So why doesn’t a six thousand year old world not match reality? Just saying it all changed does not constitute support, and is not scriptural either.
It matches perfectly. Do not confuse faith based doubts with reality. Just saying it does not is not Scriptural
As explained and you evade, what is in scripture is filling the earth after their kind, as the animals Adam named. In no sense is adaptation by speciation in scripture.
Yes the kinds multiplied. It all started from the kinds. Lots of adapting happened, that we know. Lots of types of creatures etc. Elementary reasoning actually. If the flood was something like say, 4500 years ago, and the only animals on the planet were on the ark, how would you explain the variety we see today? There is no verse that says man could not get a suntan or have a skin pigment that would never be affected, etc etc. Face it. Lots of changes happen to life.
So you think there are no craters on mercury, no valleys carved by ice ages, no fossil record? - because that is what would be in keeping with a young earth. I think you have a lot more explaining to do than just “it all changed”.
Which is contrary to scripture.
If. If there was no global deluge, there is no problem to begin with requiring explanation or excuses for the observed biodiversity and bio-geography, is there?
You never did answer the question, why do you even care what scientists or the evidence support?
Of course there are craters. Who knows how much debris was ejected from earth into space in the past, for example when the founts of the deep exploded/erupted? Or perhaps if there was somewhat of a change in tilt or orbit or whatever of this planet? Or if planets were realigned sometime around or after the flood (or whenever) to have a new proximity to earth? Man is the reason for this universe after all, it exists for us. One day it will vanish away and we we still be here and another universe will be here for us! So if there was some ejecta that affected planets how could that be a surprise?
Show us how adapting (intelligently designed) is in ANY way ‘contrary to Scripture’??
The flood would not be when ‘biodiversity’ started. But it is a good recent example of how adapting must have went on.
Genesis 7:11
on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.
Nothing there about debris exceeding escape velocity and being flung into space. Once again, you are making up more stuff about both science and scripture.
Just as springs burst with the water from beneath the earth, the floodgates of the heavens were openings through the solid dome firmament which allowed the waters above to fall to earth.
It is in the referenced thread on baraminology. Adaptation is not speciation, and scripture teaches that Adam named the familiar animals.
Hey there @dad .
Let me just take redshift and do this once for you, because I think calling this “faith” skips over what is actually being measured.
Redshift is not simply, “We see something like a Doppler shift with a train, so we assume galaxies work the same way.”
We can measure hydrogen in the laboratory. It has a very specific pattern of spectral lines (note it has many more than this, but these are in the visible light region):
Hα = 656.3 nm
Hβ = 486.1 nm
Hγ = 434.0 nm
When we look at a distant galaxy, we find the same pattern, but the entire spectrum is shifted by the same factor.
z=\frac{\lambda_{\rm obs}-\lambda_{\rm rest}}{\lambda_{\rm rest}}
For example, if Hα is normally 656.3 nm but appears at 721.9 nm:
z=\frac{721.9-656.3}{656.3}\approx0.10
That predicts where Hβ should appear:
\lambda_{\rm obs}=(1+z)\lambda_{\rm rest}
\lambda_{\rm obs}=1.10(486.1\ {\rm nm})=534.7\ {\rm nm}
And that is the point: the whole spectral fingerprint shifts together. This is something we directly measure.
Then we repeat this for galaxy after galaxy and compare redshift with independently measured distance.
For nearby galaxies, the relationship is approximately
v=H_0d
and at relatively small redshifts
v\approx cz
so
z\approx\frac{H_0d}{c}
In other words, nearby galaxies generally show larger redshifts as their distance increases. But this relationship does not stop when we leave the local universe. When astronomers extend the measurements to much greater distances, including Type Ia supernovae whose light has traveled for billions of years, the redshift-distance relationship continues. At those larger distances it is no longer just the simple straight-line Hubble relation. Different histories of cosmic expansion predict slightly different curves, and the observations are precise enough to distinguish between them.
Cosmological redshift is therefore not simply a train-track analogy. The idea is that while the light is traveling, the distance between large-scale points in the universe is changing. Astronomers describe that expansion with a quantity called the scale factor, written a(t), which you can think of as a number describing the relative size of the universe at a given time. If the universe were twice as large now as when the light was emitted, then
\frac{a_{\rm now}}{a_{\rm then}}=2
and the wavelength of the traveling light would be stretched by the same factor:
\frac{\lambda_{\rm obs}}{\lambda_{\rm em}}
=
\frac{a_{\rm now}}{a_{\rm then}}
Since redshift is defined by
1+z=\frac{\lambda_{\rm obs}}{\lambda_{\rm em}}
we get
1+z=\frac{a_{\rm now}}{a_{\rm then}}
So if we measure z = 1, then 1 + z = 2, meaning the universe has expanded by a factor of 2 since that light was emitted. This relationship is not simply assumed from the Doppler effect. It comes out of General Relativity when light travels through an expanding universe.
