Does It Matter

[quantumfaith]

I feel a little respondsible for the arguments and ill feelings between members in the above post because I was the one who first mentioned the book by Dr. Schroeder.

Although I cannot say I agree with the things discussed in Dr. Schroeder's book, or even fully understand them, I certainly do not wish to misrepresent Dr. Schroeder or his thoughts.
There seems to be 2 things on the table in question, how time passed and was/is measured, and evolution.
I will attempt to explain how Dr. Schroeder handles both so his position is truthfully represented.
Since quantumfaith has also read the book I hope he will correct me if I do not describe Dr. Schroeder's position accurately.

As Havensdad touched on in #114 there is the Law of Relativity which states time is dependant upon gravity and velocity with time slowing as gravity or velocity increases.
This has been proven by measuring the difference in the light waves from the sun as compared to light waves generated here on earth.

It seems Dr. Schroeder's position is that time as we know it being based on the earth system began at the creation of man thus we see:

Genesis 5:1 (King James Version)
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

It also seems Dr. Schroeder's position is that time which measured the formation of the whole universe was based on a system of gravity and velocity other than that of the earth's, he calls it cosmic time and thus we see:

Genesis 2:4 (King James Version)
4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Therefore through the measurement of time as we know it based on the earth system gives us 6,000yrs since the creation of man, while granting a different measurement of time for the period preceeding the creation of man.

Concerning evolution, IMO Dr. Schroeder's position would be one of supporting micro evolution while disagreeing with macro evolution.
As Havensdad pointed out in post #117 there are many problems with macro evolution and in the book Dr. Schroeder points to the same problems both through biology and statistical mathematics.
I think Dr. Schroeder would agree with Havensdad's post #117.

However Dr. Schroeder does show several examples of micro evolution and in all honesty I also see these examples in the world around us.
In my lifetime I have seen genetically sound breeds of cattle and wheat changed from one breed or variety to another.
I have never seen cattle changed into horses, or wheat changed into roses.
Dr. Schroeder gives the example of the evolution of man as changing from living to be hundreds of years old to only living less than a century as we see today.
This is the result of selection from the gene pool which is already in each individual and only brought to surface because of environmental surroundings.

I have tried to briefly explan the positions of Dr. Schroeder and hope quantumfaith will correct me where I have missed the mark.

The only things I "correct" are mathematics exams. ::smilewinkgrin: You are right on target as to the thoughts of Dr. Schroeder. And yes, in basic, he would agree with, for the most part Havesdad #117. And perhaps, my lack of clarity in the matter has fostered ill will as well. I do "venerate" Dr. Schroeder but I am impressed with both his scientific and theological insights and how the two do not contradict but rather converge. I enjoy learning the postions and arguments of others on such issues, but extreme dogmatism on any end of the spectrum does not demonstrate good apologetics nor good science. The debate will continue until we are called home, it should though, be an insightful and enlightening debate without acrimony between believers and the community of the unsaved. Again, I thank you for you warm and reasonable spirit in the matter.

 

[quantumfaith]

No, they are not. It is possible that the earth could experience 6 days of time, while the universe could experience billions of years, due to time dilation (Relativity in relation to density, speed, etc.). But it is not possible for 6 days, and 15 billion years, to happen in the same relative area, and the same time.

Because I have studied physics to some degree(since I was 5: I used to want to work at NASA.), I am perfectly willing to accept an old universe. The Bible, after all, is written from the perspective of the Earth. God made the earth, in Six days, as measured from the earth. But while this was happening, (if we accept that the localized presence of God created a Euclidean zone in the vicinity of the earth), it could certainly be that long periods of time were passing outside of that area.

This would be in keeping with scripture, and I have no problem with it (and would explain why light from stars millions of light years away have reached us). Saying that the earth is millions of years old, from our perspective, and that we "evolved," not only goes against the Bible, however, but the scientific facts.

