Creation and science

[Jonahdog]

In other words, it took about 46 Billion years for light to reach here from the light horizon?
A light year is a measurement of distance....not time

So I can therefore agree that the light that is determined by scientists to be 5 million light years away really was created less than 10,000 years ago?

 

[iamaberean]

tells us distance not age ]

In other words, it took about 46 Billion years for light to reach here from the light horizon?
A light year is a measurement of distance....not time

By knowing the speed of light, we can figure distance and also the time it has taken to get here for us to see it.

The speed of light is one of the more constant variables in the universe, with a speed of approximately 186,000 miles per second. This means that if you were 186,000 miles away from a person who turned on a bright light, it would take one second before that light reached you.

If Earth and the universe were only 6,000 years old, we would only be able to see stars with a maximum distance of 6,000 light-years. Otherwise the light would not have had time to reach us.

The Milky Way galaxy is approximately 100,000 light-years across, with our solar system about 28,000 light-years from the center. This puts us about 22,000 light-years from our galaxy’s outer edge. If the universe were only 6,000 years old, we would see only a fraction of the 200 billion stars in just OUR galaxy since light from others would not have had enough time to reach us!


http://realtruth.org/articles/090203-006-science.html

 

[iouae]

However that is contradictory to scripture.
God's Word tells us He created the heavens and the earth in six days. (Not re-create) Your belief is simply an attempt to add billions of years into scripture trying to find a compromise between what God says and secular man says.

You do a valiant effort pushing the young earth idea.

Trouble is you have ZERO respect for science. I am talking about the simplest science of picking up a telescope and seeing light of all different ages arriving on earth from stars and galaxies hundreds, thousands, millions and billions of light years away.

This proves to a scientist or cosmologist that you are just plain wrong.

You want the science to change. Science is not open to interpretation like fluffy doctrinal ideas. You proudly and arrogantly believe you are right and all science is wrong.

There is good and bad science. Good science like the telescope is not wrong. So deal with it.

I have showed you that science is correct, it is your theology which is flawed. You grab at straws like that light travels at different speeds one way or two ways. That is the dodgiest of dodgy science you are grasping at. No scientists believe that or can prove that.

If science were telling me that my theological beliefs are wrong, I would be humble enough to at least consider that.

Every time you insist the universe is 6000 years old, I cringe. You do God no favours by pushing an error. You just convince atheists that us religious folk are closed minded. We religious folk demand from scientists that they have faith in our nuttiness. Who is at fault here?

How hard is it to accept that God created the heavens and the earth long before day 1 when He made light? Why do you insist He did? There is a gap between the creation of the heavens and earth in Gen 1:1 and Day 1 in Gen 1:2.

Now science is allowed to be right, and religious folk don't have to have egg all over their faces.

And Gen 1:2 is describing a renewing of what was ALREADY there. Gen 1:3 tells of all kinds of things like water, an earth, an atmospere being present already. If this were the original creation, why did God not just do it right from Gen 1:1?

6days, you could do a wonderful job of promoting correct Christian ideas which are in line with science. You are diligent, intelligent and do some great posts. But like the Alamo and General Custer you have chosen the wrong place to make a stand. You need to choose a battle you can win. You are like the Pope insisting that the sun goes around the earth, when Galileo can see it is the opposite. Your 6000 year old universe is so Dark Ages.

 

[6days]

However that is contradictory to scripture.*
God's Word tells us He created the heavens and the earth in six days. (Not re-create) Your belief is simply an attempt to add billions of years into scripture trying to find a compromise between what God says and secular man says.

Trouble is you have ZERO respect for science. I am talking about the simplest science of picking up a telescope and seeing light of all different ages arriving on earth from stars and galaxies hundreds, thousands, millions and billions of light years away.

This proves to a scientist or cosmologist that you are just plain wrong.[/quote]

Perhaps it seems so from a secular world view of science. So are you saying goes that cosmologist, *astrophysicist it's, *astronomers, geneticists, biologists, physicists who disagree with you have ZERO respect for science?

You want the science to change. Science is not open to interpretation like fluffy doctrinal ideas. You proudly and arrogantly believe you are right and all science is wrong.

Iouae...I don't think you know what science is. Science is knowledge. ..the pursuit of truth. The scientific method involves observation and repeatable experiments, then making conclusions ...interpreting the data.*


The history of origins science is full of fluffy ideas once accepted as true by evolutionists, but now proven wrong by science. (Would be a great new topic).*

 

[iouae]

Perhaps it seems so from a secular world view of science. So are you saying goes that cosmologist, *astrophysicist it's, *astronomers, geneticists, biologists, physicists who disagree with you have ZERO respect for science?

Who are these people you quote? Are they the same ones who designed the O-rings for Challenger and then had the faith that these O-rings would still function below their design temperatures?

True science works because it is true. When science incorporates wishful thinking or faith, stuff blows up or goes off course. Science is relentless in not allowing fluffy thinking.

And evolution is not science.

6days, one has to know enough science to evaluate what is iffy "science" and what is utterly true and incontrovertible science.

Evolution INTERPRETS the fossils it finds. Evolution is not science any more than domestic science is science.

