How did Adam do it?

[Magnetic Poles]

Please share where you studied science, MP? You are quick to dismiss science if it disagrees with you, so I'm curious where you studied science at...

Dog, if it matters, Duke and Texas. You?

As for dismissing science, I definitely do not. Science is self correcting and is the best method we have of discerning how the cosmos works. I DO dismiss the "work" of Helen's husband. I understand her stake in what he does, but if you Google his name, you will see that his claim to fame is a pet hypothesis that the speed of light has "decayed". It is rejected by the science community as having no evidence for it, and much against it. He is a Christian lecturer who preaches to the choir. I will not use this board to personally attack either Helen or Barry, as I am sure they are very nice people, just sadly mistaken. I think they do honestly believe they are doing scientific research. He is a Christian apologist, young earth creationist and Biblical literalist. But scientist? I think not.

 

[webdog]

deleted....

 

[Helen]

Dog, if it matters, Duke and Texas. You?

As for dismissing science, I definitely do not. Science is self correcting and is the best method we have of discerning how the cosmos works. I DO dismiss the "work" of Helen's husband. I understand her stake in what he does, but if you Google his name, you will see that his claim to fame is a pet hypothesis that the speed of light has "decayed". It is rejected by the science community as having no evidence for it, and much against it. He is a Christian lecturer who preaches to the choir. I will not use this board to personally attack either Helen or Barry, as I am sure they are very nice people, just sadly mistaken. I think they do honestly believe they are doing scientific research. He is a Christian apologist, young earth creationist and Biblical literalist. But scientist? I think not.

As far as his 'claim to fame' that is something others determine. Barry has claimed nothing but to be following the data and presenting what he has found. Right now he is deeply involved in studying the implications of a possible plasma formation of the universe. If this was how God did it, it answers a ton of questions.

It is interesting, don't you think that the slowing speed of light was one of the main subjects of scientific discussion in peer reviewed journals prior to 1941 when Raymond T. Birge, the 'keeper of the constants' at UC Berkeley declared in an article published in August of 1941 in Reports in Progress in Physics led off saying "This article is being written upon request and at this time upon request...any belief in a change in the physical constants of nature is fatal to the spirit of science as science is now understood." (italics in the original)

Remarkable statement. Especially as he was the one who had been tracking the slowing speed of light for some time (see the chart here: http://www.setterfield.org/Charts.htm#graphs). But somehow the 'spirit of science as science is now known (in 1941) trumped data. That, to me, is not science. It is philosophy running rampant.

The history of the speed of light experiments and the analyses by some very respected physicists can be found here:
http://www.setterfield.org/cx1.html

In short, maybe it would be wise to actually look at Barry's work instead of what others are saying about it. It is solidly data-based and the letters we receive from other physicists, astronomers, and geologists are indicating that respect for him is growing.

Now, if you actually have data that contradict something he has presented, we need to know. Thank you.

 

[Grasshopper]

3. You don't need to trust me or my husband. Look at the data. That is what transformed my husband from a long-age evolutionist to a YEC. The data changed him, in part because he knew, and knows, God did not lie in His creation.

Precisely why I lean toward the old universe view. God does not lie in His creation nor do I believe He deceives in His creation.

The difference, however, between Hugh Ross and my husband is that Hugh Ross ignores data that does not agree with him

And he would say the same to you.

and mocks those who believe differently.

I’ve never seen this from him. In all the interviews and programs I have seen him on he is very gracious. I did notice though one of his critics on a radio debate said of him, he worships a different God than the one of the Bible. Nice.

That's not a curse, that is a result of the change in the earth -- which was caused by man's violence and rebellion against God.

I bet the animals that the carnivores eat would disagree.

5. Why is there need for healing in the new heavens and new earth? I guess we will find out when we get there, won't we? Revelation 22:2 is quite clear about that, though.

My guess the nations need healing because they are not healed. But that contradicts a futurist paradigm of what the New Heavens and Earth are.

So the fact that animals were not designed to live forever, at least on earth, is only part of that, not a contradiction to the fact that Adam initiated death on earth, as Paul plainly states.

