Poll concerning Creation(ism)

[lbaker]

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,

Thanks for the info. I'll give it a read and see where it takes me.

Actually, there are quite a few scientists who are christian that hold to an old Earth scenario.

Here's a link to an archive, if you're interested:

http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/

Thanks again,

Les

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Has any one used the argument that I've heard numerous times on this thread?

"I believe in the big bang! God said it and Bang! it was there!"

Just curious.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Hi loaded question!

I affirm the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
I (every year) affirm the inerrancy statment of the Evangelical Theological Society.
http://www.etsjets.org/?q=about/constitution

I do not believe in the dictation theory of inspiration. In the great mystery that is inspiration (we can't know precisely how the inspiration of Scriptures occured scientifically) we do know that God, through the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, led men (and possibly women) of God to author distinct texts that are influenced by God's guidance, spiritual insight, personal experience, personal grammatical choice, prophetic insight, and cultural markers.

I believe the Scriptures (the closed canon of 66 books) are inerrant in their original autographs. Furthermore I believe that the translations we have today inspired and contain the words of God (lest we forget that Jesus is the Word of God according to John) for all of mankind. The text of the Scriptures (recreated through textual critical study of thousands of manuscripts) is illuminated to Christians by the power of the Holy Spirit. These translations are coherent and without error in teaching.

That's a WHOLE lot of words to get to a reasonable answer...but honestly you've asked a really difficult question to provide and answer for without getting bogged down in rhetoric and loaded language.

Well, here come the rocks...

It was not a loaded question, or at least it was not intended to be. I just wanted to know what you believed about the Scriptures. It is not wrong to say that the copies are not immediately inspired, but the autograhs were.

Would you then agree that we have a perfect, albeit reconstructed, text from the copies so that we "have" the autographs as they are contained and preserved in the transmission of them through copies? (spurious typographical mistakes are irrelavant to me).

 

[Palatka51]

I thought I posted in this thread.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I thought I posted in this thread.

It's 23 pages long now..not sure if you have and its my thread!

 

[preachinjesus]

Would you then agree that we have a perfect, albeit reconstructed, text from the copies so that we "have" the autographs as they are contained and preserved in the transmission of them through copies? (spurious typographical mistakes are irrelavant to me).

I would say we have a reliable, reconstructed text that is faithful to the autographs that is worthy for mankind today.

 

[lbaker]

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

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

Well, from what I was able to understand it looks like Humphreys is jumping to a conclusion that fits his theology, a conclusion that Tifft, Guthrie, etc. don't share.

Also, it looks like Tifft's original conclusion is in question now:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366

This bothered me about Humphreys article - he apparently accepts the distances measured in light years, yet he must reject the idea of light speed being a reliable constant if he believes in a 6,000 year old Earth. If so, how can he trust in any kind of physical measurement being reliable?

Something else that bothered me - we're on a planet in orbit around a star that is orbiting around the edge of a galaxy that is moving through space - how could we be in the center of anything?

This is the kind of thing that turned me off to Creation Science in the 1st place, like the alleged human and dinosaur footprints found in the same formation.

Thanks again,

Les

 

[David Lamb]

David,

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

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

Les

Thanks. I've read the article. It seems to support exactly what I said, in that the writer makes the assumption that the "Big Bang" actually happened, and then puts "approximately one-third to one-quarter of static" down to "residual background radiation from the birth of the cosmos." As I understand it, there is certainly background electrical radiation in the universe, known as CMB. But it is not necessary to ignore the existense of CMB in order to disbelieve the big bang theory. Part of an "Answers in Genesis" article at states:

Are you surprised by the findings?

No. Although most secular astronomers believe that the CMB is the result of a “big bang,” there is really no reason to believe this. Big bang supporters believe that tiny fluctuations in the CMB eventually became stars and galaxies. But such an idea comes from a belief in the big bang, and there is really no independent evidence to support this. Also, from a biblical perspective, there is nothing about CMB anyway that contradicts what creationists would say.
A spacecraft (called WMAP) measures these tiny fluctuations in the CMB. By measuring such properties, secular astronomers believe they can glean details of how stars and galaxies might have formed. There is nothing wrong with the WMAP measurements—this is evidence that is testable and repeatable in the present. It’s the interpretation that is faulty. Big bang supporters have an incorrect worldview, and so they draw an incorrect conclusion from the evidence.

