PDA

View Full Version : True science and true religion agree together.



iouae
November 1st, 2017, 02:28 AM
True science and true religion support each other.
False science will at times, oppose true religion.
False religion will at times, oppose true science.
And, obviously, false science and false religion, may or may not agree - all bets are off.

Concerning Creation, science and religion seem at loggerheads.
Science says the universe is 13.75 billion years old.
Religion says the universe is 6000 years old.
Science says we got here by evolution.
Religion says we were created.

The chasm seems so wide, that many have given up trying to bridge the divide.
This thread hopes to reconcile science and religion concerning the above issues.

I consider that the blame for the divide is 50% pseudo-science's fault and 50% pseudo-religion's fault.

Googling "how many species on earth today" one gets the answer 8.7 million.

Whatever the true number, God has devoted a lot of time and thought into creating all these fantastically wonderful and diverse plants and animals, and it must have taken even Him, a lot of time to think these up.

I know there are some here who think that God just somehow knows everything, implying that God expended very little effort thinking up these organisms, and making sure they function as planned. They think God does not need to do any planning, since God just somehow comes knowing everything.

I am not of that school. I believe God has existed eternally, and a lot of that time has been devoted to thinking up and creating these plants and animals. This means of course that God learns, which topic was discussed on another thread which I started. I believe that as God learns, or as His interest changes, so He created different creatures throughout earths history.

The fossil record in the rocks is a snapshot of what occupied God's interest in the long history of the earth. I am an old earth creationist, believing in a universe which is 13.75 billion years old, where, 500 million years ago, God suddenly in one event, populated the earth with most of the Phyla of animals that now exist. I believe that if Christians knew the truth of this Cambrian explosion, they would be able to silence the evolutionists right there. Later, I will explain how the Bible nowhere says earth is just 6000 years old. Here pseudo-religion has made Christians sound ignorant.

There have been many explosions of life on earth. Modern man exploded onto earth 6000 years ago in the form of Adam and Eve. But before that there were many mass extinctions, including the aftermath of one which left earth "without form and void". God never originally created earth "without form and void". Why would God do such a bad job in the first place, and then take six days to repair it?

This is what I hope this thread will be about.

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 1st, 2017, 03:19 AM
NO! True sciences proves the Earth is only 5988 years old as does the Bible. Don't be deceived.

Bible: https://guidetothebible.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/guidechronologylatest1.pdf

Science: https://www.creationworldview.org/about-us/

chair
November 1st, 2017, 03:51 AM
NO! True sciences proves the Earth is only 5988 years old as does the Bible. Don't be deceived.

Bible: https://guidetothebible.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/guidechronologylatest1.pdf

Science: https://www.creationworldview.org/about-us/

From the OP:
"Here pseudo-religion has made Christians sound ignorant."

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 1st, 2017, 04:20 AM
From the OP:
"Here pseudo-religion has made Christians sound ignorant."

Not sure what you mean by that, you should speak plainly, Christians have been given a spirit of power, love, and self-discipline not fear and timidity. Jesus believed in an Earth that was only 4000 years old in His time:

Matthew 19:4
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

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

beginning
noun
the point in time or space at which something begins.

So do you think Jesus was lying, mistaken or telling the truth?

iouae
November 1st, 2017, 05:37 AM
Not sure what you mean by that, you should speak plainly, Christians have been given a spirit of power, love, and self-discipline not fear and timidity. Jesus believed in an Earth that was only 4000 years old in His time:

Matthew 19:4
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

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

beginning
noun
the point in time or space at which something begins.

So do you think Jesus was lying, mistaken or telling the truth?

Its not verse 1 where folks go wrong, its mistranslating verse 2.
Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The NIV correctly translates "was" or "haita" (Heb) as "became" in its footnote.

God did not create the earth in the beginning so that it was without form and void. Earth became without form and void.

When one looks at the fossil record there are many mass extinctions, and after many of these the earth was left "without form and void" with darkness covering the surface of the ocean.

Such was the case 65 million years ago when God destroyed the dinosaurs.
Then came the Cenozoic explosion of mammals where God suddenly creates a word utterly devoid of dinosaurs, and covered in mammals as the dominant group, as we see today. But there were other mass extinctions between the extinction of the dinosaurs and today. 6000 years ago, and after one of these mass extinctions, the story picks up in verse 2 where God is about to do a recreation. There is a time gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 of billions of years.

Its too early in the thread to answer all questions Watchman, but science and the correct understanding of the Bible will come together in the same story.

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 1st, 2017, 08:32 AM
Its not verse 1 where folks go wrong, its mistranslating verse 2.
Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The NIV correctly translates "was" or "haita" (Heb) as "became" in its footnote.

God did not create the earth in the beginning so that it was without form and void. Earth became without form and void.

When one looks at the fossil record there are many mass extinctions, and after many of these the earth was left "without form and void" with darkness covering the surface of the ocean.

Such was the case 65 million years ago when God destroyed the dinosaurs.
Then came the Cenozoic explosion of mammals where God suddenly creates a word utterly devoid of dinosaurs, and covered in mammals as the dominant group, as we see today. But there were other mass extinctions between the extinction of the dinosaurs and today. 6000 years ago, and after one of these mass extinctions, the story picks up in verse 2 where God is about to do a recreation. There is a time gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 of billions of years.

Its too early in the thread to answer all questions Watchman, but science and the correct understanding of the Bible will come together in the same story.

Those who believe the 'gap theory' misinterpret verse 5 and many more:

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1-5.htm

The Hebrew words for evening, morning, night and day (day is used twice) all use Hebrew words that can only be interpreted as a literal 24 hour period, and then these same words are repeated 6 times in chapter 1. God was making sure His people knew how He created everything in 6 days.

Then, as this wasn't enough chapter 2 begins:

Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

The words 'seventh day' is repeated 3 times. This was a Sabbath and all Sabbaths last 24 hours.

There was no 'Gap' in creation, the only gap in the gap theory is the theological gap within itself.

iouae
November 1st, 2017, 09:17 AM
Those who believe the 'gap theory' misinterpret verse 5 and many more:

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1-5.htm

The Hebrew words for evening, morning, night and day (day is used twice) all use Hebrew words that can only be interpreted as a literal 24 hour period, and then these same words are repeated 6 times in chapter 1. God was making sure His people knew how He created everything in 6 days.

Then, as this wasn't enough chapter 2 begins:

Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

The words 'seventh day' is repeated 3 times. This was a Sabbath and all Sabbaths last 24 hours.

There was no 'Gap' in creation, the only gap in the gap theory is the theological gap within itself.

I agree with you that in six literal days God recreated the heavens and the earth, and rested on the seventh literal day. But this was a recreation.

Proof of this is in the following two verses using the word "replenish".
Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 9:1
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Noah was told to replenish the earth after it had been emptied. Why would God tell Adam and Eve to replenish the earth if it had not had life before them?

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 1st, 2017, 09:58 AM
I agree with you that in six literal days God recreated the heavens and the earth, and rested on the seventh literal day. But this was a recreation.

Proof of this is in the following two verses using the word "replenish".
Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 9:1
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Noah was told to replenish the earth after it had been emptied. Why would God tell Adam and Eve to replenish the earth if it had not had life before them?

The word translated ‘replenish’ (KJV) simply means ‘fill’ in the Hebrew.
In the English of King James’ day, ‘replenish’ also usually meant ‘fill’, not ‘refill’.
The word ‘replenish’ therefore cannot be used to support ideas about a previous creation, which was destroyed.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4390.htm

In any case, such erroneous theories, invented in response to the ‘millions of years’ idea, must hold to the unbiblical notion that there was death and suffering before Adam’s sin.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/what-does-replenish-the-earth-mean/

iouae
November 1st, 2017, 10:29 AM
The word translated ‘replenish’ (KJV) simply means ‘fill’ in the Hebrew.
In the English of King James’ day, ‘replenish’ also usually meant ‘fill’, not ‘refill’.
The word ‘replenish’ therefore cannot be used to support ideas about a previous creation, which was destroyed.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4390.htm

In any case, such erroneous theories, invented in response to the ‘millions of years’ idea, must hold to the unbiblical notion that there was death and suffering before Adam’s sin.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/what-does-replenish-the-earth-mean/

There was death and suffering before Adam's sin!!!

But I want to ask you how you explain dinosaurs. You believe they did exist right? And they died out long before any human walked the earth. Adam and Eve could not have survived with dinosaurs. So how do you explain this.

And secondly, light from distant stars, many hundreds and billions of light years away, constantly streams down to earth after travelling for all that time. Scientists all know that this light is old. How do you explain it?

I say that it all can be explained.

When Paul says that through one man, death entered the world, he was speaking of human death. Or don't you believe Adam and Eve stepped on an ant, or squashed a bug? And did all those fish in the sea not eat other fish? One has to break every law of common sense to misunderstand and read more into Paul than he ever meant to say.

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 1st, 2017, 11:20 AM
There was death and suffering before Adam's sin!!!

But I want to ask you how you explain dinosaurs. You believe they did exist right? And they died out long before any human walked the earth. Adam and Eve could not have survived with dinosaurs. So how do you explain this.

And secondly, light from distant stars, many hundreds and billions of light years away, constantly streams down to earth after travelling for all that time. Scientists all know that this light is old. How do you explain it?

I say that it all can be explained.

When Paul says that through one man, death entered the world, he was speaking of human death. Or don't you believe Adam and Eve stepped on an ant, or squashed a bug? And did all those fish in the sea not eat other fish? One has to break every law of common sense to misunderstand and read more into Paul than he ever meant to say.

Of course dinosaurs lived with men and most of them were killed off in the flood. Here are some verses about them below, as for the star light question that theory depends on the speed of light being constant but science has proven that it's speed is not constant.

Behemoth: Possibly a Brachiosaurus or a Diplodocus.

Job 40:15-24 Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you. He eats grass like an ox. Look at the strength of his loins and the power in the muscles of his belly. He stiffens his tail like a cedar tree; the tendons of his thighs are woven firmly together. His bones are bronze tubes; his limbs are like iron rods. He is the foremost of God’s works; only his Maker can draw the sword against him. The hills yield food for him, while all sorts of wild animals play there. He lies under the lotus plants, hiding in the protection of marshy reeds. Lotus plants cover him with their shade; the willows by the brook surround him. Though the river rages, Behemoth is unafraid; he remains confident, even if the Jordan surges up to his mouth. Can anyone capture him while he looks on, or pierce his nose with snares?

Dragon

Ezekiel 32:1-2 On the first day of the twelfth month in the twelfth year, the Word of the Lord came to me saying, “Son of man, sing a song of sorrow for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say to him, ‘You compared yourself to a young lion among the nations, yet you are like the big dragon in the seas. You go through your rivers, troubling the water with your feet and making the rivers muddy.’”

Ezekiel 29:2-3 Son of man, set thy face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him, and against all Egypt: Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.

Isaiah 51:8-9 For the moth will devour them as it devours clothing. The worm will eat at them as it eats wool. But my righteousness will last forever. My salvation will continue from generation to generation.” Wake up, wake up, O LORD! Clothe yourself with strength! Flex your mighty right arm! Rouse yourself as in the days of old when you slew Egypt, the dragon of the Nile.

Leviathan: Possibly a Elasmosaurus.

Job 41:1-11 “Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook or press down his tongue with a cord? Can you put a rope in his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook? Will he make many pleas to you? Will he speak to you soft words? Will he make a covenant with you to take him for your servant forever? Will you play with him as with a bird, or will you put him on a leash for your girls? Will traders bargain over him? Will they divide him up among the merchants? Can you fill his skin with harpoons or his head with fishing spears? Lay your hands on him; remember the battle you will not do it again! Behold, the hope of a man is false; he is laid low even at the sight of him. No one is so fierce that he dares to stir him up. Who then is he who can stand before me? Who has first given to me, that I should repay him?Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine.

Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea.

Psalm 104:24-26 How many are your works, Lord! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number— living things both large and small. There the ships go to and fro, and Leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.

Psalm 74:12-15 God my King is from ancient times, performing saving acts on the earth. You divided the sea with Your strength; You smashed the heads of the sea monsters in the waters; You crushed the heads of Leviathan; You fed him to the creatures of the desert. You opened up springs and streams; You dried up ever-flowing rivers.

iouae
November 1st, 2017, 11:49 AM
Of course dinosaurs lived with men and most of them were killed off in the flood. Here are some verses about them below, as for the star light question that theory depends on the speed of light being constant but science has proven that it's speed is not constant.

Behemoth: Possibly a Brachiosaurus or a Diplodocus.

Job 40:15-24 Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you. He eats grass like an ox. Look at the strength of his loins and the power in the muscles of his belly. He stiffens his tail like a cedar tree; the tendons of his thighs are woven firmly together. His bones are bronze tubes; his limbs are like iron rods. He is the foremost of God’s works; only his Maker can draw the sword against him. The hills yield food for him, while all sorts of wild animals play there. He lies under the lotus plants, hiding in the protection of marshy reeds. Lotus plants cover him with their shade; the willows by the brook surround him. Though the river rages, Behemoth is unafraid; he remains confident, even if the Jordan surges up to his mouth. Can anyone capture him while he looks on, or pierce his nose with snares?

Dragon

Ezekiel 32:1-2 On the first day of the twelfth month in the twelfth year, the Word of the Lord came to me saying, “Son of man, sing a song of sorrow for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say to him, ‘You compared yourself to a young lion among the nations, yet you are like the big dragon in the seas. You go through your rivers, troubling the water with your feet and making the rivers muddy.’”

Ezekiel 29:2-3 Son of man, set thy face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him, and against all Egypt: Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.

Isaiah 51:8-9 For the moth will devour them as it devours clothing. The worm will eat at them as it eats wool. But my righteousness will last forever. My salvation will continue from generation to generation.” Wake up, wake up, O LORD! Clothe yourself with strength! Flex your mighty right arm! Rouse yourself as in the days of old when you slew Egypt, the dragon of the Nile.

Leviathan: Possibly a Elasmosaurus.

Job 41:1-11 “Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook or press down his tongue with a cord? Can you put a rope in his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook? Will he make many pleas to you? Will he speak to you soft words? Will he make a covenant with you to take him for your servant forever? Will you play with him as with a bird, or will you put him on a leash for your girls? Will traders bargain over him? Will they divide him up among the merchants? Can you fill his skin with harpoons or his head with fishing spears? Lay your hands on him; remember the battle you will not do it again! Behold, the hope of a man is false; he is laid low even at the sight of him. No one is so fierce that he dares to stir him up. Who then is he who can stand before me? Who has first given to me, that I should repay him?Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine.

Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea.

Psalm 104:24-26 How many are your works, Lord! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number— living things both large and small. There the ships go to and fro, and Leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.

Psalm 74:12-15 God my King is from ancient times, performing saving acts on the earth. You divided the sea with Your strength; You smashed the heads of the sea monsters in the waters; You crushed the heads of Leviathan; You fed him to the creatures of the desert. You opened up springs and streams; You dried up ever-flowing rivers.

Watchman, I am glad to discuss this with someone like you who seems to have his ducks in a row, and seems to have the stamina for a tough fight. I just hope you have a slightly open mind and intellectual honesty.

This is what the Blue Letter Bible website says of behemoth...
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
perhaps an extinct dinosaur
a Diplodocus or Brachiosaurus, exact meaning unknown
Some translate as elephant or hippopotamus but from the description in Job 40:15-24, this is patently absurd.
Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
בְּהֵמוֹת bᵉhmwth, be-hay-mohth'; in form a plural or H929, but really a singular of Egyptian derivation; a water-ox, i.e. the hippopotamus or Nile-horse:—Behemoth.

Let's be honest, neither you, I or the folks above can say definitively what behemoth or leviathan are.

But I can say definitively that if they refer to dinosaurs, dinosaurs and hominids are never found as fossils in the same strata.

You are obviously aware of the different strata all having different biomes. And throughout the world, for instance Cambrian rocks are found as the lowest and first rocks to contain fossils. And never are either hominids or dinosaurs found in Cambrian rock. I just want to see how you explain the strata.

My background is science, and I want to say that your explanation that light travels at different speeds through the vacuum of space is patently laughable to scientists and cosmologists. Did you get that idea from 6days?

iouae
November 1st, 2017, 08:16 PM
Psalms 19:1
To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.

When we look at the heavens, we are looking back in time, since light travels at a constant speed (c).
Light from the sun is 8 minutes old, meaning we see the sun as it appeared 8 minutes ago.
With bigger telescopes, we look back further and further in time at stars which gave off light up to 13 billion years ago. So the one witness to God's glory is the heavens.

The earth shows God's handiwork, or what God has been doing for these billions of years.
And it turns out that God has been creating. The fossil record shows that there have been successive ecosystems with completely different creatures to those which live today. We are most familiar with the dinosaurs which died out 65 million years ago, to be replaced, in a sudden creation, by animals and plants such as are around today, except there were no humans. Humans are recent arrivals on earth in another special creation, after another mass extinction. This latest creation act is described in Genesis 1 and took 6 days, with God resting on the seventh literal day.

Thus, we can look back at what God has been doing for all those millions of years. And He has been creating different life forms. Go to a museum and see animals such as dinosaurs.

The successive completely different types of life on earth, from oldest to youngest, occur in time periods labelled according to their different flora and fauna as ...

Pre-Cambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, Quaternary.

These can be remembered using the mnemonic ..
The pre cambrian order seems devoid of carbon permanent traces. It is just a crche type quagmire.

The above mnemonic is true too, since for most of earth's history (the Pre-Cambrian), there was no life on earth. Thus, all the lowest and first formed rocks, have no fossils in them.

Then, all of a sudden, life explodes onto the scene and in one layer appear most Phyla of animals, with the dominant animal being Trilobites, a complicated, water-dwelling cockroach. This "Cambrian explosion" testifies to God's creation. Evolutionists say that animals slowly developed from simple ones to more complicated ones. But the record in the rocks says otherwise. Complicated animals like the Trilobites dominated from the first signs of life. The Cambrian Explosion disproves evolution right there. The Cambrian Explosion shows God's handiwork. If Christians did not have their heads buried in the sands, they would be studying Palaeontology, and rubbing evolutionists noses in the Cambrian Explosion, which disproves evolution.

