Jailminister
New Member
This whole thread should disprove evolution. It has been going on for a llllllooooonnnnnggggg time, yet nothing has changed.
-
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!
Evolutionary Propoganda - A True Story
- Thread starter Mark Osgatharp
- Start date
No, it is interpreting what was told to us that is causing all these problems. It simply wasn't clear enough for some, and too clear for others.
If scripture gave us the proper usage of meanings, better words, and gave us proper details for analysis, we could almost all agree, but that didn't happen.
Next, given that fact, can it really be that important to God since these areas are so ambiguous to us? I think not. I would leave room for either side to be right, and we'll see who wins this minor argument after we die.
But, either side could be right, with most of the scientific evidence on the side of evolution. But on the other side, scientific evidence means nothing when miracles are part of the equation. And while the miracle side would seem to involve deception on God's part (fossils etc) there could be some other reason for it, thus it not deception, rather our interpretation of deception because of lack of further understanding at this time.
truthaboveall
New Member
Creationists quite often claim that evolution is a ridiculous theory contrary to common sense. In reply, I would say that any theory that is accepted by most educated people and more than 90 percent of the scientific community, cannot, by definition, be ridiculous. Rather I think the creationists score highest on measures of being ridiculous. Whatever creationists claim, evolution is far from ridiculous.
I think guru of the Creation Research Society and hero of the Creationists Dr John Morris was once asked if he ever met any scientist who was convinced that the earth was young and came to that conclusion apart from the Bible. Quess the answer ? No.
From an evidence angle on God stretching forth the heavens if the light was stretched in the process wouldn't its doppler frequency change move some of the light into other regions of the Electromagnetic spectrum ????? The red shift would be extreme ?
I see an interesting yet disturbing parallel here to the Galileo experience with the Church. It may be well known that Roman Catholic prelates refused to look through Galileo's telescope if fear that if they did and find support for Galileo's claims they believed it would contradict the Scriptures !
The other problem with the 6-10k local universe being 'stretched' out is that that concentration of billions of galaxies within say a 10K light year radius would cause massive gravitational problems enough to rip the galaxies apart prior to repositioning ! Further if all the stars were within that radius the night sky would be brilliantly light up , essentially there would not be much darkness at all causing great problems for 'evenings' of creation. The radiation and heat from such the highly packed concentration of stars would probably wipe out the existing life on earth !
Next problem - stellar evolution, in our own and other galaxies we see evidence of stars that are in different stages of stellar evolution ie some are young hot and blue, others like our sun yellow and midlife and others old red and cool. If the 6K age span is to be beleived we would see stars changing rapidly before our eyes ie becoming old , expanding into red giants etc very quickly in the last couple of hundred years of observation...we dont !
I believe we are seeing Planetary Nebulae that indicate > 10k years worth of gaseous ring existence, yet the YE. Creationists tell us all this evidence is not believable based on a particular interpretation of days in Genesis 1.
Why would God give us all the evidence of his fantastic creation that the Universe > 10K years ???
From an evidence angle on God stretching forth the heavens if the light was stretched in the process wouldn't its doppler frequency change move some of the light into other regions of the Electromagnetic spectrum ????? The red shift would be extreme ?
I see an interesting yet disturbing parallel here to the Galileo experience with the Church. It may be well known that Roman Catholic prelates refused to look through Galileo's telescope if fear that if they did and find support for Galileo's claims they believed it would contradict the Scriptures !
The other problem with the 6-10k local universe being 'stretched' out is that that concentration of billions of galaxies within say a 10K light year radius would cause massive gravitational problems enough to rip the galaxies apart prior to repositioning ! Further if all the stars were within that radius the night sky would be brilliantly light up , essentially there would not be much darkness at all causing great problems for 'evenings' of creation. The radiation and heat from such the highly packed concentration of stars would probably wipe out the existing life on earth !
Next problem - stellar evolution, in our own and other galaxies we see evidence of stars that are in different stages of stellar evolution ie some are young hot and blue, others like our sun yellow and midlife and others old red and cool. If the 6K age span is to be beleived we would see stars changing rapidly before our eyes ie becoming old , expanding into red giants etc very quickly in the last couple of hundred years of observation...we dont !