​

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Originally Posted by Magnetic Poles
The only stretching going on here is the stretching of logic to ridiculous lengths to retrofit evidence into a literary tale meant to describe meaning, not process

The "my dad is bigger than your dad argument?" Well that is exactly what Genesis is. God is greater than any other god. He makes that point again with each of the plagues of Egypt. Showing his control over the supposed gods of the Egyptians.

The problem with all these type of arguments. God is outside time and space. He is not governed by the laws he set in place. I can speculate that the elements He used to create the universe were for a time outside space time. Humans are pretty linear because we are governed by those laws. If God wanted to make the world in 6 days he could. No one argues that. The argument comes with how he decided to record the event. It's deffinately not a blue print. It does show his dominance over all things in the "module" of his creation. What is God trying to get accross? His lordship or making an imperical statement? Unfortunately, thats not how the ancient world works. The ancients used numbers symbolically more so than imperically. Now they knew their math as we can see with the Parthenon. But you see numeric symbolism all over the place.
Anyone work out the prophesy of Daniel to the day? Just curious. Or was there some give and take? How many years or days was he off?
God inspired men to write his word. God is constantly doing his work through men. He speaks to them in the situation and knowledge they find themselves in. He doesn't err but he may not be saying exactly what you believe him to say. What's important to him is what he will communicate to us. Jesus told many parables. Does he mean for us to quible over exactly what happened. Could you imagine. Did the prodical son eat two or three bites of pig slop? I don't have a problem with someone believing in 6 days of creation. That's there perogative. But I believe God's message was greater than whether than " I did it in 6 days" These arguments lead us to argue whether Jesus ever got a splinter or was all his works done perfectly. Those kind of arguments were popular in the middle ages.

Any thoughts?

I was also browsing through 1 Enoch which makes and interesting statement that the Years were shortened

In the days of sinners the years will grow shorter, their seed will be late on their land and in their fields. Everything on the eath will change and will not appear at their times

. Maybe a day lasted longer than 24 hours. On Mars I think it's closer to 26 hours. Just thought.:smilewinkgrin: (I don't look at the book as canon but if it's good enough for Jude to quote its good enough for me.)

 

[tinytim]

Has any one used the argument that I've heard numerous times on this thread?

"I believe in the big bang! God said it and Bang! it was there!"

Just curious.

I think the big bang points to a creator more than to evolution...

Before God spoke.... nothing..
The millisecond God spoke.... bang! It happened...

 

[JustChristian]

Has any one used the argument that I've heard numerous times on this thread?

"I believe in the big bang! God said it and Bang! it was there!"

Just curious.

Well, when you think about it even if you proved beyond a doubt that the big bang theory is true you still haven't come up with an answer to the question:

How did everything come into existence?

The Big Bang equations don't apply to the event itself nor can they say anything about what happened BEFORE the Big Bang. Where did the infinitely small, infinitely dense particle of matter come from that would be required to start the bang process? Nobody even tries to answer that question. So, this theory doesn't address the beginning of the universe. It is concerned with what happened AFTER the universe had already come into being.


This is an interesting discussion about this:

http://www.tomcoyner.com/before_the_big_bang_there_was__.htm

 

[JustChristian]

Besides, Big Bang theory is somewhat passe. The new things are the String theory, Super String theory, M-String theory and the Membrane theory. These string theories require the assumption of 10 or 11 dimensions!

Personally, I find all of these fascinating although I can no longer (maybe I should say never could) understand the mathematics. I've been "dumbed down" by 32 years of being an engineer. That may sound strange but engineers only use enough math to get the job done. Only the real theoreticians who have PhD's from Cal Tech or M.I.T. get into the really heavy duty stuff. On the other hand, much of cosmology is more like Philosophy than Mathematics. As a Christian, it's really not that difficult to step over the line and think of everything from a theological standpoint. Even Steven Hawking, whom I admire tremendously because of the way he overcame his handicaps , who is an avowed atheist seems to evoke the name of God fairly frequently. In fact one of my favorite quotes from him describes that knowing about the beginning of the universe beyond a certain point is like "Understanding the mind of God."