Then there was the dinosaur explosion, followed by the mammal explosion, and finally the human explosion.

Every sudden appearance of diverse life forms and diverse ecosystems is a testimony to God's ongoing role as Creator. Less than one percent of all organisms which have ever existed are alive today. Over 99% are extinct and may only be seen as fossils in rocks. So if we think God is great from the wonderful array of living organisms around today, think of Him as 100 time greater, since He has created 100 times more than we see today around us.

Now I want to ask you a serious question. How long do you think it took God to think up each of the billion or more organisms which exist or existed? How long do you think it took God to think up how to get just one cell to live and function correctly? Each human cell has 10^9 chemical reactions which occur every second to keep that cell alive. Life is incredibly complicated. It took so much thought, that all humans today cannot make one cell and impart it with life. So how long did God have to think, to get even one cell to live?

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 2nd, 2017, 03:39 AM
Watchman, I am glad to discuss this with someone like you who seems to have his ducks in a row, and seems to have the stamina for a tough fight. I just hope you have a slightly open mind and intellectual honesty.

This is what the Blue Letter Bible website says of behemoth...
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
perhaps an extinct dinosaur
a Diplodocus or Brachiosaurus, exact meaning unknown
Some translate as elephant or hippopotamus but from the description in Job 40:15-24, this is patently absurd.
Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
בְּהֵמוֹת bᵉhmwth, be-hay-mohth'; in form a plural or H929, but really a singular of Egyptian derivation; a water-ox, i.e. the hippopotamus or Nile-horse:—Behemoth.

Let's be honest, neither you, I or the folks above can say definitively what behemoth or leviathan are.

But I can say definitively that if they refer to dinosaurs, dinosaurs and hominids are never found as fossils in the same strata.

You are obviously aware of the different strata all having different biomes. And throughout the world, for instance Cambrian rocks are found as the lowest and first rocks to contain fossils. And never are either hominids or dinosaurs found in Cambrian rock. I just want to see how you explain the strata.

My background is science, and I want to say that your explanation that light travels at different speeds through the vacuum of space is patently laughable to scientists and cosmologists. Did you get that idea from 6days?


I'm sure you've hear of the Hafele and Keating Experiment (1971):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html

This proves that time is a physically created property made by God and not an abstract man made idea, just as it says:

Gen 1:1
In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.

God created a beginning (time), the Heavens (space) and the Earth (matter with energy).

All three are intrinsically linked, effect one and the others are effected too. Such as with the above experiment. More recently other experiments show that light can indeed travels at different speeds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeKWeMH09Fs

But we are only talking about very small changes here, however this does show that the fundamental building blocks of the universe are fluid and not fixed. Indeed as you are surely also aware the universes expansion is speeding up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe

Now the big question is how this is measured because there are two fundamental assumptions that some scientist who claim the universe is very old make:

First is that observation fundamentally changes the experimental results, this is the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle or Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Secondly is the assumption about the speed of expansion over time and the fact that we can't go back in time to measure it because we don't know whether time itself has fundamentally changed, over time.

Basically it is a fact that there's a lot that we do not know and to assume that we have a good understanding of how the universe works is a flawed way of thinking because a lot of well meaning people have always thought this througout history.

The best way of understand the scientific workings of the universe is to match it to what the Bible says. The best scientist I have come across who teaches Biblical Scientific Creationism is Dr Grady McMurtry (there are others but he is very thorough). For example:

This is about dinosaurs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=840&v=tOrD9K9khiU

This is about radio metric carbon dating:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Qr9ZZ-Y30

There's many more and one I wanted to find was when he explained about light travelling from distant stars and how this is measured. May be you will come across it? But I recommend watching these.

Clete
November 2nd, 2017, 06:37 AM
True science and true religion support each other.
False science will at times, oppose true religion.
False religion will at times, oppose true science.
And, obviously, false science and false religion, may or may not agree - all bets are off.

Concerning Creation, science and religion seem at loggerheads.
Science says the universe is 13.75 billion years old.
Religion says the universe is 6000 years old.
Science says we got here by evolution.
Religion says we were created.

The chasm seems so wide, that many have given up trying to bridge the divide.
This thread hopes to reconcile science and religion concerning the above issues.

I consider that the blame for the divide is 50% pseudo-science's fault and 50% pseudo-religion's fault.

Googling "how many species on earth today" one gets the answer 8.7 million.

Whatever the true number, God has devoted a lot of time and thought into creating all these fantastically wonderful and diverse plants and animals, and it must have taken even Him, a lot of time to think these up.

I know there are some here who think that God just somehow knows everything, implying that God expended very little effort thinking up these organisms, and making sure they function as planned. They think God does not need to do any planning, since God just somehow comes knowing everything.

I am not of that school. I believe God has existed eternally, and a lot of that time has been devoted to thinking up and creating these plants and animals. This means of course that God learns, which topic was discussed on another thread which I started. I believe that as God learns, or as His interest changes, so He created different creatures throughout earths history.

The fossil record in the rocks is a snapshot of what occupied God's interest in the long history of the earth. I am an old earth creationist, believing in a universe which is 13.75 billion years old, where, 500 million years ago, God suddenly in one event, populated the earth with most of the Phyla of animals that now exist. I believe that if Christians knew the truth of this Cambrian explosion, they would be able to silence the evolutionists right there. Later, I will explain how the Bible nowhere says earth is just 6000 years old. Here pseudo-religion has made Christians sound ignorant.

There have been many explosions of life on earth. Modern man exploded onto earth 6000 years ago in the form of Adam and Eve. But before that there were many mass extinctions, including the aftermath of one which left earth "without form and void". God never originally created earth "without form and void". Why would God do such a bad job in the first place, and then take six days to repair it?

This is what I hope this thread will be about.

Your desire to reconcile these two worldviews will not succeed. What you are attempting to do is to reconcile a biblical worldview with a atheistic worldview. It cannot be done.

Further, your solution seems to have been to reject both!

Having said that, the first few lines of your post are exactly correct. The truth does not contradict itself. If the bible is true then it will be consistent with reality, by definition, which is what true science attempts to study and understand. The problem, however, isn't with science or the bible, its with people and with the blinding power that paradigm has on one's ability to detect errors in their thinking and on their willingness to correct an error if one happens to be detected. The bigger the impact on one's worldview an error will have, the less likely it is to be acknowledged, if it is even detected in the first place. Scientists think that the peer review process eliminates such paradigm blindness but it doesn't. It helps, especially when the peer review is competitive in nature, but, on the whole, a group of people with rose colored glasses on will be just as color blind as any one person. Theologians, however, are even worse. There is no attempt at all, in most cases, to study the bible in a dispassionate, logical manner. As a general rule, religious people believe what they are taught. If they go to a seminary, it's always to one that makes no effort to teach them how to think for themselves and to determine by a logical process what doctrines are true and which are false. On the contrary, the seminary exists to pound one particular religious worldview into it's students heads. The truth of their doctrine is assumed and no dissenting voice is heard above a whisper - if at all. Indeed, seminary students do not go to seminary to learn how to critically think, they go there specifically for the purpose of immersing themselves into a particular way of thinking. When they come out, they have invested countless hours and thousands of dollars into becoming "educated". Changing their minds to an appreciable degree is all but impossible, regardless of the argument or evidence. The same, of course, is true of scientists who have spent equal amounts of time, effort and money on their education. The likelihood of their ever rejecting the atheistic worldview that they've invested their whole lives into is very nearly zero.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
November 2nd, 2017, 06:43 AM
I'm sure you've hear of the Hafele and Keating Experiment (1971):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html

This proves that time is a physically created property made by God and not an abstract man made idea, just as it says:

Gen 1:1
In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.

God created a beginning (time), the Heavens (space) and the Earth (matter with energy).

That experiment does not prove what you suggest. Motion effects clocks, not time. If you don't believe that there is a difference then you simply don't know what you are talking about.

There is no better refutation of your position than this...

Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?34363-Summit-Clock-Experiment-2-0-Time-is-Absolute)

iouae
November 2nd, 2017, 07:02 AM
I'm sure you've hear of the Hafele and Keating Experiment (1971):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html

This proves that time is a physically created property made by God and not an abstract man made idea, just as it says:

Gen 1:1
In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.

God created a beginning (time), the Heavens (space) and the Earth (matter with energy).

All three are intrinsically linked, effect one and the others are effected too. Such as with the above experiment.

The Keating experiment was to prove Einsteins theory that "c" remains constant for any observer while time is prepared to go faster or slower to make sure that c remains constant. Einstein was big in favour of c being constant. If the speed of light is constant, and it comes from distant galaxies, this in no way diminishes what all scientists believe to be the age of that light. Even your friend Dr McMurtry raved about the size of the universe. Light from distant stars logically has to be older, for it to have gotten here. If God created the universe 6000 years ago, He would have had to make the light from all stars further away than 6000 light years, that light would have had to miraculously travel faster than c to get here.




More recently other experiments show that light can indeed travels at different speeds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeKWeMH09Fs

But we are only talking about very small changes here, however this does show that the fundamental building blocks of the universe are fluid and not fixed. Indeed as you are surely also aware the universes expansion is speeding up:


That video gave nothing certain about low energy photons travelling SLIGHTLY faster than high energy ones. As they wondered, without proof. And this is far too slight to change how light so distant got here in only 6000 years.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe

Now the big question is how this is measured because there are two fundamental assumptions that some scientist who claim the universe is very old make:

First is that observation fundamentally changes the experimental results, this is the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle or Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Secondly is the assumption about the speed of expansion over time and the fact that we can't go back in time to measure it because we don't know whether time itself has fundamentally changed, over time.

Basically it is a fact that there's a lot that we do not know and to assume that we have a good understanding of how the universe works is a flawed way of thinking because a lot of well meaning people have always thought this througout history.



But there is so much that science DOES know, that we cannot grasp at straws. The distance that light has travelled at a constant speed is irrefutable, and easily explainable by an old universe. If God has existed forever, why fight a 13.75 billion year old universe, which is like a month to God? And all we have to accept is that the earth BECAME without form and void. Which makes sense because why would God make it in ruin? And Is 45:18 says explicitly that God did not create the earth "tohu" or "without form" (strongs H8414)
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, H8414 he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.



The best way of understand the scientific workings of the universe is to match it to what the Bible says. The best scientist I have come across who teaches Biblical Scientific Creationism is Dr Grady McMurtry (there are others but he is very thorough). For example:

This is about dinosaurs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=840&v=tOrD9K9khiU

I watched him. He is quite entertaining, like Eric Hovind. But he set my science bull dust detector off many times.
First some of his good points.

He spoke of the size of the universe, which implies aged light from stars, which he ignored.
He mentioned the Father turning to the Son and saying "watch this" as He showed off by making a platypus. That is exactly the sort of thing I believe goes on in heaven as God creates. And this nails predestination and the idea that God knows everything, and cannot learn. I agree with him there.
I agree with him that animals can be fossilised as they are killed. I have killed a few beetles by fossilising them in fibreglass resin to make key rings.
I agree with him that many dinosaurs were small.
I agree with him that God may have been bragging to Job about dinosaurs in Job 40. But God could brag to me today about dinosaurs and I would agree with God that they truly are amazing. It does not mean they were contemporary with Job. We moderns think we invented dinosaurs. Ancients knew about them since fossil bones were more abundant then.

Now his bull dust.
It is utterly absurd that all the billions of organisms that God created were all created in one time and place at the beginning and have been slowly dying out since then so that there are fewer today.
Only if one has never taken ones nose out of the Bible, and looked at the fossil record, could one say that.
It is to utterly ignore the fact that all the different ages fossilise separately, and each age is followed by God recreating an entirely new set of creatures.

And this is what I want to emphasise. This demonstrates the glory of God.
The fact that the curtain comes down on the dinosaurs, and rises on a completely new set of fauna, namely the mammals, is both a fact, and a testament to Gods greatness and creativity.

Next error...
That Josephus, Marco Polo and Alexander the Great saw dinosaurs. Right, just like the local village idiot sees flying saucers or Nessie, and we take that with a heap of salt.

That dinosaurs went onto the ark. Never have dinosaur fossils been found with hominid fossils. If the flood fossilised both together, human and dinosaur bones would be found in the same strata. But dinosaur bones are ALWAYS found in deeper strata, by far than Hominid ones. If God had wanted dinosaurs today He could have taken eggs onto the ark. But the last dino had died out 65 million years before the ark, unless one calls crocodiles and birds dino's.

That all dinosaurs were vegetarian.

You saw how big dinosaurs are compared to man. Maybe you saw Jurassic Park. It is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE for mankind to have lived a year on the same earth with dinosaurs. They would have served as snacks for velociraptor and T Rex, who certainly were not vegetarian.




This is about radio metric carbon dating:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Qr9ZZ-Y30



I have not watched this yet, but all dating methods are inaccurate, I know that.
But, what is beyond dispute, and which question you avoid, is why fossils are always found in strata. Always the Jurassic animals are found together with Jurassic plants, around the world, and never found with Quaternary or modern plants as would have been the case in a flood.

Thanks for your very interesting reply, which made me work quite hard watching the videos.



There's many more and one I wanted to find was when he explained about light travelling from distant stars and how this is measured. May be you will come across it? But I recommend watching these.

iouae
November 2nd, 2017, 07:09 AM
Your desire to reconcile these two worldviews will not succeed. What you are attempting to do is to reconcile a biblical worldview with a atheistic worldview. It cannot be done.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Crete, I agree with much that you say. But I am not trying to reconcile a biblical worldview with an atheistic one, but with what true science says. These reconcile perfectly as will come out later in the thread.

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 2nd, 2017, 10:16 AM
The Keating experiment was to prove Einsteins theory that "c" remains constant for any observer while time is prepared to go faster or slower to make sure that c remains constant. Einstein was big in favour of c being constant. If the speed of light is constant, and it comes from distant galaxies, this in no way diminishes what all scientists believe to be the age of that light. Even your friend Dr McMurtry raved about the size of the universe. Light from distant stars logically has to be older, for it to have gotten here. If God created the universe 6000 years ago, He would have had to make the light from all stars further away than 6000 light years, that light would have had to miraculously travel faster than c to get here.


That video gave nothing certain about low energy photons travelling SLIGHTLY faster than high energy ones. As they wondered, without proof. And this is far too slight to change how light so distant got here in only 6000 years.


But there is so much that science DOES know, that we cannot grasp at straws. The distance that light has travelled at a constant speed is irrefutable, and easily explainable by an old universe. If God has existed forever, why fight a 13.75 billion year old universe, which is like a month to God? And all we have to accept is that the earth BECAME without form and void. Which makes sense because why would God make it in ruin? And Is 45:18 says explicitly that God did not create the earth "tohu" or "without form" (strongs H8414)
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, H8414 he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

I watched him. He is quite entertaining, like Eric Hovind. But he set my science bull dust detector off many times.
First some of his good points.

He spoke of the size of the universe, which implies aged light from stars, which he ignored.
He mentioned the Father turning to the Son and saying "watch this" as He showed off by making a platypus. That is exactly the sort of thing I believe goes on in heaven as God creates. And this nails predestination and the idea that God knows everything, and cannot learn. I agree with him there.
I agree with him that animals can be fossilised as they are killed. I have killed a few beetles by fossilising them in fibreglass resin to make key rings.
I agree with him that many dinosaurs were small.
I agree with him that God may have been bragging to Job about dinosaurs in Job 40. But God could brag to me today about dinosaurs and I would agree with God that they truly are amazing. It does not mean they were contemporary with Job. We moderns think we invented dinosaurs. Ancients knew about them since fossil bones were more abundant then.

Now his bull dust.
It is utterly absurd that all the billions of organisms that God created were all created in one time and place at the beginning and have been slowly dying out since then so that there are fewer today.
Only if one has never taken ones nose out of the Bible, and looked at the fossil record, could one say that.
It is to utterly ignore the fact that all the different ages fossilise separately, and each age is followed by God recreating an entirely new set of creatures.

And this is what I want to emphasise. This demonstrates the glory of God.
The fact that the curtain comes down on the dinosaurs, and rises on a completely new set of fauna, namely the mammals, is both a fact, and a testament to Gods greatness and creativity.

Next error...
That Josephus, Marco Polo and Alexander the Great saw dinosaurs. Right, just like the local village idiot sees flying saucers or Nessie, and we take that with a heap of salt.

That dinosaurs went onto the ark. Never have dinosaur fossils been found with hominid fossils. If the flood fossilised both together, human and dinosaur bones would be found in the same strata. But dinosaur bones are ALWAYS found in deeper strata, by far than Hominid ones. If God had wanted dinosaurs today He could have taken eggs onto the ark. But the last dino had died out 65 million years before the ark, unless one calls crocodiles and birds dino's.

That all dinosaurs were vegetarian.

You saw how big dinosaurs are compared to man. Maybe you saw Jurassic Park. It is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE for mankind to have lived a year on the same earth with dinosaurs. They would have served as snacks for velociraptor and T Rex, who certainly were not vegetarian.



I have not watched this yet, but all dating methods are inaccurate, I know that.
But, what is beyond dispute, and which question you avoid, is why fossils are always found in strata. Always the Jurassic animals are found together with Jurassic plants, around the world, and never found with Quaternary or modern plants as would have been the case in a flood.

Thanks for your very interesting reply, which made me work quite hard watching the videos.

Thanks for your time in looking at the links, most people here will not look at links, which is a shame as it shuts down the debate, so not much is learnt and beliefs are not challenged or changed. Thus furtherance of oneself is curtailed. I guess that has something to do with predestination though.

I looked at:

8414 [e]
ṯōhū
תֹ֥הוּ
in vain it
Noun

but this is just a difference in interpretation.

I liked your for's and against's yet I have seen Dr McMurtry, and others, explain why creation scientists and secular scientists interpret the fossil record differently, with each party claiming the strata proves there argument. So again this is interpretation.

