Does It Matter

OK, I reread the post, I think maybe we are slightly different pages. The main idea I am trying to communicate regarding the rates of time passage is the rate relative to the observer. With respect to our time and space coordinates relative to our gravity field and velocity we know time at a certain rate. Looking to the past events of creation, from our current "time zone" the time passed is approximately 15 billion years with respect to our rate. From that point and in that time frame reference time would be just as normal as ours is to us, however the rate 'then" with respect ours was expontentially reduced.

Now, whether you agree of disagree with the position, and I know you don't, are we "physically" on the same page or not?

 

BTW, I think you may be "misapplying" the "Law of Biogenesis", again if I understand "you" correctly. Let me also say, I am in complete agreement with you with regard to Behe's ideas on irreducible complexity. Which we both know that the "hardcore" anti-faith crowd decry as non-science, but wow you and I agree on at least one thing.

 

But you cannot have time dilation relative to the exact same point. The Bible was written to communicate with man. The Bible states, using Hebrew parallelism (God is stating it emphatically) that the Earth was made in 6 normal days. This is being written, according to scripture, by a man.

The problem with your hermeneutic, is that it allows the entire Bible to mean whatever the individual wants it to mean. It loses its convicting, correcting and restorative force. It is the same hermeneutic that allowed the Docetists to claim that Christ did not really have human flesh. It is the same hermeneutic that allows men today to deny the literal, bodily resurrection of Christ; that allows both homosexuals, and adulterous heterosexuals, to excuse their behavior, and live in a state of perpetual sin, all te while with a false sense of security.

Words have meaning. And the minute you start redefining the words, you lose the meaning. God said six days. God, who did not lie, emphasized all of these "days" with the Hebrew idiom which means "24 hours." There is not any way, which God could have more exactly, and emphatically told us that these were normal days. So they were.

As far as the relativity end goes, I again restate: it is possible that the UNIVERSE is much older due to the two different relative locales in regards to each other. But the Bible was written by men, inspired by the Holy Spirit. So as far as the Earth, and it's inhabitants were concerned, it was 6 days, a relatively short period of time ago.

 

Again, we disagree. But as Spock would say, "Live long and Prosper"

Mercy, peace and love in abundance.

 

When it comes to the conflict of creation vs. evolution (creative or otherwise) and/or “origins” it can only be resolved by faith, which provides the evidence of things not seen. There was no mortal human being there when it began so we have to accept either the Word of God or the hypothesis-theory secular humanist writings concerning these unseen “origins”.

According to secular humanistic science (at the present time), the origin of the universe began with something called “the singularity” or even “singularity” without the definite article.

No one can describe it for us apart from an Orwellian doublethink definition.

It existed without coordinates (Nowhere).
It had no dimensions but had infinite mass (A big nothing).
It had no reason for being (No purpose).
It exploded with no outside force acting upon it (No one did it).

So, out of nowhere, a big nothing exploded without a cause or a purpose and became everything.

As opposed to:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

You cannot have it both ways. Either the humanists are correct or the word of God.
The two objects of faith (human logic and reason or God’s word) cannot be blended:

Luke 5
36 And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.
37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.

Choose.

HankD

 

Understanding evidence for the Biblical timescale...... http://www.icr.org/article/5298/

 

Very interesting Cypress. I read the article and even went to some of the other ICR sites.

However, as good as ICR is, we really don't (or shoudn't) need them.

But I do admit that it's seems a good place to direct people who want (or think they need) some "evidence" for their faith.

Empirical evidence has its place being used for the Glory of God, but in the here and now for practical ends (aerodynamics, medicine, engineering, etc) and not for fables concerning the speculation of origins, the word of God, the word of Truth, has all we need in that realm.

Secular humanism demands empirical evidence and uses science (so-called) as a means to an end - to deny God, to deny His power and retain His glory for the human race and their achievements.

HankD

 

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/understanding_the_biblical_creation_passages.pdf

 

http://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org/articles/Lucas article 172.pdf

 

As I wrote before (no one seemed to notice), time is not the only problem if one attempts to reconcile the creation account in Genesis with the modern teachings of science. There are many other difficulties.

#1 The scriptures say God created the earth before the sun, moon, and stars.

#2 The scriptures say God created light before the sun or stars.

#3 The scriptures say there were mornings and evenings before the sun was created.

#4 God created the grasses, herbs, and fruits before the sun (how could plant life survive long ages without sunlight?).

#5 The first animal mentioned in scripture are "great whales" the largest animal ever (and a mammal), evolution teaches the first life was one-celled.

#6 The scriptures say birds (fowls) were created before insects (creeping things). Again, if the days were ages, how could birds and plant life survive without insects?

You can not reconcile the Genesis account with modern scientific theory, it fails on many counts, not just time.

 

OK, Winman, on this, you and I will agree to disagree as to faith and reason (science). I only and humbly request that you do not toss claims of atheism/agnosticism....(fill in the blank) for myself or anyone of like mind. Not that YOU have done so, but it has seemed to me to implied by some.

Did you read either of the two links? (Honest, not sarcastic question)

 

You bring up excellent points that cannot be refuted scientifically :thumbs:

 

Here's the skinny, what we are "dancing like the stars" around, is that you are a literalist with respect to the Genesis account, at least according to yourself. With all due respect, we both view one another as using incorrect or incomplete interpretive methods with respect to Genesis 1. In the famous words of Rodney King, "cant we all just get along"?

 

The difference is, your understanding is Buzz Aldridge and the opposite interpretation is Derek Hough

 

Am I supposed to "interpret" this as some type of slam?

 

Depends if you watch Dancing with the Stars.

 

I do, still I do not understand your thinking, never have been talented at asymmetric thought, I prefer linear non-dynamic homogenous systems.