1. It means then the animals were not immortal and death was a certainty.
2. Paul doesn’t clearly state physical death.

8. No laws of physics need to be changed in order for a young earth to be valid.

The changing of the speed of light needs no change in physics? Why was it necessary for the speed of light to change, and when did it come to its present speed? At least you seem to agree on the vastness of the Universe. I’ve heard some argue that the universe really isn’t that large and 6000 years is plenty of time for light to be visible from distant galaxies.

From your site:

Scanning the heavens for the first time since the successful December 1999 servicing mission, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has imaged a giant, cosmic magnifying glass, a massive cluster of galaxies called Abell 2218. This "hefty" cluster resides in the constellation Draco, some 2 billion light-years from Earth.

This is why you must change the speed of light, because obviously at the current speed of light the galaxy mentioned wouldn’t be visible for another 2 billion years or so. If the speed of light has remained a constant would you agree the universe is at least 2 billion years old?

 

[Helen]

If you take the time to read the research papers, you will find that Barry has not changed the speed of light. It has been measured as changing. On top of this, the cause of the change, the changing ZPE has also been measured (Planck's Constant, the Casimir effect, etc.), and those things the ZPE affects have also been measured as changing, such as the mass of subatomic particles. Barry is noting what has been measured and published in secular peer-reviewed journals and is simply saying, "See where this leads?" But you wouldn't know that is what he was doing unless you actually read his work instead of just trashing it because that is what others have done, right?

What is there about the references at the bottom of this page that you find Barry invented?
http://www.setterfield.org/Charts.htm#graphs

When Barry mentions something being so many light years away, he is referring to common nomenclature. In his own writings he makes a sharp distinction between atomic time, which is what the common nomenclature uses, and orbital time, which is the way our calendars work. The two are most certainly running at different speeds, and that has been measured, too.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

The idea that the speed of light changing is only introduced to support a preconceived outcome of a literal Genesis.

I can do likewise. The Bible speaks of a firmament in the heavens, holding up water. This is consistent with an early view that a series of solid, transparent domes, or firmaments, existed, on which the stars, planets, sun and moon were affixed. Now if I assume Genesis cannot be taken any way but literally, there must have been a real, solid firmament holding up water in space. The Bible even talks about the floodgates of this firmament opening during the Noah flood. Therefore, since Genesis is literal, there must have been F-Decay, or Firmament Decay. I can measure the fact that there is no firmament today. Therefore, it must be evaporating away. Perhaps what is left is the ozone layer, which has a measureable hole over Antarctica, thus proving F-Decay and the truth of the Bible taken literally. Praise God!

 

[Magnetic Poles]

If you take the time to read the research papers, you will find that Barry has not changed the speed of light. It has been measured as changing.

Nope. Numerous people have pointed out the error of Barry's measurements, but he refuses to acknowledge that fact. This is easily found with a little investigation.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps the speed of light isn't changing, but rather the instruments and/or measurements themselves could be in error?

 

[johnp.]

Grasshopper.

But that does not make a morning or an evening. Is it your point that God switched the cosmic light switch every 12 hours the first 3 days?

But there was light before the sun. Switching the light on and off I reject as I believe the light was God. The earth was spinning and the light of God came from a point in space causing day and night.

More evidence? Is there evidence that contradicts God's word Grasshopper?

Who is trying to prove science contradicts God’s word?

I do apologise, that was completely thoughtless of me. (I thought I was just thinking that.) If yom turns out to be more than twentyfour hours then scripture is broken.

This is the problem, unless you hold to the traditional view (whoever determines that)...

The Church is in possession of the truth, it isn't going to give it up for a bunch of speculating God haters who say they don't know how the universe and life came into being but make sure the public think they do.

...then the opponents accuse you of contradicting the Bible.

Yes, I'm sorry but that is the way I see it. I'll try not to let it show too much.

I think an old universe view is just as literal as a young earth view. That's what I think.