I could post lots more links but I'm not sure if this would help, after all if you had it in you heart to look into this more then you could easily do that yourself.

You see when I looked into this subject myself I soon realised that the Earth had to be either young as the Bible suggests or old as secular scientist claim. It's one or the other. I also quickly realised that there was not any absolute proof available for either argument because it always boiled down to interpretation.

However, I believe this is because God wants all the glory for Himself and His Son Jesus. Jesus said:

Matthew 12:39
He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

Therefore the only sign, or evidence, we have for Jesus being the Messiah; The Holy Anointed One of God the Most High who knows all things like God and can not lie, is the resurrection. This event began Christianity because no one could find Jesus' dead body afterwards and everyone involved had looked for it.

Jesus also said:

Matthew 19:4
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

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

beginning
noun
the point in time or space at which something begins.

The beginning was day 1 which lasted the same length as every other day. Adam was created on day 6 in year 1AM and died at 130 in year 131AM.

So was Jesus was lying, mistaken or got it right? The glory is His.

iouae
November 2nd, 2017, 11:04 AM
Matthew 19:4
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

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

Then there is your Matt 19:4 when I believe it refers to the beginning of the creation of man, on the 6th day.



beginning
noun
the point in time or space at which something begins.

The beginning was day 1 which lasted the same length as every other day. Adam was created on day 6 in year 1AM and died at 130 in year 131AM.

So was Jesus was lying, mistaken or got it right? The glory is His.

Like you Watchman, I like to take Bible words as literally as possible.

But when the Bible says "in the beginning", it does NOT always refer to the same point in time.

For instance...

Gen 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This refers to the beginning of the creation of the material universe.

Pro 8:22
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

This beginning refers to BEFORE the creation of the material universe.

Jhn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jhn 1:2
The same was in the beginning with God.

This beginning refers to long before the creation of the material universe when not even the angels had been created as John goes on to say.

Heb 1:10
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

This beginning refers to the creation of the heavens, which was 13.75 billion years ago, and the foundation of the earth, refers to the fact that earth was a ball of matter which consolidated and only cooled 5 billion years ago when life began. The earth in other words had foundations in the making for 8.75 billion years. This is what science says and I don't find it disagrees with scripture which says earth had a foundation. A foundation is not the house, but precedes the house.

The Matt 19:4 one you quoted I believe refers to "at the beginning" when God created man, on the 6th day.

One last technicality. I know a little Hebrew. Hebrew has a definite article "ha" which is a suffix added at the start of a word when the writer means "the".

Genesis 1:1 starts "Bereshith...." which has no definite article. Most accurately it is not speaking of THE beginning but A beginning.
It could even mean "To begin". "Be" at the start of "Bereshith" could be one of many prepositions such as "to" or "in".

Thus it could even be saying "To begin - Gods created the heavens and the earth" meaning the beginning is the beginning of this story or book and not a specific beginning in time. As I say, my Hebrew is limited, but as far as I know this is the case.

Ask Mr. Religion
November 2nd, 2017, 01:52 PM
This beginning refers to the creation of the heavens, which was 13.75 billion years ago, and the foundation of the earth, refers to the fact that earth was a ball of matter which consolidated and only cooled 5 billion years ago when life began. The earth in other words had foundations in the making for 8.75 billion years. This is what science says and I don't find it disagrees with scripture which says earth had a foundation. A foundation is not the house, but precedes the house.
No. That is what science theorizes.

The believer need not assume the burden here. Scientific theories are moving targets. To say that science must have the final word is to make an unscientific statement. Science is an open canon, therefore contradiction is to be expected. We expect no contradiction in Scripture because it is a closed canon. What Scripture says it has always said and will always say. Again, science is an open canon. It has said things which it no longer says and what it says today may yet be changed. The believer must allow the Bible to say what it says. Whatever one thinks about physics, astronomy, or any other science, he has no right to impose his unproven, ever advancing scientific explanations on Scripture and make Scripture say something other than what Scripture says.

The epistemic limitation of scientific discovery is that first, it is limited to natural phenomena. Secondly, it is bound to observable fact. Thirdly, is only ever descriptive, never explanatory. Fourthly, deals with probability. Fifthly, is always open to re-evaluation.

With these limitations we can accept everything natural science teaches. The fact that it conflicts with the plain teaching of God's word does not require us to adopt a pseudo-science or to re-evaluate God's word in the light of it. Sarah's womb was dead and Sarah had a child in her old age. The two facts conflict with each other. Both are legitimately maintained in the belief that God calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Some serious hermeneutical hopscotch is needed to deny the literal meaning of days in Exodus 20:11.
- The ordinance of the Sabbath is now doubtful if six days is not literal.
- If the first Adam is allegorical, then the second Adam is, too?
- A literal Adam is required in Romans.
- The Apostle clearly described Adam as the first human sinner—not whatever millions of human-like beings in the presumed evolutionary chain.
- Death came through Adamic sin, an explanation from Scripture that is cast aside in the notion of millions of years of death and destruction prior to Adam assumed by evolution.

AMR

Clete
November 2nd, 2017, 03:26 PM
Crete, I agree with much that you say. But I am not trying to reconcile a biblical worldview with an atheistic one, but with what true science says. These reconcile perfectly as will come out later in the thread.

There is no true science that agrees with the day-age interpretation of Genesis. There is no true religion that agrees with a universe that is billions of years old. Any such position IS the fruit of an attempt to reconcile the atheistic standard model/big-bang cosmology with something that resembles a biblical worldview. In reality it is a perturbation of both or one might call it a bastardization of the two. What you're left with is worse than what you started with.

As for true science agreeing with true religion, the whole premise is a tautology. What is true is true, whether its scientific or religious or whatever but two worldviews who's fundamental premises are in contradiction to each other cannot be made to agree except on an occasional detail and even then by accident. A naturalistic worldview cannot be made to agree with a worldview that acknowledges the supernatural. The atheistic cannot be made to agree with the theistic. One is false.

What you are really saying isn't about science as a worldview but as a method of investigation. What you're saying is that theism is true and more specifically, biblical theism is true, and even more specifically, your implication at least is that your particular brand of biblical theism is true and that therefore it will stand up to the scientific method of cosmological investigation. The problem, I submit, is that you've, essentially, jumped the scientific gun. There is no scientific nor biblical reason to accept the day-age theory. The only people who believe in that nonsense (if you don't mind my frankness) are people who are afraid of what the bible clearly states. By "afraid" I mean that they are afraid that what the bible states won't/can't stand up to scientific scrutiny and so you hedge you bets by accepting what you think is an acceptable middle ground. The effect being that you've loaded the dice in favor of what you think is a scientific worldview but that is actually an atheistic one. Any atheist with any debate skills at all will tear you to ribbons before realize you're even in jeopardy of losing the debate because you've conceded his premise (and contradicted your own) just by stating your own position.

In short, if you're going to have a cosmology that is both scientific and biblical, the atheistic theories about the age of the universe won't survive the process because the bible flatly states that God created everything in six days...


Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’”


Resting in Him,
Clete

Zeke
November 2nd, 2017, 03:40 PM
Allegorical or symbology portrayed by flesh and blood doesn't negate the Spiritual substance they are casting a shadow of Galatians 4:24-28, the kingdom being none observable to the first born of the flesh Galatians 4:1, Luke 17:20-21 throws a monkey wrench into both sides that rest their foundations on time and observable history that keeps the church going converts stuck in Matt 11:11 mode never finding the truth that is dormant within Matt 11:3 which is the traditional mantra that pretends to understand Spiritual truth but can't rightly divide 2Cor 3:6.

Clete
November 2nd, 2017, 03:42 PM
No. That is what science theorizes.

The believer need not assume the burden here. Scientific theories are moving targets. To say that science must have the final word is to make an unscientific statement. Science is an open canon, therefore contradiction is to be expected. We expect no contradiction in Scripture because it is a closed canon. What Scripture says it has always said and will always say. Again, science is an open canon. It has said things which it no longer says and what it says today may yet be changed. The believer must allow the Bible to say what it says. Whatever one thinks about physics, astronomy, or any other science, he has no right to impose his unproven, ever advancing scientific explanations on Scripture and make Scripture say something other than what Scripture says.

The epistemic limitation of scientific discovery is that first, it is limited to natural phenomena. Secondly, it is bound to observable fact. Thirdly, is only ever descriptive, never explanatory. Fourthly, deals with probability. Fifthly, is always open to re-evaluation.

With these limitations we can accept everything natural science teaches. The fact that it conflicts with the plain teaching of God's word does not require us to adopt a pseudo-science or to re-evaluate God's word in the light of it. Sarah's womb was dead and Sarah had a child in her old age. The two facts conflict with each other. Both are legitimately maintained in the belief that God calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Some serious hermeneutical hopscotch is needed to deny the literal meaning of days in Exodus 20:11.
- The ordinance of the Sabbath is now doubtful if six days is not literal.
- If the first Adam is allegorical, then the second Adam is, too?
- A literal Adam is required in Romans.
- The Apostle clearly described Adam as the first human sinner—not whatever millions of human-like beings in the presumed evolutionary chain.
- Death came through Adamic sin, an explanation from Scripture that is cast aside in the notion of millions of years of death and destruction prior to Adam assumed by evolution.

AMR
This has got to be the most I've ever agreed with AMR. He's wrong about science never being explanatory and his allusion to Romans 4:17 is erroneous but aside from that, he's nailed it with this post. You can't just figure out a way to make the bible say what you want to hear and agree with something else that you find more credible than the plain reading of the text. If you're going to do that, you might as well be a Calvinist or - a - that is - I mean - a Branch Davidian - yeah - that's what I meant!

Resting in Him,
Clete

genuineoriginal
November 2nd, 2017, 05:57 PM
I agree with you that in six literal days God recreated the heavens and the earth, and rested on the seventh literal day. But this was a recreation.

Proof of this is in the following two verses using the word "replenish".
Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 9:1
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Noah was told to replenish the earth after it had been emptied. Why would God tell Adam and Eve to replenish the earth if it had not had life before them?

You are assuming that KJV got it right with translating מָלָא into replenish in seven verses. Does that mean the one hundred and seven times מָלָא is translated as fill by the KJV are all wrong?

iouae
November 2nd, 2017, 10:30 PM
No. That is what science theorizes.

The believer need not assume the burden here. Scientific theories are moving targets. To say that science must have the final word is to make an unscientific statement. Science is an open canon, therefore contradiction is to be expected. We expect no contradiction in Scripture because it is a closed canon. What Scripture says it has always said and will always say. Again, science is an open canon. It has said things which it no longer says and what it says today may yet be changed. The believer must allow the Bible to say what it says. Whatever one thinks about physics, astronomy, or any other science, he has no right to impose his unproven, ever advancing scientific explanations on Scripture and make Scripture say something other than what Scripture says.
AMR

AMR you are so wrong in saying this.

The Bible is as much open to interpretation as science is.
Science sees light from far distant stars, knows that light travels at a fixed speed and DEDUCES that the universe MUST BE extremely old. There seems no other explanation till, maybe in the future one comes along.

Obviously the writer of the Bible, God, had an exact thought in mind when He wrote "And the earth was/became without form and void". The word "was/became" is open to interpretation. Did God create the earth a mess, or did it become a mess, which He then took 6 days to fix. I say the latter. I say that based on the fossil record which shows many and varied colonies of animals and plants living on earth before Adam and Eve, and with whom Adam and Eve would not have lasted a week. Even the folks in Jurassic park with electric fences, land rovers, guns, concrete buildings and what have you would have struggled to survive. God did not banish Adam and Eve from the garden to go dwell among T rex and Triceratops.

Thus the one (science) informs the other (Bible interpretation). Or one can just refuse to listen to both witnesses and come across as ignorant to whichever witness you ignore.

iouae
November 2nd, 2017, 10:33 PM
You are assuming that KJV got it right with translating מָלָא into replenish in seven verses. Does that mean the one hundred and seven times מָלָא is translated as fill by the KJV are all wrong?


Someone previously pointed this out. You and they are right. The word means "fill" or "replenish", but "fill" is the more common meaning. I wonder why the KJV translators so far back actually got it right by using "replenish"?

iouae
November 2nd, 2017, 10:46 PM
There is no true science that agrees with the day-age interpretation of Genesis.Clete I DON'T espouse the day-age interpretation of Genesis. I espouse the gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 of billions of years. Or, equally alternatively, to go to your last quotes....




Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’”

Genesis is describing how God made THIS AGE'S earth, THIS AGE'S sea AND THIS AGE'S all that in them is. The first books of Genesis are describing how God created the creatures of the Holocene. This Geological Age had completely different heavens, earth and sea to previous Geological Ages. For instance the canopy of water vapour in the heavens, completely different earth (continents joined - Pangea in the past) and completely different animals such as dinosaurs comprising "all that in them (the heavens, earth, waters) is.

I seamlessly go between science and the Bible to fill in the blanks which the other leaves out.

And the Bible says that God replenished the current age's flora and fauna in 6 days, 6000 years ago, so thats when I believe the Holocene or most recent geological Age of Man began.

Ktoyou
November 2nd, 2017, 10:47 PM
AMR you are so wrong in saying this.

The Bible is as much open to interpretation as science is.
Science sees light from far distant stars, knows that light travels at a fixed speed and DEDUCES that the universe MUST BE extremely old. There seems no other explanation till, maybe in the future one comes along.

Obviously the writer of the Bible, God, had an exact thought in mind when He wrote "And the earth was/became without form and void". The word "was/became" is open to interpretation. Did God create the earth a mess, or did it become a mess, which He then took 6 days to fix. I say the latter. I say that based on the fossil record which shows many and varied colonies of animals and plants living on earth before Adam and Eve, and with whom Adam and Eve would not have lasted a week. Even the folks in Jurassic park with electric fences, land rovers, guns, concrete buildings and what have you would have struggled to survive. God did not banish Adam and Eve from the garden to go dwell among T rex and Triceratops.

Thus the one (science) informs the other (Bible interpretation). Or one can just refuse to listen to both witnesses and come across as ignorant to whichever witness you ignore.

You must be a cuckoo bird.:chew: You, arguing with AMR about theology, is like a dirt farmer arguing with a doctor why he does not really need a life saving operation.

Ask Mr. Religion
November 2nd, 2017, 11:00 PM
AMR you are so wrong in saying this.

The Bible is as much open to interpretation as science is.
Science sees light from far distant stars, knows that light travels at a fixed speed and DEDUCES that the universe MUST BE extremely old. There seems no other explanation till, maybe in the future one comes along.

Please stop appealing to science in order to interpret Scripture all the while ignoring the theological hopscotch required to support your old earth view that I have pointedly noted.

That vast stellar distances seem contradict the plain reading of Scripture should lead us to question the vast distances versus trying to force the Bible to conform to extra-Biblical theories.

As to your "fossil record" I would begin by pointing out there is no "record," and whatever we have it is not singular. The plan of systematization has an agenda, and this agenda has no science to support it. The "fossil record" is an imaginary ladder of sedimentary rock layers which is not found completely anywhere on the world. In many places whole layers are missing, or are out of order. You can find "young" layers resting on bedrock with supposed billions of years missing. The "record" does not exist. There is no "geologic column," as you may have seen it in dinosaur books, going from Cambrian, Ordivician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Palaeocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, etc.

While there were a few fossils to support the myth of prehistoric creatures they were able to hold people on the edge of their seats waiting for more discoveries to prove the "record." As each piece came to hand it kept filling out the "record," but the "record" itself had never actually been substantiated. The evidence has not been researched to prove a "record," but is merely added to the "record" in a schematic way so as to give the impression of undeniable evidence.

The dinosaur fascination is a little like the bearded lady at the circus. That some scientists use the fascination to bolster their theories is unimpressive from a rational point of view.

YEC's are at least keeping some of the paleontologists honest by offering critique which forces them to be more stringent. But yes, it is pseudoscience when the behemoths and dragons of the Bible are turning up in the so-called "fossil record" when there is nothing in the fossils to demonstrate it.

Science is not explanatory unless it grants God is.

Consider that science is based on observation. Consider further that nobody has observed the creation of the earth or all that lives on it. Knowing that these observations were never made and that science still makes conclusions about these unobserved events proves that they are working from some kind of presuppositional framework.

The Christian witness should not be associated with the transient theories of an ever changing world and thereby be discredited. Its witness is higher than men. Nor should "data" be squeezed into paradigms which only serve to filter the information the paradigm is comfortable with. From a philosophical point of view, Out of nothing, nothing comes. Without creation one has to suppose nothing exists or that everything always existed. Science is impossible without creation and creation is a fact of special revelation.

Creation is not the thing that is revealed, but "the invisible things of him;" and it is revealed "by the things that are made," that is, creation is the instrument of general revelation. Creation itself can only be understood by faith, as Hebrews 11 teaches. Creation is not contrary to reason, but it is certainly above reason, and can only be accepted and appreciated on the basis of the divine testimony.

AMR

iouae
November 2nd, 2017, 11:13 PM
There is no true religion that agrees with a universe that is billions of years old. Any such position IS the fruit of an attempt to reconcile the atheistic standard model/big-bang cosmology with something that resembles a biblical worldview. In reality it is a perturbation of both or one might call it a bastardization of the two. What you're left with is worse than what you started with.

What you call a "bastardisation" turns out to be a thing of truth and hence, great beauty. I hope you will be open a little to at least find out what I am truly saying.



As for true science agreeing with true religion, the whole premise is a tautology. What is true is true, whether its scientific or religious or whatever but two worldviews who's fundamental premises are in contradiction to each other cannot be made to agree except on an occasional detail and even then by accident.

I can't believe how wrong you are in saying this. Pure science (forget the theory of the Big Bang or Theory of Evolution) are as true as the Bible. If God stretches out the heavens, and we find the heavens are being stretched out, then we know we are on the right track. Or if God says He sits on the circle of the earth, and the earth is a circle, then we know we are right. The two, science and the Bible are a happy couple.


A naturalistic worldview cannot be made to agree with a worldview that acknowledges the supernatural. The atheistic cannot be made to agree with the theistic. One is false.

