Poll concerning Creation(ism)

[Cutter]

It appears to be the remaining momentum from the Big Bang.

Are you a Baptist? Do you go to an actual Baptist church that believes the Bible is untrue or only accepts parts of the Word that they can agree with?

 

[tinytim]

Tiny now your bording on the absurd, what's up?

Seriously it seems you need ti get your head in gear. The Sun stood still in relation to it's normal obsreable movent in the sky. The sun rises and sets and if it stops midway it stands still based upon it's movements relating to the rising and setting. It has nothing to do with the specifics of each planetary revolutions or any other scientic notion. The Bible states the Sun stopped moving (or stood still) and nothing beyond that.

Yes, it is to be taken quite and specifically literal or at face value. It is not a myth nor a fairy-tale nor an amalomation of other religious writtings. - The Sun stood still on that day.

:laugh: Thanks... I agree with you... and my head is hardly ever in gear!!
It's a miracle of sun standing still proportions when I do think straight...

 

[tinytim]

Yes, He could, but that would mean God is deliberately deceiving us, making it look like the universe is much older than it is by setting the speed of light at a certain value and then cooking the books so that measurements using that value are wrong.

Why would He do that?

If Creation really did happen 10,000 or less years ago, I would think the light from distant stars would reflect that.

OK... miracle just happened... my head is on straight now....

YOu say God would be deliberately deceiving us....

Yeah, IF HE HADN'T TOLD US WHAT HE DID!!
But he told us what he did in Genesis 1.

So therefore he is not deceiving us...

 

[David Lamb]

As for creation not happening today, that is demonstrably incorrect. New stars are in the process of being formed, and we even have pictures! Check out the Hubble photos.

New stars may be being formed, but that is not creation; they don't suddenly come into existence where there was nothing previously. http://www.astrosociety.org/education/family/resources/deepspace.html includes these words (emphasis mine):

A star birth nebula (or star formation region) is a cloud of gas and dust in which new stars are being formed from the raw material of the cloud. In places where the cloud has become compressed (where the gas and dust are very close together), the gas and dust start "clumping."


​

And at http://star.herts.ac.uk/progs/optirsurveys.html (again, emphasis mine):

The UKIDSS GPS uses three near infrared filters (J, H and K). Near infrared light penetrates the obscuring dust that fills the interstellar medium in the Galactic plane, thereby allowing us to detect stars that are on the far side of the Galaxy or enshrouded within a molecular cloud where new stars are being formed.


​

I could just as well say that what is on the supermarket shelves is evidence that creation is still happening. The bread and cakes that are there today did not exist last week, at least not as bread and cakes.

 

[JustChristian]

Apparently you didn't understand the argument.

The evidence shows the universe is moving in an outward direction albeit slowly. MP stated it was (in essence) a ridiculous notion that God stretched out the heavens. I was merely showing that even science affirms that the universe is not only stretched but continuing in the same manner. He even states "It appears to be the remaining momentum from the Big Bang", thus making my point. He believes that God didn't do it but at the same time acknowledges it is a continuation of some specific event it actaully happened

However, there is no valid data scientifically that states the earth is millions of years old especially when you take into account the literal and more specificially biblical world wide flood (which includes not only the deluge of water from above AND beneath but also the cataclysmic destruction and movement upon the earths surface) . It is one of the factors that is denied because it puts a huge wrinkle in their theories.

I haven't heard this argument. How does the flood disprove the old earth theory?

 

[David Lamb]

I haven't heard this argument. How does the flood disprove the old earth theory?

I don't know that the flood disproves the old earth theory, but it does explain many of the things that evolutionists postulate as evidence for an old earth.

 

[Bob Dudley]

Originally Posted By Magnetic Poles
It appears to be the remaining momentum from the Big Bang

Actually, there is no evidence for a big bang. It is just postulated (rather, assumed as true) by a secular world view that says there is no God therefore the universe had to be created from nothing.

In reality, the more we understand about our universe the more the Bible is proven and evolution disproven. This is a case in point..

If the big bang theory is correct you would expect galexies to be somewhat evenly distributed throughout the universe with our galaxy randomly placed in the mix.