No, you believe it metaphorically I believe it literally. Was, And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day, a day or not? Of course it was and that is the point. Taking infomation from elsewhere to cause this day to be billions of years or 25 hours is not a literal interpretation of scripture even if the literal interprtation is wrong.

So the entire digestive systems of numerous animals changed when Adam fell? Sharks suddenly appeared with razor-like teeth instead of their previous plant eating molars? What kind of life was outside of the Garden before the Fall? Was it any different than the Garden itself?

I see no problem with God creating the animals with the fall in mind. Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it...

I think life outside the garden was like anywhere that is left to itself. Conditions for plant life were ideal and the dinos would have made exellent lawn mowers to keep it in check until we filled the earth.

See what happens when you don't take Genesis literally?

Yes, I did it again didn't I? Sorry. You see, I believe very strongly that if we do not hold to a literal meaning for the opening words of scripture then it's open season on the rest. yom means 24 hours here, it is it's face value meaning and only scripture can be used to change it's face value meaning, which it doesn't but it supports it, not cosmologists. Evening and morning fixes it solid.

GE 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (No stars.)

Nothing else but in the spiritual realm, JOB 38:4-7 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation...while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

john.

 

[johnp.]

This is why you must change the speed of light, because obviously at the current speed of light the galaxy mentioned wouldn’t be visible for another 2 billion years or so. If the speed of light has remained a constant would you agree the universe is at least 2 billion years old?

ISA 44:24 "This is what the LORD says--
your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:
I am the LORD,
who has made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who spread out the earth by myself,
ISA 44:25 who foils the signs of false prophets
and makes fools of diviners,
who overthrows the learning of the wise
and turns it into nonsense,

stretched out the heavens One red shift. The laws of nature are created by God they do not bind Him. I believe He created the stars and then stretched the heavens out, I'm a literalist by the way , and I take that to mean that God is not deceiving us by making the universe look old, it looks old because of a miscalculation, they don't include God, I think we should think again. He has told us why it looks as it does I think.

john.

 

[Helen]

Magnetic Poles, you have gotten to the point of parading your ignorance and there is nothing to be answered for that. If you are really interested in the speed of light measurements and experiments, please read the data.
http://www.setterfield.org/cx1.html
http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html

The measured changes far exceed possible instrumental error. Also, when instrumental error was found to exist (see the first link), the measurements were not included in the records. Third, when the same method, by the same observatory (such as the Pulkova Observatory) was used, subsequent measurements were ALWAYS lower. If there were instrumental error, then the measurements should range on either side of the 'constant' speed of light, but they don't. There is a consistent slide downward, regardless of method used, people involved, or time. This is not instrumental error. Please get to know what you are talking about before you start talking. Men far wiser and more educated than you were discussing these changes in peer-reviewed literature in the first half of the twentieth century. These were not cave men.

johnp, since Genesis recounts physical creation, the first light was also physical and God is a spirit. His light is the Shekinah Glory and that is not what was shining on earth the first three and a half days. There was a physical light from a particular point in space and the earth was rotating. It is in the Second Creation when the light of God becomes the light of that creation. Please don't be afraid of actual science.

Also, 'yom' is like 'day' in the English language and it can have a variety of meanings, so you need to be careful. Yes, in Genesis 1 it definitely means approximately 24 hours, but when used with the equivalent of our prepositional phrases, it can mean an indefinite period of time: in the day OF THE LORD, for example. Or 'in the day of King David'... There are some other exceptions, grammatically. But yes, in Genesis, the use of 'yom' with ordinal numbers and defined by 'evening and morning' cannot be anything but a 24 hour day.

When someone says that it is just as literal to see an old creation as a young one in Genesis, they are destroying the meaning of words. "Literal" means it means what it says and both Exodus 20 and 31 define it, in case anyone missed the meaning in the first chapter of Genesis. MP is grasping at liberal straws, and straws is all they are.