Iouae...I don't think you know what science is. Science is knowledge. ..the pursuit of truth. The scientific method involves observation and repeatable experiments, then making conclusions ...interpreting the data.*

The history of origins science is full of fluffy ideas once accepted as true by evolutionists, but now proven wrong by science. (Would be a great new topic).*

Forget evolution. Its an utter lie. Cosmology, the speed of light, light years, that is hard, incontrovertible real science. You are quite right to trash evolution.

 

[6days]

Perhaps it seems so from a secular world view of science. So are you saying goes that cosmologist, *astrophysicist it's, *astronomers, geneticists, biologists, physicists who disagree with you have ZERO respect for science?

Who are these people you quote?*Are they the same ones who designed the O-rings for Challenger and then had the faith that these O-rings would still function below their design temperatures?

*

Nope... the people who created those faulty rings believed the earth was billions of years old, I would imagine. Although there are several young earth Biblical creationsts who do work at NASA.

I was referring to people like moon landing astronaut James Irwin who says "in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, you will find the truth about where the moon, the earth, and the sun came from,…how God created all things out of nothing in six days, [and] how God created the earth on the first day, and then, seventy-two hours later on the fourth day made the moon, the sun, and the rest of the universe."

True science works because it is true. When science incorporates wishful thinking or faith, stuff blows up or goes off course. Science is relentless in not allowing fluffy thinking.

Correct....which is why beliefs about origins is not science.*However. ...there is LOTS of evidence supporting our young earth and Biblical creation (such as comets). It's just that you choose to believe secular interpretations that weaken the Gospel.

6days, one has to know enough science to evaluate what is iffy "science" and what is utterly true and incontrovertible science.

Correct again. I would suggest you stop believing in the iffy and fluffy 'science' that causes you to compromise on scripture.

*

Cosmology, the speed of light, light years, that is hard, incontrovertible real science.

Haha..... yes the speed of light and light years as a measurement of distance is real science. But don't interpret "real science" in ways that causes you to twist what God says. How long do you think it too God to spread the heavens out? It seems you think He was incapable of creating stars that Adam could see 48 hours later.*

 

[iouae]

"James Benson "Jim" Irwin (March 17, 1930 – August 8, 1991), (Col, USAF), was an American astronaut, aeronautical engineer, test pilot, and a United States Air Force pilot. He served as Lunar Module Pilot for Apollo 15, the fourth human lunar landing. He was the eighth person to walk on the Moon and the first, and youngest, of those astronauts to die.[1]

Christian Beliefs[edit]
I felt the power of God as I'd never felt it before.

— Irwin, describing his experience during the Apollo 15 lunar mission.[12]

More Than Earthlings, 1983
Irwin left NASA and retired from the U.S. Air Force with the rank of Colonel in 1972 and founded the High Flight Foundation, spending his last 20 years as a "Goodwill Ambassador for the Prince of Peace", stating that "Jesus walking on the earth is more important than man walking on the moon".[13] He frequently spoke about how his experiences in space had made God more real to him than before.

Beginning in 1973, Irwin led several expeditions to Mount Ararat, Turkey, in search of the remains of Noah's Ark. In 1982, he was injured during the descent and had to be transported down the mountain on a horse and then to the nearest hospital by Lieutenant Orhan Baser and his commando team. Lieutenant Baser was assigned to protect and lead the team on this expedition."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Irwin

Irwin said, regarding the Apollo 15 mission "I felt the power of God as I'd never felt it before".

Another religious astronaut was...

"Edwin Eugene "Buzz" Aldrin, Jr. (born January 20, 1930) is an American engineer and former astronaut, and the second person to walk on the Moon. He was the Lunar Module Pilot on Apollo 11, the first manned lunar landing in history. He set foot on the Moon at 03:15:16 on July 21, 1969 (UTC), following mission commander Neil Armstrong. He is a former U.S. Air Force officer and a Command Pilot."

I read his book "Reaching for the moon".

As a purely scientific question, do you think these astronauts who walked on the moon's opinions on young earth vs old earth, are any more valid or worthwhile than anyone else here on TOL, including your own?

 

[6days]

James Benson "Jim" Irwin (March 17, 1930 – August 8, 1991), (Col, USAF), was an American astronaut, aeronautical engineer, test pilot, and a ....

Another religious astronaut was...

The point is not religious scientists. Essentially they all are.

You mocked Christian scientists who accept Biblical creation suggesting they were incompetent. *I used Irwin as an example of an accomplished scientist who didn't compromise on scripture by adding millions or billions of years.*

"Edwin Eugene "Buzz" Aldrin, Jr. (born January 20, 1930) is an American engineer and former astronaut, and the second person to walk on the Moon. He was the Lunar Module Pilot on Apollo 11, the first manned lunar landing in history. He set foot on the Moon at 03:15:16 on July 21, 1969 (UTC), following mission commander Neil Armstrong. He is a former U.S. Air Force officer and a Command Pilot."
I read his book "Reaching for the moon".

I listened to him in person at a conference.

Did you know he held communion on the moon?*

As a purely scientific question, do you think these astronauts who walked on the moon's opinions on young earth vs old earth, are any more valid or worthwhile than anyone else here on TOL, including your own?

