-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A literal 6 24-hr days?
- Thread starter john6:63
- Start date
A_Christian
New Member
Meatros:
You are going to find little evidence for
evolution (one Kind developing into another
Kind) according to the Bible and the order is
not according to the Bible.
God created both fish and fowl----and the
evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Funny about million year epics---they don't
have AN evening and A morning.
You are going to find little evidence for
evolution (one Kind developing into another
Kind) according to the Bible and the order is
not according to the Bible.
God created both fish and fowl----and the
evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Funny about million year epics---they don't
have AN evening and A morning.
A_Christian
New Member
How long is a billion?
1 billion seconds is 32 years.
1 billion minutes and we're back in the time of
Christ.
1 billion hours is 115,000 years.
1 billion days is 3 million years.
14 billion years carries no comprehensible
meaning. It is a shot in the dark by those
who profess to understand but see nothing.
1 billion seconds is 32 years.
1 billion minutes and we're back in the time of
Christ.
1 billion hours is 115,000 years.
1 billion days is 3 million years.
14 billion years carries no comprehensible
meaning. It is a shot in the dark by those
who profess to understand but see nothing.
It may be a number that is hard to understand, but it does have meaning. It seems to me that you keep thinking that just because you may not understand something, that means others must not understand it as well. This of course isn't true, and if I've mistaken how you feel, I apologize-I'm not trying to be insulting.
True science doesn't rule out miracles, only evolution does that
Methinks someone has a warped understanding of what a miracle is. A miracle is not a work of magic that can't be explained. A miracle is a work of wonder. Whether it can be explained is irrelevant. If all of Jesus' miracles could be scientifically explained, they would still be miracles.
The God of the Bible is not a magician.
Methinks someone has a warped understanding of what a miracle is. A miracle is not a work of magic that can't be explained. A miracle is a work of wonder. Whether it can be explained is irrelevant. If all of Jesus' miracles could be scientifically explained, they would still be miracles.
The God of the Bible is not a magician.
The Galatian
Active Member
Wrong. Evolutionary theory does not rule out miracles. It can't. Science has no way of commenting on the supernatural at all. For that, you have to use other ways.
Wrong again. Science is about inferences based on evidence. Challenge evolution to a biologist and he'll start talking about the evidence. For the reason I mentioned first.
I don't think you know what "hypothesis" means.
Nope. That's why people of all faiths can do biology. It's not founded in any outlook about God or no God.
It's not a joke. It's precisely the same as the realationship of the supernatural to science. You probably understand a good deal about plumbing, so it doesn't seem mysterious to you. But science, like plumbing, is methodologically naturalistic, and assumes natural causes, even if it does not rule out the possibility of supernatural ones. That's why scientists and plumbers can the theists.
I think one of the failings of science in the United States, as this board sometimes shows, is that we don't do a very good job of letting the average citizen in on it. I regard people like Sagan and Hawkings, and Gould, and Lewis Thomas very highly, because they write informal scientific literature that is accessible without talking down to the average person.
Science is
impartial, it is man that isn't.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Engineers use physics every day. Biologists never use the mythologies of evolutionism.
And that is why we find so many Creationist biologists practicing in the field today without the least "problem".
Evolutionism failed to find any support in hard science of any kind - much less the natural sciences and so the members of that belief system have tried to co-opt basic principles of biology having nothing to do with the salient "distinctives" that are required for evolutionary biology to ever be proven "true".
As we have already noted - the classification of the varios species "did not wait for an evolutionist to posit reptiles turning into birds before it could segment the existing observable life forms". The same is true of the function of biological "systems" - they are "Freely observable" without having to speculate that a hominid turned into a human one day.
As it turns out - there is not one single "tenant" of evolutionism "that is required" to make any observation or testable prediction in biology today.
And so - creationists that accept that after 5 "Evenings and Mornings" God then created mankind - Male and Female by forming them of the dust of the ground - have no need to "appeal to evolutionism" to see and observe biological sciences today.
In Christ,
Bob
The Galatian
Active Member
You've been misinformed about engineers and biologists. Most of the time, they look it up in tables, but even aside from that, you're wrong. Evolutionary theory is used regularly by agronomists,(predicting the fitness of new varieties) drug and pesticide companies,{overcoming the evolution of chemical resistance) and doctors (designing protocols for minimizing the evolution of antibiotic resistance).
Among other things.
They are exceedingly scarce. The last world-class creationist died about 1900. There hasn't been another one. I knew one when I was an undergraduate. But only one.
Odd. Stephen Hawkings thinks otherwise. Do you suppose he's a better authority on "hard science" than you? BTW, the Nobel laureate physicst Irwin Shreodinger in "What is Life", admitted that biology was a harder science than physics. You've been misinformed on that, too.
Of course "proof" is never part of science, which is primarily inductive, and depends on evidence. However, there is a great mass of evidence from a large number of sciences, which is why scientists of all disciplines overwhelminingly accept evolutionary theory.
Humans are hominids. Formerly, non-human ancestors were known as hominoids, but all are now under the classification "hominines".
No, that's wrong, too. For example, it was predicted, on evolutionary theory, that bacteria would rapidly become resistant to penicillin. They did. Evolutionary theory predicted dinosaurs with feathers, whales with legs, and reptiles with mammal characteristics, all of which were found after the prediction. You've been misled again.
Religion, depending on faith, has no need of science.
Galatian, you make the most incredible statements on your own authority. That really is not acceptable. If you are going to make statements like the ones you have just preceding this, please give references. You are simply a teacher of jr. hi, I think, and not an authority on anything that I am aware of. So please reference yourself.
