To Creationists

[SakmonKi]

I just read an article by William Lane Craig that talked about an infinite past being mathematically impossible.

 

(Understand, first and foremost, I am NOT a scientist or a mathematician so a lot of this stuff is waaaayyy out of my scope.)

 

Anyway, Craig argued that the universe must have a beginning (and therefore a beginner) by saying that in order to have an infinite universe, we would have had to have an infinite past. Which means the universe would have had to transverse the infinite in order to reach today (or the day of the big bang, for that matter). Which would be nonsense in a real, physical existence.

 

Personally, I don't see any contradiction between the Big Bang and the book of Genesis. The idea that the universe suddenly sprang into existence fully stocked with photons totally sounds like Gen. 1:3. Even an old universe is consistent. Don't forget: Genesis was written in ancient Hebrew. The Hebrew word for "day" can be translated as an undetermined period of time. The repeated use of "morning and evening" fits with the style of literature in that period of history as well as illustrating that God works outside of our concept of time and with little effort on His part. Although the creation of the sun, moon, and stars occuring on the fourth "day" strikes us as inconsistent with current thinking, who knows really? :cup: Maybe it's just referring to our galaxy....

[cwes99_03]

The last paragraph aside, which I believe actually is part of the discussion on this thread. To say that the time before the big bang was infinite is a linguistic paradox.

If I told you it would take you an infinite amount of time to accomplish something, then I am saying that you cannot accomplish it. How so? Because strive as you may, there will still be an infinite amount of time ahead of you to strive, you cannot reach your goal because the distance (speaking in the fourth dimension) never gets shorter.

This being said, the writer of that article, Craig, seems to be saying then that the amount of time before the big bang could not be infinite.

 

However, as most scientists understand "time", it is defined to hvae begun with the big bang, and that "time" is undefined before that initial moment

10^-10000000000000000000 s.

[Uber Dwayne]

It would appear though that the Hebrew word "yom" is a restrictive word, in that it has a literal meaning of "1 day," That is one sun up, sun down cycle. One could argue that there was no sun and moon for the first few days of creation. But are we limiting God in that He needs the sun and moon to tell him how long a day is, or did God just kinda guess and just so happened to be Billions of years off?

 

The Hebrew word for "day" can be translated as an undetermined period of time.

 

Using this logic... The sabbath "day can be translated as an undetermined period of time"

[TheBigDog]

Just a thought, but consider the description in Genesis of the creation not of the actual creation of the universe, but the sequential conciousness and definition of the physical universe. It is symolic, not literal.

 

If God had published Cliff's Notes with the Bible there would be one religion today.

 

Bill

[jkellmd]

BB and Evo are just unconvincing, since I myself can't afford a hundred-thousand-dollar, ivy-league mind-reconstruction.

 

Why is it so hard for people to accept that, if God created the world, he would have made it perfect and eternal. That the degradation we see around us is because we first rejected him.

 

Since theology issues have been unrepentantly bleeding into the science forums, I will return the favor.

 

Here's a free mind reconstruction. The scientific mindset established by Aristotle, and dominant since the enlightenment, is that scientists cannot use divine explanations (metaphysics) to explain natural phenomena. It's fine for laymen and theologians to do so, it's a free world, after all. You can believe that Steven Spielberg created the universe, for all I care. You just can't do it and expect it to be accepted as science, it would be insulting to those who spend their lives searching for the answers.

 

I (who believe in God) wouldn't bring The Origin Of Species to church, and I wouldn't bring the bible to physics class. Indeed, this is the burden of scientists who believe, we must compartmentalize these ideas, since they cannot be reconciled. I don't use quantum or evolutionary theory to guide my actions, and I don't use the bible to explain cosmology or molecular biology.

 

Science, religion and humanity have undoubtedly befefitted from the separation of science and metaphysics, which are then left free to grow apart, neither having to justify itself to the other.

[cwes99_03]

Indeed, this is the burden of scientists who believe, we must compartmentalize these ideas, since they cannot be reconciled.

No? They can't? Have you tried? I constantly reconcile what I know to be true from each side. I also try to test some modern theories with what I know to be true (hmm isn't that what science is all about) and see if they fit. In my repertoire, I hold that the universe was created to be true (because of all the other things I held to be true I have reconciled this idea), however, I have also reconciled the fact that the universe was not created in 6 days with the Bible's use of the word day to mean a period of time, not just 24 hours. I also know that a year in most if not all prophecies referred to 360 days, not 365. How? Because that is what they defined to be a year back then, 12 months of 30 days. Were they wrong? No, a year is what you define it to be. Today we define a year as the amount of time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun.

