FLYFREE432 Just so all of you know I am a 6 day creationist. Yet I love playing "devil's advocate", so let me ask a few questions you may or may not have pondered before, many of which I am still working on myself: 1) If we are to believe in the "young-earth theory" how do we explain how the light of stars millions of light years away have reached us? 2) If we are to believe in a young earth how are we to explain dinosaurs (besides Job 40 or the cop out "satan put them here"). I mean, is it possible that we really walked around with 40 ton dinosaurs? I have yet to come up with solid scientific answers to either of those questions. THE BRIGUY Question 1 - God created the light that travels from the stars all at once. It did not take millions of years to get here he just created it and it was there. Question 2 - Not an easy one. I tend to believe that Noah only brought one species of Dinosaur on the ark as he brought only one of every other species of animal (except for the clean animals that he brought several of). That last Dinosaur may not have reproduced or if it did it died out in a short amount of time. As for pre-ark I believe that like most animals (OK Reptiles too) that they would have stayed away from humans and not posed and issue. It was a great big earth with very few people back then. BWSMITH If young-earth creationism is true, then we should be able to observe a limit to how far away things appear on the order of 4,004 light years. Because the universe is 15 billion years old, we see things that are much more distant. Isn't it interesting how geological strata clearly separate dinosaurs from humans? It is clear that the fossil record reflects a long process of biological change over time. Notice also that the Hebrew Masoretic Text, the Greek Septuagint (Alexandrinus and Vaticanus) and the Samaritan Pentateuch all have different numbers for both the antediluvian and postdiluvian chronogenealogies. This is a reflection of the notion that the toledot genealogies are a late, post-exilic addition to the Torah, and that they were edited extensively in their separate textual traditions during the Second Temple Period. WORD DIGGER I disagree that there were any dinosaurs on the ark at all, or anytime between Adam and Noah. Now, I do agree with a literal six, 24 hours days of creation, but that creation 6,000 years ago was not of the first world created on the face of this earth. Nor is the heavens and earth we have now the first. Ours is the second generation of the heavens and earth: The dinosaurs were a part of the first heavens and earth, during the first generation. So question #2 is not a valid question. Question #1, however, was correctly answered by The Briguy. God spoke, and they started shining at the same time all across the universe. That, however, does not preclude the possibility that they had also shined previously and had gone dark (..and darkness was upon the face of the deep..(Gen 1:2) and that God made the sun, moon and stars shine again from the same sun, moon and stars (matter) that existed in the first generation. Young Earth Creationism is only a partial truth. JOHN WELLS “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exo 20:11 NIV) It says "all that is in them," not "raw ingredients!" When Did Dinosaurs Really Live? The existence of dinosaurs long before man came along has been almost a basic tenet of faith for the evolutionist. But what if the footprints of both man and dinosaur were found together? In the Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 31, 1983, David H Milne and Steven D Schafersman tell us “Such an occurrence, if verified, would seriously disrupt conventional interpretations of biological and geological history and would support the doctrine of creationism and catastrophism.” Well, not only have both man and dinosaur prints been found together in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky and Illinois, but other U.S. locations as well. Scientists in the former Soviet Union have reported a layer of rock containing more than 2,000 dinosaur footprints alongside tracks “resembling human footprints.” Obviously, both types of footprints were made in mud or sand that has since hardened into rock. If they are human footprints, then man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Similar discoveries have been made in Arizona. If it were not for the theory of evolution, few would doubt that these were human footprints. Isn't it interesting how geological strata clearly DO NOT separate dinosaurs from humans? Another thing to consider is that before the flood we are told that people lived much longer, 8 to 9 hundred years was typical. This was likely due to the “greenhouse effect” from the canopy of water vapor shrouding the earth. It kept out the UV rays of the sun which contribute greatly to the aging process. After the flood the atmosphere of the earth rapidly became like what we have today. The Bible shows a steady decrease in the ages of post-flood characters, as the UV radiation began to take effect on lifespans of ALL creatures. Reptiles, unlike other animals, continue to grow throughout their lives. Some of the reptiles today may well be the dinosaurs of pre-flood days; they just don’t live and grow for as long a period of time, and thus do not attain the Jurrasic Park dimensions. Noah was no dummy and took baby reptiles on the ark. Many of these species could not cope with the post-flood atmosphere and died out within a few generations after the flood. How do we explain how the light of stars millions of light years away have reached us? The Bible says: He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. (Job 9:8 NIV) In “big