Not at all. Many scientists do, they just disagree with the YEC interpretation of the Bible and the way He did it.
Scientific Creationism?
Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by tyndale1946, Mar 7, 2016.
Page 3 of 4
-
-
Sure they do, but it certainly gives them less ammunition to debate based on scientific facts. At one time, Christians believed the Sun, planets and stars revolved around the Earth. It was also believed the Earth was flat with a dome.
I can guarantee you that those people held their interpretation was based on scripture and science was wrong.
To a person with a good education in the sciences, the YEC interpretation is as weak as the flat earth belief would be to you. In fact, and I can give you quotes, many scientists have said the proof an old Earth is better than proof that the Earth is not flat. Seriously. This is because when you take upper level courses you start being exposed to facts that you can prove for yourself that shake the foundations of a young Earth. It is not brainwashing, believe me, nor is it someones interpretation of the facts. Then when you enter research, you begin to see things that you can prove yourself. Without this level of education in the sciences it is very difficult to even have a concept of the field or its complexities.
Its like trying to debate business with an MBA. You think you are winning the debate, but they are becoming frustrated because you don't even have a gasp of the subject and without getting the same education, you will not. All too often, the weaker debater thinks they have won and while the educated one knows they haven't. This was seen very clearly to even those uneducated in the sciences when a certain YEC debater claimed to be a high-school teacher would present his arguments and then brag about literally destroying college professors. Then bragging they wouldn't debate him again for that reason. When in reality they were so frustrated with the arguments they found the debate an exercise in futility. -
Jordan Kurecki Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Please give me one. -
To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge. Psalms 19:1-2.
That is besides just the fact that we can see stars and galaxies past twelve billion light-years away. -
Jordan Kurecki Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
how do we know that the speed of light has always been constant? What if the speed was different before the fall?
Besides that how do they know those stars are really millions of light years away? I would be really interested in knowing how they figure that out.
Btw, that still doesn't prove a old earth...if anything it would only prove an old universe...which it doesn't.
It seems there are quite a few assumptions. -
The Young Earth creationists assume, often based on the Ussher chronology, that the Earth is only around 6000 years old. But Ussher's chronology has been shown to be deficient.
And the Old Earth creationists/evolutionists assume that God forgot the purpose of the stars when He created the universe.
Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
It would take a pretty stupid god to forget why he make the stars. :) -
Jordan Kurecki Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
In Matthew 1:8 Joram is called the father of Uzziah (KJV: “Joram begat Uzziah”). But we see that the Greek verb gennao sometimes refers to ancestral relationships, and not only to the father-son relationship.
According to 2 Kings, Joram’s son was Ahaziah (8:24); Ahaziah’s son was Joash (11:1 - 21); Joash’s son was Amaziah (12:21); Amaziah’s son was Azariah/Uzziah (15:1).
The relationship which Matthew describes with the verb gennao is not father-son, but great great grandfather - great great grandson. It is clear that Matthew’s genealogy of Christ is ethnological, not chronological.
One more instance of the wider use the original writers made of the verb “to bear, to beget.” In Exodus 6:20 we read: “Amram took him Jochebed his father’s sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses.” Anyone reading this statement for the first time would surely draw the conclusion that Aaron and Moses were the actual sons of Amram and Jochebed. It is with amazement, then, that we turn to Numbers 3:17-19 and 28 and discover that in the days of Moses, Amram’s family, together with the families of Amram’s three brothers, numbered 8600! “Unless we are willing to grant that the first cousins of Moses and Aaron had over 8500 living male offspring, we must admit that Amram was an ancestor of Moses and Aaron, separated from them by a span of 300 years!” (The Genesis Flood, 1961, John C. Whitcomb, page 481).
John C. Whitcomb was visiting professor of Old Testament when I was a Seminary student.
As to how much history we have. Jiahu symbols date to 6600 BC, and Vinča signs to 5300 BC. Add in the 2000 years AD and we get 8600 and 7300 years ago respectively. -
Given the above situation, and applying uncontroversial science, there would be gravitational time dilation relative to distance, red-shifting light and giving light the time it needs to get to a young Earth.