Again.....
You mocked Christian scientists who accept Biblical creation suggesting they were incompetent. *I used Irwin as an example of an accomplished scientist who didn't compromise on scripture by adding millions or billions of years.*

 

[iouae]

The point is not religious scientists. Essentially they all are.

You mocked Christian scientists who accept Biblical creation suggesting they were incompetent. *I used Irwin as an example of an accomplished scientist who didn't compromise on scripture by adding millions or billions of years.*


I listened to him in person at a conference.

Did you know he held communion on the moon?*


Again.....
You mocked Christian scientists who accept Biblical creation suggesting they were incompetent. *I used Irwin as an example of an accomplished scientist who didn't compromise on scripture by adding millions or billions of years.*

I do love it when astronauts are religious. There is so much that can go wrong up there that I would want God with me every step of the way.

No, I did not know about his communion on the moon. Did Nasa? These guys were always smuggling stuff on to the moon, like golf clubs and stamps.

At least I understand now your criterion for good science/scientist. One who believes in a young earth, even though his field of expertise is flying aircraft and spacecraft.

 

[iouae]

Correct again. I would suggest you stop believing in the iffy and fluffy 'science' that causes you to compromise on scripture.

*
Haha..... yes the speed of light and light years as a measurement of distance is real science. But don't interpret "real science" in ways that causes you to twist what God says. How long do you think it took God to spread the heavens out? It seems you think He was incapable of creating stars that Adam could see 48 hours later.*

I start with the truth which empirical science teaches.

And I try to get my theology to accommodate this truth.

I know empirical science does not lie.

And I know my theology has been faulty many times before. So I use science to get my theology in line. Thankfully I don't have to choose one over the other because to date they both sing to the same hymn-sheet.

It seems you start with your theology, and science must fit in with that. What checks and balances do you have for your religious beliefs?

 

[6days]

I
No, I did not know about his communion on the moon.* Did Nasa?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5600648

There is so much that can go wrong up there that I would want God with me every step of the way

The safest place on earth....is to be right at the center of God's will. And for some, the safest place was out of this world.

At least I understand now your criterion for good science/scientist.* One who believes in a young earth, even though his field of expertise is flying aircraft and spacecraft.

You seem to mock those who disagree with your beliefs .... as if they aren't as smart as yourself.*

No...the criteria for a good scientist is not being able to pilot a spacecraft. *Once again....the reason I used an astronaut as an example of a young earth creationist is to counter your suggestion that a creationist scientist is incompetent and might be responsible for the spaceship Challenger disaster.

You may be interested in this which I posted here in TOL previousOk... To start, realize that although Biblical creationist scientists are a small percentage...It still is a growing number that likely is in the tens of thousands..*

There are different lists... different organizations...Some other languages. For example South Korea has a fairly healthy population of scientists who believe in Biblical creation /young earth. Also, keep in mind that there are many who don't want their names on such lists for fear of reprisal from employers, or other reasons.
Here is one such list from Creation Ministries...
BIBLICAL CREATIONISTS
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of MRI technology
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Genetics
Dr John Ashton, Chemistry, Food technology
Dr Steve Austin, Geology
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemistry
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physics
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunology
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiology
Dr Donald Baumann, Solid State Physics, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr Paul Ackerman, PhD, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Wichita State University.
Dr Élizabeth Beauchesne, Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences.
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychology
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biology
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David Boylan, Chemical Engineering
Dr Bernard Brandstater, Anesthesiology
Prof. Stuart Burgess, Engineering and Biomimetics, Professor of Design & Nature, Head of Department, Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK)
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr Ben Carson, Professor and chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University. He has 51 honorary doctorates, including from Yale and Columbia Universities.
Dr Robert W. Carter, Marine Biology
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology (read his story)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Xidong Chen, Solid State Physics, Assistant Professor of Physics, Cedarville University
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemistry
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Paleontology
Dr Bob Compton, DVM, PhD
Dr Ken Cumming, Biology
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemistry
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemistry
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics
Dr Geoff Downes, Plant Physiology

Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research (more than 80 research papers)
Dr André Eggen, Genetics
Dr Leroy Eimers, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Dr Dennis Flentge, Physical Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry and Chair of the Department of Science and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Kenneth W. Funk, Organic Chemistry; biologically active peptide synthesis.
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Roger G. Gallop, P.G., Geology
Dr Robert Gentry, Physics
Dr Maciej Giertych, Genetics
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Science
Dr Steven Gollmer, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics, Cedarville University
Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemistry
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Science
Dr Barry Harker, Philosophy
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physics, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physics and Cosmology
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculture, Ecophysiology
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Science
Dr Steven Hayes, Nuclear Science
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botany
Dr Larry Helmick, Organic Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineering
Dr Dewey Hodges, Professor of Eerospace Engineering
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomology
Dr Jonathan Henry, Chemical Engineering, Astronomy
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr George F. Howe, Botany
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropology
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physics
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Dr G. Charles Jackson, Science Education
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Science
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logic, Formal Logic
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biology
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr David King, Astronomy.
Dr John W. Klotz, Biology
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr Johan Kruger, Zoology
Dr Wolfgang Kuhn, biology researcher and lecturer
Dr Heather Kuruvilla, Plant Physiology, Senior Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr Matti Leisola, Biochemistry (esp. of enzymes), D.Sc. in biotechnology, Dean, Faculty of Chemical and Materials Sciences, Aalta University, Finland
Dr John G. Leslie, biochemistry, molecular biology, medicine, biblical archaeology
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biology, Genetics
Dr Jean Lightner, Agriculture, Veterinary science
Dr Peter Line, Neuroscience
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysics
Dr Raúl E López, Meteorology
Dr Alan Love, Chemistry
Dr Gloria Luciani-Torres, Molecular Oncology Researcher (Cancer Biology)
Dr Heinz Lycklama, Nuclear physics and Information Technology
Dr Ian Macreadie, Molecular Biology and Microbiology
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biology
Dr George Marshall, Opthalmology researcher
Dr James Mason, Nuclear physics
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemistry
Dr Mark McClain, Inorganic Chemistry, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr John McEwan, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomy
Dr Angela Meyer, Plant Physiology
Dr John Meyer, Physiology
Dr Victor Meyer, Entomology, environmental science
Dr Douglas Miller, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr Robert T. Mitchell, Internal Medicine (specialist)
Dr Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr Gina Mohammed, Plant physiology
Dr John N. Moore, Science Education
Dr John D. Morris, Geology
Dr Len Morris, Physiology
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geology
Dr Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical science
Dr David Oderberg, Philosophy
Professor Douglas Oliver, Professor of Biology
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botany
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biology, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Jules H. Poirier, Aeronautics, Electronics
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr Graeme Quick, Engineering, former Principle Research Scientist with CSIRO (Australia)
Dr Dan Reynolds, Organic Chemistry
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rodda, PhD, Population Genetics
Dr David Rosevear, Chemistry
Dr Marcus Ross, Paleontology
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr Craig Russell, Soil science, plant nutrition, ecology
Dr Ronald G. Samec, Astronomy
Dr John Sanford, Plant science / genetics
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemistry / spectroscopy
Dr Alicia (Lisa) Schaffner, Associate Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Joachim Scheven Paleontology
Dr Ian Scott, Education
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic Physics
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geology/karstology
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineering
Dr Horace D. (‘Skip’) Skipper, Professor Emeritus Soil microbiology, College of Agriculture, Forestry and Life Sciences, Clemson University, SC, USA
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysics
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoology
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geology
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Larry Thaete, Molecular and Cellular Biology and Pathobiology
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr S.H. ‘Wally’ Tow (Tow Siang Hwa), retired chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Singapore
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemistry
Dr Gerald Van Dyke, Ph.D. and Professor Emeritus in Botany, North Carolina State University
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoology
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biology
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineering and Geology
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Keith Wanser, Physics
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Near-East History (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geology/Paleontology
Dr Kurt Wise, Paleontology
Dr Bryant Wood, Archaeology
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemistry and Materials Science
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Daiqing Yuan, Theoretical Physics
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

Again....... this is only a small representation.*

 

[iouae]

You seem to mock those who disagree with your beliefs .... as if they aren't as smart as yourself.*

I don't consider it a matter of smartness or dumbness, but rather the gift of open-mindedness.

Did you mistake my scathing criticism for your half-baked ideas as mockery?

Here is one such list from Creation Ministries...
BIBLICAL CREATIONISTS
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of MRI technology
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Genetics....

You and I BOTH are Biblical Creationists.
The difference is you are a young earth creationist.
I am an old earth creationist.
We don't know how many on your list would agree with you, and how many with me.

Having a degree or PhD is not going to affect anyone's seeing a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. I could explain that to a 5-year old and he would see it. It's all about one's willingness to entertain new ideas.

Suppose I sent a child with a torch away from me.
The light would get progressively fainter, right?
Supposing the batteries never flattened.
I could work out a system of telling the distance of the child from the brightness of the torch right?

I would know that the brightness of the torch fell off with the square of the distance. But that is neither here nor there. You do agree that with a light-meter I could measure distance of the child from me?

And if I know the distance, and I know the speed of light (c) then the formula c = distance/time will give me the time that the light took to get from the child to me. Right?

And if that child is a star of known brightness (cepheid star) and that time works out to be more than 6000 years, your theory would be toast, right.

And that's exactly what they have done - and sorry - your theory of a young earth IS toast

 

[6days]

You seem to mock those who disagree with your beliefs .... as if they aren't as smart as yourself.

I don't consider it a matter of smartness or dumbness, but rather the gift of open-mindedness.

And the geneticists, biologists, theologians, vegetarians etc who don't agree with you, and don't*compromise on scripture,*are close minded?*

Here is one such list from Creation Ministries...
BIBLICAL CREATIONISTS
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of MRI technology
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Genetics....[

You and I BOTH are Biblical Creationists.
The difference is you are a young earth creationist.
I am an old earth creationist.*We don't know how many on your list would agree with you, and how many with me.

The list is from a young earth ministry. If you read where this list originates, it condems those who compromise saying "those today who teach that Christians should compromise the plain meaning of the Bible to fit with ‘science’. Aside from placing fallible human opinion as an authority above the infallible Word of God, it just doesn’t work and paves the way for more departure from Scripture."