[Rincewind]

.... I myself can't afford a hundred-thousand-dollar, ivy-league mind-reconstruction.

So you went for a cheaper mind-reconstruction, then. I guess you get what you pay for, eh.

 

BB and Evo are just unconvincing...

How many books on BB theory and Evolution theory have you studied as closely as the books on Creation? Comparatively how much effort have you put into understanding BB and Evolution theory? What specific aspects of those theories do you find unconvincing and why?

 

Why is it so hard for people to accept that, if God created the world, he would have made it perfect and eternal.

I accept that, but totally fail to see how it conflicts with the BB and Evolution theories.

 

I can understand the "no proof" argument, but other arguments as to the actions of believers, or the inconsistencies in the bible, or that other religions are incongruent are not convincing either.

I agree. They're not convincing because they're not relevant.

[Rincewind]

... I have also reconciled the fact that the universe was not created in 6 days with the Bible's use of the word day to mean a period of time, not just 24 hours...

But the Bible specifically says "... And the evening and the morning were the [first, second, third, etc.] day." that very specifically says to me that these were 24 hour days. The Creation story in the Bible is pure mythology. Don't get me wrong, I think the Bible is one of the most valuable books to our society, but it is no authority on ancient history. What it is is a repository of our greatest wisdom and understanding of spirituality and what it is to be human. It is an abuse of the Bible to attempt to use it for pseudo-scientific purposes.

[jkellmd]

No? They can't? Have you tried? I constantly reconcile what I know to be true from each side. I also try to test some modern theories with what I know to be true (hmm isn't that what science is all about) and see if they fit. In my repertoire, I hold that the universe was created to be true (because of all the other things I held to be true I have reconciled this idea), however, I have also reconciled the fact that the universe was not created in 6 days with the Bible's use of the word day to mean a period of time, not just 24 hours. I also know that a year in most if not all prophecies referred to 360 days, not 365. How? Because that is what they defined to be a year back then, 12 months of 30 days. Were they wrong? No, a year is what you define it to be. Today we define a year as the amount of time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun.

 

No, they cannot be SCIETIFICALLY reconciled. We can reconcile them in our minds, with rationalizations - but it's not science, a term we must be rigorous about defining. Reconciling metaphysics and sience is most certainly NOT what science is all about. What you or I might "know to be true," as a matter of faith, is not true in any scientific sense, and should not be represented as such.

 

Your "repetoir," as you put it, is yours to hold, just as mine is. In other words, the rationalizations you make to have the biblical accout fit with current scientific theory, lsuch as debating the definitions of a "day," are not mine, although they are surely valid within your system. For my part, I cannot believe that the ancient Zoroastrians and Jews, to whom we owe the creation story, had any idea how the universe began, and made it up. I can accept that, and still find much of the rest of the bible quite useful, and even true, in a limited allegorical sense.

 

This being said, I neither find it useful to diasagree with you, nor to prattle on about my own rationalizations, which I do not expect to be found of value in the science forums. Our opinions, and how we reconcile faith with science differ, but are valid for ourselves. We just cannot expect others to care.

[cwes99_03]

Well, I only have trouble with everyone on this site who says that they know the Bible to be just a bunch of good, fictional stories, without having read it. Now there are a couple on this site like Pyrotex, that have read the book thoroughly. These I reserve for other discussions. Their views I can accept, IMHO, as a misunderstanding of what was written.

 

Here is my point. I have tried to make it on other threads, but am not sure I have gotten it across yet.

 

The Bible is full of historical fact. It is also full of prophecy, which in some cases proved to be incredibly accurate and precise to the point of naming names. Other prophecies take much more study, linguistics, anthropological, historical, etc. and tons of meditation to understand, much like relativity, quantum mechanics, or advanced thermodynamics.

 

Through an initial study of the Bible, one can see the good use of the Bible as towards the improvement of humanity through morality etc. Many people stop there and say that is enough and refuse to attempt to look into the rest (much like people often stop with a topical analysis of physics, only they usually accept anything someone says about physics as truth after that.)