Respectfully, NO sir. Unless I misunderstand your meaning, you do not understand the current science relating to the physics of time. As we speak, orbiting satellites, so integral to communications on earth orbit the earth, each with a clock ticking at a rate slightly slower than its counterpoint on earths surface. This disrepancy, must be adjusted for, and is done so in communications systems software routinely. An even more simple example:

If you stretch your arms out horizontally, your finger tips would experience time faster than your head because your head is closer to the main mass of your body, and subsequently a larger gravitational force.
The difference would be infinitely small, but there would be a difference.

This is no longer "twilight zone" science, it has been established.

 

[kyredneck]

If you are looking for a view point that is different than that offered here, you might try this book:
"The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schroeder
The author is a trained scientist and Bible theologian who offers a bit more than the pseudo science and theology one often gets.


TC, google Maimonides and/or Nahmanides, one of these might be the one to whom you refer.

The author, Gerald L. Schroeder, is not a Christian Bible theologian, he is Jewish; as was Maimonides and Nahmanides.

 

[olegig]

Why not believe the thousands of scientists, who believe in God's word, rather than one that clearly is willing to compromise? These scientists are doing awesome work!

It seems the current thoughts in cosmology,evolution, and many of the other natural sciences are changing so fast that local teaching institutions cannot keep up with the current views.
And the marvelous thing is that many of these current views find much more harmony with scripture than did the former views.

#1 It happened how the Bible says it happened. God does not lie. God said six days.

Yes, and God also said this six day period is measured by the generations of the heavens and earth, while time beginning with the creation of man is measured by the generations of Adam.

#2 You need to brush up on your history. It is a common misconception that Galileo and others were deemed heretics on the basis of their views of the earth. This is incorrect. Galileo, and others, were condemned for rejecting Aristotelian physics, and hence, transubstantiation in the Eucharist.

I think you did not understand my analogy.
There are some today who are quick to question even the salvation of anyone who does not have the same interpretation of scripture as they do.
It seems the catholic church had the same MO in that it would put to death anyone who did not agree with them.

#3 Nowhere does the Bible say the earth is flat. It in fact, plainly says the world is round. The flat earth, was based on Roman Catholic dogma.

All I am saying is that perhaps the 6 days of creation being measured in 'earth time' might perhaps also be a current dogma that needs a closer look.

#4 If we can't trust God on how He said He made the earth, we can't trust God on how He says He saved our souls.

True, but I am not questioning how God said He made the earth, I am only questioning your interpretation of how God said He made the earth.

#5 God said the earth was made in six days. There is no evidence to the contrary. Why won't you just trust Him? Don't you know that scripture says...

See, there you go again, questioning everyone's salvation who do not agree with your personal views.

2Pe 1:19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,
2Pe 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Do you believe the prophecies that show God will again deal with the Jews and fulfill His promise to them of a literal, physical Kingdom on earth for 1,000 yrs?
I do; but I have not questioned your salvation because you might not agree with me.

Our children our being brainwashed to reject God, on account of atheist "science". And it is because of wishy washy, compromising Christians, that we cannot stop it.

Here again I think you need to catch up a little on where "science" is today. I think you will find that, although slowly, science is catching up to the Bible.
So far as your children being brainwashed, well I won't touch that one.

 

[olegig]

The author, Gerald L. Schroeder, is not a Christian Bible theologian, he is Jewish; as was Maimonides and Nahmanides.

Are you saying the God of the Jews is not the same God as the God of Christianity? Was there a creation event for the Jews and another for the Christian?
Have you read the book?

 

[kyredneck]

Are you saying the God of the Jews is not the same God as the God of Christianity? Was there a creation event for the Jews and another for the Christian?
Have you read the book?

When introducing an author to a Christian Forum as a Bible Theologian it is indeed significant to know that he's not a Christian, but of another religion. Perhaps some these days recognize little difference between Christianity and the Jews religion, but there are those that do make a clear distinction.

 

[quantumfaith]

When introducing an author to a Christian Forum as a Bible Theologian it is indeed significant to know that he's not a Christian, but of another religion. Perhaps some these days recognize little difference between Christianity and the Jews religion, but there are those that do make a clear distinction.

kyredneck,

You would have a very valid point, if the point in question dealt specifically with christian theology, but as olegig pointed out, the God of the Bible was the God of the Jews first and with my limited theological training He still is. In fact, He is, by default, the God of every created being. It should also be assumed that those who post here are aware of the need to do some due diligence if a particular topic interests them and they feel the need to inform themselves further. I hope I do not hear the hints of a charge of "deception" in any way. I won't speak entirely for olegig, though I am sure he would concur, so I speak primarily for myself to state very clearly that no deception was intended. Forgive me if this assumption is offbase.

