Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

6days

New member
You haven't demonstrated that anyone believed light traveled at a different speed in the past, apart from YECs who have to explain away inconvenient facts.
What I said was "I said that even evolutionists believe something happened in the past that caused light to travel faster than speed of light..... and that is usually explained as a rapid expansion of space."

It seems you are trying to create a strawman, since as far as we know, the two way speed of light always seems to be consistent.
Sounds like you are advocating for massive amounts of chaos that was happening after the 'creation' event in Genesis.
Absolutely not.
The fine tuned universe is evidence of an orderly creator.

It is Big Bang theory that relies on wildly speculative chaos.
Ex. "Northwestern University physicist Adilson E. Motter conjectured that the expansion of the universe at the time of the big bang was highly chaotic."
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
What I said was "I said that even evolutionists believe something happened in the past that caused light to travel faster than speed of light..... and that is usually explained as a rapid expansion of space."

It seems you are trying to create a strawman, since as far as we know, the two way speed of light always seems to be consistent.

Absolutely not.
The fine tuned universe is evidence of an orderly creator.

It is Big Bang theory that relies on wildly speculative chaos.
Ex. "Northwestern University physicist Adilson E. Motter conjectured that the expansion of the universe at the time of the big bang was highly chaotic."



But it wasn't "fine tuned" until after the 6 days. Can't you get what you are reading??? It was 'formless and unfilled' because of something or things contrary to God that needed to be stopped.

You, 6days, are the one who writes off 'ekpalai' as impossibly about blackest darkness, and then when something comes along that is blackest darkness (no light, no form, etc) you say it's not there.

The "fine-tuned" 6 day creation (formation) is totally different from what was existing there before, about which we have no indication from the text that it was momentary.

There are no literary indications that "settings statements" in Moses are momentary. For ex., 6:1. When man began to increase in number... That's quite a few generations involved. Relative to the new action that is coming up, it is a long period of time. If you apply that to 'when God began forming the earth, it was formless...' you see what 'formless and void' can mean. Ages.

So once again, it is 6days trying to force something NOT to be in the text that is actually there and in the "other book" of God's revelation as Calvin would put it, which is natural revelation.

Move toward integrations, not separations, of these two "books."

When Ps 19 says that the heavens declare the glory of God, and then say that there is no speech or voice heard, he just means that the direct observation of that will declare the same glory of God. He means that there will be integration, not separation, of knowledge.

btw, what is the 'well-known' two-way feature of light? Is this just another separate knowledge thing going on?
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
According to the time stamp on your post you are perhaps 7 hours behind me here. Since there are 24 hours in a day then you are not quite a third of the way around the globe from me. Weather systems here have created a rather nice pleasant day today without much wind, unlike yesterday when I was out. Weather systems are a natural result of physical events in the atmosphere, largely driven by the sun's energy on the land and sea, plus the rotation of the Earth.
That is part of how I perhaps map the world around me, and how given the same physics I expect it to continue, I don't recognise that any supernatural control plays any part. ;)



There is nothing natural about 20 interdisciplinary factors with a page of 000s against them individually happening together perfect all at once and working the first time for humans the first time and ongoing since they were all harmonized.

The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the skies proclaim his engineering feats.
--Ps 19


But some people absorb an hour of a Rembrandt original and walk away saying paint is amazing enough--for them. Not me!
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
I said that even evolutionists believe something happened in the past that caused light to travel faster than speed of light..... and that is usually explained as a rapid expansion of space.
If that explanation is an incorrect layman explanation... please correct it.
In any case the point was that both evolutionists and Biblical creationists believe something different happened in the past. We believe that God created the stars and that they were visible to Adam and Eve. Distant starlight is not a problem.



6days,
I think you need to tidy up your terminology. You have a cookie cutter opponent called an 'evolutionist' and another called 'a gap theorist.' I don't know see evolutionists making statements about what size of big bang there was; those people are called astronomers, and the problem is whether they believe the earth is (otherwise) a closed system of natural causes and effects (--coughs--apart from explaining who lit the bang of course...). Then there are micro-biologists and biologists and the problem there is whether they believe all we have came about apart from any creative work outside the same closed system of natural causes and effects.

I'm saying this because I think you want to win. One of the best ways to win is not to use stale or impotent terms. I myself wanted to win dealing with dispensational futurists in eschatology, but I never won as long as I used their name. They adore their name and kept defending it. It was when I named them after the mistake that was actually going on that I won; I referred to them as 2P2Ps. This also created jokes about Star Wars, but it made the point. There is no defense of 2P2P. It is a clear concept rather than entrenched group.

You will win when you are referring to the correct mistake at the right time even in the naming of things.

I read the history of the moon these past couple days on a business drive, and it cracks me up what kind of thing is the prevailing explanation. The prevailing doctrine is now that "Theia" (a massive object, apparently with a sharp edge like an axe blade) came and struck the earth as it was and out of this interstellar expressway 2 car pile-up, we have a phenomenally coordinated cyclical system.

You've probably seen the Win10 logo by now when it is starting--the dots that circle so perfectly twice? Well, that's what these Theialogicans are saying happened out of the pile up. You know, it happens all the time. Just watch when the next Sandy or Katrina comes along, get out the popcorn, and wait for the phenomenally coordinated landscape comes forth just perfectly!

People do all kinds of things to deny an open system of natural and supernatural causes and effects. They even write about things that are God-like and God-spelled-like and God-acting-like while insisting like our friend Alwight that the universe is a closed system of natural causes and effects, don't they?
 

alwight

New member
There is nothing natural about 20 interdisciplinary factors with a page of 000s against them individually happening together perfect all at once and working the first time for humans the first time and ongoing since they were all harmonized.

The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the skies proclaim his engineering feats.
--Ps 19


But some people absorb an hour of a Rembrandt original and walk away saying paint is amazing enough--for them. Not me!
What specifically do you think has no natural explanation?
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
I've only mentioned Gonzalez and Richards work 10x now. The answer to your question would be the completely successful integration of all 20 of the physical improbabilities working together correctly the very first time and ongoing. The individual improbabilities are huge. What happens when they interact?

I've only mentioned gravity's extreme precision 10x...
 

6days

New member
Interplanner said:
But it wasn't "fine tuned" until after the 6 days. Can't you get what you are reading??? It was 'formless and unfilled' because of something or things contrary to God that needed to be stopped.
??
What I said was "The fine tuned universe is evidence of an orderly creator."

Why do you want to argue about when? I would imagine the fine tuned universe happened between days one and four of the creation week. But again.... you are wanting to argue about things All Christians should agree on. Our universe (and it's fine tuning) are evidence of our Creator.
 

DavisBJ

New member
Actually Davis, it was evolutionists who made all the false conclusions. The conclusions were based solely on their belief system...not on science.

Ex. Evolutionists based on their belief system said Neandertals were incapable of speech, and would have only made gutteral sounds. Science has proved that wrong. Neandertals had the exact same capability of speech as we do.
Well, let’s see if that is true. Here is the abstract of a peer-reviewed article on Neanderthal speech written several decades ago by two well-qualified professors. Let’s see if, as 6days claims, their “conclusions were based solely on their belief system.”

On the Speech of Neanderthal Man
Philip Lieberman and Edmund S. Crelin
Published in Linguistic Inquiry, 1971
Introduction​

Language is undoubtedly the most important factor that differentiates man from other animals. Language is, in itself, a system of abstract logic; it allows man to extend his rational ability. Indeed, it has often been virtually equated with man's abstract logical ability (Chomsky 1966). It is therefore of great interest to know when a linguistic ability similar to that of modern Man evolved. One of the most important factors in determining the form of man's linguistic ability is his use of "articulate" speech. We will discuss the speech ability of an example of Neanderthal man, the La ChapelIe-aux-Saints fossil, in the light of its similarity to certain skeletal features in newborn humans. We herein use the term "Neanderthal" as referring to the so-called classic Neanderthal man of the Würm or last glacial period.l

Our discussion essentially involves two factors. We have previously determined by means of acoustic analysis that Newborn humans, like nonhuman primates, lack the anatomical mechanism that is necessary to produce articulate speech (Lieberman 1968; Lieberman et al. 1968, 1969). That is, they cannot produce the range of sounds that characterizes human speech. We can now demonstrate that the skeletal features of Neanderthal man show that his supralaryngeal vocal apparatus was similar to that of a Newborn human. We will also discuss the status of Neanderthal man in human evolution.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177625?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

A free PDF copy of this technical paper is at http://web.haskins.yale.edu/SR/SR021/SR021_09.pdf

Philip Lieberman is a cognitive scientist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, US.

Edmund Crelin was a Professor of Anatomy at Yale.
6 days, were the conclusions of this study based on evolutionists’ belief system, or was it an actual scientific investigation performed by qualified scientists? If you wanted to undertake a scientific examination of the question of Neanderthal speech capabilities, would the approach taken in the above paper be a valid way to proceed?