Sure, science is a pig when it denies God and says everything evolved. But when science fills in what the Bible refuses to speak about, the pre-history of the earth, then who would not want to know where dinosaur bones fit in. They certainly fit nowhere into the Bible narrative. Humans did not walk with dinosaurs. To believe so, makes one Steven Spielberg and science fiction.


What you are really saying isn't about science as a worldview but as a method of investigation. What you're saying is that theism is true and more specifically, biblical theism is true, and even more specifically, your implication at least is that your particular brand of biblical theism is true and that therefore it will stand up to the scientific method of cosmological investigation.

Yes, yes, YES!


The problem, I submit, is that you've, essentially, jumped the scientific gun. There is no scientific nor biblical reason to accept the day-age theory.

That's why I don't accept the day-age theory, because it IS rubbish.


The only people who believe in that nonsense (if you don't mind my frankness) are people who are afraid of what the bible clearly states. By "afraid" I mean that they are afraid that what the bible states won't/can't stand up to scientific scrutiny and so you hedge you bets by accepting what you think is an acceptable middle ground.

Because what you said doesn't apply to me, I certainly don't mind your frankness.

I accept no middle ground. Truth is solid ground, and both the Bible and true science are devoted to this unshakeable ground, wherever it may be found.


The effect being that you've loaded the dice in favor of what you think is a scientific worldview but that is actually an atheistic one.

You must have really hated science at school to so glibly equate true science with atheism. Science, like breakfast cereal is neutral. It is not anti God or pro-God. Its only interested in finding out the truth. True there are practitioners who have no interest in the truth. I sat for years under lecturers trying to pump me full of evolution, and I resisted them since I wanted to know more about science and biology IRRESPECTIVE of their foolishness.


Any atheist with any debate skills at all will tear you to ribbons before realize you're even in jeopardy of losing the debate because you've conceded his premise (and contradicted your own) just by stating your own position.

Atheists and I get along fine. I miss those old atheists with whom I used to have stand-up fights on Michael Cadry's interminable thread, which name of which thread I forget, but I think it was about evolution.


In short, if you're going to have a cosmology that is both scientific and biblical, the atheistic theories about the age of the universe won't survive the process because the bible flatly states that God created everything in six days...

God created the creatures of the Holocene in six days, 6000 years ago. Some creatures from the Age of the Dinosaurs, such as crocodiles may not have needed re-creating since they survived the last mass extinction which left the earth "without form and void" and with water covering the land. Certainly the Coelacanths and fishes probably survived from the Pleistocene through the mass extinction event which preceded the creation of man on earth.

iouae
November 2nd, 2017, 11:53 PM
if I had to ask you what you are going to be doing for the next billions of years in God's kingdom, all I would get are stony stares and feeble attempts at an answer, such as ...

float on a cloud and play a harp...
stare at the divine visage for all eternity...
walk the streets of gold....

I come up blank and so will you.

Does it not strike you as strange that in a book as big as the Bible, you have no clue what you are striving for, especially since you will be doing whatever that is, forever??

And the future really is IMPORTANT to you, and really DOES concern you, and yet God says so little about it.

How much less do you think God considers it important to tell you what was going on before, in pre-history.
God does not have to tell you about the past, and He does not.

Luckily, the earth is God's shed, or workshop, and God does not bother to clean up very well after his experiments on earth.

He may experiment with Homo habilis, or Homo erectus, or Homo Neanderthalensis or with dinosaurs, and when He gets tired of them, he floods the "shed" and wipes the workbench clean ready for the next project, which happens to be project Adam and Eve and salvation. He has been involved with this project for 6000 years.

And He has already warned us that the shed will be cleaned at Christ's coming, and once more at the end of the Millennium, when the shed will be cauterised with fire. God has a long history of science experiments and we are fortunate enough to find the remains of these experiments as bones in rock.

We are particularly fascinated with the phase God went through from 125 million years ago till 65 million years ago, when God tried to see what was the biggest and baddest land animal He could build. Having found out, and growing tired of these, God went back to creating cute and cuddly, furry, small and weak but pretty creatures such as we see today.

And weakest of all is man. Put us in the arena and we just get eaten. But Hollywood has an OBSESSION with making man stronger with Ironman, and Superman, and Marvel, and Wonderwoman and... and... because like God, we are going through a similar fetish of wondering what it might be like to have superpowers, or be super-strong.

Look at the Fast and Furious type movies where cars are crashing all around, people fall off buildings and stand up etc. God made us so weak for His purpose. I postulate that the Neanderthals were TOO STRONG, TOO brainy, so God dumbed them down and weakened them, because He wants sheep, not Marvels.

I postulate that God tried out various types of Hominids, growing their brain size, growing their vocal capacity, growing their dexterity and bipedal skills and watching how they might react to Him. Too strong and they would be independent. Too weak and they might die out.

Even man living for 900 years as before the flood gave them a sense of immortality and invincibility, and with that came no need for a Creator. After all, they already were like supermen, and 900 years FEELS LIKE living forever. Like Enoch, I would be begging God to let me die already.

... just thinking aloud.

chair
November 3rd, 2017, 12:15 AM
Not sure what you mean by that, you should speak plainly, Christians have been given a spirit of power, love, and self-discipline not fear and timidity. Jesus believed in an Earth that was only 4000 years old in His time:

Matthew 19:4
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

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

beginning
noun
the point in time or space at which something begins.

So do you think Jesus was lying, mistaken or telling the truth?

I was quoting an earlier post.

The verse you brought form Matthew doesn't say anything at all about Jesus' view of the age of the earth. Neither does the verse from genesis, for that matter.

If Jesus thought the world was 4,000 years old (at his time)- he was mistaken.

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 12:21 AM
You must be a cuckoo bird.:chew: You, arguing with AMR about theology, is like a dirt farmer arguing with a doctor why he does not really need a life saving operation.

Thanks, I will bear that in mind. ;)

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 01:05 AM
Please stop appealing to science in order to interpret Scripture all the while ignoring the theological hopscotch required to support your old earth view that I have pointedly noted.

Yet all the evidence is for an old earth. And if Gen 1:2 is correctly translated as "And the earth BECAME without form and void" [NIV] then science and religion are in harmony, and we can all pack up and go home.



That vast stellar distances seem contradict the plain reading of Scripture should lead us to question the vast distances versus trying to force the Bible to conform to extra-Biblical theories.

Wow - that is straight out of the Dark Ages. Do you still sell indulgences?


As to your "fossil record" I would begin by pointing out there is no "record," and whatever we have it is not singular. The plan of systematization has an agenda, and this agenda has no science to support it. The "fossil record" is an imaginary ladder of sedimentary rock layers which is not found completely anywhere on the world. In many places whole layers are missing, or are out of order. You can find "young" layers resting on bedrock with supposed billions of years missing. The "record" does not exist. There is no "geologic column," as you may have seen it in dinosaur books, going from Cambrian, Ordivician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Palaeocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, etc.

Well fantastic that you at least have heard of the fossil record. In fact it is pretty complete, and there are places where the geologic column is pretty complete, such as the Grand Canyon. And in most places in the world where there has been no disruption of the rocks, the same strata are found above the same strata everywhere. Like many here AMR, you have a (mistaken) disdain for science, to (mistakenly) protect your religious views. When the mistakes of both theologians and scientists are removed, science and the TRUE message of the Bible harmonise perfectly.




While there were a few fossils to support the myth of prehistoric creatures they were able to hold people on the edge of their seats waiting for more discoveries to prove the "record." As each piece came to hand it kept filling out the "record," but the "record" itself had never actually been substantiated. The evidence has not been researched to prove a "record," but is merely added to the "record" in a schematic way so as to give the impression of undeniable evidence.


As you say, there is much ignorance among palaeontologists and anthropologists. I have just finished reading books by Richard Leaky and Dawkins, and they are very often mistaken. But sometimes they are right, with the pure science parts.


The dinosaur fascination is a little like the bearded lady at the circus. That some scientists use the fascination to bolster their theories is unimpressive from a rational point of view.

Dinosaurs are interesting, and have to be explained. Where do they fit into your worldview. Did they walk with Adam and Eve? Did you watch Jurassic park, what would have happened if they did, and those folks had concrete, and electric fences and Land Rovers and Adam and Eve had.... er... a sheepskin.


YEC's are at least keeping some of the paleontologists honest by offering critique which forces them to be more stringent.

YEC are keeping palaeontologists (rightly) laughing at us.



But yes, it is pseudoscience when the behemoths and dragons of the Bible are turning up in the so-called "fossil record" when there is nothing in the fossils to demonstrate it.

Nobody seems to know which animal God was bragging to Job about. If it was a dinosaur, then God could brag to me about them and I would agree with God, that they really are impressive. And I have never seen one.


Science is not explanatory unless it grants God is.

Why do you lay that bottom line on science, as if science has one voice? I speak for my beliefs in science and the Bible and I acknowledge that both "are".



Consider that science is based on observation. Consider further that nobody has observed the creation of the earth or all that lives on it. Knowing that these observations were never made and that science still makes conclusions about these unobserved events proves that they are working from some kind of presuppositional framework.

Of course, and you are right. My one course in Philosophy of Science was all about teaching scientists that we are never neutral, but approach any question with inherent bias. Scientists are well aware of that. Are theologians?


The Christian witness should not be associated with the transient theories of an ever changing world and thereby be discredited. Its witness is higher than men. Nor should "data" be squeezed into paradigms which only serve to filter the information the paradigm is comfortable with.

I remember the word "paradigm" was used a lot in Philosophy of science. But here is where scientists are far more honest than most theologians and religious folks. They postulate something MAY be true. Then they look for evidence, knowing they are biased, so they have qualifiers like needing double blind tests and repeatability, able to predict etc. That is where Einstein has proven so right that theories like gravity waves are a 100 years later being found to exist. But science is prepared to abandon error when evidence proves it wrong, whereas religious types are closed minded to THEIR interpretation of the Bible. Would that religious types would consider their theological paradigm just a working document, not the truth, and be prepared to abandon error.


From a philosophical point of view, Out of nothing, nothing comes. Without creation one has to suppose nothing exists or that everything always existed. Science is impossible without creation and creation is a fact of special revelation.

Einstein postulated that out of nothing visible, the visible comes, as in E = mc2

What Paul says in Rom 1:20 is backed up by science.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

God turned energy from Himself (energy is invisible) into the visible matter. Power is work or energy, same thing divided by time. All invisible. So God's power or energy which is invisible was made into another form which is visible matter.

So when you say, "out of nothing, nothing comes", but out of God or energy (which is not nothing), something can come.



Creation is not the thing that is revealed, but "the invisible things of him;" and it is revealed "by the things that are made," that is, creation is the instrument of general revelation. Creation itself can only be understood by faith, as Hebrews 11 teaches. Creation is not contrary to reason, but it is certainly above reason, and can only be accepted and appreciated on the basis of the divine testimony.

AMR

I agree. The Creator should be better understood and worshiped by us recognising the marvels of His creation.

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 3rd, 2017, 03:02 AM
Like you Watchman, I like to take Bible words as literally as possible.

But when the Bible says "in the beginning", it does NOT always refer to the same point in time.

For instance...

Gen 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This refers to the beginning of the creation of the material universe.

Pro 8:22
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

This beginning refers to BEFORE the creation of the material universe.

Jhn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jhn 1:2
The same was in the beginning with God.

This beginning refers to long before the creation of the material universe when not even the angels had been created as John goes on to say.

Heb 1:10
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

This beginning refers to the creation of the heavens, which was 13.75 billion years ago, and the foundation of the earth, refers to the fact that earth was a ball of matter which consolidated and only cooled 5 billion years ago when life began. The earth in other words had foundations in the making for 8.75 billion years. This is what science says and I don't find it disagrees with scripture which says earth had a foundation. A foundation is not the house, but precedes the house.

The Matt 19:4 one you quoted I believe refers to "at the beginning" when God created man, on the 6th day.

One last technicality. I know a little Hebrew. Hebrew has a definite article "ha" which is a suffix added at the start of a word when the writer means "the".

Genesis 1:1 starts "Bereshith...." which has no definite article. Most accurately it is not speaking of THE beginning but A beginning.
It could even mean "To begin". "Be" at the start of "Bereshith" could be one of many prepositions such as "to" or "in".

Thus it could even be saying "To begin - Gods created the heavens and the earth" meaning the beginning is the beginning of this story or book and not a specific beginning in time. As I say, my Hebrew is limited, but as far as I know this is the case.

We should at least agree that before the beginning there was no time, absolutely nothing existed but the trinity. However, you seem to think there are two beginnings? which is impossible as once time begins then that would become the beginning and Jesus said; 'in the beginning God created them male and female.' which refers to the creation week.

I think what we should address is the interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 in regards to the Gap theory. Below is the literal translation from the Hebrew:

Genesis 1:1-2
1 In beginning God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form and void and darkness [was] on the face of the deep and the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1-1.htm

What was happening is that light had not been created yet, that happens after in the next verse. Therefore darkness (which God called night) was over the surface of the waters that surrounded the entire earth, because at this stage land of course had not been created (which happens in verse nine). Therefore the Earth was without form and void. So what is this 'without form and void' that has become the Gap theory.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8414.htm
#8414. tohu
Strong's Concordance
tohu: formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness
Original Word: תֹּ֫הוּ
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: tohu
Phonetic Spelling: (to'-hoo)
Short Definition: waste
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from an unused word
Definition
formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/922.htm
#922. bohu
Strong's Concordance
bohu: emptiness
Original Word: בֹּ֫הוּ
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: bohu
Phonetic Spelling: (bo'-hoo)
Short Definition: void
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from an unused word
Definition
emptiness
NASB Translation
emptiness (1), void (2).

Also in another Interlinear translation http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf its described as 'chaos and vacancy' so we can add that:

So putting all that together, God describes the earth as being formless and void which can also mean: confusion, unreality, waste, emptiness, chaos and vacancy.

Now there's nothing in any of those words that could be construed as a period of time let alone a period of time longer than a day. They are all words describing the condition of the Earth which was a vast ocean world and like any great ocean it can be just as described (btw there was no life in this ocean either):

confusion - such as the phrase; 'all at sea'
unreality - it's not where we are design to live, a different reality.
waste - nothing grows on or in this sea, there's not even land to stand on.
emptiness - there's miles and miles of nothing but ocean.
chaos - the wave toss and rage like a boiling cauldron, (poetically).
vacancy - there's just nothing there for us.

The Gap theory is just bunk.

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 3rd, 2017, 03:29 AM
I was quoting an earlier post.

The verse you brought form Matthew doesn't say anything at all about Jesus' view of the age of the earth. Neither does the verse from genesis, for that matter.

If Jesus thought the world was 4,000 years old (at his time)- he was mistaken.

You think Jesus was mistaken - that says it all.

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 04:01 AM
We should at least agree that before the beginning there was no time, absolutely nothing existed but the trinity. However, you seem to think there are two beginnings? which is impossible as once time begins then that would become the beginning and Jesus said; 'in the beginning God created them male and female.' which refers to the creation week.

Watchman, lets discuss the issue of whether time exists in the spirit realm, as it does in our realm.

I take it you won't just accept that a thousand years is like a day to God - meaning its still time.

I define time to be testable if effect follows cause. For instance if God created Lucifer before the physical universe, meaning in the spirit realm, then the effect is Lucifer which follows the process of creation.

Let's see if we agree that at first there was just the Godhead.
Then God created angels.
Then God created the universe, with the "sons of God" singing for joy.
Then Lucifer had a bad thought and turned to Satan.
Then God threw Satan down to the already created world.

Surely if God created the angels, it shows a cause and effect in the spirit realm.
Before - no angels.
After - angels.
If there is a before and after, time existed before the universe.

Jonahdog
November 3rd, 2017, 05:26 AM
You think Jesus was mistaken - that says it all.

Pretty much.

Clete
November 3rd, 2017, 06:09 AM
Clete I DON'T espouse the day-age interpretation of Genesis. I espouse the gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 of billions of years. Or, equally alternatively, to go to your last quotes....



Genesis is describing how God made THIS AGE'S earth, THIS AGE'S sea AND THIS AGE'S all that in them is. The first books of Genesis are describing how God created the creatures of the Holocene. This Geological Age had completely different heavens, earth and sea to previous Geological Ages. For instance the canopy of water vapour in the heavens, completely different earth (continents joined - Pangea in the past) and completely different animals such as dinosaurs comprising "all that in them (the heavens, earth, waters) is.

I seamlessly go between science and the Bible to fill in the blanks which the other leaves out.

And the Bible says that God replenished the current age's flora and fauna in 6 days, 6000 years ago, so thats when I believe the Holocene or most recent geological Age of Man began.

Yeah, okay, fine and dandy. The problem is that such a position is neither biblical nor scientific. You are, in effect, making it up as you go, twisting the bible to suit science when you think science is more credible than the bible and twisting science to suit the bible whenever your gut tells you too. The simple fact is that there is no good reason, scientific or biblical, to accept the notion of "geological ages" or the idea of a water vapor canopy and there certainly is no rational reason whatsoever to even entertain the notion that there was multiple creation events such as you suggest in this post.

What you want is to reject biblical cosmology without rejecting the bible. You want to eat your cake and have it too. It won't work. It can't work. Give it up. Either trust in God's word or reject it. The fence your attempting to sit on isn't a fence at all, it is a Spanish Donkey of your own making.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
November 3rd, 2017, 06:46 AM
What you call a "bastardisation" turns out to be a thing of truth and hence, great beauty. I hope you will be open a little to at least find out what I am truly saying.
I'm all ears - but it won't work. You're making an error than I can tell you don't see. You'll either see it or what I said about paradigm blindness will kick in. Either way, it should be interesting.


I can't believe how wrong you are in saying this. Pure science (forget the theory of the Big Bang or Theory of Evolution) are as true as the Bible. If God stretches out the heavens, and we find the heavens are being stretched out, then we know we are on the right track. Or if God says He sits on the circle of the earth, and the earth is a circle, then we know we are right. The two, science and the Bible are a happy couple.
You say that you can't believe how wrong I am and then agree with what I said. :confused:

Look, what is true is true. That's the first law of all reason. What is is. It's called the Law of Identity. All rational thought stems from this single premise. It makes no difference if the truth is spiritual or natural, religious or scientific. The truth is the truth. Your statement that true religion and true science do not contradict is nothing more than a more specific way of stating that what is true is true.