I believe we are seeing Planetary Nebulae that indicate > 10k years worth of gaseous ring existence, yet the YE. Creationists tell us all this evidence is not believable based on a particular interpretation of days in Genesis 1.
Why would God give us all the evidence of his fantastic creation that the Universe > 10K years ???
I'm just smacking myself on the head here for being so thick, how could I have missed it ??
The stretched forth heavens runs into another blatently obvious problem - well not to me but I bet the rest of you spotted it straight away .
If our own galaxy was all within a 10K light year radius how did it expand to 200,000K light years and preserve its present structure eg galactic nucleus ringed arms etc , not least remain in a flattened disk shape ? Surely if all this had happened < 10k years ago we would still see the most incredible stellar motions , which we dont, and incredible stellar and dust turbulence in the galactic center ?
Surely this is a huge problem for YEC ?
The problem is again compounded by the gravitational problems of expanding all the other galaxies out the 6K radius as well.
The stretched forth heavens runs into another blatently obvious problem - well not to me but I bet the rest of you spotted it straight away .
If our own galaxy was all within a 10K light year radius how did it expand to 200,000K light years and preserve its present structure eg galactic nucleus ringed arms etc , not least remain in a flattened disk shape ? Surely if all this had happened < 10k years ago we would still see the most incredible stellar motions , which we dont, and incredible stellar and dust turbulence in the galactic center ?
Surely this is a huge problem for YEC ?
The problem is again compounded by the gravitational problems of expanding all the other galaxies out the 6K radius as well.
davidgeminden
Member
Hi you all,
Have you all heard about the new creationist cosmology that was developed to solve the starlight problem? Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys developed this new creationist cosmology. He has published a layman's level book (Starlight and Time) describing it. As I understand it, the new cosmology falls out of the equations of general relativity when one assumes the universe has a boundary (edge) and a center. He also has the earth near the center of the universe. Big Bang cosmology assumes the universe has no boundary and center. In the Big Bang model, the galaxies are spread evenly in all direction, on a large scale; therefore, all the net gravitational forces cancel out, on a large scale. In Humphreys' model, there is a net gravitational effect toward the center. Clocks at the edge would be running at different rates compared to the clocks on the earth.
Bases on Humphreys' general relativity calculations, assuming the universe expanded to its present size from a 50 times small size, it has to have expanded out of a previous state where it was surrounded by an event horizon. That is, it expanded out of a "white hole".
The event horizon eventually shrinks to nothing as matter expands out of the white hole passed the event horizon. When the event horizon touches the earth, time on the earth (relative to points far away from the earth) would have been virtually frozen. Billions of years would transpire at far away distances from the earth; thus, allowing light from aging stars to reach the earth while significantly less than an ordinary day passed on earth. Therefore, the light streams from the stars do contain actual historical events in them, not illusions.
The book "Starlight and time" can be purchased at (www.answersingenesis.org ) and ( www.icr.org ).
A brother in Christ,
David C. Geminden
davidgeminden@yahoo.com and davidgeminden@netscape.net
"Jackelope Logic" & "Weak Conscience Christians and Legalism"
http://www.geocities.com/davidgeminden/index.html
Have you all heard about the new creationist cosmology that was developed to solve the starlight problem? Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys developed this new creationist cosmology. He has published a layman's level book (Starlight and Time) describing it. As I understand it, the new cosmology falls out of the equations of general relativity when one assumes the universe has a boundary (edge) and a center. He also has the earth near the center of the universe. Big Bang cosmology assumes the universe has no boundary and center. In the Big Bang model, the galaxies are spread evenly in all direction, on a large scale; therefore, all the net gravitational forces cancel out, on a large scale. In Humphreys' model, there is a net gravitational effect toward the center. Clocks at the edge would be running at different rates compared to the clocks on the earth.
Bases on Humphreys' general relativity calculations, assuming the universe expanded to its present size from a 50 times small size, it has to have expanded out of a previous state where it was surrounded by an event horizon. That is, it expanded out of a "white hole".