Also your attempt at saying some on the list *might be old earth Creationists (some may be) is your attempt at moving the goalposts. There are Biblical Creationists in virtually every field of science..... not just astronauts who you attempted to put down as unqualified to discuss age of earth.

Having a degree or PhD is not going to affect anyone's seeing a gap between*Gen 1:1*and*Gen 1:2. I could explain that to a 5-year old and he would see it. It's all about one's willingness to entertain new ideas.

Rather it's your willingness to compromise on the Gospel and destroy the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection. Death entered our world because of the sin of first Adam. 1 Cor. 15 . * You claim death, pain and suffering *existed for millions of years before Adam sinned.*

Re. the 5yr. old.... PEW Research did extensive study and found the kids who grew up believing they could add millions of years into the foundation of the Gospel - Genesis 1 also were more apt to compromise on other Biblical accounts (IE *Less likely to believe in literal Jonah, Noah, Virgin birth, genealogy's etc.)

....And if I know the distance, and I know the speed of light (c) then the formula c = distance/time will give me the time that the light took to get from the child to me. Right?

So then you believe light, from the light horizon took 46 Billion years to reach earth? *No... you don't! *Your beliefs are not only incompatible with scripture but are also inconsistent with your own 'logic'.

And that's exactly what they have done - and sorry - your theory of a young earth IS toast

God's Word tells us that He created everything from nothing in six days. It isn't my theory...it's His word.*

 

[Jonahdog]

So I can therefore agree that the light that is determined by scientists to be 5 million light years away really was created less than 10,000 years ago?

6 got a response to this? The light from a star 5million light years away was created less than 10,000 years ago?

 

[iouae]

And the geneticists, biologists, theologians, vegetarians etc who don't agree with you, and don't*compromise on scripture,*are close minded?*

If you believe the Bible teaches "one truth" then all not in line with that "one truth" are in error and "closed minded" to it.

During most of the last 2000 years the majority of Christians had false beliefs. And the fact we have 30000 or more Christian denominations tells us that someone has to be wrong

There might not be one person on earth who has all the truth since most Christians, even in the same denomination, have slightly varying beliefs. I assure you I don't think I have all the truth.

Do you consider it a possibility that NOBODY has all truth?

And if we want to play the numbers game, I feel that the vast majority of Christians and scientists who are Christians do NOT believe in a young universe.

The list is from a young earth ministry. If you read where this list originates, it condems those who compromise saying "those today who teach that Christians should compromise the plain meaning of the Bible to fit with ‘science’. Aside from placing fallible human opinion as an authority above the infallible Word of God, it just doesn’t work and paves the way for more departure from Scripture."

You may think that others not agreeing with your interpretation are "compromising". But it is just your interpretation that there is no time gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. I consider you to be the one compromising.

It is not a compromise to learn from other sources of truth such as science, astronomy, palaeontology, history.

I look at reality and use it to check my theology. The Pope created the Dark Ages by denying science.

Do you think I don't believe Ex 20:11?
Where we differ is that you think this has only happened once in human history. God did create the current heaven (clean sky), earth (with its new mammals) and seas (with whales) in 6 days.

It is possible that God created different biomes MANY times in the past. That is what the fossil record (reality) shows. Prophecy says that in the future, God will create new heavens and earth AGAIN. And He may even take 6 days to do so.

Is 65:17
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Rather it's your willingness to compromise on the Gospel and destroy the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection. Death entered our world because of the sin of first Adam. 1 Cor. 15 . * You claim death, pain and suffering *existed for millions of years before Adam sinned.*

You believe that every plant and animal which ever lived, lived all together before the flood.
So dinosaurs lived with humans, lived together with pterodactyls and every strange and curious gigantic beast.

Do you know how scientifically impossible this scenario is?
All animals live in the specific climate they were suited to. They are parts of food chains which they are suited to. Ferns and some plants grow in warm climates. Other plants and animals live in cold climates. You are saying that all animals which ever lived could cope with the pre-Flood climate.

In different layers of rock are animals and plants which survive in completely different biomes and climates. Yet there they are piled up in layers, all neatly arranged so that dinosaurs never sit with humans etc. You cannot explain that stratification and sorting of fossils.

And when one looks at the oil, gas and coal reserves which are formed from plant and animal remains, it becomes obvious that this ENORMOUS amount of fossilised material could only come from multiple mass extinctions. That amount of plant and animal material could not fit on earth all at one time.

Early chapters of Genesis never say that man lived with dinosaurs. Have you watched Jurassic Park to see how impossible it would be for man to have survived together with Jurassic creatures?

And why did Noah not take two of every dinosaur onto the ark as God "supposedly" commanded?

Re. the 5yr. old.... PEW Research did extensive study and found the kids who grew up believing they could add millions of years into the foundation of the Gospel - Genesis 1 also were more apt to compromise on other Biblical accounts (IE *Less likely to believe in literal Jonah, Noah, Virgin birth, genealogy's etc.)

This is such a load of crock. Don't you know one can get stats to say anything in the name of pseudoscience?

So then you believe light, from the light horizon took 46 Billion years to reach earth? *No... you don't! *Your beliefs are not only incompatible with scripture but are also inconsistent with your own 'logic'.