The next question is what determines how fast the universe expands. That is what the Friedmann equation describes:
\left(\frac{\dot a}{a}\right)^2
=
\frac{8\pi G\rho}{3}
-\frac{kc^2}{a^2}
+\frac{\Lambda c^2}{3}
In plain language, it says that the expansion history depends on the amount of matter and energy in the universe, its curvature, and the cosmological constant. And we can actually compare that predicted expansion history with observations extending billions of years into the past.
The BOSS measurement shown in red reaches roughly 10 billion years into the past, into the period when the expansion of the universe was still slowing down. Later measurements show the transition to accelerated expansion. So we have laboratory spectra, the same spectral fingerprints in distant galaxies and quasars, measured wavelength shifts, a redshift-distance relationship extending billions of light-years, and a theory of gravity that quantitatively connects those measurements to an expansion history that can itself be tested.
You can argue that the interpretation is wrong. But then an alternative model needs to quantitatively explain the same spectral shifts, the redshift-distance relationship, and the observed change in the expansion rate over cosmic history. Calling the inference “faith” does not explain the measurements.
2 Likes
Nothing says escape velocity was the same. Go figure. Then there are the other planets. Sorry, no mystery at all in craters
If you doubt the windows of heaven were opened and the fountains of the deep, that is not my problem.
Adam named all the animals. Not like he was dumb or lazy. Also I never mentioned speciation. If I did I might point out that changes by evolving or adapting in the former nature and world need not have been limited to birth. They could have adapted on the fly so to speak for all we know. And fast.
As you admitted, you measure a spectrum in the lab. (Then, we try to apply that to light streaming in from far away) However we do not know what else could shift light out there. Could time affect light out there? Who knows. It is faith alone that claims that what causes redshifting of light in a lab on earth must be the only thing and same thing that shifts light anywhere. Also, I might point out that man has never been out there to see anything. We see it here. Only here. Always here. As you probably know the furthest that a man made thing has yet gone is less than ONE LIGHT DAY away!
You never did answer the question, why do you even care what scientists or the evidence support? If you do not care, what is your point?
1 Like
At this point you are not offering an alternative explanation. You are simply saying that something unknown might happen to light because we were not physically there to watch it. That is not evidence, and it is not a scientific model. I’m imploring you @dad to learn some cool Physics. Go watch some PBS documentaries and just enjoy God’s creation.
“Who knows, maybe something else happens” can be used to dismiss literally any observation in science. Unless you can specify what this proposed effect is, quantify it, and show that it predicts the data better than the existing model, there really is no point in continuing this further.
1 Like
AND there’s the rub. A God who is deceptive in His acts could also deceive in any other way, lying about the record. This includes the Bible, and it includes the Resurrection. The only way around this is to trust that God, by will or by nature, is never deceptive.
This is basic theology, but don’t take my word for it, ask any knowledgeable theologian about “The Omphalos Argument.”
1 Like
Yeah, I tell the insurance agents that body fat calculations assume mass and density measurements operate the same at the doctor’s office and at home. I believe that physics is different depending on where are when they measure things (even though they '‘claim’ that they’ve performed the consistency checks while developing the methods) and so they should give me the cheapest rate for the healthiest group for insurance premiums. Must be idiots, or a Catholic based insurer… Go figure.
1 Like
Pointing out the severe limits of false prophets does not mean we care about what they say
I do not need to cook up some alternative belief or tall tale. Just admit you don’t know. Then place the belief based origin package science offers us in it’s proper little place/waste recepticle
In no way is having creation able to adapt to changes deceptive. It is clever. The resurrection was not deception in any way. It was prophesy unfolding and God dancing all over physics
I will admit that this line of argument is not something I find terribly compelling. “Deception” implies intent. But it could be necessary to bend physical ‘rules’. What I wouldn’t expect is that the rules would be shifted such that results for phenomona before and after the changes would still be congruent and continuous across multiple phenomona that would respond very different for a given change in physics. I’d expect more discontinuities in results across the times of events. Of course, it’s possible that things were ‘shifted’ in a way that makes detection hard or impossible, but you can’t convince by handwaving or making ad hoc assertions about physics ‘changing’ without being specific on some of the details.
1 Like
Not only is that a self-contradiction, but physicists, biologists, chemists, physicians, and geologists are not prophets, be they false or true, so that is not relevant.
If you do not like facts and evidence, you are free to just ignore them and persist in your dogma.
So you do not have a point, at least one that can be coherently articulated.