The event horizon eventually shrinks to nothing as matter expands out of the white hole passed the event horizon. When the event horizon touches the earth, time on the earth (relative to points far away from the earth) would have been virtually frozen. Billions of years would transpire at far away distances from the earth; thus, allowing light from aging stars to reach the earth while significantly less than an ordinary day passed on earth. Therefore, the light streams from the stars do contain actual historical events in them, not illusions.
The book "Starlight and time" can be purchased at (www.answersingenesis.org ) and ( www.icr.org ).
A brother in Christ,
David C. Geminden
davidgeminden@yahoo.com and davidgeminden@netscape.net
"Jackelope Logic" & "Weak Conscience Christians and Legalism"
http://www.geocities.com/davidgeminden/index.html
Paul of Eugene
New Member
If the earth's time were frozen and going Veerrrry sloooooow compared to the rest of the universe because we were down at the center of the universe's gravity well, then the light coming to us from the top of the gravity well, falling into it on top of us, would appear to be blue shifted and we would see everything else speeded up by comparison. This is not observed. Instead, we see things shifted the opposite way - red shifted.
Furthermore, our sister galaxy, the great galaxy in andromeda, would be at about the same level as our galaxy anyway and it is already 2.8 million light years away. Light as measured by our time takes 2.8 million of our years to get from the andromeda galaxy to us.
I'm afraid Humphrey's cosmology fails the simple test of observation.
Furthermore, our sister galaxy, the great galaxy in andromeda, would be at about the same level as our galaxy anyway and it is already 2.8 million light years away. Light as measured by our time takes 2.8 million of our years to get from the andromeda galaxy to us.
I'm afraid Humphrey's cosmology fails the simple test of observation.
Matthew 16:24
New Member
Hmm, this thread keeps growing.
Can someone post a summary on why he/she believe in an old earth?
So far I have seen:
Fossil record/Carbon 14 dating
Speed of light
I know there is more than this.
This is an interesting thread and valuable a witnessing tool. Why?
A lot of unbelievers will have these same arguments and knowing what they will say is invaluable. Being a YEC and having limited knowledge on all this stuff it makes it hard to get them to take Christians seriously. Anyway, are there any updated YEC sites that have updated info? I feel like most YEC sites have old stuff and when you bring their proof for a young earth you almost get laughed at. The only thing I have is the Bible and to me it sounds like a 6/24 creation. It makes sense through the entire Bible with God’s people resting on the Sabbath day and so fourth.
Anyway, a question for evolutionist that I believe Mark asked on another thread. What is your interpretation of the Genesis aside from scientific studies? This may not even be a fair question because most likely the evolutionary theory is in your head already.
What about the verses that say a day with the Lord is a 1000 years or something like that?
Can someone post a summary on why he/she believe in an old earth?
So far I have seen:
Fossil record/Carbon 14 dating
Speed of light
I know there is more than this.
This is an interesting thread and valuable a witnessing tool. Why?
A lot of unbelievers will have these same arguments and knowing what they will say is invaluable. Being a YEC and having limited knowledge on all this stuff it makes it hard to get them to take Christians seriously. Anyway, are there any updated YEC sites that have updated info? I feel like most YEC sites have old stuff and when you bring their proof for a young earth you almost get laughed at. The only thing I have is the Bible and to me it sounds like a 6/24 creation. It makes sense through the entire Bible with God’s people resting on the Sabbath day and so fourth.
Anyway, a question for evolutionist that I believe Mark asked on another thread. What is your interpretation of the Genesis aside from scientific studies? This may not even be a fair question because most likely the evolutionary theory is in your head already.
What about the verses that say a day with the Lord is a 1000 years or something like that?
Paul of Eugene,
good points. The other thing that I think we would see is that if the area near the earth had time going very slowly then all the stars in our neighbourhood would be younger than those far away. So the further away the galaxy the older the stars in it would be assuming no regional new star creation and if the universe is < 6K yrs old the stars wouldn't have had time to be born according to our understanding of astrophysics and stellar dynamics.
Essentially the further away from us the older the stellar populations in remote galaxies if Humphreys ideas are correct. I dont recall any astrophysicist every observing this.
Humphreys theory was a good stab at reconcilling both long and young earth views but I agree it unfortunately misses the mark.