What are you talking about here - the preview to Star Wars?

God's Word tells us that He created everything from nothing in six days. It isn't my theory...it's His word.*

You added "from nothing" to make it suit your theology.

 

[6days]

Do you consider it a possibility that NOBODY has all truth?

That sounds eerily like what the serpent said in the garden convincing Eve that there was other ways to understand what God said.*

You may think that others not agreeing with your interpretation are "compromising".

I think you have compromised the Gospel by believing death, pain and suffering existed before man sinned.

I think your compromise encourages those new in the faith to believe they don't have to accept what God clearly says.*

But it is just your interpretation that there is no time gap between*Gen 1:1*and*Gen 1:2.

Your attempt to add millions of years into God's Word, putting death before man sinned is a fabrication....and it weakens the Gospel. *


I posted this previous.....In attempts to fit eons of time into scripture, some people go with the 'gap theory". This 'theory' requires mental gymnastics that result in a rejection of what God clearly says. The 'theory' basically is that Genesis 1 is not God's original creation...His original creation was ruined, and this was a re-do, or a makeover.


Here are a few of the arguments for the gap theory I have seen here in TOL, and reasons why Christians should reject those arguments.
#1 False argument: God uses 2 different words in Genesis to describe creation;
'Bara' meaning CREATE *from nothing, or
'Asah' meaning to MAKE or mould from something that already exists. The word 'asah' is the more commonly used word in Genesis 1 indicating creation was really a makeover.
False because: In order to insert billions of years into Genesis, gap theorists create an artificial distinction between bara and asah. It is not difficult to notice these words are used interchangeably in scripture.
For ex. V21 God created (bara) fish and birds.
V25 God made (asah) the animals.

Or
V26 God is speaking of making man.
V27 God created man.

Or
Nehemiah speaks of God making the angels.
Psalms speaks of God creating the angels.

#2 False argument: "was formless and void" (Hebrew- tohu wabohu) refers to something fallen in disrepair, or a state of chaos. The translation should read 'became formless and void'.
False because: Gap theorists should take a hint that they might be wrong in that no major translation of the Bible says that the earth 'became' formless.

Also, false because 'tohu wabohu' does not mean chaos or disrepair. The phrase simply means what it says in most translations. The earth was without form and empty. There were no inhabitants on earth. The earth had not yet been formed... there was no dry land, no mountains etc.
#3 False argument: Pre-adamites lived in a previous creation accounting for "homonoid" fossils found in geological strata.
False because: Gap theorists unwittingly erode, or even destroy the gospel message with *this belief. Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 15:45 that Adam was the first man. If gap theorists are correct... then Paul and the gospel message is false.

Rom. 5, 12 and 1 Cor 15 tell us that sin entered our world because of sin. As a result of that original sin, death and suffering entered our world. Because of death caused by "first Adam", the death and resurrection of "Last Adam" became necessary to defeat "the final enemy". (See 1 Cor. 15)

#4 False argument: The heavens existed further back from when the earth was formed. Supporting verse...2 Pet 3:5 "But they deliberately forget that long ago (Ekpali) by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water."
False because: Gap theorists are forcing a definition onto the word 'ekpalai' that is inconsistent with other scripture. The word is also used in 2 Peter 2:3 and 5 other times in the NT, and it's usually associated with human activity....never once referring to a time before Genesis 1.

OTHER arguments against the gap theory.
A. As shown above, gap theorists need to perform mental gymnastics which leads to a very confusing Gospel.*

It's interesting that just this morning a atheist in TOL made this comment to a gap theorist..."Wow. Then the Biblical text is not a simple, clear, and meaningful message to be taken to the world at large, but instead is an obscure abstract treatise that can be appreciated only by those who are learned in the subtleties of ancient languages...."

The mental gymnastics is also easy for youth to see through. When they are taught to perform mental gymnastics with Genesis, it then becomes natural to 'interpret' the gospel with the same technique.

B. Genesis 1:31 God calls everything "very good". It defies logic to think God would rebuild upon millions of dead things from a previously corrupted world and call it very good. But, even more difficult is that Satan would already have been "god of this world". 2 Cor. 4:4

C. Ex. 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them"
Question. ..if everything was made in six days, what was made before the six days?

It is not a compromise to learn from other sources of truth such as science, astronomy, palaeontology, history.

Nope. ...of course not!!.*

However it is compromise to use opinions on those topics to reject what God clearly tells us.

As paleontogist and young earth creationist, Kurt Wise says, he starts with the presupposition that God's Word is truth and interprets evidence accordingly.
http://chalcedon.edu/research/artic...ontologist-what-the-bible-says-is-data-to-me/

 

[lucaspa]

Science has figured out how far away, in light years, a planet or galaxy is. By doing so they know the cosmos is billions of years old.

This goes against most Christians who believe all things were created in seven, 24 hour, days. But if this were true, we could not see very far out in space, only those objects that are 8,000 light years away.

Either the first day, in Gen 1, was billions of years or we have to believe scientists are just trying to come up with facts to refute the bible.

Think about it!