bang” fashion, God stretched out the heavens! Not all light billions of light years away has had to travel billions of light years to our eyeballs. It only had to travel the distance from when it was emitted as God stretched the stars out. Laws of Thermodynamics: A) Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed -- only changed from one form to another. B) Any such change causes an increase of entropy, that is, a decrease in complexity. Notice that the second law prohibits any sort of gradual evolutionary improvement in living things -- that would be an increase in complexity. These two fundamental laws of science are defined only for closed systems, but no one has ever been able to imagine any other system for which these laws are not true over a long time span, unless there is outside intelligent energy input. Raw energy input (sunlight etc.) is not enough. But evolutionists can't allow a theory requiring outside intelligence, for that would be supernatural intervention -- a Creator. NOTE: The Fossil Record shows that evolution has never occurred, so far as any evidence shows. The Laws of Thermodynamics show that, theoretically, it could never have occurred. If evolution happened, then death was widespread before man evolved. But if death preceded man and was not a result of Adam’s sin, then sin is a fiction. If sin is a fiction, then we do not need a Savior. The Bible teaches that death is the direct result of sin: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.” Romans 5:12 This is not a parable by Jesus, or some hypothetical, abstract postulation. It is what God inspired Paul to record as FACT in God’s revelation to man. It stands in direct conflict with the evolutionists’ claim that death is from the beginning, ages before the first human evolved. If “death” was not the by-product of sin, then a sinless sacrifice will not conquer death, as God’s Word claims Jesus did. HAL PARKER From Luke chapter 3: 23. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24. Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25. Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26. Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27. Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28. Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29. Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30. Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31. Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32. Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33. Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34. Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35. Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36. Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37. Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38. Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Notice that Luke treats the people found in Genesis 1-11 as historical people in his list. If you had to argue from the text alone, how would you decide where allegory ends and real history starts? It seems to me, that this argues for treating Gen. 1-11 as real history. REVKEVIN77 Can this verse be saying that the Earth is round; Isaiah 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth...." ? That is that the Bible says it's round before Chris Columbus demonstrated this? JOHN WELLS THANK YOU! I knew the reference to the "round earth" was there somewhere, but for the life of me could remember any of the key words. Maybe the "flat earth" argument will go away . . . but I'm not holding my breath. BWSMITH Circle doesn't mean sphere. The tree is in the center of the disk of the earth. The edges of the disk are where the hammered firmament (Heb raqia) of the heaven attaches. Von Rad writes: (Genesis, Rev. ed. 1972) "The second day brings the creation of the firmament, which the ancients imagined as a gigantic hemispherical and ponderous bell (Ps. 19:2, Job 37:18). Raqia means that which is firmly hammered, stamped (a word of the same root in Phoenician means "tin dish"). The meaning of the verb RQ' concerns the hammering of the vault of heaven into firmness (Isa 42:5, Ps. 136:6). The Vulgate translates raqia with firmamentum, and that remains the best rendering. This heavenly bell, which is brought into the waters of chaos, forms first of all a separating wall between the waters beneath and above." Are we allowed to use poetic passages? If so, how about Daniel 4:10-11: "I saw, and behold, a tree in the middle of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the earth." Isa 40:22 literally says: "It is He who sits above the VAULT of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." The context is that the heavens are a large tent, vaulting over the disk of the flat earth. God stretches out the tent for us to dwell inside. JOHN WELLS Nice try, but this was a "vision" Daniel had, and I don't see the need to lecture you or anyone reading that visions in the Bible are full of symbolisms. BWSMITH How did all those round-earth believing Jews know what Daniel was talking about? At what point did flat-earthism corrupt mankind's shape of the earth to the extent that it had to be rediscovered by Galileo? JOHN WELLS Yes, "spreads them out like a tent to dwell in" is symbolic. "Like" usually does imply a comparison, symbolic or otherwise. I am defending science in the Bible. Now God could have divinely inspired men to write more about science than we will ever discover ourselves, but that was not the focus of His revelation. But, when the Bible does deal with a scientific subject, it is perfectly accurate, as we see here in Isaiah. Please avoid defocusing this debate by picking out visions and symbolisms to distort