 

A few take it much deeper and question some things, much like many on this site take the deeper things of physics and question them, such as the seeming paradoxes of relativity. Now many on this site have much more experience in understanding this particular subject and can explain it all to the satisfaction of many. Still a couple on this site who claim to understand relativity quite well still insist that it makes some wrong conclusions.

 

Thus religious study is a science. It is not just believe or don't believe. A true theologian constantly studies and determines where the truth lies and where it doesn't as far as a particular teaching goes. If it is not scriptural, then it is a false teaching (as far as Christianity is concerned). The same should be said of any religious teaching stemming from any other religion. If it does not fit with the other writings, one who studies these writings would have to take a stand against the teaching of it.

 

Now as far as which religion is most scientifically accurate, and supported most by history, one has to make their own determination. I believe it to be a simple thing, but I guess people are free to disagree.

[Southtown]

How many books on BB theory and Evolution theory have you studied as closely as the books on Creation? Comparatively how much effort have you put into understanding BB and Evolution theory? What specific aspects of those theories do you find unconvincing and why?

Sorry so late. A respectible inquiry. I do not pretend to be an expert on the evidence, but I spend lots of time sifting through the net to better understand BB and Evo. Neither theory fits observation.

 

http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=1

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/4281-intelligent-design-post69386.html

[coldcreation]

The Bible is full of historical fact.

 

Name just one...

 

It is also full of prophecy, ...

 

That's not all it's full of...

 

 

... etc. and tons of meditation to understand, much like relativity, quantum mechanics, or advanced thermodynamics.

 

Where do you get "meditation" in GR, QM or thermodynamics?

 

 

such as the seeming paradoxes of relativity.

 

Which seeming paradoxes?

 

 

Thus religious study is a science.

 

Scientology maybe. But science, certainly not.

 

 

It is not just believe or don't believe.

 

Unfortunately that's all it is.

 

Still a couple on this site who claim to understand relativity quite well still insist that it makes some wrong conclusions.

 

Only gravitational waves remain to be found. Every other prediction has been confirmed observationally.

 

 

A true theologian constantly studies and determines where the truth lies and where it doesn't as far as a particular teaching goes.

 

Thus it's never final.

 

 

If it is not scriptural, then it is a false teaching....

 

Thus it's final.

 

 

Now as far as which religion is most scientifically accurate, and supported most by history, one has to make their own determination. I believe it to be a simple thing, but I guess people are free to disagree.

 

Which science is most religiously accurate? That is the question.

 

cc

[Southtown]

Why is it so hard to see the Big Bang and Evolution as god's tools to create the world and the universe? :hihi:

 

And please, refrain from mentioning Intelligent Design and debate "speciation", just answer the question.

Here is a very complete list of reasons that I just came across, again.

http://www.creationscience.com/FAQ42.html

[CrimsonWolf]

Whoa! Many views out here! Well for the record I believe in Universe created by Jehovah God but I do not share Creationist view. Here's why.

 

First of all the Genesis account speaks of Jehovah God created the heavens and the earth. Now Remember Genesis does not show the "how" of creation. Instead names what was formed, the order they formed, and when in time interval (creative days) they formed. The perspective here in Genesis is written from Earth dwellers perspective and not from outer space view. People after all know far less back when the account was first written, so Jehovah kept things basic, but accurate.

 

The Earth and the Universe could very well have existed for many billions of years before the creative days. The Hebrew word for day yohm, in the original translation can mean 24 hour day or can mean other lengths of time. The original word simply means a time period of unknown length. Sort of like the old expression, "Well back in my day things were different." So 6 creative days are just six periods of undisclosed time. Many Bible prophecies use this word and it's actual length varies to the context of subject being discussed. For example one passage states that 1,000 years is but a day to Jehovah. So the 6 creative days could very well be thousands of years or perhaps much longer. There is no way to know for the time being, how long they actually were, all though evidence would suggest large amounts of time.

 

The Earth's state is described and then the account goes on to describe creative days. The Earth and Moon were not really visible until 4th day indicating the atmosphere was not clear enough to see the sun and moon. In the beginning of Genesis the word for light was ohr, meaning light in a general sense. In verse 14 referring to the 4th day the word used for light ma'ohr`, means something affording light. This indicates light on the first day penetrated swaddling bands, but not the cloud layers. So human observer would not yet see the sun, moon, or stars for that matter. By the 4th day light after countless years could be seen on Earth's surface finally.

