Poll concerning Creation(ism)

I believe Bro Dudley has neutered lbaker with his actual knowledge of the subject. :applause:

 

Hardly. As I showed, there is at least one error in Dudley's post (creation not happening now). The only people who are convinced by that are those who choose to ignore the evidence and take a literalist/fundamentalist view of the Bible. God also reveals himself in his creation as well as in human language.

 

lol...you win, okay, I give up...I'm hypersensitive...and sheltered...

when the poster begins with a strong armed attack and ends with speaking of smelling sarcasm and has acted in a manner unbecoming a teacher talking with people who have legitimate questions about a confusing subject I will forever ask them to step back, count to ten, and think it through.

Seriously, this convo is getting weird...I still don't see anyone denying the God created the world.

 

PJ,

You apparently have not evolved a sufficiently thick skin for BB and will thus be eliminated from the gene pool.

Others have apparently benefited from a mutation leading to a thickened skin as well as a certain thickening in other parts of their anatomy.

Les

 

Actually, MP, there are 2 things wrong with this statement.

First, you are using 2 different definitions of creation interchangably.The creation of Genesis (And God said let there be ... and there was ..) is different than the creation of new stars (or anything else new in the universe). The creation of Genesis (something from nothing, not the rearrangeing of pre-existing something) stopped sometime on the 6th day.

Second, you picked the wrong example. No scientist (or anyone else alive today, for that matter) has ever witnessed a star in the "process" of being fomed. If stars could be formed it would take millions of years and no one has lived that long to testify to the formation of a star. The Hubble photographs prove nothing - they are pretty pictures of gases swirling around, great for posters and seeing the glory of God but hardly proof of a star forming. As a matter of fact, there is a growing number of physicists (myself included) that believe it is impossible for a star to form from cosmic material. The gravitational energy required to bring the matter together is overcome by the energy from the angular momentum. Do stars change? Yes. Are new stars forming? No one knows but probably not.

Point taken, I will try to follow your advice in the future.

 

I believe Bro Dudley has neutered Magnetic poles with his actual knowledge of the subject. :applause:

 

Checking...Nope..they're still there! :thumbs:

 

I think you probably meant me. Rather than MP. I was just telling what I had thought as a young person to make Genesis fall into place. I was not a scientist. So childhood imaginings prevailed. The ancient world did look differently at the sky then we do today and I'm sure it fell over into biblical writing.

 

One quick question...

Are they being formed, or were they formed thousands or millions of yrs ago, but we are just now seeing them because of the speed of light?

 

As Mrs. MP breathes a sigh of relief! :smilewinkgrin:

 

A couple of things to keep in mind when you read Genesis. First, despite what we have learned in our evolutionary history classes, early man was smarter than we are - they were closer to the perfect model created by God. And, Moses was inspired to write through the Holy Spirit.

We have to make sure we don't look down on the people that lived 6,000 years ago as backward and not as advanced as us. I'm sure, in a lot of ways, they were far more advanced (especially intellectually) than we are today.

Saying "The ancient world did look differently at the sky then we do today and I'm sure it fell over into biblical writing." comes off as excusing bad science in the book that the Great Scientist wrote.

We must never forget that the Bible is perfect. Man's science changes (sometimes daily) as new theories come out and new ways of looking at the universe are postulated. God's word never changes and is always right. We should let God's word be the standard we judge all science by and not the other way around where we let science dictate how we look at the Bible.

 

Of course...varying times ago depending on how many light years away.

 

The Bible is not perfect, at least not in any translation. No translation is perfect. There are copying errors, contradictions, etc. It also is geared to the cosmological understanding of the times in which it was recorded.

If it has perfection today, it is in its message of God's love for humanity, and of how we ought to treat one another. But to place any book as perfection is to create an idol of it. Only God is perfection.

As for science changing, that is a false criticism. The fact that science self-corrects as new hypothoses are tested and found supported or not, has given us the advancements we enjoy today, including longer life, easier life, and yes..even the Internet and your PC. If you denigrate science, I suggest you stop getting immunized. If your heart gets blocked, just have a heart attack instead of getting the benefit of medical science and a bypass or stint.

 

There are new theories being developed as we speak about how we see stars that are that far away if the earth is only 6,000 years old. Three scientists that I know of are:

Russell Humphreys
Jason Lisle
Mike Riddle

Some of the science revolves around the fact that we have no idea what the speed of light is outside the solar system and we are not sure how space is bent in our area of the universe (which may cause light to travel at speeds we are not aware of).

And, as far as when they were formed, it was on day 4 of creation. :thumbs:

 

So, IOWS, God could have created the Universe less than 10,000 yrs ago, and set the light to arrive on earth from distant stars at different timelengths...

Just asking...

 

I gotta run so I'll answer the rest of your post tomorrow. But.. wow, that quote speaks volumes.

 

So therein is the problem with such so-called scientists. Real scientific method work has no presupposed outcome. You go where the evidence leads. The "creation scientists" start with an outcome and try to make the evidence fit what outcome they have already determined. Call it faith, call it religion...but it sure ain't science.

 

And even more so if you only take the sentence fragment and not the entire thought.

 

So if they were so smart, they would have known the Sun did not stand still in Joshua's day.. they would have know it was the Earth that did.. making the sun to apparently stand still.

Or do you believe the Bible literally and say the sun stood still?

 

Actually I'm going to respectfully disagree. They had the exact same mental and intellectual capacity as we do. Otherwise, why didn't they come up with neat things like shipping, transcontinental transportation, medicine, etc. until thousands of years later. The only people who could qualify as "closer to the perfect model" would be Adam and Eve, but their ability to connect with that model was irreversibly shattered at the Fall. :)

I'd have to ask for further explanation. I disagree with this statement at face value. The Bible, in its formulation completed in AD 390 at the Synod of Laodecia, even with the copies of the autographs they had, was far from perfection. The variants in the earliest copies we have are still pronounced and vary from early text to early text. Especially today we have a Bible that is perfect in inspiration and teaching while having some problems along the path of delivery.

Yeah, but the Bible isn't a science textbook. I don't go to the Scriptures to learn to be a better physician, how to do a heart transplant, how to understand botany, or even how to understand photosynthesis. The Scriptures are limited in their application to specific genres but replete in their application for life principles. We can't force the text of the Scriptures to say something that they, themselves, don't say or won't comment on. :)

We also must be very careful not to divinize the Bible. The only perfect Person is the Trinitarian Godhead...and they are uncreated. We cannot make the Bible a member of that Godhead, that is not its place. :)