In the Beginning....

[Luke2427]

And "scientists" carbon dated living snails at 2,300 and 27,000 years old (http://www.weneedice.com/articles Has carbon dating.html), so I'm not gonna believe them on the so-called big bang.

That has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Google "starlight problem".

 

[Mexdeaf]

That has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Google "starlight problem".

Has everything to do with it. Scientists (generally speaking) have long abandoned the quest for what is true and seek now to prove their own hypothesis about the origins of the Earth and Man while denying that God exists or had anything to do with it. Any "science" that does that is a false science and begins with a false premise.

I'd rather just trust the plain statements of God in the Bible. He didn't need 40 billion years (or put in your own number here) to create the earth or mankind. He can create a new life in a millisecond. His Son changed so many lives and did so many amazing things in His short 33 year life that the Apostle John supposed "that the world could not contain the books that could be written." (John 21:25)

The "old earth" teaching is nothing more than an attempt to reconcile the Bible to "Science" when we should rather reconcile "Science" to the Bible.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The "old earth" teaching is nothing more than an attempt to reconcile the Bible to "Science" when we should rather reconcile "Science" to the Bible.

This is exactly what fundamentalists Moslems decided centuries ago ... and remember they accept Genesis. We see how this has led to stagnation in the sciences, including medicine, in Islamic countries.

Read the book, "Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes" By Mir Tamim Ansary

Mr. Ansary, a Moslem, makes this point very clearly in his book. Also he gives much credit to the Protestant Reformation as a key to the development of the West over the Mid-East.

Science should not be reconciled with the Bible and the Bible should not be reconciled with science.

Science attempts to explain how God did the things he did.

The Bible explains why God did what he did.

One should never be used as a ruler of the other. They are answering different questions.

 

[Deacon]

The "old earth" teaching is nothing more than an attempt to reconcile the Bible to "Science" when we should rather reconcile "Science" to the Bible.

Science is the study of God's creation.
Theology is the study of God's revelation.

God's creation and God's written word both require study and interpretation,
And these interpretations should to be reconciled. [your word].

We "old earth" creationists desire to reconcile our interpretations in both fields of study.

"Young earth" creationists also seek to reconcile the same interpretations with their "Creation Science" and Flood Geology".

Rob

 

[Mexdeaf]

Science is the study of God's creation.
Theology is the study of God's revelation.

God's creation and God's written word both require study and interpretation,
And these interpretations should to be reconciled. [your word].

We "old earth" creationists desire to reconcile our interpretations in both fields of study.

"Young earth" creationists also seek to reconcile the same interpretations with their "Creation Science" and Flood Geology".

Rob

There's good theology and bad theology and there's good science and bad science.

Now here's the kicker- what makes the difference?

 

[Crabtownboy]

There's good theology and bad theology and there's good science and bad science.

Now here's the kicker- what makes the difference?

Your question would be an interesting topic in another thread.

There are probably a number of answers, but one, IMHO, is that one not try to improperly impose itself on the other; i.e. theology not attempt to explain how God worked and science not attempt to explain why God worked.

The Bible is God's revelation of why ...

Science is an attempt to explain how ...

Deacon made an excellent point.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Your question would be an interesting topic in another thread.

There are probably a number of answers, but one, IMHO, is that one not try to improperly impose itself on the other; i.e. theology not attempt to explain how God worked and science not attempt to explain why God worked.

The Bible is God's revelation of why ...

Science is an attempt to explain how ...

Deacon made an excellent point.

Exactly! :thumbsup: (Edit- maybe not "exactly" what I am thinking but close. I'm still mulling...)

 

[blackbird]

What is a morning and evening in the days there was no sun?

In the new heaven and new earth thats coming----there will be no sun---yet time will be measured by day!! Imagine that---living in eternity but still measuring time!!!

 

[Winman]

Because of the advancement in telescope technology we absolutely can observe the big bang. We see the light from it's explosion traveling still. We also can see that the universe is expanding and using the speed of light and distance we can observe the beginning right now. Astronomers can literally observe the big bang right now. No one was there yet in a way we are there right now.

We see stars in our sky right now that have not existed for millions of years. We see the light they put off long ago still traveling to us.

Google this info. It is easily confirmed.

Baloney. While I am certainly no expert, I have been into astronomy my whole life. I own a very nice telescope now. The big bang is a theory with many problems that it cannot explain. It is not a proven fact, it is a THEORY.

Back in the 80's Christian physicist Barry Setterfield presented evidence that speed of light has slowed down tremendously in just the last few thousand years. There were actually many astronomers and physicists who argued this before him. At first there was great skepticism, but since that time many secular astronomers and physicists have submitted evidence for this. It is becoming more accepted in the field every day.

Just a few thousand years ago, light was billions (yes, billions) of times faster than today. Light could arrive from the most distant parts of the universe almost instantly. This theory actually explains many of the problems that the big bang theory could never solve. There are many articles on this if you care to study it.

Modern physics is now considering a theory that could throw into confusion virtually all of the accepted temporal paradigms of 20th-century science, including the age of the universe and the billions of years necessary for evolution. Further, it raises the distinct possibility that scientific validation exists for a (gasp) literal interpretation of the seminal passages of Genesis. Goodbye Scopes trial.

The theory is deceptively simple: The speed of light is not constant, as we've been taught since the early 1930s, but has been steadily slowing since the first instance of time.

If true, virtually all aspects of traditional physics are affected, including the presumed steady state of radioactive decay used to measure geologic time.

It's an intriguing story – and like many revolutions in science, it begins with observations that just don't fit currently accepted scientific dogma.