Sure, science is a pig when it denies God and says everything evolved. But when science fills in what the Bible refuses to speak about, the pre-history of the earth, then who would not want to know where dinosaur bones fit in. They certainly fit nowhere into the Bible narrative. Humans did not walk with dinosaurs. To believe so, makes one Steven Spielberg and science fiction.
Actually there is really good evidence in both the scripture and in geology that man did walk with dinosaurs.

I will not debate this point with you. I'm not interested in debating these details. It's your premise that I'm interested in.

If you're interested in confirmation of this claim, go here (http://www.icr.org/)


Yes, yes, YES!
The scientific method is just sound reason. ANYTHING that is true will stand up to a properly executed scientific method.


That's why I don't accept the day-age theory, because it IS rubbish.
No more so than what you do accept. It still boils down to you having accepted THEIR premise. The Earth very simply is NOT millions or billions of years old and there is plenty of scientific evidence that proves it. The only reason to accept an ancient earth/cosmos is to make time for evolutionary and uniformitarian cosmologies. You cannot accept one without rejecting the other. It isn't the details that are the problem, it's the premises.


Because what you said doesn't apply to me, I certainly don't mind your frankness.
That's a good sign. I hate walking around on egg shells worried about whether someone is going to get offended.


I accept no middle ground. Truth is solid ground, and both the Bible and true science are devoted to this unshakeable ground, wherever it may be found.
I accept that you believe this but I'm telling you that biblical cosmology is not rationally compatible with the idea that the universe is billions of years old. There is no way to get there without making the bible say something it doesn't say, or more correctly, making it not say something that it clearly does.


You must have really hated science at school to so glibly equate true science with atheism.
On the contrary. I've loved science my entire life. I majored in physics for a while (don't have a degree) and have recently spent well over $1000 on a telescope that I use on a regular basis.


Science, like breakfast cereal is neutral.
No, it isn't. You cannot be neutral. You are either employing the scientific method from within a theistic paradigm or you are not. It is not possible to not make this choice. You are, without realizing it I think, attempting to ignore that practically the entire scientific world is very decidedly not theistic (i.e. atheistic). If you think it doesn't effect their conclusions, you're simple wrong. It can't not effect them.


It is not anti God or pro-God. Its only interested in finding out the truth.
That is their stated goal but you cannot find the truth in a theistic world from within an atheistic paradigm. It is contradictory. The two are NOT compatible and will not agree accept on occasion and by accident.


True there are practitioners who have no interest in the truth. I sat for years under lecturers trying to pump me full of evolution, and I resisted them since I wanted to know more about science and biology IRRESPECTIVE of their foolishness.
What you don't see is that their evolutionary conclusions rationally follow from the premises. It is their premises that are the problem. The conclusions are secondary. And their first premise, the bottom most foundational premise is that there is nothing other than natural processes, or put another way, there is no God.


Atheists and I get along fine. I miss those old atheists with whom I used to have stand-up fights on Michael Cadry's interminable thread, which name of which thread I forget, but I think it was about evolution.
Of all people in the world with whom there is to disagree about religious issues, atheists are very often the easiest to get along with. This is because they are, generally speaking, intellectually consistent and make an effort to be rational. They will not, as a rule, move an inch off of their basic premise that there is not God however. If you attempt to engage them on this basis, their paradigm blindness kicks in and their automatic response is to shut down and blow you off as "unscientific" or irrational or both.


God created the creatures of the Holocene in six days, 6000 years ago.
There is no such thing as "the Holocene".


Some creatures from the Age of the Dinosaurs, such as crocodiles may not have needed re-creating since they survived the last mass extinction which left the earth "without form and void" and with water covering the land. Certainly the Coelacanths and fishes probably survived from the Pleistocene through the mass extinction event which preceded the creation of man on earth.
You don't see what you're doing here, do you?

Paradigm blindness in action.

You're ignoring counter evidence, indeed falsifying evidence in order to preserve your paradigm.

There was only one creation. God got it right the first time. There is no biblical reason to think otherwise.

Resting in Him,
Clete

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 07:23 AM
On the contrary. I've loved science my entire life. I majored in physics for a while (don't have a degree) and have recently spent well over $1000 on a telescope that I use on a regular basis.

Clete

When one looks at the night sky, every star one sees is closer than 6000 light years.
I have never seen with my own eyes, light older than 6000 years since I don't have a telescope.
But I have seen the photos Hubble took. And Hubble just kept looking further and further back in time at more and more distant galaxies. It was capturing photons which had been released billions of years ago.

Explain to me how you can look at distant star clusters and explain away the distance and hence time it took for light to get here. You claim to know science. There is no glass ceiling or barrier which exists at exactly 6000 light years from here. The universe is seamless and seemingly uniform. You know the speed of light is a constant. So how did light from so far get here so soon?

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 07:37 AM
... there is no good reason, scientific or biblical, to accept the notion of "geological ages" ...
Clete

Clete, you know that the strata are laid down so that groups of organisms such as dinosaurs and their friends are together. Its like each stratum has its own clique of organisms. The dinosaurs and the seas during the dinosaurs were filled with reptiles. The Mesozoic clique of dinosaurs, for instance, never hangs out with the Palaeozoic clique of Trilobites. Likewise Manny the wooly mammoth and Diego the sabre toothed tiger never mix with T. rex or Triceratops.

This cannot be explained away, except to say they were fossilised at different times.

The fact that Palaeontologists choose to label these cliques of animals as geological ages, is just a shorthand way of discussing the earth's past.

If a whole collection of these strange, ancient animals are found buried together, all around the globe, science wants an explanation. How do you account for this lack of mixing of fossils in strata?

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 07:51 AM
No more so than what you do accept. It still boils down to you having accepted THEIR premise. The Earth very simply is NOT millions or billions of years old and there is plenty of scientific evidence that proves it. The only reason to accept an ancient earth/cosmos is to make time for evolutionary and uniformitarian cosmologies. You cannot accept one without rejecting the other. It isn't the details that are the problem, it's the premises.

I accept that you believe this but I'm telling you that biblical cosmology is not rationally compatible with the idea that the universe is billions of years old. There is no way to get there without making the bible say something it doesn't say, or more correctly, making it not say something that it clearly does.

Clete

It seems the only science which has you worried is the science which dates the universe.
It is only in connection with this that you issue so many warnings about paradigm blindness.

So let's face your fear straight on.

You are going to explain old light.
Then you are going to explain how fossils sorted into strata.
Then, hopefully, you will accept that it was logical and spatially impossible for all the billions of organisms to have occupied the same niche (earth) at the same time.
Then you are going to do the scientific thing of accepting as a working hypothesis that Gen 1:2 just might be translated "And the earth BECAME without form and void".
Then you will reexamine fossil record and see that many times in the past, earth "became without form and void, and darkness covered the deep" such as the time of the mass extinction when a comet ploughed into earth wiping out the dinosaurs.
Then you will be pronounced cured of earth-might-be-old-phobia.

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 08:25 AM
HOW GENESIS 1 DESCRIBES A RECREATION AFTER A MASS EXTINCTION
I AM TYPING IN CAPS TO DIFFERENTIATE WHAT I AM WRITING FROM SCRIPTURE

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

WHENEVER THAT WAS

Gen 1:2
And the earth was (BECAME) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

DUE TO A MASS EXTINCTION.

And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

NOTICE, THE PERSPECTIVE IS THE SURFACE OF THE WATERS OR SURFACE OF THE EARTH.

Gen 1:3

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

GOD HAS CLEARED THE ATMOSPHERE AS SEEN FROM EARTH'S SURFACE SO THAT LIGHT FROM THE SUN BEGINS TO PENETRATE THE NUCLEAR-WINTER LIKE ATMOSPHERE OF EARTH.

Gen 1:4
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

NOW, ONE CAN NOTICE WHEN ITS DAY, AND NIGHT AS SEEN FROM THE SURFACE OF EARTH WHERE GOD'S SPIRIT IS MOVING. And the evening and the morning were the first day. NOW ONE CAN TELL ITS THE FIRST DAY AND NIGHT.

Gen 1:6

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

GOD CAUSES THE WATER TO DIVIDE INTO WATER VAPOUR (CLOUDS ABOVE) FROM THE LIQUID WATER IN THE SEAS BELOW. THIS LEAVES AN AREA OF CLEAR SKY SEPARATING THE THICK CLOUDS ABOVE FROM THE OCEANS BELOW.

Gen 1:7
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8
And God called the firmament Heaven. THE CLEAR SKY COMPRISES THE HEAVEN And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear:

GOD NOW CAUSES THE OCEAN TO SUBSIDE, OR THE LAND TO RISE, SUCH THAT THE LAND PUSHES OUT OF THE OCEAN. and it was so.

Gen 1:10
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

NOTICE THE REFERENCE TO FRUIT TREES OR ANGIOSPERMS, WHICH SHOW THIS IS THE LATEST OF THE GEOLOGICAL ERAS. FRUIT TREES ARE RECENT, AND SUITED TO MODERN HUMANS AND ANIMALS, AND POLLINATING INSECTS.

Gen 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GRASSES TOO ARE RECENT IN GEOLOGICAL TIME. THEY WERE NOT AROUND IN THE AGE OF THE DINOSAURS (I WILL CHECK THIS, BUT DINO'S ATE GYMNOSPERMS).

Gen 1:13
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 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:
Gen 1:15
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

THE ATMOSPHERE HAS CLEARED ENOUGH TO SEE THE MOON AND STARS SHINE THROUGH, AND GOD SETS THEM TO BE SEASONAL MARKERS FOR MAN WHOM HE PLANS TO CREATE SOON. THIS IS NOT REFERRING TO GOD CREATING SUN, MOON AND STARS AT THIS TIME. FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE SPIRIT HOVERING OVER THE WATERS, STARS CAN NOW BE SEEN AND ARE SET FOR SIGNS AND SEASONS, IN THE SAME WAY AS AFTER THE FLOOD THE RAINBOW (WHICH EXISTED PRE-FLOOD) NOW HAS SIGNIFICANCE AS A WITNESS TO GOD'S PROMISE. LIKEWISE THE MOON HAD LONG EXISTED, BUT NOW BECOMES A SIGN.

Gen 1:17
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:20

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

GOD CREATES MODERN FISH AND BIRDS.

Gen 1:21
And God created great whales,

WHALES ARE MODERN ANIMALS, PART OF THE MAMMAL GROUP WHICH DOMINATES THE OCEANS. IN DINO TIMES THERE WERE EQUIVALENT REPTILES THE SIZE OF WHALES, BUT NO WHALE SWAM WITH THESE.

...and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

GOD CREATES MODERN LAND ANIMALS LIKE CATTLE COMPATIBLE WITH MAN. THESE ARE DOMESTIC ANIMALS WHICH DID NOT EXIST TILL RECENTLY. GOD MADE ANIMALS WHICH MAN COULD EAT, AND WHICH WOULD NOT EAT HIM LIKE PAST ANIMALS.

Gen 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

HOMINIDS ARE ONLY FOUND VERY RECENTLY IN THE NEWEST STRATA. THIS TELLS US THAT THIS IS THE NEWEST RECREATION, OR EXPLOSION, AFTER THE LATEST MASS EXTINCTION.

Gen 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 1:29

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 3rd, 2017, 10:38 AM
Watchman, lets discuss the issue of whether time exists in the spirit realm, as it does in our realm.

I take it you won't just accept that a thousand years is like a day to God - meaning its still time.

I define time to be testable if effect follows cause. For instance if God created Lucifer before the physical universe, meaning in the spirit realm, then the effect is Lucifer which follows the process of creation.

Let's see if we agree that at first there was just the Godhead.
Then God created angels.
Then God created the universe, with the "sons of God" singing for joy.
Then Lucifer had a bad thought and turned to Satan.
Then God threw Satan down to the already created world.

Surely if God created the angels, it shows a cause and effect in the spirit realm.
Before - no angels.
After - angels.
If there is a before and after, time existed before the universe.

The meaning of a thousand years being like a day and visa versa is to do with prophesy. God's plan is that there shall be 6000 years of man's struggle and 1000 years of Sabbath rest with the Lord of the Sabbath, during Jesus' Millennial reign. This reflects the creation week and every week of our lives we are reminded of this plan (or at least those to whom it has been revealed).

Lucifer and all the angels were created on day 1 when God created the Heavens (which included the Spiritual Heaven) and they shouted for joy when God then created the Earth.

On day 6 Lucifer saw Adam and soon after God had finish on day 7 Lucifer began to realise what God had in mind and pride entered Lucifer. I actually believe this all happened very quickly. The creation week began the first year, in the month of Tishri and the fall of man happened on day 10, The Day of Atonement. God then declared there would be 6000 years of curse and His Son would return at the last trump which is on the Day of Atonement in the 120th Jubilee:

Lev 25
8“ ‘Count off seven Sabbath years—seven times seven years—so that the seven Sabbath years amount to a period of forty-nine years. 9 Then have the trumpet sounded everywhere on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement sound the trumpet throughout your land. 10 Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each of you is to return to your family property and to your own clan.

Genesis 6:3
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years."

In fact I believe it is the year 5988AM and the tribulation will begin in 2022AD. Not long to go:
https://guidetothebible.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/guidechronologylatest1.pdf

Ask Mr. Religion
November 3rd, 2017, 11:21 AM
That's why I don't accept the day-age theory, because it IS rubbish.

You continue to ignore the theological hopscotch (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?127180-True-science-and-true-religion-agree-together&p=5122434&viewfull=1#post5122434) required to support your view that I have pointed out time and again. Read me more carefully.

AMR

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 11:38 AM
The meaning of a thousand years being like a day and visa versa is to do with prophesy. God's plan is that there shall be 6000 years of man's struggle and 1000 years of Sabbath rest with the Lord of the Sabbath, during Jesus' Millennial reign. This reflects the creation week and every week of our lives we are reminded of this plan (or at least those to whom it has been revealed).

What you say may be true, but you do realise that what you have just said is not Gospel, but something you suppose. Putting 2Peter 3:8 and 10 together you could equally have said that the "day of the LORD" will last 1000 years.



Lucifer and all the angels were created on day 1 when God created the Heavens (which included the Spiritual Heaven) and they shouted for joy when God then created the Earth.

I thought God created light on the first day. I do not see where you get what you said above from.


On day 6 Lucifer saw Adam and soon after God had finish on day 7 Lucifer began to realise what God had in mind and pride entered Lucifer. I actually believe this all happened very quickly.

Lucifer was thrown out of heaven to land up on earth. Your scenario seems to have him there on earth from the start. I believe it took billions of years for Lucifer to fall. Lucifer was created before the heavens, and the heavens were created over 13.75 billion years ago.


The creation week began the first year, in the month of Tishri and the fall of man happened on day 10, The Day of Atonement. God then declared there would be 6000 years of curse and His Son would return at the last trump which is on the Day of Atonement in the 120th Jubilee:

Lev 25
8“ ‘Count off seven Sabbath years—seven times seven years—so that the seven Sabbath years amount to a period of forty-nine years. 9 Then have the trumpet sounded everywhere on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement sound the trumpet throughout your land. 10 Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each of you is to return to your family property and to your own clan.

Genesis 6:3
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years."

In fact I believe it is the year 5988AM and the tribulation will begin in 2022AD. Not long to go:
https://guidetothebible.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/guidechronologylatest1.pdf

Well don't neglect your teeth or stop planting trees because you are not the first to set a date and be wrong. Remember the great disappointment back in the 1840's.

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 3rd, 2017, 11:50 AM
That experiment does not prove what you suggest. Motion effects clocks, not time. If you don't believe that there is a difference then you simply don't know what you are talking about.

There is no better refutation of your position than this...

Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?34363-Summit-Clock-Experiment-2-0-Time-is-Absolute)

No, what I mean is that gravitational fields (or speed) affect the age of the matter. Not only are clock speeds affected but, for example, we would age faster, or slower, depending on the gravitational field strength (or speed we are travelling).

Time is intrinsically linked to space and matter. It is not just an abstract concept but part of God's creation. That is why He is out side of time.

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 3rd, 2017, 11:58 AM
What you say may be true, but you do realise that what you have just said is not Gospel, but something you suppose. Putting 2Peter 3:8 and 10 together you could equally have said that the "day of the LORD" will last 1000 years.

I thought God created light on the first day. I do not see where you get what you said above from.

Lucifer was thrown out of heaven to land up on earth. Your scenario seems to have him there on earth from the start. I believe it took billions of years for Lucifer to fall. Lucifer was created before the heavens, and the heavens were created over 13.75 billion years ago.

Well don't neglect your teeth or stop planting trees because you are not the first to set a date and be wrong. Remember the great disappointment back in the 1840's.

Yes light was created right after the Earth. Lucifer was not on the Earth on day one, he only saw it being made from Heaven.

As said God reveals this sort of thing to us which is different from reading it off the computer screen.

We are theologically divergent in these areas of course and I wish you and your teeth well too but I am not old enough to remember the 1840's.

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 12:04 PM
Time is intrinsically linked to space and matter. It is not just an abstract concept but part of God's creation. That is why He is out side of time.

Just as there is length, breadth, height and time, on earth, likewise it is in heaven. See Revelation and Ezek Ch 1-2.
Why do we have hands, because God has hands.
We look human, because God looks human.
Time on earth is like time in heaven.
Like on earth, so in heaven where things occur serially, meaning we are shown heaven to have everything occur serially, effect following cause.

What's heaven like? Like earth.
What is spirit like? Like earth.
God does not fall through his throne, because heaven is solid for spirit being made of spirit.
Its all so easy to understand.
When God made the material universe, he fashioned it after the spiritual universe, which too has time.

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 12:10 PM
Yes light was created right after the Earth. Lucifer was not on the Earth on day one, he only saw it being made from Heaven.