I would also mention that in the Hebrew, the word for 'heavens' in Genesis 1 simply means 'that which is lofty' and the word translated 'earth' means 'that which is firm.' So be careful about what you are declaring there to be true -- what the Bible actually says or what interpreters are putting on to it. It is very possible that Genesis 1 is describing the creation, out of nothing, of the entire time/space/mass continuum we live in and is not referring to the earth in particular except for the fact of 'evening and morning' which definitely indicates a rotating mass. But the use of the word 'eretz', translated in Genesis 1 as 'earth' has a much wider meaning than 'earth' and is used in other ways later in the Bible, as in the time of Peleg when the continents were divided. The 'eretz' was divided.

It's just something to be careful about. Checking word meanings with a good Concordance or two can often save some problems from happening.

 

[johnp.]

Helen

johnp, since Genesis recounts physical creation, the first light was also physical and God is a spirit.

It speaks of the heavens therefore you are wrong.

GE 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

I don't mind, I got it the same place you got your quasar from Helen. (Did you notice all those little Lucifers?)

His light is the Shekinah Glory and that is not what was shining on earth the first three and a half days. There was a physical light from a particular point in space and the earth was rotating. It is in the Second Creation when the light of God becomes the light of that creation. Please don't be afraid of actual science.

Actual science means what? His light is the Shekinah Glory and that is not what was shining on earth the first three and a half days. Because you say? and God is a spirit, what you mean is God is Spirit. The Shekinah Glory shines in the darkness does it not? It is in the Second Creation when the light of God becomes the light of that creation. Is it? We have traversed history, from the beginning to the end. Now that's what I call going off topic in a big way.

There was a physical light from a particular point in space and the earth was rotating.

It does not say the light was physical does it? It might do, does, "Let there be..." actually mean a physical creation or just "Let there be..."? Otherwise we have agreement. 'light from a particular point in space and the earth was rotating'

Also, 'yom' is like 'day' in the English language and it can have a variety of meanings, so you need to be careful.

I am careful, I said yom means yom and that in Gen 1. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

When someone says that it is just as literal to see an old creation as a young one in Genesis, they are destroying the meaning of words. "Literal" means it means what it says and both Exodus 20 and 31 define it, in case anyone missed the meaning in the first chapter of Genesis.

Why tell me I've already got into trouble for thinking literally and letting literal mean literal?

MP is grasping at liberal straws, and straws is all they are.

And?

It's just something to be careful about. Checking word meanings with a good Concordance or two can often save some problems from happening.

Cool, and what end of the egg does one suck? GE 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Means, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

john.

 

[Helen]

Nevermind, John. I was trying to support you and also show you some of the things we have learned in our years of Bible and language study. But nevermind...I'm not up for arguments.

 

[Grasshopper]

Barry is noting what has been measured and published in secular peer-reviewed journals and is simply saying, "See where this leads?"

Has Barry proved without doubt that the speed of light has not been constant? Has he proved beyond doubt that light traveled exponentially faster in time past that today? When does Barry say the light screeched to a mere 186,000 miles per second rate? Day 2? Or 3? When?

But you wouldn't know that is what he was doing unless you actually read his work instead of just trashing it because that is what others have done, right?

When did I trash it?(Assuming you are referring to me) I actually respect the work you and Barry do. Doesn’t mean I agree with it, but perhaps someday I will. I just find the old-earth scientist case more compelling. I remain open-minded and believe someday science will lead to the truth. My problem with most young-earthers is their attitude of “my way or the highway”. If you don’t believe the earth is a mere 6-7 thousand years old then you are a borderline heretic or a “God-hater” and don’t take the Bible seriously. I reject that charge and to be honest that attitude is a hindrance to those who truly are looking for answers, both saved and unsaved. The young earthers force a false choice upon these people, either you believe as they do or reject the Bible totally. So many just turn away.

So forgive us moron’s out here who actually think Hugh Ross and those like him are competent scientist who love God as much as you and other young-earthers do.

The Church is in possession of the truth, it isn't going to give it up for a bunch of speculating God haters who say they don't know how the universe and life came into being but make sure the public think they do.

Ah yes, now the truth comes out. Everyone who disagrees with you is a God hater. Yea, Norman Geisler the God-hater.

Quote:
...then the opponents accuse you of contradicting the Bible.



Yes, I'm sorry but that is the way I see it. I'll try not to let it show too much.

Of course that’s the way you see it. You have created God in your image and have Him nicely fitted into your little box.

Quote:
I think an old universe view is just as literal as a young earth view. That's what I think.


No, you believe it metaphorically I believe it literally.

No, why don’t you learn the difference. There are many old earth advocates who take Genesis literally.

Was, And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day, a day or not?

Psa 90:6 In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth.

Morning and evening, is this speaking of one day?

You see, I believe very strongly that if we do not hold to a literal meaning for the opening words of scripture then it's open season on the rest.

So your position is not based on science but upon fear.

Hugh Ross’ beliefs:

1. The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise.
2. The Bible is inerrant in all disciplines of scholarship.
3. The universe was both transcendentally and supernaturally created.
4. Naturalism cannot explain the origin of life.
5. Naturalism cannot entirely explain the history of life, nor can theistic evolution.
6. Naturalism cannot entirely explain the geophysical history of the earth.
7. Naturalism cannot explain entirely the astrophysical history of the universe and solar system.
8. Genesis 1 is both factual and chronological in its content. It describes God’s "very good" creation in the space of six days.
9. Adam and Eve were a literal couple created by God just thousands of years ago.
10. All human beings owe their descent to Adam and Eve.

 

[Helen]

Grasshopper, I would really appreciate it if you would separate what I said from what others said that you are responding to. I did not refer to anyone as a 'God-hater' and from there on down I think you are talking to someone else and not me. Please make that clear in your responses.

I do not state "my way or the highway." What I do state is that I find the data in creation to show that the Bible is exactly right in what it is stating in a straightforward reading of Genesis. I came to this conclusion regarding life on earth, by the way, long before I met Barry, through my own studies in population genetics and biology.

You asked if Barry has proved anything about the speed of light 'without a doubt.' Of course not! But he has collected the evidence gathered and presented by others who are respected researchers in their respected fields and published in peer-reviewed journals. He has simply put it together. Initially, when he was first introduced to the chart showing a drop in the speed of light through time, he figured he could show where it was instrumental or mathematical error. That is how he approached the subject back in 1979 and 1980. He firmly believed, at the time, the same things we were all taught in our universities: that the speed of light was constant. So initially he set out to show how the differing measurements were the result of human and instrumental error.

Because he is determined to be honest about what he is doing, he had to admit that they were not the subject of either instrumental or human error, although minor amounts of both were involved. His research into this particular area is documented in the article I keep linking here: the history of the speed of light experiments. Check it, please, and see the work he went to to document what had actually happened. I do not know of anyone else who has gone to this length to reference every possible thing done on light speed measurements:
http://www.setterfield.org/cx1.html

You asked when light speed reached approximately what we see today: about the time of Abraham. The curve of the slowing can be seen here (please note that the majority of the slowing did take place during creation week and then there was a tapering off from there. The reason for the slowing can be traced to the increase in the Zero Point Energy, which has also been measured.)
http://www.setterfield.org/cdkcurve.html

 

[johnp.]

Good morning Grasshopper.

Ah yes, now the truth comes out. Everyone who disagrees with you is a God hater. Yea, Norman Geisler the God-hater.

Norman Geisler? Never heard of him. Hugh Ross? Never heard of him. I believe I said the cosmologists were the God haters not those who agree with them. There is a difference. Deference hasn't vanish it's just been transferred from our betters to the scientists. They can be quite persausive and have persauded science fantasy onto the general public in the form of folk science. I'll be a mokey's uncle if I accept their stories.

Of course that’s the way you see it. You have created God in your image and have Him nicely fitted into your little box.

I don't see how it is that I'm the baddie here because I believe GE 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

So your position is not based on science but upon fear.

I would say that my position is based on a trust in God's word, the belief of a literal interpretation of Genesis, in the knowledge that science has done no better with an explanation and Genesis excels in understatement. If science ever comes up with an answer that I can understand then I will believe it but I have to understand or my trust will be in men and not God. I am up to speed with the folk science.