Early in 1979, an Australian undergraduate student named Barry Setterfield, thought it would be interesting to chart all of the measurements of the speed of light since a Dutch astronomer named Olaf Roemer first measured light speed in the late 17th century. Setterfield acquired data on over 163 measurements using 16 different methods over 300 years.

The early measurements typically tracked the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter when the planet was near the Earth and compared it with observations when then planet was farther away. These observations were standard, simple and repeatable, and have been measured by astronomers since the invention of the telescope. These are demonstrated to astronomy students even today. The early astronomers kept meticulous notes and sketches, many of which are still available.

Setterfield expected to see the recorded speeds grouped around the accepted value for light speed, roughly 299,792 kilometers /second. In simple terms, half of the historic measurements should have been higher and half should be lower.

What he found defied belief: The derived light speeds from the early measurements were significantly faster than today. Even more intriguing, the older the observation, the faster the speed of light. A sampling of these values is listed below:

In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second
In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second
In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second
In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)

Setterfield teamed with statistician Dr. Trevor Norman and demonstrated that, even allowing for the clumsiness of early experiments, and correcting for the multiple lenses of early telescopes and other factors related to technology, the speed of light was discernibly higher 100 years ago, and as much as 7 percent higher in the 1700s. Dr. Norman confirmed that the measurements were statistically significant with a confidence of more than 99 percent.

Setterfield and Norman published their results at SRI in July 1987 after extensive peer review.

It would be easy to dismiss two relatively unknown researchers if theirs were the only voices in this wilderness and the historic data was the only anomaly. They are not.

Since the SRI publication in 1987, forefront researchers from Russia, Australia, Great Britain and the United States have published papers in prestigious journals questioning the constancy of the speed of light.

Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was much higher – as much as 10 to the 10th power faster – in the early stages of the "Big Bang" than it is today. (It's important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a predetermined answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical worldview.)

Dr. Magueijo believes that light speed was faster only in the instants following the beginning of time. Dr. Barrow, Barry Setterfield and others believe that light speed has been declining from the beginning of time to the historic near past.

Dr. Magueijo recently stated that the debate should not be why and how could the speed of light could vary, but what combination of irrefutable theories demands that it be constant at all.

Setterfield now believes there are at least four other major observed anomalies consistent with a slowing speed of light:

quantized red-shift observations from other galaxies,

measured changes in atomic masses over time,

measured changes in Planck's Constant over time,

and differences between time as measured by the atomic clock, and time as measured by the orbits of the planets in our solar system.

So, spend some time studying, you might be surprised at the new evidence for a young universe. And much of this evidence comes from secular scientists, not just creationists.

 

[annsni]

???????????????????

You stated science cannot be wrong which means science is truth. I do believe God is truth so.....

 

[RAdam]

Here is one huge problem with the big bang theory. It suggests that out of an explosion came order. Find me one explosion, just one, from which order was the result. What comes from an explosion is not order but chaos.

 

[annsni]

This is from the NASA website:

Since light travels at a finite speed

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html

Did light always travel the same .... or could God have placed light where it was and said "GO"?

 

[annsni]

Because of the advancement in telescope technology we absolutely can observe the big bang. We see the light from it's explosion traveling still. We also can see that the universe is expanding and using the speed of light and distance we can observe the beginning right now. Astronomers can literally observe the big bang right now. No one was there yet in a way we are there right now.

We see stars in our sky right now that have not existed for millions of years. We see the light they put off long ago still traveling to us.

Google this info. It is easily confirmed.

So, we see a rock falling in front of our house. We decide that the rock must have come from space because there is no place that the rock could have fallen from. However, we do not see the person on the roof who actually threw the rock and thus our conclusion is wrong.

Same with scientists. Who says that the light started at what we decide is the start line?

 

[annsni]

Has everything to do with it. Scientists (generally speaking) have long abandoned the quest for what is true and seek now to prove their own hypothesis about the origins of the Earth and Man while denying that God exists or had anything to do with it. Any "science" that does that is a false science and begins with a false premise.

I'd rather just trust the plain statements of God in the Bible. He didn't need 40 billion years (or put in your own number here) to create the earth or mankind. He can create a new life in a millisecond. His Son changed so many lives and did so many amazing things in His short 33 year life that the Apostle John supposed "that the world could not contain the books that could be written." (John 21:25)

The "old earth" teaching is nothing more than an attempt to reconcile the Bible to "Science" when we should rather reconcile "Science" to the Bible.

Amen! :thumbsup:

 

[annsni]

Here is one huge problem with the big bang theory. It suggests that out of an explosion came order. Find me one explosion, just one, from which order was the result. What comes from an explosion is not order but chaos.

You just need to watch Mythbusters to see THAT answer.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Dear Brother, it is because you are emotional rather than reasonable right now. Perhaps it would be best to calm down and return when your mind is more clear. I believe everything you believe, i imagine, about the abomination that is homosexuality. But you are retreating from the discussion because you are overloaded at the thought of something you already believe in- depravity.

That scientists have discovered depravity in homosexuals should not shake you so much.

Oh thank you, thank you, thank you! I appreciate your thoughtfulness of my weakness.

 

[Winman]

The Big Bang Theory does not actually contradict the scriptures. It is quite different from the scriptures but also very similar. The Bible does say that God spread out the universe.

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Many secular scientists objected to the Big Bang Theory when it was first proposed, because it was too similar to what the scriptures said.

So, the Big Bang Theory does not contradict the scriptures in some ways. However, saying it took billions of years does contradict the scriptures. But new evidence strongly suggests the universe was spread out very quickly, and could have happened only a few thousand years ago.

 

[rsr]

We are well past the 20-page cutoff, so the thread is closed.