 

So Stars, Moon, and Sun were long in existence before the creative days.

 

There are 10 major stages mentioned in the Genesis account: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees with the stages being in this general order. The odds of the writer doing this on the first try is same as if you picked from random the numbers 1-10 from a box in exact consecutive order! Doing this on the first try has the odds are 1 in 3,628,800!

 

Creation of living creatures is then each according to it's own kind. Not gradual evolution. The species were fully formed from the start. Man and beasts of the field being made from dust on the ground. The contents of dust of the ground contains all the same chemical elements of the human body.

 

Evolutions gets even weaker considering some facts from experts I will post next.

[CrimsonWolf]

Other facts include:

 

(1) Amino Acids break down when exposed to ultraviolet light making of early stages of evolution forbidding. (Origin of Species 1902 Edition, Part One, p.250)

 

(2) Of the 100 amino acids only 20 are needed for life's proteins. The molecules come in two shapes "right handed" and left handed". If they formed by chance in theoretical organic soup then there should 1/2 of each type. No reason for either type to be preferred in living things. Of the 20 needed all are of left handed type!

 

Quote from J.D. Bernal: "I must be admitted that the explanation . . .still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain." "We may never be to explain it."

(Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pp. 22, 23, 25.)

 

(3)The odds of even a simple protein molecule forming in random in organic soup is 10 to the power 113!

 

(4)The odds of 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes needed for a cell's life functions forming by random is 10 to the 40,000 power! Any chance of 10 to the 50th power is considered as not ever happening in the universe!

 

(5)Proteins need DNA to form. DNA however needs pre-existing protein. So which came first Chicken or the Egg? According to the facts DNA and Protein would have to formed at the same time! The chicken and egg form at the same time!

 

(6)Even the simplest cell life functions and organelles are so complicated and efficient that they are still not completely understood. They rival any mechanical engineering feet man has ever devised.

 

(7)No missing link between species has ever been found.

 

(8)No benefit from mutation experiments has ever been produced. The worst mutations often die. Plus after several generations the genetic code corrects and removes mutations resulting in normal species!

 

(9)Instinct of animals requires pre-wired information directly in their genetic code. To complex and utterly impossible for instinct to happen by chance due to specific information needed complete from the start and no gradual steps.

 

(10)Carbon Dating is useless pass 50,000 years and no organic sample can be dated past that limit. Any age listed past 50,000 years is pure speculation and even worse fiction.

 

The data goes on and on.....

 

The point is that Evolution is the worst theory around arguably. Even well known evolutionists are rejecting it and confused by it's failure. The theory is only useful in explaining micro variations in species do to natural cause. However the species has always remained the same species, and the variation is do to just variety of species.

 

To quote authors Hoyle and Wickramasinghe from the book, Evolution of Space: "These issues are to complex to set numbers to." They add: "There is no way . . .in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one."

 

Creationists also make mistake stating creation in happening in 6 literal days when that is not what the Bible actually say if you do the research. The 6 literal days is a Clergy teaching. Not a Bible one. Most Clergy teach many non Bible based teachings. I know of only one faith that does not, but instead relies on the Bible as absolute authority of God's Word. Some say it is not scientific, to old, or not accurate. The fact is the Bible does not contradict science observations. Nor does is it just some collection of 66 books that just happen by chance to follow the same theme. The Bible is also accurate and predicted both future events in the past and present but also mentioned some of the ancient nations and persons in ancient history before modern science found the evidence for them! Finally the Bible is the most read and published book ever written, no other book or writing even comes close to it's circulation.

[Pyrotex]

(1) Amino Acids break down when exposed to ultraviolet light making of early stages of evolution forbidding.

Well, then obviously the early stages of amino acid production did not occur in the top few centimeters of water. Big deal.

(2) Of the 100 amino acids only 20 are needed for life's proteins. The molecules come in two shapes "right handed" and left handed". If they formed by chance in theoretical organic soup then there should 1/2 of each type. No reason for either type to be preferred in living things. Of the 20 needed all are of left handed type!

Well, then obviously the prebiotic process that foreshadowed amino acid production centered around a left-handed molecule. All the aminos that it would need or produce would likewise be left-handed. Right-handed aminos would not be favored, so their production would never be increased by subsequent evolutionary processes.

