Poll concerning Creation(ism)

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

 

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.

 

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).

 

I thought I posted in this thread.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

​

 

Any thoughts?

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

. 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.)

 

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

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

great vid.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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)