What we have found (thanks in part to new inventions like the hubble telescope) is that galaxies are clustered in spheres at 1 billion light year radii with (are you ready for this?) our galaxy in the middle. You don't find this discovery in many textbooks becuase it says that our galaxy is unique and, if evolution is true, that just can't be.

Rather, this points to a biblical rather than evolutionary explination of the formation of the galaxies. In other words, our planet is as close to the center of the universe as it is safe to be (any closer and the radiation at the center of our galaxy would harm us). God, again, is glorified!

Originally Posted By BaptistBeliever
How does the flood disprove the old earth theory?

I'll try to keep this short but this is really a very long discussion. In a nut shell, the only real evidence for the age of the earth is the fossil record. (there is a whole slew of reasons why dating rocks using radiation is bad science). So, creationists and evolutionists, alike, turn to the fossil record for evidence of their worldviews (their models of the history of the earth).

So, the fossil record either shows a uniform history of the world that has taken millions of years OR it shows a cataclysmic event (worldwide flood) that caused the fossil record to come into existance. It is one or the other, can't be both.

Evolutionists (or old earthers) and creationists (usually young earthers) have the same data out there. They also both have their own bias.

The evolutionist says there is no God and, therefore, it had to take millions of years for all of this to form. They, therefore, stretch the fossil record out to fit their model of the world.

The creationist looks at the biblical account of creation, the geneologies in genesis and other places in the Bible, and the flood. They look at the fosil record and say, "Of course this came from a flood. It fits the fossil record perfectly." They see the fossil record forming mostly in one year (with a longer stretch for the one and only ice age that happened as a result of the flood). For a good discussion on this look at any number of videos on Mt St Helen.

This is one of the main reasons why someone says you either believe in millions of years of evolution OR a world wide flood but you can't believe in both.

 

[lbaker]

OK... miracle just happened... my head is on straight now....

YOu say God would be deliberately deceiving us....

Yeah, IF HE HADN'T TOLD US WHAT HE DID!!
But he told us what he did in Genesis 1.

So therefore he is not deceiving us...

If He tells us one thing and then shows us something else - that would be deception.

 

[lbaker]

It is one of the factors that is denied because it puts a huge wrinkle in their theories.

No, it (a global flood) is denied because of a lack of evidence.

 

[lbaker]

Actually, there is no evidence for a big bang. It is just postulated (rather, assumed as true) by a secular world view that says there is no God therefore the universe had to be created from nothing.

To the contrary, there is all kinds of evidence for a Big Bang (like the static on a telivision) and the very fact that the universe appears to be created from nothing confirms God as the Creator.

Who else but God could create from nothing?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Actually, there is no evidence for a big bang.

(snip)

If the big bang theory is correct you would expect galexies to be somewhat evenly distributed throughout the universe with our galaxy randomly placed in the mix.

No evidence? You continue to lose any shred of credibility. And no, clusters of galaxies are exactly what you would expect to find if gravity exists.

What we have found (thanks in part to new inventions like the hubble telescope) is that galaxies are clustered in spheres at 1 billion light year radii with (are you ready for this?) our galaxy in the middle. You don't find this discovery in many textbooks becuase it says that our galaxy is unique and, if evolution is true, that just can't be.

What wacky books have you been reading. NO, we are not in the center of the universe, and there is no such evidence. I suppose the earth is the center of the solar system too. That heretic Copernicus should have been burned at the stake!

If you have read up on the subject, you'd know that the Milky Way and the Great Galaxy in Andromeda (which is larger than our own) are on a collission course. Hardly ordered perfection.

I don't have the time or the inclination to educate some preacher-cum-astronomer. Sorry. You really need to get your head out of pseudoscientific books.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Are you a Baptist? Do you go to an actual Baptist church that believes the Bible is untrue or only accepts parts of the Word that they can agree with?

There is no requirement that to be a Baptist you have to turn off your brain or even be a fundamentalist. And yes, I am a Baptist and attend a Baptist church. But again, you continue to be fascinated with me rather than sticking to the topic. I must be real interesting! :laugh:

 

[Bob Dudley]

I'm sorry, MP, but you have been snowed by someone. I have been involved (through my time in the Air Force and as a contractor afterward) for the last 25 years in this field and you have been given bum data from your evolutionist friends.