 

[quantumfaith]

So, back to the OP, Does it matter? I vote no, with the following qualifications.

So long as one Identifies the Person of creation as being YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Father of our Lord and Savious Jesus the Christ.

If one chooses to accept the YE Creationsist view of the 6-24 hour days, or as I, that the 6-24 hour days and 15 billion years are equivalent with respect to physics and time. Even those who hold to other positions such as Gap, or "yom" as being epochs of creation. The important and overriding position is the Person of creation and not the process of creation.

Being a natural scientist (mathematician) I will close by commenting as do our "wonderful" elected officials do on the floor of the House and Senate. "I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks" That is good science, as more is learned each and every day and science being intellectually honest as pure science should be, is always open for correction, refinement and further development.

 

[olegig]

The only things I "correct" are mathematics exams. ::smilewinkgrin:

Ok, let me take advantage of your expertise and pick your brain just a bit about something from the book I do not understand. I know this is off topic; but I cannot resist the opportunity.

Considering the formula given to Einstein, E=MC2, and in the book Dr. Schroeder says nothing can go faster than the speed of light, how is it then possible for light to be squared?
What am I missing? I may not even understand the concept well enough to ask the question.:tear:

 

[quantumfaith]

Ok, let me take advantage of your expertise and pick your brain just a bit about something from the book I do not understand. I know this is off topic; but I cannot resist the opportunity.

Considering the formula given to Einstein, E=MC2, and in the book Dr. Schroeder says nothing can go faster than the speed of light, how is it then possible for light to be squared?
What am I missing? I may not even understand the concept well enough to ask the question.:tear:

This formula, oh so simple, but prior to Einstein, no one had even explored the concept of the relationship of matter and energy. This was the brilliance of Einstein, that he "looked" at the world (matter) as no one ever had. The formula simply states a quantitative relationship between matter and energy, that E (energy) is equivalent to the mass of the matter multiplied by the speed of light (simply a quantity) squared. Here, in a nutshell is what is says, take the "mass" of an object and multiply in by the square of the speed of light, and that is a measurement of how much energy was at one time present in that object, this means all matter, you and I included, are actually cooled and congealed pure energy. Matter and energy are two differents aspects of the same thing, in much that same way that water exists in liquid, gas and solid forms depending upon temperature and pressure. Neat huh?

BTW, current science in convinced that the speed of light is the ultimate constant, nothing travels faster, however there is research ongoing into the possibility that "information" may in fact travel even much faster, unfortunately the arguments often become ontological and philisophical. At the moment a bit beyond my comprehension. I think, If I remember correctly, Dr. Schroeder is in a way examining this paradox in "The Hidden Face of God.

 

[webdog]

Do you still not understand, the six days (24 hour days) and the approximate 15 billion year age of the universe are equivalent within the realm of quantum physics and relativity. You are so stuck on your own, sometimes bordering on being sanctimonious.

I think the problem with your view is the fact you are intent on using the natural, finite sciences to prove the supernatural from an infinite God. God used days to describe the creation in Scripture as that is what we know days to mean. There is no asterisk next to day in the Bible explaining it can really mean millions upon millions of years. Only someone intent on proving the supernatural naturally would need this interpretation to hold water, and that is what is referred to as eisegesis.

 

[quantumfaith]

I think the problem with your view is the fact you are intent on using the natural, finite sciences to prove the supernatural from an infinite God. God used days to describe the creation in Scripture as that is what we know days to mean. There is no asterisk next to day in the Bible explaining it can really mean millions upon millions of years. Only someone intent on proving the supernatural naturally would need this interpretation to hold water, and that is what is referred to as eisegesis.

Refer to "it" and me however you want.

 

[webdog]

Refer to "it" and me however you want.