This is the False Dichotomy logical fallacy. Only 2 choices are given: Day 1 in Genesis 1 is billions of years long or scientists are trying to refute the bible. The idea is that one of these possibilities is the truth.

In reality, there are many, many more possibilities than these 2. Also, both possibilities are wrong.

The underlying premise is that Genesis 1 is science/history. Or, more accurately, a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is science/history. Furthermore, the logic is that, if Genesis 1 is not correct science/history, then the entire bible is refuted.

1. Genesis 1 is not, and was never intended to be, literal history. Or science. Genesis 1 is a religious essay whose purpose was to destroy/discredit the Babylonian gods. Those gods were gods of something: saltwater, plants, sun, land, etc. When those things were created by the Israelite God, then the Babylonian gods could not be gods anymore. Just like Thor the god of thunder cannot be a god when thunder is not caused by Thor, but instead by air filling the vacuum created by lightning.

Now, Genesis 1 worked. It worked so well that the Babylonian religion died. No one remembers that it had a god and goddess of salt and freshwater, respectively. So we don't remember what the purpose was. Instead, some people try to insert their own purpose to Genesis 1: accurate history and science. That is wrong.

2. Scientists are studying God's Creation. The universe is what God created, right? That's what scientists study. Yes, many (but not most) scientists are atheists. Doesn't matter. From the Christian viewpoint, they are all studying God's "second book". So no, scientists are not trying to "refute" the Bible. Instead, scientists are discovering how God created. God did not create in 6 24 hour days. Nor did Creation happen only a few thousand years ago, like you would get if you added up the ages and generations mentioned in the OT. Creation happened 13.7 billion years ago via the Big Bang. Earth is 4.54 billion years ago and the features on the earth have been formed by the processes discovered by geology. That is how God created the earth.

Look at the quote in my signature. This is how Christians, back in 1831, reacted to the discoveries that 1) the earth was hundreds of millions of years old and 2) there was no world-wide flood. They did not stop believing in God. Instead, they realized that their interpretation of those chapters of Genesis was in error.

Modern creationists, whether young earth or intelligent designers, will not admit they have made an error in their interpretation of the bible. They stick to their error no matter what harm that does to God. They really don't care about God; they care about their false idol of their interpretation of scripture.

 

[iouae]

#2 False argument: "was formless and void" (Hebrew- tohu wabohu) refers to something fallen in disrepair, or a state of chaos. The translation should read 'became formless and void'.
False because: Gap theorists should take a hint that they might be wrong in that no major translation of the Bible says that the earth 'became' formless.

Also, false because 'tohu wabohu' does not mean chaos or disrepair. The phrase simply means what it says in most translations. The earth was without form and empty. There were no inhabitants on earth. The earth had not yet been formed... there was no dry land, no mountains etc.

Hi 6days

I was trying to ease myself gently out of this discussion.

The only point I want to respond to is "without form and void" or "tohu wabohu" in Heb.

Notice this passage in Jer 4 which describes conditions at Christ's second coming. The second coming IS a mass extinction.

Jer 4
23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger.

27 For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black; because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

This is describing conditions after a mass extinction and at Christ's return.

Now the above description......Hmmmmm.......
It reminds me of something....... some chapter elsewhere in the Bible...

Please somebody, help me out with which chapter that is .......

 

[lucaspa]

I think you have compromised the Gospel by believing death, pain and suffering existed before man sinned.

Physical death certainly did. Scripture in Genesis 2 and 3 is very clear about that.

I think your compromise encourages those new in the faith to believe they don't have to accept what God clearly says.

And look at your emphasis: "what God clearly says". It's not God talking here: it's you. You are saying how we should interpret the Bible. And you are saying we should ignore God in His other book.

So no, we are trying to keep those new in the faith actually believing in God, not allowing you to lead them astray.

Your attempt to add millions of years into God's Word, putting death before man sinned is a fabrication....and it weakens the Gospel.

As I said, physical death was already there. Anything else is fabrication. Instead, the text is clear it is talking about spiritual death. And here the allegory that is the story of Dirt and Hearth tells something Christians believe is very real: disobeying God cuts us off from God; we are spiritually dead. Physically alive but spiritually dead. What Jesus taught was that even our thoughts bring about disobedience and distance from God. NONE of us, no matter how well we outwardly obey the 10 Commandments, come up short. Therefore, we ALL sin. And thus we ALL need a Savior.

I posted this previous.....In attempts to fit eons of time into scripture, some people go with the 'gap theory". This 'theory' requires mental gymnastics that result in a rejection of what God clearly says. The 'theory' basically is that Genesis 1 is not God's original creation...His original creation was ruined, and this was a re-do, or a makeover.

I agree. Gap Theory is against what the authors intended to say in Genesis 1. The authors wanted 6 literal 24 hour days. NOT because it was literal history. But because the authors were tying the observance of the Sabbath to creation. See Exodus 20:11. I see you did. But you apparently did not realize its significance.

The Gap Theory loses some of the very important theological messages the authors were trying to tell.

So Gap Theory is wrong by God's Creation and wrong by scripture. But then again, so is your interpretation.