Interesting though even according to Humphreys the age of the Universe is dependent on where you are , Earth time, Andromeda Galaxy time, so even the YEC supporters agreeing with his cosmology are forced to admit that the universe could be older than 6-10k years.
good points. The other thing that I think we would see is that if the area near the earth had time going very slowly then all the stars in our neighbourhood would be younger than those far away. So the further away the galaxy the older the stars in it would be assuming no regional new star creation and if the universe is < 6K yrs old the stars wouldn't have had time to be born according to our understanding of astrophysics and stellar dynamics.
Essentially the further away from us the older the stellar populations in remote galaxies if Humphreys ideas are correct. I dont recall any astrophysicist every observing this.
Humphreys theory was a good stab at reconcilling both long and young earth views but I agree it unfortunately misses the mark.
Interesting though even according to Humphreys the age of the Universe is dependent on where you are , Earth time, Andromeda Galaxy time, so even the YEC supporters agreeing with his cosmology are forced to admit that the universe could be older than 6-10k years.
Russell Humphreys is a good example of an important point. The more you look at the evidence for an old earth, universe and for evolution, the more one sees that the evidence really is there and really is convincing.
Humphreys believes in a young earth but from his professional training and experience as an astronomer, he knows the universe must be billions of years old. So he comes up with this theory that tries to reconcile the two. In areas in which he is not trained and does not have special knowledge, geology and biology for example, he tries to maintain his believe in a young earth. But for the universe, where he has studied and trained, he knows that it must be old. So he tries to have it both ways. The reasons his hypothesis is wrong is a bit too complicated to get into here, but here is a link to a Christian site that debunks the book.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main
Humphreys believes in a young earth but from his professional training and experience as an astronomer, he knows the universe must be billions of years old. So he comes up with this theory that tries to reconcile the two. In areas in which he is not trained and does not have special knowledge, geology and biology for example, he tries to maintain his believe in a young earth. But for the universe, where he has studied and trained, he knows that it must be old. So he tries to have it both ways. The reasons his hypothesis is wrong is a bit too complicated to get into here, but here is a link to a Christian site that debunks the book.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main
post-it sez:
My point exactly; man, (science), is saying that the earth is billions of years old based on interpretation of the earth/rocks/fossils/carbon dating etc etc.
Scripture gives no age for the earth, but it DOES say that six (6) days were used to accomplish same. (Which also negates the evolution THEORY, since there would certainly not be enough time for such "wonders" to "evolve")
Now since science cannot prove, PROVE, PROVE, the billion year theory, and YEC'ers cannot prove, PROVE, PROVE a 6-10K theory, then why not just trust God in what HE says.
If the following verses were omitted from Genesis, then perhaps I could accept a billion+ earth age.
But they ARE there, & unless God means exactly what He says, why would the "six day" & “evening & morning” modifiers be there. If the account in Genesis were not "six days" then THIS would be misleading by God, since He SPECIFICALLY states this time frame! Also, this is the ONLY reference to a time frame for creation mentioned by God, so what's the problem with just believing His version??
You are right, I could be wrong, but as I stated on another topic of this sort,"If I find out that the earth is (was) billions of years old when I meet Christ, then I'll just say 'I was wrong”', but at least I erred on the side of believing the scripture as opposed to man's “constantly updated” ideas!"
Perhaps you (collective OE’ers “you”), want to call me an ignorant fundamentalist, but I’ll take God’s word over man’s anytime when God is explicit in what He says!
[ November 06, 2003, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: just-want-peace ]
(EMPHASIS MINE)
My point exactly; man, (science), is saying that the earth is billions of years old based on interpretation of the earth/rocks/fossils/carbon dating etc etc.
Scripture gives no age for the earth, but it DOES say that six (6) days were used to accomplish same. (Which also negates the evolution THEORY, since there would certainly not be enough time for such "wonders" to "evolve")
Now since science cannot prove, PROVE, PROVE, the billion year theory, and YEC'ers cannot prove, PROVE, PROVE a 6-10K theory, then why not just trust God in what HE says.
If the following verses were omitted from Genesis, then perhaps I could accept a billion+ earth age.