As said God reveals this sort of thing to us which is different from reading it off the computer screen.

We are theologically divergent in these areas of course and I wish you and your teeth well too but I am not old enough to remember the 1840's.

Every one of many attempts to predict the end has fallen flat to date. 100% failure rate.

God said the day and hour, no man knows.
But Sir Isaac Newton worked it out to be 2065. And I would not bet on him either.

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 3rd, 2017, 12:11 PM
Just as there is length, breadth, height and time, on earth, likewise it is in heaven. See Revelation and Ezek Ch 1-2.
Why do we have hands, because God has hands.
We look human, because God looks human.
Time on earth is like time in heaven.
Like on earth, so in heaven where things occur serially, meaning we are shown heaven to have everything occur serially, effect following cause.

What's heaven like? Like earth.
What is spirit like? Like earth.
God does not fall through his throne, because heaven is solid for spirit being made of spirit.
Its all so easy to understand.
When God made the material universe, he fashioned it after the spiritual universe, which too has time.

Yes I agree that there is time in Heaven but God (The Trinity) is outside of time.

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 3rd, 2017, 12:15 PM
Every one of many attempts to predict the end has fallen flat to date. 100% failure rate.

God said the day and hour, no man knows.
But Sir Isaac Newton worked it out to be 2065. And I would not bet on him either.

Betting is not very Christian so I wouldn't do that anyway but we will know who the true 'date setting' prophets are because they will say the tribulation will begin in 2022. Then when the tribulation does actually begin in that year the rest of the body of Christ should know for sure that Jesus will return in 2029.

Clete
November 3rd, 2017, 03:59 PM
When one looks at the night sky, every star one sees is closer than 6000 light years.
I have never seen with my own eyes, light older than 6000 years since I don't have a telescope.
But I have seen the photos Hubble took. And Hubble just kept looking further and further back in time at more and more distant galaxies. It was capturing photons which had been released billions of years ago.

Explain to me how you can look at distant star clusters and explain away the distance and hence time it took for light to get here. You claim to know science. There is no glass ceiling or barrier which exists at exactly 6000 light years from here. The universe is seamless and seemingly uniform. You know the speed of light is a constant. So how did light from so far get here so soon?

I do not know that the speed of light is constant.

Even if it is, there is nothing that prevents space itself from expanding at a much greater speed than light. The question is who or what did or is doing the stretching and when was it stretched.

Further, the distances to other galaxies are based on assumptions that may or may not be correct. Most all the distances "calculated" for far distant galaxies is based entirely on red-shift theory, which there is serious problems with.

There are other things that could be said on this topic that would, I think, be better suited to another thread. I'm not really interested in debating cosmology per se, at least not on this thread. I'm more interested in discussing the compatibility of theistic and naturalistic cosmologies - or the lack thereof. I think that the answers I've given adequately communicate the gist of how my theistic worldview deals with issues such as astronomical distances.

Clete

Clete
November 3rd, 2017, 04:06 PM
Clete, you know that the strata are laid down so that groups of organisms such as dinosaurs and their friends are together. Its like each stratum has its own clique of organisms. The dinosaurs and the seas during the dinosaurs were filled with reptiles. The Mesozoic clique of dinosaurs, for instance, never hangs out with the Palaeozoic clique of Trilobites. Likewise Manny the wooly mammoth and Diego the sabre toothed tiger never mix with T. rex or Triceratops.
Fossils are organized, roughly speaking, by size, not age.


This cannot be explained away, except to say they were fossilised at different times.
Only if you buy into THEIR premises - which is precisely my point. You clearly trust naturalistic science theory over the plain reading of scripture.


The fact that Palaeontologists choose to label these cliques of animals as geological ages, is just a shorthand way of discussing the earth's past.
It's quite a lot more than that. It isn't merely refering to a layer of dirt in the ground. It references and derives it's meaning from a geologic theory that presupposes that only natural processes had anything to do with Earth's past. You cannot accepts their conclusions without tacitly accepting their atheistic premises.


If a whole collection of these strange, ancient animals are found buried together, all around the globe, science wants an explanation. How do you account for this lack of mixing of fossils in strata?
Fossil stratification as well as a great many other geological things are explained quite well in...
The Hydroplate Theory (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview2.html)


Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
November 3rd, 2017, 04:20 PM
It seems the only science which has you worried is the science which dates the universe.
This was, frankly, a stupid thing to say.

I am not worried about anything. In fact, it isn't me fishing for an age of the universe, its the evolutionists (not just biological evolutionists). They are the one's who need an really old universe. I've got mounds of evidence that directly supports and even confirms my worldview. Just about every geocronometer you can come up with leaves the evolutionists scrambling to find 90+% of the age of the Earth, never mind the universe.


It is only in connection with this that you issue so many warnings about paradigm blindness.
I would agree that it is a central issue but it is not the only issue. No form of evolution, no matter how long it took can be made to correspond to the record in Genesis. It isn't just the period of time it took, its the order in which things occurred. If evolution is true, the bible isn't and vise versa.


So let's face your fear straight on.

You are going to explain old light.
Then you are going to explain how fossils sorted into strata.
Then, hopefully, you will accept that it was logical and spatially impossible for all the billions of organisms to have occupied the same niche (earth) at the same time.
Then you are going to do the scientific thing of accepting as a working hypothesis that Gen 1:2 just might be translated "And the earth BECAME without form and void".
Then you will reexamine fossil record and see that many times in the past, earth "became without form and void, and darkness covered the deep" such as the time of the mass extinction when a comet ploughed into earth wiping out the dinosaurs.
Then you will be pronounced cured of earth-might-be-old-phobia.
This is the sort of stupidity that I am actively avoiding by stating at the outset that I will not debate evolution with you. My entire point is that you are accepting the premise of atheism. I certainly will not be induced into accepting the false premises that you have clearly swallowed hook line and sinker. Every syllable to type along this line of thought is proof that what I've said is true and that you trust naturalistic (i.e. atheistic) science more than you trust God's word. It is not my burden to explain away the atheist worldview. If anything it would your burden to prove that such an atheistic worldview is compatible with what the bible teaches, which you cannot do without making the bible state things that it doesn't say and/or rending meaningless the claims that it clearly does make.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
November 3rd, 2017, 04:27 PM
No, what I mean is that gravitational fields (or speed) affect the age of the matter. Not only are clock speeds affected but, for example, we would age faster, or slower, depending on the gravitational field strength (or speed we are travelling).
It's clocks all the way down, watchman.

The aging process, is just another form of clock.


Time is intrinsically linked to space and matter. It is not just an abstract concept but part of God's creation. That is why He is out side of time.
No, clocks are intrinsically linked to space and matter - whatever that means.

Time is an idea - not a thing. Time is a convention of language that is used to communicate information about the duration and sequence of events. It doesn't not exist ontologically. Ideas are not effected by gravity fields.

This specific debate can be found and continued here (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?34363-Summit-Clock-Experiment-2-0-Time-is-Absolute).

You should, at the very least, read the opening post of that thread before going any further down this road. If you want to understand what a biblical worldview looks like in relation to the nature of time, that post is it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Ask Mr. Religion
November 3rd, 2017, 07:19 PM
Why do we have hands, because God has hands.


Yikes!

I have been wasting my time trying to take you seriously.

AMR

Ktoyou
November 3rd, 2017, 07:46 PM
This was, frankly, a stupid thing to say.

I am not worried about anything. In fact, it isn't me fishing for an age of the universe, its the evolutionists (not just biological evolutionists). They are the one's who need an really old universe. I've got mounds of evidence that directly supports and even confirms my worldview. Just about every geocronometer you can come up with leaves the evolutionists scrambling to find 90+% of the age of the Earth, never mind the universe.


I would agree that it is a central issue but it is not the only issue. No form of evolution, no matter how long it took can be made to correspond to the record in Genesis. It isn't just the period of time it took, its the order in which things occurred. If evolution is true, the bible isn't and vise versa.


This is the sort of stupidity that I am actively avoiding by stating at the outset that I will not debate evolution with you. My entire point is that you are accepting the premise of atheism. I certainly will not be induced into accepting the false premises that you have clearly swallowed hook line and sinker. Every syllable to type along this line of thought is proof that what I've said is true and that you trust naturalistic (i.e. atheistic) science more than you trust God's word. It is not my burden to explain away the atheist worldview. If anything it would your burden to prove that such an atheistic worldview is compatible with what the bible teaches, which you cannot do without making the bible state things that it doesn't say and/or rending meaningless the claims that it clearly does make.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I do not think he has enough understanding to be an atheist; he is either a :dunce: or a :troll:

Ktoyou
November 3rd, 2017, 07:49 PM
Yikes!

I have been wasting my time trying to take you seriously.

AMR

This would suggest he is more a :dunce: than a :troll: Yep!

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 08:51 PM
I had written "Why do we have hands, because God has hands." to which you responded...


Yikes!

I have been wasting my time trying to take you seriously.

AMR

I suppose that Christ sitting at the right hand of the Father is too simple for you to understand.

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 09:02 PM
Fossils are organized, roughly speaking, by size, not age.


Clete

Not at all. So hydrological sorting cannot explain fossils in layers.

Fossils are arranged ecosystem by ecosystem, with big AND small fossils together from THAT geological age/ecosystem.

The older light is, the more red-shifted it is because as the universe expands over time, so light is stretched slightly into the red wavelength or longer wavelength.
But thinking that the slight red shift of the universe affects the fact that light is very old, is actually to ignore FURTHER PROOF that light IS very old.

If you are not prepared to face the fossils, or the age of light, then (you will have to excuse me being blunt) you are willingly ignorant, since all you have to do is read a modern textbook.

Philosophy is all nice and fluffy, but facts keep us grounded.

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 09:11 PM
This would suggest he is more a :dunce: than a :troll: Yep!

Are you AMR's pilot fish?

Ktoyou
November 3rd, 2017, 09:22 PM
Are you AMR's pilot fish?

Good guess

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 09:27 PM
Good guess

Well Pilot Fish, do you have any original thoughts of your own on this topic?

Ktoyou
November 3rd, 2017, 09:29 PM
Well Pilot Fish, do you have any original thoughts of your own on this topic?

Yes, I do. I believe you are a moron.

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 09:38 PM
Yes, I do. I believe you are a moron.

You have already called me a dunce, so the above is not an original thought.

So, nothing??

Ktoyou
November 3rd, 2017, 09:45 PM
You have already called me a dunce, so the above is not an original thought.

So, nothing??
:wazzup:
Anyone who is so dumb to think of God in anthropomorphic terms is jut too much of a :dunce: to take seriously. Seems AMR figured that out and went 'yikes' and I bet he is gone now. With Clete you do not understand what he is talking about and do not care to know want he is talking about.

:listen:I seen you coming, believe me, or ask other members. I seem to know after a few posts who is a real cuckoo bird.

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 10:08 PM
:wazzup:
Anyone who is so dumb to think of God in anthropomorphic terms is jut too much of a :dunce: to take seriously.

So Pilot Fish, when God tells us to call Him "Father" which is an anthropomorphic term,you would be calling Him a dunce too?

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 10:31 PM
God created us "in his image, after His likeness".
So God is like us.
The Son is the image of the Father, and the Son came to earth to reveal the Father. Looking at the Son, we know that the Father is like us too.
Then, in the transfiguration, Christ looks like us, but glowing.
In Ezek chapters 1-2, 10 and Rev, when we are taken to heaven, we see the Father sitting on a throne, surrounded by light. But still He is like us, sitting like us, with a right hand, like us, and Christ sitting to His right, looking like us.

So God is not hard to understand, unless one goes to seminaries and theological colleges where they make everything simple, complicated.

Ask Mr. Religion
November 3rd, 2017, 11:19 PM
So God is not hard to understand, unless one goes to seminaries and theological colleges where they make everything simple, complicated.
For the benefit of those actually open to correction I will answer this while relying upon you as my foil...

I see. Seminaries bad. Sitting alone, "Just Me and My Bible" good. One wonders why you hold the Holy Spirit's illumination in you so much higher than the same Holy Spirit that dwells within others, especially those that have come before us. Rather, it is the last clause of a man's creed that belies its true spirit. He speaks authoritatively that no man should allow other men to speak authoritatively about Scripture. Sigh.

Instead if you held the opinions of others equally indwelled by the Holy Spirit you would understand the Scripture-based denunciations of Chalcedon on the matter of just exactly Who Jesus Christ is. He is the God-man, a Person possessing fully divine, fully human natures. That human nature of His possesses a glorified human body now, just as all believers will possess when we come into our glory at the eschaton. Does that make us God? No. The divinity of Our Lord has not changed because of the Incarnation. God still is omnipresent, just as God the Son was when walking about Israel, His divinity not confined to geography, and most certainly not present everywhere with hands and feet as He upheld the universe.

One need not be a seminarian to understand these things, but do not begrudge a man who happens to be seminary trained, nor our God Who gifts all according to their own capacities to instruct you that Jesus is glorified now, body and soul (1 Timothy 3:16). Jesus in His divine nature is omnipresent. Jesus in His human nature is in one place at one time. So Our Lord can say that He is with us to the end of the world, Matthew 28:18-20; and yet the heaven must receive Him until the times of restitution of all things, Acts 3:21.

Scripture teaches us that Christ continues forever to be united with our human nature. As a Man, He is still just like you or me, praise the Lord. He is still and forever theanthropos, the God-Man. Acts 3:21 teaches us that Christ is physically separated from us (as His bodily Ascension proved, and the angels' words afterward, Act.1:11) for "the heaven must receive [him] until the times of restoration of all things." As Hebrews explains so fully, He is the Mediator in the heavenly Temple, bearing our nature and His blood of it, before his Father. He is seated at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. He had the same body when He rose again that He had when He was laid in the tomb (albeit more glorified afterward). And we are promised to be "like him" in his resurrection. Unless your unsupported allegation is that we too will be unbounded by time or space in our resurrection bodies, then despite new abilities suitable to glorified bodies, physical locality is unavoidable. Locality certainly seems in Scripture to have been (and continue to be) the case with Jesus' resurrection life.

The Second Person of the Trinity still and forever does for us all that we need Him for, according to the properties of each of His indefectible and immutable natures. Christ's divinity—omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent—assures us that He will never be unable perfectly to assist us, and better than we can ask. Christ's humanity does not limit Him as a Person, but suits Him in heaven to remain for us a merciful and faithful high priest, until He brings us together forever to the glory of the Father. Meanwhile, Christ is not at all separate from us, but stays with us through the ministry of Holy Spirit, indeed closer than He was when He walked side by side with His disciples through this world.

One more time, summarizing, just to make sure you understand these things. Jesus Christ's body, since it is a human body, must have a particular location (human bodies always do) and for that reason cannot be ubiquitous. Which is to say that body was not everywhere; nor could it be so, yet remain human and localized, an essential quality of the human nature. The instrument of the Word's flesh was for the working of our redemption, while it did not confine God the Son according to His divine nature. He moved His body, while He also directed the movement of the whole universe. God the Son was present in his body, but also omnipresent.

Thus endeth the lesson. Amen.

AMR

Ktoyou
November 3rd, 2017, 11:24 PM
So Pilot Fish, when God tells us to call Him "Father" which is an anthropomorphic term,you would be calling Him a dunce too?

Your theme song?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCfC5yVlvj4

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 11:50 PM
God still is omnipresent, just as God the Son was when walking about Israel,..

Thus endeth the lesson. Amen.

AMR

Gen 18:20-21
And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21
I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

If God were omnipresent, He would not have to go down to Sodom and check it out. He would already be everywhere, including being in Sodom.
If God were omniscient, He would ALREADY know, not say "I WILL know".
And if God does not already know, then there is no predestination.

Three sacred cows slaughtered by two verses.

iouae
November 3rd, 2017, 11:53 PM
Your theme song?




I can see that speaking to you is like speaking to a pilot fish.

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 4th, 2017, 12:28 AM
It's clocks all the way down, watchman.

The aging process, is just another form of clock.


No, clocks are intrinsically linked to space and matter - whatever that means.

Time is an idea - not a thing. Time is a convention of language that is used to communicate information about the duration and sequence of events. It doesn't not exist ontologically. Ideas are not effected by gravity fields.

This specific debate can be found and continued here (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?34363-Summit-Clock-Experiment-2-0-Time-is-Absolute).

You should, at the very least, read the opening post of that thread before going any further down this road. If you want to understand what a biblical worldview looks like in relation to the nature of time, that post is it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I did read it, I'm not like most here who do not look at links, and I answered it too.

Time is an essential or natural part of the fabric of space. That why clocks run differently in that experiment and why we age at different rates too. If time was just an idea this wouldn't happen and it wouldn't be possible for God to exist outside of time.

chair
November 4th, 2017, 01:34 PM
You think Jesus was mistaken - that says it all.

Now I understand all your insulting comments on that calendar thread. Read the following carefully:
I am not Christian. I am an obeservant Jew.

So:
1. I don't have any problem in saying that Jesus was mistaken - or to be more precise, what is reported that Jesus said is mistaken.
2. This is why I have known the details of the Hebrew calendar since I was a child. Since you didn't know I was Jewish, I will gladly accept you apology on that one.

Ask Mr. Religion
November 4th, 2017, 03:26 PM
Gen 18:20-21
And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21
I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

If God were omnipresent, He would not have to go down to Sodom and check it out. He would already be everywhere, including being in Sodom.
If God were omniscient, He would ALREADY know, not say "I WILL know".
And if God does not already know, then there is no predestination.

Three sacred cows slaughtered by two verses.
As long as you are wandering about thinking God has hands and feet it is no wonder you adopt Marcion's incompetent God of the Old Testament (https://goo.gl/VtEH6M) who, in Gen 3:9, really did not know where Adam was; who, in Gen 18:21, really had to “go down” to Sodom to find out for Himself what went on there. Apparently God is not even omnipresent in your odd views for He is some sort of Mormon humanoid being. For that matter, even the casual open theist will admit God knows what is going on at present, so apparently you go further to declare God ignorant of what is happening at the moment, instead basing what He knows on some reports, and has to go investigate for Himself.