At least it's more scientifically plausible than the Big Bang. -
In 1990, the galaxy NGC 4258 was measured using this technique at 23.5 million light years away with an accuracy of about 7%. This measurement was used by astronomers to re-calibrate their other measurement methods for extreme ranges.
There are other methods such as measuring the motion of masers in a disk of gas containing water molecules and orbiting a supermassive black hole at a galaxy's center. Another easier one to understand is determination of the type of star and mass using spectrometry to determine actual brightness then measuring observed brightness to calculate the difference due to cosmic dust the light has to pass through. There are many other methods and they all agree with each other with a certain percentage of error, plus (as I said above) they have also been calibrated using the parallax method.
Drilling samples from the Mediterranean Sea show layers of salt thousands of feet thick. Between each layer is a layer of sedimentary rock. There are fossils in the sedimentary layers, which means the rock wasn't just already there. This means that the sea got blocked from the ocean several times in the past and dried up. For the amounts of salt to be deposited, it would take millions of years of evaporating and refilling. These layers could not have occurred from a single global flood.
How about the salt cliffs of Dover? They are made over long periods of time from planktonic algae which had to die over time and sink to the bottom when that area was underwater for a long period of time. Or Dolomite which has to form only in fresh water the same way when diatoms die?
It seems there are quite a few assumptions.[/QUOTE]
There are a lot less assumptions in science than the YEC wants to admit. -
Besides, if it did and red-shifted it, for it to travel 100 million light years in less than 6000 years, it would no longer be light, in fact it couldn't even travel because its frequency would be near zero. Besides, if it were to travel faster it would be blue shifted.
Since visible light's frequency is 430–770 Terahertz (Billion cycles per second), red to blue, then just doubling the speed would throw red outside of the visible spectrum or put it at 860 THz. This would be invisible ultraviolet. If the star were only 100 million light years away (which is the maximum we can measure with parallax) it would still take 50 million light years to get here.
And finally, if it could change the speed, stars only 100 million light years away would have little gravitational effect because they are close to Earth in this sphere of stars (as you describe it). Only being near the edge of this universe of stars would you see a significant drop in total gravity. -
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
They had told us a particular supernova exploded 10,000 years ago. How then, did the Chinese see it in AD 185? The answer is a case study in scientific inference.
Supernova remnants (SNRs) are shells of material expanding outward from stellar explosions. Presumably, one can tell how long ago a star exploded by measuring the velocity of the expanding shell and extrapolating it backward in time. In the case of RCW 86 in Centaurus, the calculated time of explosion was 10,000 years. According to Space.com (9/26/2006), astronomers now realize it was witnessed by Chinese astronomers 1,821 years ago. This means the earlier date was off by over 80%. What happened?
From the Chandra X-ray data, they now believe the expanding shell rammed into interstellar material, slowing it down and making it pile up. Extrapolating the current speed backward linearly was based on a flawed assumption.
One of the most widely dispersed SNRs in northern skies has a similar tale to tell. The Veil Nebula arches into graceful loops over a large region in Cygnus. Earlier estimates of its age were in the tens of thousands of years. In 2001, however, Sky & Telescope (2/2001) reported a surprise. By comparing Hubble views with photographs taken in 1953, astronomers recalculated its age at 5,000 years.
Light echoes from two "ancient" SNRs in the Large Magellanic Cloud were reported in Nature (12/22/2005) to be merely 410 and 610 years old.
Astronomers use supernovas as age and distance indicators. It's hard to have confidence in the pronouncements of professionals who consider it normal to be off by 80% or more. Would this be acceptable in other fields? Yet upsets in astronomy are common.
http://www.icr.org/article/supernova-shell-shock -
Would you also accuse Him of lying for creating Adam as a mature, functioning man?
Would you also accuse Him of lying for creating Eve as a mature, functioning woman?
The animals? Trees? In fact the entire ecosystem?