Johnv, I assume you consider Job allegorical, too? Well, then, the allegorical morning (population II) stars and the quasar of our own black hole lit up the first allegorical day and night, OK? In addition, miracles are not miracles simply because we don't understand them; a miracle is God Himself intervening in the natural order of things. A miracle is not magic because it is not deceptive or slight of hand. A miracle is a direct work of God apart from the natural laws He established.
Johnv, I assume you consider Job allegorical, too? Well, then, the allegorical morning (population II) stars and the quasar of our own black hole lit up the first allegorical day and night, OK? In addition, miracles are not miracles simply because we don't understand them; a miracle is God Himself intervening in the natural order of things. A miracle is not magic because it is not deceptive or slight of hand. A miracle is a direct work of God apart from the natural laws He established.
The Galatian
Active Member
That was a pretty incredible statement, itself, Helen. On whose authority did you say it?
I'd be pleased to do that, for whatever you think is incredible. Why not start by checking my reference to Schroedinger on the relative "hardness" of biology to physics.
On the other hand, if you doubt Hawkings accepts evolution, or that he is an authority on physics, we can produce that evidence.
On hominines, from Wikepedia:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
"Homininae is a subfamily of Hominidae, including Homo sapiens and some extinct relatives, but excluding all living relatives such as the chimpanzee.
Originally the term Hominidae was itself used in this sense, human or humanoid as opposed to ape. But it is now recognized that humans and the great apes are so close that they belong in the same family. In the Linnaean taxonomy, Hominidae has date priority over Pongidae, the great ape family.
So the Homininae are those hominids, such as Australopithecus, who arose after the split from the other (still living) apes."
Huxley first predicted the relationship between birds and dinosaurs, and intermediates with feathers. Whales have long been thought to be related to ungulates, before any were found with legs. Is this news to anyone?
What would you like me to verify for you? A list would be fine.
A_Christian
New Member
Meatros:
What does Hebrews 11:3 mean?
Through faith we understand that the worlds were
framed by the word of GOD, so that things which
are seen were not made of things which do appear.
What does Hebrews 11:3 mean?
Through faith we understand that the worlds were
framed by the word of GOD, so that things which
are seen were not made of things which do appear.
A_Christian
New Member
Meatros:
Why?
Why?
OK. You did not like the argument where the visually brightest quasar would be about 10^6 times less bright than the sun if placed at the center of the galaxy and the most intrinsically bright quasar would still be 1000 times too faint backed up with similar calculations from real astronomers. So how about this:
http://rocinante.colorado.edu/~pja/astr3830/lecture18.pdf
The Eddington Limit gives a minimum mass for a given luminosity in the case of quasars and similar objects. A typical quasar is 10^46 erg/s which gives a minimum mass of 10^8 solar masses. Your quasar would have to be much brighter than average and the galaxy's black hole is only about 3*10^6 solar masses, two orders of magnitude smaller than a typical quasar that is already a million times too dim.
Why do you accept the mainstream evidence for (at least) two populations of stars but not the explanation. Where did the metals in the Population I stars come from in your version?
OK. You did not like the argument where the visually brightest quasar would be about 10^6 times less bright than the sun if placed at the center of the galaxy and the most intrinsically bright quasar would still be 1000 times too faint backed up with similar calculations from real astronomers. So how about this:
http://rocinante.colorado.edu/~pja/astr3830/lecture18.pdf
The Eddington Limit gives a minimum mass for a given luminosity in the case of quasars and similar objects. A typical quasar is 10^46 erg/s which gives a minimum mass of 10^8 solar masses. Your quasar would have to be much brighter than average and the galaxy's black hole is only about 3*10^6 solar masses, two orders of magnitude smaller than a typical quasar that is already a million times too dim.
Why do you accept the mainstream evidence for (at least) two populations of stars but not the explanation. Where did the metals in the Population I stars come from in your version? </font>[/QUOTE]Our youngest daughter graduated from high school last night (by the skin of her teeth, as school was normally simply an interruption in the delightful social life that could be had with so many kids in one spot!). So Barry is still asleep, but some of this I can respond to. As we look out in space, we are looking back in time. I'm quite sure there is no disagreement about this! The earliest quasars are thus the farthest out, right? And they are also the brightest -- by massive amounts. These are the quasars we need to consider when we consider the light reaching earth the first four or four and a half days of creation week.
You asked why we accept evidence and not explanation. Because the evidence is there and the explanation 1)is man's interpretation of the evidence and therefore not only limited, but usually faulty (as the history of science shows), and 2)the explanation given by mainstream science disagrees with what God has said. We figure He knows what He is talking about.
As far as the formation of metals, I've heard him discuss that but, to be quite honest, I didn't pay as much attention as I should have to be able to tell you his response. So I'll wait until he wakes up...
============
edit for unclear response in quasar part: it is the brightness of the earliest quasars we need to consider when thinking about both the possible size and brightness of the early quasar in the middle of the Milky Way Galaxy. I hope that's clearer about what I was talking about.
No rush. Just trying to get a handle on things.
Since you have a little time, let me be sure I'm clear. Current theories do not allow for a black hole the size of the one in the center on the galaxy to be a quasar. The Eddington Limit gives the relationship between maximum output and mass. (or minimum mass from output) Our black hole is much too small to put out enough energy to even approach the weakest of quasars. (it is more typical of an AGN) Your proposition requires that even the largest of known quasars would put out light 1000 times dimmer than the sun. Not exactly daylight. Going back farther in time does not help because of the physical limits imposed.
Again fine. This just seems to be a weakness to me. I understand qualitatively from above why you do not accept and when you get a chance I would like to know quantitatively. There are differences in the populations that need to be explained. And I may be bringing Population III stars back up if there is a hole left for them.Originally posted by Helen:
As far as the formation of metals, I've heard him discuss that but, to be quite honest, I didn't pay as much attention as I should have to be able to tell you his response. So I'll wait until he wakes up...