(3)The odds of even a simple protein molecule forming in random in organic soup is 10 to the power 113!

Quite true. So, obviously that is NOT how protein molecules formed. Their formation was NOT a random process. They existence was favored, perhaps as a by-product, of some other dominate chemical process going on.

(4)The odds of 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes needed for a cell's life functions forming by random is 10 to the 40,000 power!

Well, then obviously it did NOT happen this way. Indeed, in all the books of Meyer, Dawkins and Gould, nobody has ever suggested that it did.

(5)Proteins need DNA to form. DNA however needs pre-existing protein. So which came first Chicken or the Egg? According to the facts DNA and Protein would have to formed at the same time!

You keep possiting impossibilities as if these are the arguments that evolutionists advance. Not true. There are NO "facts" which demand that DNA and Proteins had to form at the same time.

(6)Even the simplest cell life functions and organelles are so complicated and efficient that they are still not completely understood.

So what? This demonstrates nothing except perhaps your gullibility. Let's use the same reasoning for a different subject. Do YOU understand the molecular structure of modern medicines? No? But you have no problem using them, right? Ignorance does not imply or prove non-existence. This is a really stupid point.

(7)No missing link between species has ever been found.

A "missing link" was a semantic invention of the late 1800's. There is no such thing as a "missing link" (nor will there ever be). Every creature that ever existed was itself. Period. Not some kind of Sci-Fi half-giraffe, half-algae monster from the black lagoon.

(8)No benefit from mutation experiments has ever been produced. ...

How would you know? You don't read about such things. It's "science" you know, and God will punish you if you take that **** seriously. :eek2:

(9)Instinct of animals requires pre-wired information directly in their genetic code. Too complex and utterly impossible for instinct to happen by chance due to ...

It is obviously too complex for you to understand, but then, you're not very high on the food chain, are you? Nobody ever claimed it all happened by chance or randomly. You are trying to disprove arguments that no reputable scientist ever really made. Pointless.

(10)Carbon Dating is useless pass 50,000 years and no organic sample can be dated past that limit. Any age listed past 50,000 years is pure speculation and even worse fiction.

And your point is? Or did you have one in mind at all?

The point is that ... Even well known evolutionists are rejecting it and confused by it's failure.

Actually, this is a Big Lie, crafted by creationists and fanatics. You used the plural, so name TWO "well known" evolutionist who are "rejecting" evolution, and give the names of their published papers or books where they do it. You can't. Nor can the "preachers" who fed you this garbage. Because it never happened.

 

To summarize, you repeatedly conjure up "impossible" arguments that you imply are the arguments of evolutionists, and then ridicule those arguments. The implication is a falsehood, because real evolutionists do not use, propose, defend or claim those arguments. The truth is, the arguements you give above have all been invented by creationists, religionists, or people of ignorance who thought they were being clever. So, it is pointless that you knock them down. You have proven nothing.

 

Do yourself a favor, and read some books. Find out what evolutionists REALLY are saying. Your preachers won't be ANY help in finding that out. Meyer wrote the most popular text books on evolution over the last 30 years; you might start there. Richard Dawkins has some outstanding intros into evolution: The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, come to mind. Daniel C. Dennett wrote Darwins's Dangerous Idea, one of the best written books in the last 100 years. However, it does contain some big words, and requires some thinking.

 

OH! I'm sorry! You can't read them. If you do, God will turn you over to perversions of the mind and of the flesh, you'll break out in boils, and talking donkeys will make fun of you in public.

[Biochemist]

...You are trying to disprove arguments that no reputable scientist ever really made. Pointless.

 

And your point is? Or did you have one in mind at all?

 

...Actually, this is a Big Lie, crafted by creationists and fanatics. You used the plural, so name TWO "well known" evolutionist who are "rejecting" evolution......

 

OH! I'm sorry! You can't read them. If you do, God will turn you over to perversions of the mind and of the flesh, you'll break out in boils, and talking donkeys will make fun of you in public.

Pyro- Please respect the positions of other posters without hostility. You are welcome to disagree with CW's posts, but personal attacks are not tolerated here.

 

Personally I found your refutations of CW's points to be weak. CW raised a couple of credible issues, and you essentially said it is not a problem without offering an explanatory solution. CW identified a couple of individuals that agreed with his/her position, and you ignored that and asked for names.

 

 

Civility and thoughtfulness is a value here.