When such passages of Scripture seem to attribute ignorance to God, these refer, not to God’s actual knowledge, but to His use of that knowledge and the relation of that knowledge to His will and justice. God thus expresses himself,
1) in order to display His justice that He might not appear hurried on to vengeance by a blind fury;
2) to set forth His longsuffering, whereby God is not in haste to punish, though provoked by the obstinate wickedness of man; and
3) to set an example to magistrates in the administration of justice

That is my last lesson to you. You avoided dealing with the substance of my previous corrections. I can understand why that is. As I have demonstrated, you have very little understanding of these weighty matters, especially Hebraisms within Scripture, hence you are given over to all manner of heresy. Write less, study more. You are embarrassing yourself mightily.

AMR

iouae
November 4th, 2017, 09:39 PM
As long as you are wandering about thinking God has hands and feet it is no wonder you adopt Marcion's incompetent God of the Old Testament (https://goo.gl/VtEH6M) who, in Gen 3:9, really did not know where Adam was; who, in Gen 18:21, really had to go down to Sodom to find out for Himself what went on there. Apparently God is not even omnipresent in your odd views for He is some sort of Mormon humanoid being. For that matter, even the casual open theist will admit God knows what is going on at present, so apparently you go further to declare God ignorant of what is happening at the moment, instead basing what He knows on some reports, and has to go investigate for Himself.

When such passages of Scripture seem to attribute ignorance to God, these refer, not to Gods actual knowledge, but to His use of that knowledge and the relation of that knowledge to His will and justice. God thus expresses himself,
1) in order to display His justice that He might not appear hurried on to vengeance by a blind fury;
2) to set forth His longsuffering, whereby God is not in haste to punish, though provoked by the obstinate wickedness of man; and
3) to set an example to magistrates in the administration of justice

That is my last lesson to you. You avoided dealing with the substance of my previous corrections. I can understand why that is. As I have demonstrated, you have very little understanding of these weighty matters, especially Hebraisms within Scripture, hence you are given over to all manner of heresy. Write less, study more. You are embarrassing yourself mightily.

AMR

Well thanks for the robust discussion anyhow AMR.

I feel that all you are doing is trying to explain away plain scriptures.
God says this but you say He really means that. Or God says this but you say it was idiom for the exact opposite.

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 5th, 2017, 02:08 AM
Now I understand all your insulting comments on that calendar thread. Read the following carefully:
I am not Christian. I am an obeservant Jew.

So:
1. I don't have any problem in saying that Jesus was mistaken - or to be more precise, what is reported that Jesus said is mistaken.
2. This is why I have known the details of the Hebrew calendar since I was a child. Since you didn't know I was Jewish, I will gladly accept you apology on that one.

Well that makes more sense but the insults are to do with you insecurities, if you had Jesus in your life you would be more secure. I hope you will be thanking me shortly for helping to save your soul from Hell. So let's deal with your real and only issue, what do you make of Isaiah 53:

Isaiah 53
1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem. 4 Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgement he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished.b 9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the Lords will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. 11 After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied ; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,g and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

chair
November 5th, 2017, 02:43 AM
Well that makes more sense but the insults are to do with you insecurities, if you had Jesus in your life you would be more secure. I hope you will be thanking me shortly for helping to save your soul from Hell. So let's deal with your real and only issue, what do you make of Isaiah 53:

Isaiah 53
...

Sorry, I've done this many times before. With people who know how to have a discussion without constantly implying that the other guy is not so smart, or has insecurities, or whatever. Not to mention that this is way off topic.

If you want to convince me that I should become a Christian- start another thread. But you better have some better arguments than what I've seen so far.

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 5th, 2017, 02:51 AM
Sorry, I've done this many times before. With people who know how to have a discussion without constantly implying that the other guy is not so smart, or has insecurities, or whatever. Not to mention that this is way off topic.

If you want to convince me that I should become a Christian- start another thread. But you better have some better arguments than what I've seen so far.

Okay so tell me who Isaiah was talking about:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?127217-Don-t-be-Jewish-be-Christian&p=5123775#post5123775

iouae
November 6th, 2017, 02:09 AM
Moved

Clete
November 6th, 2017, 06:46 AM
I do not think he has enough understanding to be an atheist; he is either a :dunce: or a :troll:

Well, I'm not trying to suggest that he is an atheist but that he has tacitly accepted the premise of their worldview by attempting to mix their cosmology with Christianity.

Clete
November 6th, 2017, 06:48 AM
Not at all. So hydrological sorting cannot explain fossils in layers.

Fossils are arranged ecosystem by ecosystem, with big AND small fossils together from THAT geological age/ecosystem.

The older light is, the more red-shifted it is because as the universe expands over time, so light is stretched slightly into the red wavelength or longer wavelength.
But thinking that the slight red shift of the universe affects the fact that light is very old, is actually to ignore FURTHER PROOF that light IS very old.

If you are not prepared to face the fossils, or the age of light, then (you will have to excuse me being blunt) you are willingly ignorant, since all you have to do is read a modern textbook.

Philosophy is all nice and fluffy, but facts keep us grounded.

For the last time, I will not debate evolution with you - period.

Clete
November 6th, 2017, 06:49 AM
I did read it, I'm not like most here who do not look at links, and I answered it too.

Time is an essential or natural part of the fabric of space. That why clocks run differently in that experiment and why we age at different rates too. If time was just an idea this wouldn't happen and it wouldn't be possible for God to exist outside of time.

God does not exist outside of time. The idea itself is a contradiction. There's no way you read that post and if you did read it, you didn't understand it

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 6th, 2017, 11:23 AM
God does not exist outside of time. The idea itself is a contradiction. There's no way you read that post and if you did read it, you didn't understand it


Don't care if you don't believe me, I'm not here to impress you but I did find it well written, easy to understand and most amusing. I agree with everything it said except the guy failed to see/mention that GF's/speed affect's human ageing too, believing clocks alone are affected is irrational.

way 2 go
November 6th, 2017, 02:38 PM
There was death and suffering before Adam's sin!!!

When Paul says that through one man, death entered the world, he was speaking of human death. Or don't you believe Adam and Eve stepped on an ant, or squashed a bug? And did all those fish in the sea not eat other fish? One has to break every law of common sense to misunderstand and read more into Paul than he ever meant to say.




Well thanks for the robust discussion anyhow AMR.

I feel that all you are doing is trying to explain away plain scriptures.
God says this but you say He really means that. Or God says this but you say it was idiom for the exact opposite.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/oh-really-now.gif

iouae
November 7th, 2017, 01:09 AM
For the last time, I will not debate evolution with you - period.

Will you maybe tell me what's the coolest thing you have seen through your telescope?

Clete
November 7th, 2017, 07:18 AM
Don't care if you don't believe me, I'm not here to impress you but I did find it well written, easy to understand and most amusing. I agree with everything it said except the guy failed to see/mention that GF's/speed affect's human ageing too, believing clocks alone are affected is irrational.

The aging process is just another clock.

I don't understand people like you. How do you just gloss over the actual arguments, ignoring them in favor of some detail that doesn't even address the argument?

How for example is it that you would quote my post and its only the third sentence that you write any response too? How do either of the first two sentences pass by without triggering a response from someone on a theology forum? The claim the God does not exist outside of time seems like it should be rather Earth shaking to anyone who had just used it as an argument in favor of the atheistic theory of relativity and aren't you even a little curious about how existence outside of time is a contradiction?

I mean, are you even interested in discussing the Christian worldview or is it your purpose to defend the naturalistic cosmology of the unbelieving world?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
November 7th, 2017, 07:30 AM
Will you maybe tell me what's the coolest thing you have seen through your telescope?

For just straight looking with your eyes through the scope, the solar system objects are by far the coolest. The Moon, Saturn and Jupiter are very impressive. If you have a camera, the deep space objects are even better though because with camera you get the color and you can see some really amazing things. Deep space objects are still cool to look at directly through the scope but they just look grey with your eye. My old set up only really allowed me to get half way descent photos of the Moon but I'm hoping to be able to get better images of objects like the Andromeda galaxy and several other deep space objects with this new mount I purchased a few weeks ago. My camera is still not really up to snuff but you've gotta paint with the brushes you've got.

Why do you ask?

Do you understand why I don't want to debate evolution - how such a debate would be to ignore the real point of your own thread?


Clete

Hawkins
November 7th, 2017, 07:55 AM
Humans are creatures of the present. Humans have no ability to know the past, they have no ability to know the future. That's why you can't tell what you yourself did today but a year ago.

Science is about a set of rules behind a repeating behavior. Science can be accurate because we have infinitive number of times for us to speculate and observe and predict how this behavior repeats itself in front of us and into the future. We don't fart our satellites randomly in the hope that randomness will bring it to the surface of the moon. Instead it is the law of physics which allows us to predict that we can land on the surface of the moon before we actually launch our rockets. And whenever the mission failed, we won't say that it's mistake of the theory. It's always the fault of human errors, miscalculations, equipment errors, unpredictable factors. The law of physics on the other hand will never be at fault in terms of making such a prediction (a projection into the future). In this case, the law of physics predicts without mistakes. That's what the nature of science is and why it is accurate.

Science however is not an accurate tool to examine a single event in the past or in the future. We don't have any suitable tool for us to do so. It's the lack of suitable means for us to examine into both the past and future, which drives us to employ science to do the job. It's not because science is the suitable it's rather because we don't have any suitable tool at all.

That being said, evolution is assumed to be a repeatable behavior thus we have a valid scientific premise or hypothesis. However evolution (if exists) is a process which takes millions of years to repeat itself. We don't have the time to speculate to observe and to predict infinitive number of times for us to come to a scientific conclusion. We (human scientists) thus gave up the scientific approach to get to a scientific conclusion. What we do is the same as how we employ science to try to examine the past. In this case, science is never a suitable tool, we don't have one at all which drives us to have to employ science to do the unsuitable job.

The Big Bang Theory is in a similar situation. Big Bang can be assumed to be a repeatable behavior, that is, the same Big Bang may occur repeatedly in a multiverse model. However, we don't have the time to speculate, observe, predict infinitive number of times to get to a scientific conclusion. Thus we have to employ science as the unsuitable tool to try to examine into to past.


An analogy is, we identify a qualified pilot by looking into predictably how he can launch and land a plane. We predict that he drives an airplane from the airport of Paris to the airport of New York, and when this prediction comes to pass repeatedly that we can be assured that he's a qualified pilot. This is a result of a repeatable end-to-end speculation, observation and prediction.

The other approach is that we see a human sitting in the cockpit of the plane, we observe his behavior inside the cockpit to come to the conclusion that he's a qualified pilot. This is the approach of evolution (or worse, we examine his fingerprints left inside the cockpit to conclude that he's a qualified pilot).

iouae
November 7th, 2017, 09:42 AM
For just straight looking with your eyes through the scope, the solar system objects are by far the coolest. The Moon, Saturn and Jupiter are very impressive. If you have a camera, the deep space objects are even better though because with camera you get the color and you can see some really amazing things. Deep space objects are still cool to look at directly through the scope but they just look grey with your eye. My old set up only really allowed me to get half way descent photos of the Moon but I'm hoping to be able to get better images of objects like the Andromeda galaxy and several other deep space objects with this new mount I purchased a few weeks ago. My camera is still not really up to snuff but you've gotta paint with the brushes you've got.

Why do you ask?

Do you understand why I don't want to debate evolution - how such a debate would be to ignore the real point of your own thread?


Clete

I think it wonderful that you have these instruments to study the night sky.

Please post some photographs when you get it all set up.

Astronomy is fascinating.

iouae
November 7th, 2017, 09:56 AM
Science however is not an accurate tool to examine a single event in the past or in the future.


I can see that you respect science, while acknowledging it has limits.

To pick on just one sentence you wrote.

A telescope IS a time machine. When we look at the moon, we see it as it was 1.3 seconds ago.
The sun we see as it was 8 minutes ago.
I love looking at Pleiades, but I am seeing Pleiades as they were 444 years ago.
Orion I see as it was 1360 years ago.

And with Hubble deep space telescope, I can see what the universe looked like 13 billion years ago.

And they are building a better telescope which will take us back to the moment when the very first stars started forming from hydrogen.

Hawkins
November 7th, 2017, 09:59 AM
I can see that you respect science, while acknowledging it has limits.

To pick on just one sentence you wrote.

A telescope IS a time machine. When we look at the moon, we see it as it was 1.3 seconds ago.
The sun we see as it was 8 minutes ago.
I love looking at Pleiades, but I am seeing Pleiades as they were 444 years ago.
Orion I see as it was 1360 years ago.

And with Hubble deep space telescope, I can see what the universe looked like 13 billion years ago.

And they are building a better telescope which will take us back to the moment when the very first stars started forming from hydrogen.

No. True science doesn't work this way.

The approach you mentioned here is under the assumption that humans understand what time is as a physics quantity while as a matter of scientific fact, no human does! Just as Einstein once put, time is not a stable physics unit, instead speed/velocity is!

We can't know what this means in terms of human conception. So before we do our speculation (which is inside the cockpit in my analogy) we have to assume that time is a stable physics unit which progresses evenly forward, under the consent that this assumption is not a scientific truth!

iouae
November 7th, 2017, 10:25 AM
No. True science doesn't work this way.

The approach you mentioned here is under the assumption that humans understand what time is as a physics quantity while as a matter of scientific fact, no human does! Just as Einstein once put, time is not a stable physics unit, instead speed/velocity is!

We can't know what this means in terms of human conception. So before we do our speculation (which is inside the cockpit in my analogy) we have to assume that time is a stable physics unit which progresses evenly forward, under the consent that this assumption is not a scientific truth!

As I understand Einstein, he said that the speed of light (c) is constant for every observer.
Time speeds up, or slows down to accommodate the fact that the speed of light is constant.

If c is constant, which all reputable science has proved it is, then my post above on a telescope being an accurate time machine, is true. I have never heard an astronomer or cosmologist say otherwise.

I say that religious folks don't need to fight scientific fact that the universe is ancient.
Religious folks must instead look to themselves, and acknowledge that they are wrong in their interpretation of scripture. Scripture nowhere says how old the universe is. Bishop Usher and those counting the "begats" mistakenly thing that Genesis 1 is describing the original formation of earth. Its not. Its describing the replenishing of earth after a mass extinction.

To give but one "proof". Earth is full of igneous rock, or rock formed under fire.
Nowhere in Genesis or the last 6000 years has earth been subjected to large-scale fire, except in a few volcanoes, which produce igneous rock or lava.

Science explains that earth was originally a molten ball which slowly cooled down over 4.5 billion years. That's where so much igneous rock comes from.

Thank God we live in an age when "knowledge shall be increased" when we can know so much, including about the origin of the universe. With a big enough telescope, we will almost be able to see how, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 7th, 2017, 11:16 AM
The aging process is just another clock.

I don't understand people like you. How do you just gloss over the actual arguments, ignoring them in favor of some detail that doesn't even address the argument?

How for example is it that you would quote my post and its only the third sentence that you write any response too? How do either of the first two sentences pass by without triggering a response from someone on a theology forum? The claim the God does not exist outside of time seems like it should be rather Earth shaking to anyone who had just used it as an argument in favor of the atheistic theory of relativity and aren't you even a little curious about how existence outside of time is a contradiction?

I mean, are you even interested in discussing the Christian worldview or is it your purpose to defend the naturalistic cosmology of the unbelieving world?

Resting in Him,
Clete

I did respond. If missed something please tell me what I missed. Also I wonder if you understood me correctly, because I said 'God does exist outside of time.'

God created everything, including time which is a physical property of the universe.

Clete
November 7th, 2017, 02:53 PM
I did respond. If missed something please tell me what I missed. Also I wonder if you understood me correctly, because I said 'God does exist outside of time.'

God created everything, including time which is a physical property of the universe.

God did not create time. He does NOT exist outside of time. God only exists "in" time in the sense that everything else that exists does. Time is the duration and sequence of events - it is not a place - it is a concept. The concept of existence presupposes duration. Therefore, to say that anything exists outside of time is to contradict yourself.

Formally, it is known as a stolen concept fallacy. It happens when you affirm one concept while denying another concept upon which the affirmed concept is rationally predicated. The clearest example is when someone makes the claim that, "All private property is theft." The claim is contrary to private property but affirms the concept of theft which is predicated on the concept of private property. It, thereby, "steals" the concept of theft because you can't use the concept of theft while denying the validity of private property because concept of theft derives it's meaning from the concept of private property.


The claim that, "God exists outside of time." makes the same error. It steals the concept of existence because it denies that the concept of time applies to God while affirming that the concept of existence which presupposes time, does apply to God.

A thing that does not experience time has no duration - (definition of 'time').
A thing that has no duration does not exist - (definition of 'exist').
God does exist - (Presupposition of theistic worldview).
Therefore, God experiences duration.
Therefore, God experiences time.

Now, you asked what you hadn't responded too. All of the above.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
November 7th, 2017, 03:19 PM
As I understand Einstein, he said that the speed of light (c) is constant for every observer.
Time speeds up, or slows down to accommodate the fact that the speed of light is constant.

If c is constant, which all reputable science has proved it is, then my post above on a telescope being an accurate time machine, is true. I have never heard an astronomer or cosmologist say otherwise.

I say that religious folks don't need to fight scientific fact that the universe is ancient.
Religious folks must instead look to themselves, and acknowledge that they are wrong in their interpretation of scripture. Scripture nowhere says how old the universe is. Bishop Usher and those counting the "begats" mistakenly thing that Genesis 1 is describing the original formation of earth. Its not. Its describing the replenishing of earth after a mass extinction.

To give but one "proof". Earth is full of igneous rock, or rock formed under fire.
Nowhere in Genesis or the last 6000 years has earth been subjected to large-scale fire, except in a few volcanoes, which produce igneous rock or lava.

Science explains that earth was originally a molten ball which slowly cooled down over 4.5 billion years. That's where so much igneous rock comes from.