the "truth" of the Bible. I know you're smart enough to know when scripture is using these. BWSMITH Notice the footnotes of the NASB: chuwg is the word used for vault/circle in Isa 40:22. The same word is used in Job 22:14: "Clouds are a hiding place for Him, so that He cannot see; And He walks on the vault of heaven." Hence, the chuwg deals with the vault of heaven and is not an allusion to a spherical earth. The Catholic Inquisition knew what they were talking about when they arrested Galileo. They may not have been right about the reality of the earth, but they knew their Bible. The Bible gives no mention of a spherical earth, but alludes in numerous places to a flat-earth cosmology. WILL Really. The Catholic Inquisition arrested Galileo. Not true. Galileo wasn't arrested for any scientific belief but for satirizing the Pope. The belief in a Geocentric universe came not from the Bible but Aristotle. Galileo wrote about Copernicus' theories. Copernicus died a patron of the Church 70 years prior to Galileo with his theories well known but unaccepted. This was due to an a priori commitment to Aristotelian cosmology. Galileo's great defender was the man who would become the next Pope. So much for conflict with the church. The popular account of Galileo is one of the great myths of history. It first appeared in a French Enlightenment book in the mid 1800s with little historical basis. In fact it appears in my daughter's textbook uncritically. JOHN WELLS Strong's Hebrew Dictionary Circle = Chug From H2328; a circle:—circle, circuit, compassive It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth . . . (Isa 40:22 KJV) He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth . . . (Isa 40:22 NIV) It is God who sits above the circle of the earth . . . (Isa 40:22 NLT) What is so difficult about a truth and a symbolism in one sentence? Ever hear: "That car I just bought sure is a lemon?" BRO DAVE How about this: the firmament is the atmosphere which separates the water on the earth from the water inspace. MIKAYEHU First, BW, I have no problem with your saying that people of the ancient world believed the earth was flat and had 4 corners, but to say that the Bible teaches that as a scientific fact is utter nonsense. I use expressions like "the ends of the earth," and "the sun rises" yet I don't believe in a flat earth or the geocentric theory. Yet, you would come along and look at my writings and claim I taught the earth had corners. That would be the extreme of being unscientific. The Bible was written to communicate to the common man, so I don't find it surprising that such expressions are used. Secondly, I just wanted to make a general observation. Science, by its very nature cannot appeal to God for answers. What would science be if every time it encountered something it couldn't explain (like the origin of life) simply said "well God did it"? Science must deal with laws of nature. If science encounters a miraculous action by God (as Scripture unquestionably teaches), science will come to the wrong conclusion because miracles are necessarily outside of science. Finally, I wanted to address the first of the original questions in this thread -- why can we see light from stars that are millions of light years away? First, let me state that I am not comfortable with the explanation that God created the light so we could already see it on earth. I have no problem with "apparent age" (like full-grown trees or adult humans) but there is a problem with carrying this over to star light. For example, we can see a supernova that's several million light years away. That would mean that we have just seen an explosion of a star that never existed. In essence, God is making up a history that never happened. That presents philosophical problems for me. A full-grown tree is fine, but scarring from a fire that never happened would seem problematic. Adam being created as an adult man is fine, but his having a scar from an accident in his childhood would seem questionable. Having said all that, let me say that I am an intense reader of everything to do with space-time and the theory of relativity, and the bottom line is that we don't know enough to make dogmatic conclusions on space and time. It is very feasible that light from a star 12 million light years away could reach the earth in only 10,000 years on earth. We are just too limited in our knowledge of space-time. JOHN WELLS Adam said, "I know that God created everything in 6 days because He said so. I don't need scientific evidence. I have faith." Exactly! We can argue, for instance, about whether there is enough water (sub-terranian included, because the Bible says the fountains of the deep burst forth) to cover the mountains, like scripture says. I have read seemingly convincing scientific arguments pro and con on that, but then I think: A God who could speak "all that there is" into existance certainly could create (inject) more water to flood the earth, and remove it when He's done! Christian evolutionists (which is an oxymoron) believe God could speak an entire universe into existence, but laugh and scoff at the idea of God's work being accomplished some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago and "confounding the wisdom of the wise" by making earth and the universe appear to be billions of years old. Evolutionists do not place the full weight of their faith in God. They still insist on being able to prove by scientific methods what He did. If they can't, they oppose what the Bible says concerning those things, and by necessity of their motives, must denounce inerrancy of the scriptures. I, like you Adam, choose faith over prideful human wisdom.