No idea what you are talking about....but nice way to divert the discussion.

Nothing like trying to take a supernatural miracle (the creation) and turning it into a natural occurrence over time.

 

[quantumfaith]

No idea what you are talking about....but nice way to divert the discussion.

Nothing like trying to take a supernatural miracle (the creation) and turning it into a natural occurrence over time.

No where in any of my posts or commentary have I even approached the claim that the creation event was anything but supernaturally accomplished through the creative work of God. It is very disingenuous of you to attempt to do so.

 

[webdog]

No where in any of my posts or commentary have I even approached the claim that the creation event was anything but supernaturally accomplished through the creative work of God. It is very disingenuous of you to attempt to do so.

You don't have to claim it...the very support of it is doing it for you.

 

[quantumfaith]

You don't have to claim it...the very support of it is doing it for you.

And I humbly do so, stand by my posts and positions. I reiterate, you may refer to me in any way you wish.

 

[olegig]

Here, in a nutshell is what is says, take the "mass" of an object and multiply in by the square of the speed of light, and that is a measurement of how much energy was at one time present in that object, this means all matter, you and I included, are actually cooled and congealed pure energy. Matter and energy are two differents aspects of the same thing, in much that same way that water exists in liquid, gas and solid forms depending upon temperature and pressure. Neat huh?

Yes, it is neat, and thanks.
I do understand the concept of the book that all matter was at one time just pure energy.
It does give a person something to think about.

From what you said I gather the formula is more of a measuring tool than a recipe for energy?

 

[quantumfaith]

Yes, it is neat, and thanks.
I do understand the concept of the book that all matter was at one time just pure energy.
It does give a person something to think about.

From what you said I gather the formula is more of a measuring tool than a recipe for energy?

Correct, all mathematics (physics, chemistry etc.) formulas simply demonstrate relationships between measured and variable quantities. They can be manipulated according the principles and laws of mathematics. For example in the Einsteins formula, we can also say with certainty that mass = enerygy/square of the speed of light.

More food for thought, gravity, what is it? Scientists have been researching it for a very long time and of yet, even though we can accurately measure it, we still do not have a complete handle of what it is. Likewise for the nuclear forces in the atom, the stong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. Perhaps, we can begin to answer many questions with the new Hadron collider in Switzerland/France. God's creation is so magnificent and wondrous. What is so elementary to him keeps the greatest minds of science scratching their heads. Back to gravity, if you can identify exactly what it is, you will become a quite renowned and perhaps wealthy individual. Newton's concept of gravity and Einsteins were fundamentally different.

I am grateful that God has given us the great privilege and curiousity to seek to understand His creation, to the extent that we can. The "holy grail" of science has been the one single equation which wraps all the fundamental forces of the universe in single equation. Often referred to as the Theory of Everything. I try to encourage my students to see the world (universe) in different ways, to probe, to seek, to question and analyze. And as I can, being in a state college, I throw in the questionn of God and metaphysics and hope that they consider the Person behind the natural wonder.

 

[Havensdad]

Respectfully, NO sir. Unless I misunderstand your meaning, you do not understand the current science relating to the physics of time. As we speak, orbiting satellites, so integral to communications on earth orbit the earth, each with a clock ticking at a rate slightly slower than its counterpoint on earths surface. This disrepancy, must be adjusted for, and is done so in communications systems software routinely. An even more simple example:

If you stretch your arms out horizontally, your finger tips would experience time faster than your head because your head is closer to the main mass of your body, and subsequently a larger gravitational force.
The difference would be infinitely small, but there would be a difference.

This is no longer "twilight zone" science, it has been established.

Obviously you did NOT understand me, because you just proved my point.

 

[olegig]

Back to gravity, if you can identify exactly what it is, you will become a quite renowned and perhaps wealthy individual. Newton's concept of gravity and Einsteins were fundamentally different.

olegig's theory of gravity:
The older one gets, the greater a force gravity becomes.

I am grateful that God has given us the great privilege and curiousity to seek to understand His creation, to the extent that we can.

I am grateful anytime I come in contact with a person involved in the sciences that also has a love of God the creator of all things.