Rom. 5, 12 and 1 Cor 15 tell us that sin entered our world because of sin. As a result of that original sin, death and suffering entered our world. Because of death caused by "first Adam", the death and resurrection of "Last Adam" became necessary to defeat "the final enemy". (See 1 Cor. 15)

Again, Paul failed to read Genesis 2-3 carefully. He also failed to understand those chapters are allegory. Of course, he may have done that to simplify a Jewish message to a gentile audience. However, the allegory that is Genesis 2-3 makes it clear that all of us disobey God. We all sin. If you think you only because Adam did, then you are 1) deluding yourself and 2) failing to take responsibility for your sin. There can be no repentance without responsibility. You would be ensuring that you cut yourself off from salvation.

The mental gymnastics is also easy for youth to see through. When they are taught to perform mental gymnastics with Genesis, it then becomes natural to 'interpret' the gospel with the same technique.

If you think the mental gymnastics are difficult for Gap Theory, then the mental gymnastics for literal Genesis 1 and Young Earth are completely indigestible. No way anyone is not self-deluded can accept Young Earth and literal Genesis 1 in the face of all the evidence God has provided to the contrary.

B. Genesis 1:31 God calls everything "very good". It defies logic to think God would rebuild upon millions of dead things from a previously corrupted world and call it very good.

Why? I don't get this. Christians believe that this life is only temporary and we will have a better one after our physical death. Why, then, do you so think that death is "evil" and so "terrible". And since death only threatens our soul, and plants and animals do not have souls, then why are you so concerned about them?

However it is compromise to use opinions on those topics to reject what God clearly tells us.

As paleontogist and young earth creationist, Kurt Wise says, he starts with the presupposition that God's Word is truth and interprets evidence accordingly.
http://chalcedon.edu/research/artic...ontologist-what-the-bible-says-is-data-to-me/[/QUOTE]
And in saying this, Wise admits he is not listening to God when he does paleontology. Wise is admitting he worships a false idol: "God's Word". By that he means a literal interpretation of the Bible.

So why should anyone follow the advice of someone breaking the 1st Commandment? All Wise statements shows is that he is both a terrible scientist and worships false idols.

Not someone I'd want to use as a role model for someone "new in the faith".

 

[6days]

So dinosaurs lived with humans, lived together with pterodactyls and every strange and curious gigantic beast.
Do you know how scientifically impossible this scenario is?

It is arguments like that which also cause young Christians to doubt the virgin birth, the global flood, the ten plagues, the resurrection etc..*

*Yes.... humans lived with dinosaurs. You reject the evidence from God's Word, and the evidence in the rocks. As far as it being scientifically impossible...I suspect your argument is not convincing to the thousands of scientists who disagree with you.*

All animals live in the specific climate they were suited to. They are parts of food chains which they are suited to. Ferns and some plants grow in warm climates. Other plants and animals live in cold climates. You are saying that all animals which ever lived could cope with the pre-Flood climate.

Almost correct.*

Animals adapt to climates. Yes the plants and animals that existed pre-Flood survived quite nicely.*

You seem to reject the Biblical creation and flood model without understanding it. Did you realize that the creationist model, and the evidence are that animals can rapidly adapt and speciate? Did you know that organisms that are*highly adapted are generally fragile because they have lost pre-existing Genetic information?

In different layers of rock are animals and plants which survive in completely different biomes and climates. Yet there they are piled up in layers, all neatly arranged so that dinosaurs never sit with humans etc. You cannot explain that stratification and sorting of fossils.

You better explain that to all the geologists and other scientists who disagree with you. If you convince them, they too will have to reject that "in six days God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them".*

And when one looks at the oil, gas and coal reserves which are formed from plant and animal remains, it becomes obvious that this ENORMOUS amount of fossilised material could only come from multiple mass extinctions. That amount of plant and animal material could not fit on earth all at one time.

You better explain that to all the geologists and other scientists who disagree with you. If you convince them, they too will have to reject that "in six days God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them".*

Early chapters of Genesis never say that man lived with dinosaurs. Have you watched Jurassic Park to see how impossible it would be for man to have survived together with Jurassic creatures?

Haha... I don't get my info from movie producers.

And why did Noah not take two of every dinosaur onto the ark as God "supposedly" commanded?

Gen.7:2*
Gen.7:5

[Quote6days]
So then you believe light, from the light horizon took 46 Billion years to reach earth? No... you don't!*And there was. God spoke it into existence.Your beliefs are not only incompatible with scripture but are also inconsistent with your own 'logic'.

What are you talking about here - the preview to Star Wars?[/quote]
You seem to neither understand God's Word nor science.*

"According to calculations, the comoving distance (current proper distance) to particles from the CMBR, which represent the radius of the visible universe, is about 14.0 billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light years)"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

Also...
http://creation.mobi/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big-bang

God's Word tells us that He created everything*from nothing*in six days. It isn't my theory...it's His word.

You added "from nothing" to make it suit your theology.

*Hebrew. *11:3 By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God's command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen.

Also consider Genesis1:1 this was "the beginning"... not a new beginning..... not a re-do of anything previous.

Also.....
GE 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light…"
And there was. God spoke it into existence.

GE 1:6 "And God said, Let there be a firmament…"
And there was. God spoke it into existence.

GE 1:14 "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament…"
And there was. God spoke it into existence.