparent in living things indicates design.
These contradictory conclusions expose bias and irrationality.
I believe we live in the world described in the Bible. But despite this being identified as a âFaith & Scienceâ forum, I have been warned that some Biblical teachings are not open for discussion here.
So while the Biblical description of our world is a topic that I love to discuss in detail from both science and scriptural angles, I am forbidden to do so.
When I say âactual scienceâ, I mean as opposed to Scientism, or as opposed to what Paul called âscience falsely so calledâ (1 Timothy 6:20).
It isnât scientism to think common descent is true.
It isnât science to look for evidence interpretable as God created.
Scientism is assuming science can or will answer all questions.
Faith is what you trust in the absence of evidence.
I was with you till that last sentence. And actually itâs got considerable truth in it too - but Iâd add that faith is a whole lot more than that, and does not at all mind making use of such evidence as is made available to it.
We may walk by faith rather than by sight, but that doesnât mean we deliberately close our eyes wherever thereâs any light to be had!
2 Likes
While I agree that the 21st century is indeed a time when anyone can make any unsubstantiated claim they want and millions will blindly believe them, I infer from your comment that you believe the universe IS infinite, and that this is somehow âsettled scienceâ. Of course itâs not - nor could it ever beâŚ
Terry, I canât understand how any structure that is still expanding can also be truly infinite. Can you explain that to me?
Also, if a structure expanded equally in all directions from a single point, can it logically be said that it doesnât have a center?
Interesting to think about.
If you are are creationist of any kind, young earth old earth, or evolutionary, you believe in intelligent design at some point in the process.
If you believe that design means creation has to be constantly tinkered with and modified to get the desired result, do you believe God was either incapable of getting it right the first time or of incorporating adaptive potential into creation? Do you believe in his omniscience and omnipotence?
If you believe that if science explains something, then God must not be in it? Do you believe in Godâs providence? Do you believe God sustains all things?
2 Likes
Iâm glad youâre aware of it, there is hope therefore. So what do you propose to do to reconcile that? Do you need help? Thatâs the next step. Asking for help.
Itâs all here.
It is not an assumption. Anyone can see with their own eyes that the creation account in Genesis explains how the world began.
Is that what you think the Bible is⌠fictional stories concocted by people who merely felt led by God to write their own understandings down?
Where in the creation account of Genesis can I read about âGodâs purpose for the existence of the universe and a consequent understanding of the purpose of humankindâ?
Besides, a writer who was not concerned with how God created our world wouldnât have spent an entire chapter detailing how - or the timing and order of each process.
You apparently think that the Bible is just some made up stuff from the limited primitive understanding of the people of that time period⌠in which case there isnât a valid reason to believe any of it.
I believe the creation account is God Himself explaining to us through Moses how He created our world.
Again⌠itâs not an assumption. The how is clearly laid out in Gen 1 for everyone to see.
Why? The Bible says Jesus turned water into wine. Are you saying that the event canât possibly be true because the minute scientific details were not provided?
You just said yourself that someone making up a creation story today would include the Big Bang, right? Could you and I talk about the generalities of the Big Bang without discussing sub-atomic particles, quantum physics, Planck time, nuclear fusion, etc? Of course we could. Weâve been doing it on this thread for a week and none of those things have even come up.
Why not? Do you think that the men who lived in Biblical times were less intelligent than men who live today? If so, why would you think that?
He doesnât. Why would you think that he does?
Of course not. No light turned down here.
True.
False
True
True
Youâd have to ask those who believe that itâs still expanding; I donât.
I canât explain what I donât believe.
Again, youâd have to ask those who believe it; I donât.
I believe the âappearance of designâ is a subjective opinion, so it isnât amenable to scientific testing.
2 Likes
Hold that thoughtâŚ
Phil, weâre men standing on earth looking at lights in the sky⌠lights (as in PLURAL) that the Bible says can and will fall to the earth - an impossibility if these lights are hundreds and millions of times larger than the earth. Is it possible that you are simply repeating things that youâve been told and blindly believe⌠things you couldnât possibly verify for yourself?
Actually, I quoted four different secular evolutionists saying that just a couple of days ago on this thread. By the way, you guys trying to shut good arguments down without discussion by saying they are just âworn out catch phrases from Creationist organizationsâ is the real worn out catch phrase.
But since you mentioned that article again, maybe you could help me to square this circleâŚ
- No one has measured the decay rates directly; we only know them from inference.
Decay rates have been directly measured over the last 40-100 years. In some cases a batch of the pure parent material is weighed and then set aside for a long time and then the resulting daughter material is weighedâŚ
- If the half-lives are billions of years, it is impossible to determine them from measuring over just a few years or decades.
The example given in the section titled, âThe Radiometric Clocksâ shows that an accurate determination of the half-life is easily achieved by direct counting of decays over a decade or shorter.
The above is from the article you linked. It says that we can determine very long half-lives in less than a decade. But you and others here have claimed that the discordant ages for the Mount St. Helens rocks were because the stupid YECs used the wrong dating method/equipment.
Phil, how can it be that we can measure decay rates over as little as 10 years and extrapolate those rates back to billions of years - yet also need to use specific radiometric tests for specific ages of rocks?
If - over the course of only 10 measly years - we can measure decay rates and determine that Potassiumâargon has a half life of 1.3 billion years, then why couldnât K-Ar be used for Mt. St. Helens - or any rock that is at least 10 years old?
Itâs like saying your fuel consumption/miles to empty analogy only works if the tank is full, but wonât work if the tank is near empty.
Please make it make sense. Thanks.
I think that people from Biblical times were just as intelligent as modern day people. However, ancient people were not as knowledgeable as modern day people. Those are two different things. Even modern day people have a hard time understanding the Big Bang theory even though they already understand that there are billions of galaxies spread out through the universe. Did people from biblical times even understand that the stars in the night sky were other suns?
2 Likes
Thank you, Klax. Phil, in the balloon analogy, the singularity is/was the dead center of the air within the balloon, and everything on the surface of the balloon is the same exact distance from the singularity. The skin of the balloon would represent the extent to which the universe has thus far expanded. The singularity would not itself be on the skin - but right smack dab in the middle of the body of the balloon.
Therefore, it is impossible to have a universe that is expanding equally from a single point yet doesnât have a center.
Are you denying that the stars are distant suns like our own or distant galaxies like the Milky Way?
The lab they sent the samples to explicitly stated that they canât date rocks younger than 2 million years old. So that was a problem right away. They then used samples that were contaminated with older rock. What they got back was the average age between the older inclusions and the younger rock, and an inaccurate measure at that because of the sensitivity of the method used at the lab.
This has nothing to do with changes in radiometric decay rates.
These are fundamental properties of isotopes. You would have to change the basic laws and forces of physics in order to get different decay rates.
For the same reason we canât weigh a feather using bathroom scales. Every measurement process has a range of sensitivity and accuracy.
No. Itâs like trying to measure the width of a wooden board using your carâs odometer.
1 Like
Thatâs wrong. The center of expansion for the big bang was every single point in space. Thatâs why the surface of a balloon is used as analogy because the center of expansion on the surface of a balloon is every point on the surface.