No, why don’t you learn the difference. There are many old earth advocates who take Genesis literally.

I believe words have meanings, it's just contradictory to say that in my honest conviction.

PS 90:5 You sweep men away in the sleep of death; they are like the new grass of the morning-- 6 though in the morning it springs up new, by evening it is dry and withered.

I'm not a gardener. I would tend to take this at face value. What is 'the new grass of the morning'? Sounds like a technical term to me. Might be it was cut down and dried for a smoke.

Your list I'll leave. I believe the laws of nature can be understood and controlled. I believe God has life in Himself and this life animates us. I believe God can will a thing to be and it is, I don't believe we can do that. No one can wish a thing to be and have it be except on the Forbidden Planet.
We can manipulate atoms to create diamonds and recently they have produced meat without an animal getting in the way and produced human organs grown in a test tube but no one can make something out of nothing except God and my wife.

Is this something to do with your argument Helen?

While Flambaum's own team found that alpha was different 12 billion years ago, the new Oklo result claims that alpha was changing as late as two billion years ago. If other methods confirm the Oklo finding, it will leave physicists scrambling for new theories. "It's like opening a gateway," says Dmitry Budker, a colleague of Lamoreaux's at the University of California at Berkeley.

Cosmologists have struggled to explain why far-flung regions of the universe are at roughly the same temperature. It implies that these regions were once close enough to exchange energy and even out the temperature, yet current models of the early universe prevent this from happening, unless they assume an ultra-fast expansion right after the big bang.
However, a higher speed of light early in the history of the universe would allow energy to pass between these areas in the form of light.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092.html

john.

 

[DQuixote]

UNbelieveable. Or is that UNbelievable?

I will cut and paste into my word processor all that Helen had to offer. I'll print it out and read it right before my bible study at bedtime. I only have one comment about what she offered:

4. Yes, Adam possessed an incredible intellect. Evolution would have us believe we have been coming up from ape-like ancestors. That is exactly the opposite of what happened. We have been degenerating from the original creation, just as the rest of creation has.

I would say Adam was spiritually blessed, in spiritual contact with God always -- and that surpasses "incredible intellect" always. Yes, we have degenerated, and that spiritually, UNTIL that day when Jesus Christ became real, Real, REAL, loving, and everlasting! That marked our spiritual rebirth, hallelujah to the Lamb of God! :jesus:

 

[skypair]

This causes me to wonder if Adam actually possessed this level of intellect or if God providentially aided him in the naming of these animals much like he did the human authors of divinely inspired Scripture?

Causes me to wonder if Adam wasn't Jesus in His first life. If His birth that we acknowledge wasn't His "rebirth."

Wasn't Adam the "ruler" of the earth until he saved Eve? Wasn't Adam dispossessed of his kingdom, the one God gave Him to create and rule, by Satan at that point? Of course Adam would know what to name the animals -- he created them under my scenario.

I know ---- this is a tricky proposition, first Adam being born again as second Adam having the same resurrection body OT saints into His MK (indwelt from birth, thus capable of not sinning, of living forever, not able to precreate, etc.). It could all be a huge allegory or typology instead.

You ever have such thoughts?

skypair

 

[ituttut]

Causes me to wonder if Adam wasn't Jesus in His first life. If His birth that we acknowledge wasn't His "rebirth."

Wasn't Adam the "ruler" of the earth until he saved Eve? Wasn't Adam dispossessed of his kingdom, the one God gave Him to create and rule, by Satan at that point? Of course Adam would know what to name the animals -- he created them under my scenario.

I know ---- this is a tricky proposition, first Adam being born again as second Adam having the same resurrection body OT saints into His MK (indwelt from birth, thus capable of not sinning, of living forever, not able to precreate, etc.). It could all be a huge allegory or typology instead.

You ever have such thoughts?

We all have "strange" thoughts. And this is one of those "strange" thoughts to be buried with the "dead to rot".

The first Adam died and rotted in the ground. The second Adam died, and arose from the dead for God cannot "rot".