How else would God create the universe? How else should he have created Adam? As a helpless infant? Eve as a helpless infant? The animals as helpless infants? The trees as mere germinated seeds?
I am sorry but that argument seems to me to be just a bit silly. :) -
Or maybe I just don't understand what you are saying.
If the clocks really do run faster out there, they are still that far away and it takes that long for light to get here for our clock on Earth regardless of how slow it is. To them, it would still be the speed of light they just wouldn't know their clock is running faster. -
So, I don't know the answer to that question, but I do know what Psalms 19:2 says.
I don't think he would create ice layers with 800,000 annual rings in Antarctica which can be calibrated using known volcanic eruptions from man's past due to trapped gases.
I don't think he would create layer after layer of salt under the Mediterranean with interspersed layers of fossil filled sediment from it being cut off from the ocean several times with not enough time to account for with a YEC interpretation.
And no, I wouldn't call God a liar if he created the Earth in 2 nanoseconds and the rocks say made in China in the year 10,000,000 BC. I assume that with infinite knowledge that he could certainly do that and do it without lying, but I honestly don't think he did it that way, no more than I believe he created it in six days.
Genesis 1:1 says he created the Heavens and the Earth making it pretty clear the Earth was created last. The rest of the chapter is from the perspective of the Earth.
-
Albert Einstein, commenting on the Michelson/Morley experiments as addressed by Lorentz/FitzGerald told us that time dilation, the difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from a gravitational mass or masses, is a phenomenon associated with speeds near C.
If that is the case (and we have evidentiary indications that it is) the photon of light, traveling at C, would only experience around 3 months of subjective time while traveling 10 million plus light years. Remember, our Constant is as observed from a relatively stationary viewpoint.
In an experiment conducted back in the 1980s the European Geosciences Union discovered that cosmic ray bombardment on the upper atmosphere produced short lived radioactive daughter products with a half-life so short they could not reach the earth's surface.
Imagine their consternation when they discovered those short lived daughter products were, in fact, making it to the earth's surface, a journey too long to make in their very short existence.
The solution? The particles were traveling so fast they were experiencing a time dilation phenomenon of around 3 to 1 giving them sufficient time, from their near C velocities point of view, to reach the earth's surface.
So, from that perspective, science does not preclude a relatively young earth.
However, again, in my opinion, that is not the best answer. The best answer is that God is not an idiot so He did not forget why he was making the stars and forget to create the light between the stars and the earth to satisfy his goal of "to shine upon the earth."
QED -
-
I am only going to respond to one part of your post, because that's all I have time for right now. I will preface my post by saying that I am a proponent of the "Apparent Age Theory".
They discovered that plants and trees inside this closed eco-system grew much faster than those outside. However, they were not healthy, and could not stand up under their own weight. The reason is that they were not exposed to bad weather and winds. Because of this, they never developed stress wood. For a tree to be a healthy tree, it has to have stress wood that will allow it to hold up under gravity, and it develops this stress wood by (no surprise) stress.
I personally believe that God made healthy trees in the garden, able to stand up under their own weight. This means that trees created just minutes before had apparently sustained stress (wind, etc), which had torn down their wood and rebuilt it into stress wood. So, even though the trees were just minutes old, it appeared as if they had undergone negative circumstances in the past.
This does not mean that God is lying. It means that He created a mature world. To follow this logic, I believe that there was oil in earth when God created it. Does that mean that He's lying, saying that dead animals decomposed and decayed? No. it means that He provided for us before we even knew what we needed.
It is no stretch of the imagination at all to say that if God created trees to appear to have undergone stressful events (which He would have had to), that He would have created other "apparent" stressful events, like a star's explosion.
I am a Creationist first, and a Scientist second. But I believe that they are reconcilable; that is, if science shows something to be true, and it doesn't line up with the Bible, then either the science is wrong, or my understanding of the Bible is wrong. The Bible is always correct. But sometimes as fallible men our interpretation of it is flawed.
Page 3 of 4