(There are others, but just taking the creation story as a stand-alone)
But they ARE there, & unless God means exactly what He says, why would the "six day" & “evening & morning” modifiers be there. If the account in Genesis were not "six days" then THIS would be misleading by God, since He SPECIFICALLY states this time frame! Also, this is the ONLY reference to a time frame for creation mentioned by God, so what's the problem with just believing His version??
You are right, I could be wrong, but as I stated on another topic of this sort,"If I find out that the earth is (was) billions of years old when I meet Christ, then I'll just say 'I was wrong”', but at least I erred on the side of believing the scripture as opposed to man's “constantly updated” ideas!"
Perhaps you (collective OE’ers “you”), want to call me an ignorant fundamentalist, but I’ll take God’s word over man’s anytime when God is explicit in what He says!
[ November 06, 2003, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: just-want-peace ]
Not at all. All the miracles in the Bible are problems when we try to align them with the predictable and standard paradigms of physics and modern physics. This has been a perpetual problem for His people.
The plagues of Egypt, axe heads floating, dead people coming back to life, the wine of Cana, the loaves and fishes, walking on water, etc...
Psalm 78
40 How oft did they provoke him in the wilderness, and grieve him in the desert!
41 Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.
42 They remembered not his hand, nor the day when he delivered them from the enemy.
43 How he had wrought his signs in Egypt, and his wonders in the field of Zoan: "
44 And had turned their rivers into blood; and their floods, that they could not drink.
45 He sent divers sorts of flies among them, which devoured them; and frogs, which destroyed them.
46 He gave also their increase unto the caterpiller, and their labour unto the locust.
47 He destroyed their vines with hail, and their sycomore trees with frost.
48 He gave up their cattle also to the hail, and their flocks to hot thunderbolts.
49 He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.
50 He made a way to his anger; he spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence;
51 And smote all the firstborn in Egypt; the chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham:
52 But made his own people to go forth like sheep, and guided them in the wilderness like a flock.
53 And he led them on safely, so that they feared not: but the sea overwhelmed their enemies.
54 And he brought them to the border of his sanctuary, even to this mountain, which his right hand had purchased.
55 He cast out the heathen also before them, and divided them an inheritance by line, and made the tribes of Israel to dwell in their tents.
56 Yet they tempted and provoked the most high God, and kept not his testimonies:
Let's just take one of the above:
"And had turned their rivers into blood; and their floods, that they could not drink"
The skeptic asks:
Was it real blood? If we took the blood and analyzed it what type would it be? Did it have the DNA/RNA Helix? Whose DNA signature was it?
If there wasn't a DNA signature has God deceived us by calling this stuff blood? What if there was a signature and the person didn't exist? Were we yet deceived by God?. What if it was the blood of a real person, what kind of person produces a Nile river of blood? again God is deceiving us!
What does all that matter? His Word says He turned the waters of Egypt into blood, leave it alone!
My view is that His Word says the duration of creation was 6 days each with a cardinal number and an evening and a morning. Later the week of creation is aligned with the solar week and the Sabbath as the seventh day which settles it for me.
But, for the sake of unity I agree (first time I think) with Post-It. There is room for an allegorical interpretation of the week of creation within the Church. It does however cause doctrinal problems downstream (the doctrine of sin and death and their relationship in particular) which most allegorists refuse to face probably because to face them might cause shipwreck of their faith.
HankD
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
What I don't understand is why "evolutionary Christians" and those who believe the earth is billions of years old cannot even begin to try to entertain the idea that God created it that way.
God created all of the earth. He then created a garden called Eden and placed Adam there. Please note that God did not plant a garden, and then when it was grown put Adam there.
If these people are willing to accept the miracles of Jesus, how is this such an impossiblity? Why can people just say, "I don't know, but God does?" How hard would it be for God to create a full grown tree, or a deep river gorge, or a gently rolling mountain range? How hard was it for God to male a full grown man, and then a full grown woman?
I am a firm believer in science, as science was originally intended. It was originally man trying to understand how God works through the natural world. But, as with anything else of value in this world, man has distorted and perverted that original noble purpose. Now, men try to use science to explain away the working of God, to "de-myth" the very act of creation. How could anyone stand before a congregation and say, "Although the Bible says this, we know from science that God lied to us."?
I do not doubt the intelligence of these many who have posted on this thread, but, for some, I do question their understanding of exactly who God is and who God is not.
In Christ,
Trotter
God created all of the earth. He then created a garden called Eden and placed Adam there. Please note that God did not plant a garden, and then when it was grown put Adam there.
If these people are willing to accept the miracles of Jesus, how is this such an impossiblity? Why can people just say, "I don't know, but God does?" How hard would it be for God to create a full grown tree, or a deep river gorge, or a gently rolling mountain range? How hard was it for God to male a full grown man, and then a full grown woman?
I am a firm believer in science, as science was originally intended. It was originally man trying to understand how God works through the natural world. But, as with anything else of value in this world, man has distorted and perverted that original noble purpose. Now, men try to use science to explain away the working of God, to "de-myth" the very act of creation. How could anyone stand before a congregation and say, "Although the Bible says this, we know from science that God lied to us."?
I do not doubt the intelligence of these many who have posted on this thread, but, for some, I do question their understanding of exactly who God is and who God is not.
In Christ,
Trotter
Very well put!!
Trotter,
Again, it's not that we don't believe that God could have, had he so wished, made a 6000-year-old Earth with a literal interpretation of genesis. It is simply that the evidence does not suggest that this is what actually happpened. Nobody is trying to disparage the power of God here; we are merely trying to figure out exactly how He exercises His power in creating the universe and humanity.
Again, it's not that we don't believe that God could have, had he so wished, made a 6000-year-old Earth with a literal interpretation of genesis. It is simply that the evidence does not suggest that this is what actually happpened. Nobody is trying to disparage the power of God here; we are merely trying to figure out exactly how He exercises His power in creating the universe and humanity.
Trotter,
I see where you are coming from. I suppose God could have made the universe in 6 nanoseconds or less had he so wished to do so.
Problem for us as Brett says is that the evidence suggests otherwise. I suppose it comes down to the interpretation of days in Genesis. Long age Creationists see evidence that it wasn't 24 hours as you no doubt are aware.
Science and Christianity should not be at odds. God created science , its his universe, he has given us lots of evidence its > 6K years old. It is our literal interpretation of days that seems to be a stumbling block.
If we deny reality of long age evidence,for myself what am I doing ? Bearing false witness ?
How can I tell my 3 kids in all honesty the Universe is 6K years old when I have heaps of astronomical evidence to the contrary. I have evidence from respectable Biblical scholars who seriously question the literal age translation. I can only explain the issue to them.
Science is the Christians ally not foe. Lets not be afraid of it.
I see where you are coming from. I suppose God could have made the universe in 6 nanoseconds or less had he so wished to do so.
Problem for us as Brett says is that the evidence suggests otherwise. I suppose it comes down to the interpretation of days in Genesis. Long age Creationists see evidence that it wasn't 24 hours as you no doubt are aware.
Science and Christianity should not be at odds. God created science , its his universe, he has given us lots of evidence its > 6K years old. It is our literal interpretation of days that seems to be a stumbling block.
If we deny reality of long age evidence,for myself what am I doing ? Bearing false witness ?
How can I tell my 3 kids in all honesty the Universe is 6K years old when I have heaps of astronomical evidence to the contrary. I have evidence from respectable Biblical scholars who seriously question the literal age translation. I can only explain the issue to them.
Science is the Christians ally not foe. Lets not be afraid of it.
Since the time I was a child the length of time by the evolutionists has gone from thousands and thousands of years to billions of years. Amazing how they keep adding years to try and make things work. Doesn't that seem like relative science rather than absolute science?
ScottEmerson
Active Member
Well, science has also gone from seeing the smallest "thing" as being a cell, to a nucleus, to chromosomes, to atoms, to particles, to quarks, and so on. Science understanding things better doesn't bother me so much.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
I suspect it was already millions and millions of years when you were a kid - unless you are very very old! In the past 10 years they've backed down from saying the universe is 15 to 20 billion years old and are now pushing for an age of the universe at about 13 billion years. Maybe that's a sign they're finally zeroing in on the real age.
Hmmmm - how do you suppose they come up with something like an age of the whole universe, anyway?