This paper was referenced several hundred times in later studies dealing with the development of speech. As I reviewed several of those follow-on studies, I did not see anything near a wholesale refutation of the conclusions of the original paper. Some authors pointed out that other things are needed for speech, such as the requisite neural connections. Even the article that 6days linked to telling of a study headed by Steven Wroe from just a few months ago does not do what 6days is inclined to do – turn tentative ideas into sweeping claims of established fact.

As I mentioned a few days ago, lacking some way of actually seeing the range and complexity of Neanderthal speech patterns, we are left to infer that because the requisite anatomy seems to be in place, then it may have been employed in speech.

I am intrigued by 6days’ approach on this Neanderthal speech issue, inasmuch as Neanderthals could not even have existed within a Biblical timeline. I presume 6day’s intent is to again simply portray “evolutionists” as biased and incompetent scientists. I guess he will deal with when Neanderthals existed as a separate issue.
 
Last edited:

DavisBJ

New member
I don't know :)
But, there are likely a few possible answers.
Did God create light in transit?
If He did, then you better jump over to Cadry’s line of thought, because that means the light that appears to be from distant galaxies is in fact artificial, and effectively the distant galaxies are indeed mirages.
… If God created everything 6,000 years ago, and spread out space as His Word suggests, then wouldn't we need to know more details about the rate?
If creationists want their claim that “spreading out the heavens” allows us to see distant galaxies to be taken seriously, then yes, details like the rate will need to be firmed up substantially. Loosey-goosey claims like “spreading out the heavens” mean squat in science.
God created a mature earth... mature people... fruit already on the trees... so perhaps He created a mature universe with super novaes.
Take a few minutes and actually think about that. Observations indicate supernovas probably occur about every century in a typical galaxy, and there are billions of galaxies.

Now let’s look at the most distant events that we could have seen that occurred within the last 6,000 years (since Eden). A sphere centered on the earth, with a radius of 6000 ly includes less than 1% of the volume of just our own galaxy. As far as I know, no supernova that close to the earth has ever been observed since modern science knew what to look for. So, every supernova ever seen, under the creationist scenario, was over 6000 ly away, and thus must have been a creation-week event.

But since, across the visible universe, detecting a new supernova somewhere is almost a daily occurrence, to compress all of those into creation week they must have been exploding like popcorn – hundreds or thousands per second. And God, after the explosions, dragged the light at some super-speed till it was just close enough to the earth that He could then let it meander at its more leisurely 300,000 km/sec for the last few millennia till it reached our telescopes. Talk about deception on a cosmic scale!!

An interesting example of the difficulties the creationist ad-hoc explanations is with 1987A. “1987A” is (according to observations made by astronomers) a star that is about 170,000 ly away. Normally at distances that large, the distance determination has to be made by going up a couple of rungs on what is sometimes termed the ladder-of-distances. That just means that the distance to things that are close to the earth, like the planets, moons, and sun in our solar system can be accurately measured by direct geometry measurements – triangulation. To find the distance to the nearer stars, if we take careful note of where all the stars are on a specific night, and then again 6 months later, the nearer stars will be noticeably shifted relative to the far distant ones in the background. That shift is due to the earth changing its position from one side of the sun to the other side as it completes a half-orbit in 6 months – a 190 million mile shift in position. Then more indirect distance determinations need to be used on more distant stars, usually having to do with how bright they are.

But the star 1987A was a gift to the astronomical community. Many millennia ago it underwent a brief violent outburst in which it threw off a huge shell of its outer layers, and that ejected material spent many millennia spreading out in the form of a spherical shell expanding outwards. Then, more recently (but still a long time ago) the remaining core of 1987A erupted as a supernova. For the past 170,000 years the light from that supernova explosion has been racing towards earth, arriving (as the name implies) in 1987. The thing that set it apart is that it took months for the light from the supernova to reach that spherical shell of ejected material from millennia earlier, but when it did, that shell could be seen.

Spoiler
eso1401a.jpg


But the light from the “sides” of that illuminated shell (to the left and right and up and down, as viewed from earth) didn’t arrive at earth until a few months after the original supernova was seen. In other words, some of the light from the supernova explosion went racing to the side for a few months, then it caught up with the expanding shell, and then some of that reflected light headed towards earth, but lagging, by a few months, the light that did not take the side trip to the shell.