Yes, we are at the center of the universe.

I didn't say clusters I said spheres. The galaxies are distributed in spheres of 1, 2, 3 etc billiion light years around us. It is a well known fact in astronautical engineering and astronomy circles.

And, no we are not in a collision course with Andromeda or any other galaxy. It seems (with some data) that we are slowly moving closer relative to each other but, as you probably know, the rapture will come a long time before we are in any danger and in need of Captain Kirk.

Originally Posted By Magnetic Poles
I don't have the time or the inclination to educate some preacher-cum-astronomer. Sorry. You really need to get your head out of pseudoscientific books.

Did I hit a nerve? Oh, and I was a physicist and astronautical engineer before I was an evangelist so it should be physicist-cum-evangelist. :thumbs:

 

[lbaker]

Yes, we are at the center of the universe.

Do you have a reference to back up that statement? (preferably from a non-Creationist source)

 

[David Lamb]

To the contrary, there is all kinds of evidence for a Big Bang (like the static on a telivision) ....

If someone did not already believe that something called "The Big Bang" happened, how would static on a television provide evidence that it did? I'm no television engineer, but static is caused by elecrical interference. If I have static on my telivision, it might be evidence that my neighbour is using electrical equipment that is not "suppressed".

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Did I hit a nerve? Oh, and I was a physicist and astronautical engineer before I was an evangelist so it should be physicist-cum-evangelist. :thumbs:

Well then, all I can say is...to quote UNCF..."a mind is a terrible thing to waste".

Or maybe we need the anti-drug PSA redone...

"This is your brain....

And THIS is your brain on fundamentalism!

Any questions?"

Seriously Bob, you have been sorely misinformed. As for "evolutionist friends", biological evolution has nothing at all to do with cosmology and the beginning of the universe. So much for physicist-cum-evangelist credibility!

I also want to add, I am not attacking you...I just find it somewhat amusing, and somewhat tragic, what fundamentalism does to a person's mind. We will never agree on these issues, so I wish you the best.

 

[lbaker]

If someone did not already believe that something called "The Big Bang" happened, how would static on a television provide evidence that it did? I'm no television engineer, but static is caused by elecrical interference. If I have static on my telivision, it might be evidence that my neighbour is using electrical equipment that is not "suppressed".

David,

This article helps to expain what I'm talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_(video)

Les

 

[Bob Dudley]

Originally Posted By lbaker
Do you have a reference to back up that statement? (preferably from a non-Creationist source)

I don't know if you can find these online but you should be able to look them up at a local university:

Tifft, W.G. and Cocke, W.J., Global redshift quantization, Astrophysical J. 287:492–502, 1984.

Newman, W.I., Haynes, M.P. and Terzian, Y., Redshift data and statistical inference, Astrophysical J. 431(1/pt.1):147–155, 1994.

Cocke, W.J. and Tifft, W.G., Statistical procedure and the significance of periodicities in double-galaxy redshifts, Astrophysical J. 368(2):383–389, 1991.

Napier, W.M. and Guthrie, B.N.G., Quantized redshifts: a status report, J. Astrophysics and Astronomy 18(4):455–463, 1997.

A quote from the last paper (above):

‘ … the redshift distribution has been found to be strongly quantized in the galactocentric frame of reference. The phenomenon is easily seen by eye and apparently cannot be ascribed to statistical artefacts, selection procedures or flawed reduction techniques. Two galactocentric periodicities have so far been detected, ~ 71.5 km s-1 in the Virgo cluster, and ~ 37.5 km s-1 for all other spiral galaxies within ~ 2600 km s-1 [roughly 100 million light years]. The formal confidence levels associated with these results are extremely high.’


I hope this helps.

Oh, and MP, galactocentric means revolvin' 'round little ol' us.

 

[Bob Dudley]

lbaker,

Like you requested, the references above are secular.

I am curious about one thing, though. Don't you find it a little disturbing that you feel you can trust the science of secular journals (with people that usually have a bias against God) more than you can trust born again scientists?

 

[Bob Dudley]

And, to be fair and balanced, here is a creationist take on the whole issue:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp