Young Earth - Old Earth

[robycop3]

Einstein and Hawking would disagree. It's the preferred model, but it's far from a scientific certainty.

The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: 'the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.

Einstein, The Evolution of Physics.​

So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. ... one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest.

Hawking, The Grand Design.
​

Einstein's theory of general relativity ... asserts that it is impossible for a human observer to determine whether any material body is in a state of absolute rest (i.e., immobile in space). It claims that only motion of two material bodies relative to one another can be physically detected. According to this theory the geocentric and heliocentric viewpoints are equally valid representations of reality, and it makes no sense whatsoever scientifically to speak of one as being true and the other false.

Geocentricity and Creation
​

God can, and most likely did on Day Four. And according to GR, gravity can speed it up many times faster than the SR speed limit.

I'm done, though. Go on with your the-speed-of-light-proves-an-old-universe-despite-Genesis notions. You've obviously independently verified each postulation of Relativity and now know certain things are absolute facts despite the assertions by Relativity's own apostles to the contrary.

Well, Einstein died before Sputnik was launched, and Hawking shoulda known better. The whole solar system moves with the rest of the galaxy at exactly the same speed.



We see light bent by gravity as it passes by objects wuth huge gravity, such as neutron stars, but there's no indication it was sped up. Same for cosmic rays & other radiation following the same path. Science has found out a LOT more about the nature of light & other rays since Einstein laid the groundwork.

But again, Scripture says God's spirit moved over the face of THE WATERS, which proves earth was already here when He re-arranged it.

Don't forget that God coulda instantaneously made earth & everything in it. But He provided tons of evidence that the earth is quite-old.

 

[Dave G]

Roughly 93 million miles.

...and who told you that?
Men, or God?

 

[37818]

Carbon 14 is based on decay rate...and differing organic materials decay at differing rates, if I'm not mistaken.

No matter what dating method scientists currently use, I've heard of flaws in all of them.

Different life forms have a different exposer or absorption of carbon 14 from air.

 

[Dave G]

How far is it to the Andromeda galaxy, the farthest object visible to the naked eye?

I don't know.
Men think that they know...but do they?
Really?

" Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil." ( Proverbs 3:5-6 )

"Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise [man] glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty [man] glory in his might, let not the rich [man] glory in his riches:
24 but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I [am] the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth:
for in these [things] I delight, saith the Lord." ( Jeremiah 9:23-24 )

Ignore what men say, and focus on what your Saviour says.

If man says that the sun is 93 million miles away from the Earth, why do we as believers...believe them?
Why do we as believers give the assertions of unbelievers, any authority in our own minds?

"cred?"

If God says one thing, and men say another, who do we listen to?
If God is silent and men tell us all kinds of "nicely invented details" about the universe around us...do we consider that they are "nicely invented", or do we instead trust the Lord?

I speak to myself here as well as to anyone reading this.

We should trust Him, not "science"...
By the way, I speak as a former "scientist"...an amateur hobbyist, but a scientist nonetheless.
That doesn't mean that I dismiss all that men think that they know about Creation...it means that I temper it with everything that God tells me in His word, and consider that anything that man may come up with in his observations, most probably is not 100% accurate and trustworthy.

Therefore, I take these things to the Lord, and ask Him to show me, if He thinks it's important.
I hope that you would do the same.



May God bless you abundantly in good gifts, and may you always look to Him for everything...even answers about man's "science".

 

[robycop3]

Scientific Creationism should be willing to discuss anything since Evolution has been rendered impossible by DNA. Deep time has so many scientific problems. For example, for the last almost 15 billion years they have been unable to explain the origin of the moon.

Well, actually, "shallow" time has the probs. There's such a huge preponderance of EVIDENCE against it.

And I don't believe for one nanosecond that God created this evidence to deceive man. That would imply that God lies! And that evidence is what it is.

please notice I don't include radiometric dating as OE evidence, as it's proven to not be all that reliable. However, such things as the vast distance from here to any star but the sun, the geologic evidence all over the world, thyenmuch-more reliable, for upta 12K years of dendrochronological dating, the fact that over 99% of all the species of life that have ever existed here are now extinct are all part of that evidence & cannot be explained by YE people.

 

[robycop3]

" Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil." ( Proverbs 3:5-6 )

"Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise [man] glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty [man] glory in his might, let not the rich [man] glory in his riches:
24 but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I [am] the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth:
for in these [things] I delight, saith the Lord." ( Jeremiah 9:23-24 )

Ignore what men say, and focus on what your Saviour says.

If man says that the sun is 93 million miles away from the Earth, why do we as believers...believe them?
Why do we as believers give the assertions of unbelievers, any authority in our own minds?

"cred?"

If God says one thing, and men say another, who do we listen to?
If God is silent and men tell us all kinds of "nicely invented details" about the universe around us...do we consider that they are "nicely invented", or do we instead trust the Lord?

I speak to myself here as well as to anyone reading this.

We should trust Him, not "science"...
By the way, I speak as a former "scientist"...an amateur hobbyist, but a scientist nonetheless.
That doesn't mean that I dismiss all that men think that they know about Creation...it means that I temper it with everything that God tells me in His word, and consider that anything that man may come up with in his observations, most probably is not 100% accurate and trustworthy.

Therefore, I take these things to the Lord, and ask Him to show me, if He thinks it's important.
I hope that you would do the same.



May God bless you abundantly in good gifts, and may you always look to Him for everything...even answers about man's "science".

God didn't tell us the distance to the sun. He caused/allowed us to find it ourselves. But He DID say His spirit moved over the face of the waters before He made anything now upon the face of the earth, thereby telling us that the earth was already here & that He re-arranged it.

 

[Dave G]

Scientific Creationism has a reputation for the casual dismissal of any scientific evidences which negate its theories.

"Scientific Creationism" seeks to establish the truth of the Bible above man's so-called "science", as being trustworthy, as I see it.
To me, "casually dismissing" what those who deny the existence of God come up with ( in favor of a careful study of Scripture, and then overlaying what God reveals onto the universe ), is a wiser approach.

In addition, and I don't mean this as an insult, but do you realize that, from my perspective, you appear to support the findings of secular scientists in favor of the Bible?
Not that you do, but that to me, you appear to?

If I haven't stated it before,
Man's theories about the universe around us are still just that....man's theories.
Where is genuine truth found?

" For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." ( John 1:17 )

" Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." ( John 14:6 )

" Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." ( John 17:17 )


To me, it's far wiser to believe what God says first, than to put any stock in what men say apart from it ( Romans 3:4, Psalms 116:11, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Romans 3:10-18 ).

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Scientific Creationism should be willing to discuss anything since Evolution has been rendered impossible by DNA. Deep time has so many scientific problems. For example, for the last almost 15 billion years they have been unable to explain the origin of the moon.

Should. Or maybe not. Not until discussing a host of other issues without bringing time into the equation. DNA and the moon, for example, don’t need time. The existence of the universe is another example, and mind yet another. Time is a distraction that can easily and unnecessarily derail some very fruitful discussion.

 

[Dave G]

He caused/allowed us to find it ourselves.

How, Roby?

Did someone get out a tape measure and walk it all the way out?
Did someone bounce R.A.D.A.R. ( RAdio Direction And Range-finding ) off it like they ( supposedly ) did the moon?
No, to me it's an estimate, and not even a very good one, at that.

I'd rather trust the Lord...and whether or not He tells me, any answers I get from men are automatically suspect.
I suggest that if you're looking for answers to the way God created the world and universe around us, then look to his word, and take anything men ( especially unbelievers ) say, with a very large grain of salt.



This is my final post in this thread.
I wish you well.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I don't know. Men think that they know...but do they? Really?

" Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil." ( Proverbs 3:5-6 )

"Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise [man] glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty [man] glory in his might, let not the rich [man] glory in his riches:
24 but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I [am] the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth:
for in these [things] I delight, saith the Lord." ( Jeremiah 9:23-24 )

Ignore what men say, and focus on what your Saviour says.

If man says that the sun is 93 million miles away from the Earth, why do we as believers...believe them?
Why do we as believers give the assertions of unbelievers, any authority in our own minds?

"cred?"

If God says one thing, and men say another, who do we listen to?
If God is silent and men tell us all kinds of "nicely invented details" about the universe around us...do we consider that they are "nicely invented", or do we instead trust the Lord?

I speak to myself here as well as to anyone reading this.

We should trust Him, not "science"...
By the way, I speak as a former "scientist"...an amateur hobbyist, but a scientist nonetheless.
That doesn't mean that I dismiss all that men think that they know about Creation...it means that I temper it with everything that God tells me in His word, and consider that anything that man may come up with in his observations, most probably is not 100% accurate and trustworthy.

Therefore, I take these things to the Lord, and ask Him to show me, if He thinks it's important.
I hope that you would do the same.

May God bless you abundantly in good gifts, and may you always look to Him for everything...even answers about man's "science".

Dave, you sound as if you are either ignoring or denouncing as unbelievers all believers who are scientists. Are you completely unaware of the scientific revolution that began around the time of the Reformation? Modern science was ushered in by those firmly believing in God and Christ. They studied science to discover the laws of nature precisely because they believed in the Lawgiver that created nature, in other words, because they read and believed the Bible.

The real dispute is not over science, but worldview. Believing scientists see God deeply involved in his creation from the very beginning. Others try to come up with theories to oust God, and explanations to deny him, but their efforts lead to more and more unreal scenarios.

You have stated that you would not believe unless you actually saw something for yourself. Do you realize who you sound like? I’m not saying you have to believe every new discovery. But you needn’t be so broadly dismissive. The way you present it, if you were to witness something, no one should believe you. But perhaps that is what you are saying, since you too are a man.

 

[Dave G]

The way you present it, if you were to witness something, no one should believe you.

I'm not asking people to believe me, and I think that is where our foundational disagreement exists.
I'm asking the people on this forum to believe God first, and men a distant, if even relevant, secondary.

I'm only a man,
But I'm a man who believes the words of my Saviour, and I do not trust mankind to be truthful about anything, unless their truths line up with God's truths.

 

[Yeshua1]

Dave, you sound as if you are either ignoring or denouncing as unbelievers all believers who are scientists. Are you completely unaware of the scientific revolution that began around the time of the Reformation? Modern science was ushered in by those firmly believing in God and Christ. They studied science to discover the laws of nature precisely because they believed in the Lawgiver that created nature, in other words, because they read and believed the Bible.

The real dispute is not over science, but worldview. Believing scientists see God deeply involved in his creation from the very beginning. Others try to come up with theories to oust God, and explanations to deny him, but their efforts lead to more and more unreal scenarios.

You have stated that you would not believe unless you actually saw something for yourself. Do you realize who you sound like? I’m not saying you have to believe every new discovery. But you needn’t be so broadly dismissive. The way you present it, if you were to witness something, no one should believe you. But perhaps that is what you are saying, since you too are a man.

I know that there are Christian scientists, but to be true to God and the scriptures, they must not be holding to things like Theistic Evolution and such as "scientific facts" just assume to be the truth!

 

[37818]

I think it's obvious...no one lives to be millions of years in order to test it. No one knows for certain all that happened over the millions of years...the climate could have changed...too many variables....etc.

Do you even know how a half life value is calculated? Isotope half life is not affected by temperature or pressure, for that matter not by weather.

 

[church mouse guy]

Should. Or maybe not. Not until discussing a host of other issues without bringing time into the equation. DNA and the moon, for example, don’t need time. The existence of the universe is another example, and mind yet another. Time is a distraction that can easily and unnecessarily derail some very fruitful discussion.

I think that it is the old earthers who dodge debates.

 

[church mouse guy]

Well, actually, "shallow" time has the probs. There's such a huge preponderance of EVIDENCE against it.

And I don't believe for one nanosecond that God created this evidence to deceive man. That would imply that God lies! And that evidence is what it is.

please notice I don't include radiometric dating as OE evidence, as it's proven to not be all that reliable. However, such things as the vast distance from here to any star but the sun, the geologic evidence all over the world, thyenmuch-more reliable, for upta 12K years of dendrochronological dating, the fact that over 99% of all the species of life that have ever existed here are now extinct are all part of that evidence & cannot be explained by YE people.

YECs have highly educated scientists who can answer all you questions. OE bias stifles debate.

 

[Deacon]

Scientific Creationism should be willing to discuss anything since Evolution has been rendered impossible by DNA.

It’s comments like this that perpetuate the atmosphere of inaccuracy which surround Scientific Creatioinism.

Evolution has NOT been rendered impossible by DNA. The fact is that evolutionary theory is used to develop medicines that you probably have taken (e.g. flu shots).
Principles of evolutionary theory is used in DNA samples used to track generational heredity. I could go on but I hope you get the point.

When the term “Evolution” is used it must be defined.
What Christians are against is the PHILOSOPHY of MATERIALISTIC EVOLUTIONISM (let me abbreviate that as EM).
EM is the belief that physical matter is all that there is, it constitutes all reality. Carl Sagan began his book, Cosmos by affirming EM. “The cosmos is all that there is, or was, or ever will be.”

DNA does not refute evolution! Statements about the falsification of evolution without defining terms harm the cause of creationism.

Rob

 

[church mouse guy]

It’s comments like this that perpetuate the atmosphere of inaccuracy which surround Scientific Creatioinism.

Evolution has NOT been rendered impossible by DNA. The fact is that evolutionary theory is used to develop medicines that you probably have taken (e.g. flu shots).
Principles of evolutionary theory is used in DNA samples used to track generational heredity. I could go on but I hope you get the point.

When the term “Evolution” is used it must be defined.
What Christians are against is the PHILOSOPHY of MATERIALISTIC EVOLUTIONISM (let me abbreviate that as EM).
EM is the belief that physical matter is all that there is, it constitutes all reality. Carl Sagan began his book, Cosmos by affirming EM. “The cosmos is all that there is, or was, or ever will be.”

DNA does not refute evolution! Statements about the falsification of evolution without defining terms harm the cause of creationism.

Rob

How can one kind of animal turn into another kind? In fact how can a single cell change its DNA?

 

[Deacon]

How can one kind of animal turn into another kind? In fact how can a single cell change its DNA?

These are basic biology questions.
Q1 - The idea of one animal changing into another is wrong. Old fashioned Darwinian evolution’s answer to change was adaptation over time (via mutation). Today we’ve found a variety ways that DNA changes.
Q2 - A single cell can change via mutation. Mutation can be caused by a number of factors, environment, viral insertion, substitution or replication errs etc.

None of these should be cause for alarm in the Christian community.

Rob

 

[Aaron]

Granted the two quotations (of the quantum denier Albert “God does not play dice” Einstein and the oracular professor Stephen “philosophy is dead” Hawking) allow that mathematically Earth can be considered motionless, untilted, while the massive Sun dances and races round it daily (from 93 million miles away!) and yearly to simulate our tilted, rotating, revolving Earth. But that hardly sounds reasonable from a physical standpoint, nor does the apparent retrograde motion of the other planets made physical reality. The Moon should still work well with a geocentric model, though, so there’s that.

Einstein and Hawking aren't talking about assuming the earth at rest holding the sun in orbit with its gravity. They're talking about the earth or sun at rest in the center of the mass of the universe, because any point can be assumed to be the center according to Relativity, and all other bodies carried around it by the mass and centrifugal forces of a rotating universe.

They say this view is perfectly justifiable, but it's rejected because it's not the preferred cosmology.

 

[church mouse guy]

These are basic biology questions.
Q1 - The idea of one animal changing into another is wrong. Old fashioned Darwinian evolution’s answer to change was adaptation over time (via mutation). Today we’ve found a variety ways that DNA changes.
Q2 - A single cell can change via mutation. Mutation can be caused by a number of factors, environment, viral insertion, substitution or replication errs etc.

None of these should be cause for alarm in the Christian community.

Rob

Oh, brother. When there is a mutation, the DNA loses information. Therefore, the original life form is made less. That is what Evolutionists don't want to talk about molecular biology. Darwin speculated that the single cell was simple, but with the discovery of RNA and DNA we now know that the cell is as complicated as can be.