Since astronomers can see and measure the angle from the supernova to the illuminated shell, and know how far the light was delayed in reaching the shell, they can directly apply trigonometry to derive the distance to the nova. A direct distance measurement to something normally much too far away for triangulation.

After a number more months had passed, the material ejected by the supernova explosion began catching up with the already-present expanding shell. That collision of super-nova ejecta with the shell set off a new burst of observable energy, which took yet a number of additional months to reach the earth. And there is new radiation from after-effects that are being observed even today.

The interesting part for the creationists is how to come up with some credible way to form a supernova with an expanding shell around it, have some of the light take the indirect path to reflect off the shell, then trail the original light by a few months, then have ejecta hit the expanding shell and send off more electromagnetic energy, etc., and do it all in creation week.
 
Last edited:

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
monkey see, monkey do!

monkey see, monkey do!

monkey can't be no man. monkey can't do dat

I don't think the most modern informed view of evolution holds that we came from monkeys, but that humans and apes(monkeys) have a common ancestor...so we are 'cousins' in this regard. I'd have to brush upon my research in this area, but this ought to be brought up, if it hasn't already.
 

Stuu

New member
I don't think the most modern informed view of evolution holds that we came from monkeys, but that humans and apes(monkeys) have a common ancestor...so we are 'cousins' in this regard. I'd have to brush upon my research in this area, but this ought to be brought up, if it hasn't already.
It would be reasonable to say humans and the other apes evolved from monkeys, although obviously not from modern species of monkey.

The common ancestry part is right, of course.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
* life from non life
* self creating DNA code
* laws without a law giver.
* everything from nothing / no first cause
* complex, sophisticated design without a designer.
And what makes you think these have no natural explanation?

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
Dear Stuart,

God is a Supreme Being Who has created Everything in the Universe and on Earth. He has caused us to live in a place called the Milky Way, because His adult children {us} need to drink milk, like babies. That is why He put it in someone's mind to call this the Milky Way. We're all adult babies. His children. Do you get it? God can do ANYTHING!! Anything you could ever think of, God can do. And He loves His children very much, even you Stuart!! If I love you as much as I do, think of how much more He loves you, seeing His love is a billion times stronger than mine. You'll understand more as time goes on, dude. I pray that God will turn your life around, even though you don't want Him.

God Loves Those Who Seek Him Out!! May He Fill Your Heart With Everlasting Love!!
But I have blasphemed in an unforgivable way (I am reliably reassured this is indeed unforgivable). So I will already be punished eternally by burning in sulfur.

So I really do appreciate your good wishes, because I can't expect that from your god.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
What I said was "I said that even evolutionists believe something happened in the past that caused light to travel faster than speed of light..... and that is usually explained as a rapid expansion of space."

It seems you are trying to create a strawman, since as far as we know, the two way speed of light always seems to be consistent.
I'm a bit confused now. Are you saying the speed of light was different in the past? The speed of light within space-time won't have changed in an inflating universe. During the most rapid part of the inflation the universe was opaque anyway, so the light certainly wasn't traveling from stars at that stage even if your claim was true, which it isn't.

Absolutely not.
The fine tuned universe is evidence of an orderly creator.
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, may have been made to have me in it!"
-Douglas Adams

It is Big Bang theory that relies on wildly speculative chaos.
Ex. "Northwestern University physicist Adilson E. Motter conjectured that the expansion of the universe at the time of the big bang was highly chaotic."
And?

Stuart
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
According to the time stamp on your post you are perhaps 7 hours behind me here. Since there are 24 hours in a day then you are not quite a third of the way around the globe from me. Weather systems here have created a rather nice pleasant day today without much wind, unlike yesterday when I was out. Weather systems are a natural result of physical events in the atmosphere, largely driven by the sun's energy on the land and sea, plus the rotation of the Earth.
That is part of how I perhaps map the world around me, and how given the same physics I expect it to continue, I don't recognise that any supernatural control plays any part. ;)


Dear alwight,

Well, thanks for the info. It is 2a.m. here, so it's 9a.m. there. I think God controls the physical events in the atmosphere, and all other factors too. I'm just that way. Thanks for all of the info. We got some rain here 2nite. Not much though. You take care, good buddy, and I'll chat with you later.

Many Blessings And Cheerio, Matey,

Michael
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Billions of galaxies...Trillions of stars.


Dear 6days,

WOW!! Billions of galaxies. You've got to be kidding me!! I have so much trouble believing that, but if you say so, then I trust you. I don't know much about those things. It seems so highly improbable. Okay!!

Much Love Coming Your Way!!

Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top