In fact that sums up my perspective on cosmology. We can continue to study it and come up with ever more exotic theories but there will ALWAYS come a point which literally requires a "Leap of Faith" to explain. Ultimately, FAITH triumphs where mathematics and science fail.

Isa 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[tinytim]

I love the string theory!!!
It explains so much!

We think too small.

 

[jdlongmire]

I love the string theory!!!
It explains so much!

We think too small.

And "our thoughts are not as His thoughts", anyway.

Take a look at this video - really gives insight into - Jeremiah 23:16
Thus says the LORD of hosts," Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you They are leading you into futility;They speak a vision of their own imagination,Not from the mouth of the LORD.

 

[lbaker]

Besides, Big Bang theory is somewhat passe. The new things are the String theory, Super String theory, M-String theory and the Membrane theory. These string theories require the assumption of 10 or 11 dimensions!

Personally, I find all of these fascinating although I can no longer (maybe I should say never could) understand the mathematics. I've been "dumbed down" by 32 years of being an engineer. That may sound strange but engineers only use enough math to get the job done. Only the real theoreticians who have PhD's from Cal Tech or M.I.T. get into the really heavy duty stuff. On the other hand, much of cosmology is more like Philosophy than Mathematics. As a Christian, it's really not that difficult to step over the line and think of everything from a theological standpoint. Even Steven Hawking, whom I admire tremendously because of the way he overcame his handicaps , who is an avowed atheist seems to evoke the name of God fairly frequently. In fact one of my favorite quotes from him describes that knowing about the beginning of the universe beyond a certain point is like "Understanding the mind of God."

In fact that sums up my perspective on cosmology. We can continue to study it and come up with ever more exotic theories but there will ALWAYS come a point which literally requires a "Leap of Faith" to explain. Ultimately, FAITH triumphs where mathematics and science fail.

Isa 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

For me, the more I semi-understand about all that, the more impressed I am with the God who thought it all up.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

And "our thoughts are not as His thoughts", anyway.

Take a look at this video - really gives insight into - Jeremiah 23:16
Thus says the LORD of hosts," Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you They are leading you into futility;They speak a vision of their own imagination,Not from the mouth of the LORD.

great vid.

 

[JustChristian]

Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light "day," and He called the darkness "night." Evening came, and then morning: the first day.

The bolded eliminates #12 as a possibility. It was a day as we know it.

But the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. This first day was NOT a day in the way we know it. How could it be since there wasn't a sun?

 

[JustChristian]

I don't need an explanation of the Pluto debacle. I asked a rhetorical question to make a point. Where in the world did you get the idea I thought God didn't do it? Apparently you dont get what I think about science. I will spell it out:

Science is unreliable and not to be used to interpret scripture. The word of God is always reliable and true even when it speaks to science and history.

There was no "Pluto debacle." Science never was and never will be perfect. Only God is perfect. That's like talking about the "Sir Isaac Newton debacle." Einstein and others proved that his neat theory of deterministic mechanics wasn't always true. Science moves on with new observations or new theories. These aren't debacles. They're advances.

 

[JustChristian]

For me, the more I semi-understand about all that, the more impressed I am with the God who thought it all up.

Absolutely. I believe that we pretend to understand God's ways when we try to box Him in with respect to how He works in our universe. If Genesis had contained exactly how He created the world none of us would be able to understand it. Neither would have anybody else since the account was written. People talk about the sovereignty of God and then try to make Him small enough for them to understand.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Absolutely. I believe that we pretend to understand God's ways when we try to box Him in with respect to how He works in our universe. If Genesis had contained exactly how He created the world none of us would be able to understand it. Neither would have anybody else since the account was written. People talk about the sovereignty of God and then try to make Him small enough for them to understand.

So be it (Amen)