Thank God we live in an age when "knowledge shall be increased" when we can know so much, including about the origin of the universe. With a big enough telescope, we will almost be able to see how, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
For example, it is a gross overstatement to say that science explains that the Earth was originally a molten ball which slowly cooled down over 4.5 billion years. This is a theory. A theory born out of an atheistic, evolutionary worldview, NOT from scientific data! You are confusing what you see on The Science Channel for actual science. There are so many holes in this particular theory, by the way, that it's laughable that anyone with any education even accepts it at all. But you present it as scientific fact when most scientists will even acknowledge that it is a mere theory even if they don't acknowledge the gaping holes in it.

If this is the sort of thing that you consider "true science" you're fooling yourself far worse that I had originally expected. You're not even attempting to maintain a Christian worldview at all. You effectively want to be an atheist who believes in God. Could there be anything more self-contradictory than that?

Clete

Clete
November 7th, 2017, 03:31 PM
I think it wonderful that you have these instruments to study the night sky.

Please post some photographs when you get it all set up.

Astronomy is fascinating.

I only have two decent photos so far. They are both of the Moon and they were taken with my old set up. I posted one of them below (the other is too big of a file and it won't let me post it here). Assuming I can pull it off with the camera I've got, I'll post some more whenever I get some good ones.

26019

iouae
November 7th, 2017, 10:10 PM
I only have two decent photos so far. They are both of the Moon and they were taken with my old set up. I posted one of them below (the other is too big of a file and it won't let me post it here). Assuming I can pull it off with the camera I've got, I'll post some more whenever I get some good ones.

26019

Absolutely beautiful photograph, totally clear. Every month I look out for the full moon, and never get tired of seeing it rise soon after sunset.

iouae
November 7th, 2017, 10:26 PM
I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
For example, it is a gross overstatement to say that science explains that the Earth was originally a molten ball which slowly cooled down over 4.5 billion years. This is a theory. A theory born out of an atheistic, evolutionary worldview, NOT from scientific data! You are confusing what you see on The Science Channel for actual science. There are so many holes in this particular theory, by the way, that it's laughable that anyone with any education even accepts it at all. But you present it as scientific fact when most scientists will even acknowledge that it is a mere theory even if they don't acknowledge the gaping holes in it.

If this is the sort of thing that you consider "true science" you're fooling yourself far worse that I had originally expected. You're not even attempting to maintain a Christian worldview at all. You effectively want to be an atheist who believes in God. Could there be anything more self-contradictory than that?

Clete

The continents are moving apart at about six inches a year. They are pushed apart by magma bubbling out of the middle of the ocean in mid ocean ridges, such as Reykjanes Ridge.

The polarity of the earth is recorded in this newly cooled rock. This rock records hundreds of magnetic pole reversals over time. This means that the N pole becomes the S pole. For all of human history, the last 6000 years, our N pole was always in the N. But if the rock shows hundreds of polar reversals, this indicates igneous rock (molten rock) layed down over long periods of time, during which, the poles have reversed repeatedly. This is but one proof of an ancient earth.

The alternative is that earth was created 6000 years ago with what APPEARED to be cooled igneous rock, but God just made this rock cold from the start, whereas today, igneous rock is always laid down in molten state.

Then God laid down multiple layers of sedimentary rock, complete with fossils (I am still being sarcastic). Sedimentary rocks are always formed from grains of sand which cement together over time. But God created these instantly, on top of igneous rock (already cool) all at one time 6000 years ago. So God deliberately misled us. Likewise, God created the universe with light from distant stars, able to reach us by speeding up light.

Or why not accept that old looking light is old.
And old looking strata, are old.
And fossil layers with weird and wonderful worlds could not all be explained by a world only 6000 years old.
Because no human ever walked with dinosaurs.

Watch "Survival with Bear Grilse", or "Naked and Afraid", and you realise that Adam and Eve, banished to live in the sticks, can barely survive, without having to deal with T. rex also.

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 8th, 2017, 04:02 AM
God did not create time. He does NOT exist outside of time. God only exists "in" time in the sense that everything else that exists does. Time is the duration and sequence of events - it is not a place - it is a concept. The concept of existence presupposes duration. Therefore, to say that anything exists outside of time is to contradict yourself.

Formally, it is known as a stolen concept fallacy. It happens when you affirm one concept while denying another concept upon which the affirmed concept is rationally predicated. The clearest example is when someone makes the claim that, "All private property is theft." The claim is contrary to private property but affirms the concept of theft which is predicated on the concept of private property. It, thereby, "steals" the concept of theft because you can't use the concept of theft while denying the validity of private property because concept of theft derives it's meaning from the concept of private property.


The claim that, "God exists outside of time." makes the same error. It steals the concept of existence because it denies that the concept of time applies to God while affirming that the concept of existence which presupposes time, does apply to God.

A thing that does not experience time has no duration - (definition of 'time').
A thing that has no duration does not exist - (definition of 'exist').
God does exist - (Presupposition of theistic worldview).
Therefore, God experiences duration.
Therefore, God experiences time.

Now, you asked what you hadn't responded too. All of the above.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Yes I did because this has been the debate from the start.

The problem is that you don't seem to be able to see the difference between the time God created and the time man created.

These are two separate things and you are applying the man made concept of time to God, which is fine I suppose is fine because it's only a concept and not a substantial property and therefore is ultimately inconsequential.

But God's time applies only to his creation and it directly affects the rest of creation because it is an intrinsic physical property of the universe.

Clete
November 8th, 2017, 07:45 AM
The continents are moving apart at about six inches a year. They are pushed apart by magma bubbling out of the middle of the ocean in mid ocean ridges, such as Reykjanes Ridge.
This is part and parcel of a paradigm known as uniformitarianism. It is also a theory that is fraught with problems and yet you present it as scientific fact. All of the actual data can be quite nicely explained from within a decidedly Christian worldview that is not only totally consistent with the data but is also consistent with the biblical record. In spite of the gist of your opening post, I'm pretty sure at this point that you aren't at all interested in that sort of thing at all. You're a secular science junky that is simply clinging to your religious beliefs in spite of yourself.


The polarity of the earth is recorded in this newly cooled rock. This rock records hundreds of magnetic pole reversals over time. This means that the N pole becomes the S pole. For all of human history, the last 6000 years, our N pole was always in the N. But if the rock shows hundreds of polar reversals, this indicates igneous rock (molten rock) layed down over long periods of time, during which, the poles have reversed repeatedly. This is but one proof of an ancient earth.
It isn't proof of any such thing except that you have totally accepted their naturalistic (i.e. atheistic) premise. Science can't even tell you why the Earth has a magnetic field to begin with. The things they'll tell you about geodynamos are guesses and their models do a poor job of predicting magnetic field strengths. They do not understand the processes involved, they have no idea how a magnetic field could survive based on internal planetary heat for billions of years and have no explanation whatsoever for why the Earth's magnetic field is diminishing in strength at an exponential rate.

They very simply do not know the things you present here as hard fact. You just believe everything your told by the atheists and are literally Hell bent on figuring out a way to twist the clear testimony of Scripture to agree with their atheistic worldview and guess work.


The alternative is that earth was created 6000 years ago with what APPEARED to be cooled igneous rock, but God just made this rock cold from the start, whereas today, igneous rock is always laid down in molten state.
That is one alternative but even this presupposes the validity of THEIR interpretation of the data! You've given up ALL of the ground that theism of any sort, never mind Christianity, has to stand on. The fact is that pole reversal is a theory and not a very good one at that. It has NOT been proven and the data they use to leap to such a conclusions is inconsistent at best and very much cherry picked and universally interpreted from within an naturalistic, uniformitarian, atheistic paradigm.
There are real alternatives (http://www.icr.org/article/earths-young-magnetic-field/)!


Then God laid down multiple layers of sedimentary rock, complete with fossils (I am still being sarcastic). Sedimentary rocks are always formed from grains of sand which cement together over time. But God created these instantly, on top of igneous rock (already cool) all at one time 6000 years ago. So God deliberately misled us. Likewise, God created the universe with light from distant stars, able to reach us by speeding up light.
No Christian could even utter these words. This shows, not only a near complete lack of understanding of the current Christian cosmology and worldview in general, but also a level of rank stupidity that makes me rethink the fruitfulness of even continuing this conversation. This IS the atheist's argument! None of this makes any sense whatsoever except from WITHIN the atheist's worldview. It's all, flat out, 100% question begging stupidity!


Or why not accept that old looking light is old.
And old looking strata, are old.
And fossil layers with weird and wonderful worlds could not all be explained by a world only 6000 years old.
Because no human ever walked with dinosaurs.

Watch "Survival with Bear Grilse", or "Naked and Afraid", and you realise that Adam and Eve, banished to live in the sticks, can barely survive, without having to deal with T. rex also.
You are not a Christian at all! Just who is it that you're trying to fool here?

I don't accept the atheistic worldview because I am not an atheist! Light does not look old unless you buy into the atheist's premises. Strata do not look old unless you buy into the atheists premises. Fossil layers can totally be explained by a 6000 year old Earth unless you buy into the atheists premises!

You are a functioning atheist, no matter what else you claim to believe in. You are accepting every premise of the unbeliever as well as the conclusions that are based upon them. You've bought the lie and now want to turn God into a liar. Shame on you!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
November 8th, 2017, 08:02 AM
Yes I did because this has been the debate from the start.

The problem is that you don't seem to be able to see the difference between the time God created and the time man created.

These are two separate things and you are applying the man made concept of time to God, which is fine I suppose is fine because it's only a concept and not a substantial property and therefore is ultimately inconsequential.

But God's time applies only to his creation and it directly affects the rest of creation because it is an intrinsic physical property of the universe.

Simply making a claim is not a response to an argument.

Repeating that claim when someone restates the argument doesn't count as a response either.

I've directed you to a very well fleshed out argument that you may have read but totally ignored. You're coming back here to repeat your position doesn't count as "an answer" to that argument.

I have personally presented a rather formal argument in the syllogistic form so as to be totally clear and now you show up to repeat your bald claims as though doing so refutes a syllable of the argument I've presented.

This is not how debate works. If you cannot demonstrate that there is a false premise in my argument or that there is a flaw in the logic then your position has been rationally defeated.


Prediction: You won't even make an attempt to refute the argument.


Clete

iouae
November 8th, 2017, 09:03 AM
Fossil layers can totally be explained by a 6000 year old Earth unless you buy into the atheists premises!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Then please explain fossils by a 6000 year old earth. I am all ears.

When Galileo explained that the earth goes around the sun, the church and the Pope had the same sort of rant that you went on, that Galileo could not possibly be a Christian.

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 8th, 2017, 10:02 AM
Simply making a claim is not a response to an argument.

Repeating that claim when someone restates the argument doesn't count as a response either.

I've directed you to a very well fleshed out argument that you may have read but totally ignored. You're coming back here to repeat your position doesn't count as "an answer" to that argument.

I have personally presented a rather formal argument in the syllogistic form so as to be totally clear and now you show up to repeat your bald claims as though doing so refutes a syllable of the argument I've presented.

This is not how debate works. If you cannot demonstrate that there is a false premise in my argument or that there is a flaw in the logic then your position has been rationally defeated.


Prediction: You won't even make an attempt to refute the argument.


Clete

You say very little with a lot of words. Suffice to say we believe different things about the nature of time. Get over it.

Clete
November 8th, 2017, 10:22 AM
Then please explain fossils by a 6000 year old earth. I am all ears.

You're anything but all ears.

Fossils form quickly (https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/how-fast-fossils-rock-layers/).

Read that whole article! Here's a single paragraph from it...


"Many people think that if Christians could only accept great age, they’d have no problem with science. Actually, they would have no problem with evolution, but lots of problems with science! Gould lamented that geologists are constantly reporting ecological interpretations of fossil deposits, but he said they should quit doing that, because the time scale is all wrong for evolution. Perhaps the ecological interpretations—based on actual physical evidence—are correct, and it’s the evolutionary time scale—based on faith in evolution—that’s wrong! Belief in great age and slow change make it very difficult to understand many physical features of our earth."

Additionally, the layers the fossils are found in and the fossils themselves are not nearly as old as evolutionary scientists claim. Both the layers and the fossils themselves have been found to contain Carbon 14, which evolutionary scientists don't even bother to look for in fossils because it has a half life of 5730 years and so shouldn't even exist at all after only several thousand years, never mind millions or billions of years. The fact is, however, that it is there and seems to indicate that not only are they not billions of years old but that they are all roughly the same age, precisely what one would expect if biblical history is true.

There is so just so much that you have no clue about it's laughable! If you want to be a Christian, one of the first things you need to do is to reject the mindset of the unbelieving world. The very same God who recorded the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the very same God who recorded Noah's flood and the rest of biblical history. If one is a lie, they both are. You cannot eat your cake and have it too. If you do not repent of this glaringly obvious error, it will shipwreck your faith, if it hasn't already done so.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
November 8th, 2017, 10:32 AM
You say very little with a lot of words. Suffice to say we believe different things about the nature of time. Get over it.

Prediction fulfilled!


You can believe anything you want. You can believe in purple unicorns and fairy dust that makes you fly but it doesn't make it so.

Why are you wanting me to "get over it"? You're the one who brought it up! This website exists for the purposes of debate. If you aren't interested in debating, what are you even doing here?

If you want to believe atheistic interpretations of scientific data as well as their mathematical imaginings, then stop calling yourself a Christian, especially if you aren't prepared to defend those beliefs when they are rationally challenged. It would be better if you just admitted that you don't know what you're talking about and haven't spent much if any time thinking these issues through apart from the time you've spent watching cable television. As it is you make yourself look ridiculous and you hand over ammunition to the enemy.

Clete

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 8th, 2017, 11:03 AM
Prediction fulfilled!


You can believe anything you want. You can believe in purple unicorns and fairy dust that makes you fly but it doesn't make it so.

Why are you wanting me to "get over it"? You're the one who brought it up! This website exists for the purposes of debate. If you aren't interested in debating, what are you even doing here?

If you want to believe atheistic interpretations of scientific data as well as their mathematical imaginings, then stop calling yourself a Christian, especially if you aren't prepared to defend those beliefs when they are rationally challenged. It would be better if you just admitted that you don't know what you're talking about and haven't spent much if any time thinking these issues through apart from the time you've spent watching cable television. As it is you make yourself look ridiculous and you hand over ammunition to the enemy.

Clete

If you believe that then you can't be a Christian because being a Christian depends on your belief in Jesus and not your belief about the nature of time:

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

iouae
November 8th, 2017, 11:55 AM
You're anything but all ears.

Fossils form quickly (https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/how-fast-fossils-rock-layers/).

Additionally, the layers the fossils are found in and the fossils themselves are not nearly as old as evolutionary scientists claim. Both the layers and the fossils themselves have been found to contain Carbon 14, which evolutionary scientists don't even bother to look for in fossils because it has a half life of 5730 years and so shouldn't even exist at all after only several thousand years, never mind millions or billions of years. The fact is, however, that it is there and seems to indicate that not only are they not billions of years old but that they are all roughly the same age, precisely what one would expect if biblical history is true.

There is so just so much that you have no clue about it's laughable!
Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete, it sounds to me like you are using C14 dating to prove a point. Mostly YEC refute C14 as totally inaccurate, and I agree that it is largely worthless, for the reason you gave, its short half life. C14 is never used to date fossils older than a few thousand years old, and even then testing the same mammoth will give thousands of years difference for the two tests.

Science has its pure science (like the indisputable speed of light) and its "so called" science (1 Ti 6:20) like the theory of evolution. We have to tell the two apart. And calling me names is very unscientific, and counterproductive, and more like the church in the Dark Ages calling everything they cannot explain "witchcraft".

To quote from the link you provided and their explanation of the sorting of fossils into strata, here is a quote...

For scientists called flood geologists or catastrophists, the “major layers” or systems in the geologic column are eco-sedimentary zones, the remains of various ecological groups living in the pre-Flood world. The first creatures buried in greatest abundance in the rising Flood waters would be the heavy-shelled, bottom-dwelling sea creatures, and these would be followed successively by near shore forms and swimmers, then lowland plants and animals, and finally upland forms, with sea creatures found in all the systems of the geologic column as the waters finally covered everything. When the mountains rose and the valleys sank down (Ps. 104:8) at the end of the Flood, the continents were covered with layers of fossils formed as stages in the burial of eco-sedimentary zones during the catastrophe of Noah’s flood (Figure 32).

This "explanation" is laughable. Worldwide, the same organisms are found above each other, and this joker writes that "the remains of various ecological groups living in the pre-Flood world."

So worldwide the same fossils are found organised one group above another, yet he is saying that each ecosystem on earth got buried one after the other in order. Then why are the fossils found worldwide if local colonies were buried locally?

I cannot untangle the mangrove swamp of this writer's mind, neither do I need to, because hopefully you have a bull detector, and hopefully statements like the above get you hot and sweaty.

6days
November 8th, 2017, 12:13 PM
True science and true religion support each other.
False science will at times, oppose true religion.
False religion will at times, oppose true science.
And, obviously, false science and false religion, may or may not agree - all bets are off.

Concerning Creation, science and religion seem at loggerheads.
Science says the universe is 13.75 billion years old.
Religion says the universe is 6000 years old.
Science says we got here by evolution.
Religion says we were created.

The chasm seems so wide, that many have given up trying to bridge the divide.
This thread hopes to reconcile science and religion concerning the above issues.

I consider that the blame for the divide is 50% pseudo-science's fault and 50% pseudo-religion's fault.

Googling "how many species on earth today" one gets the answer 8.7 million.

Whatever the true number, God has devoted a lot of time and thought into creating all these fantastically wonderful and diverse plants and animals, and it must have taken even Him, a lot of time to think these up.

I know there are some here who think that God just somehow knows everything, implying that God expended very little effort thinking up these organisms, and making sure they function as planned. They think God does not need to do any planning, since God just somehow comes knowing everything.

I am not of that school. I believe God has existed eternally, and a lot of that time has been devoted to thinking up and creating these plants and animals. This means of course that God learns, which topic was discussed on another thread which I started. I believe that as God learns, or as His interest changes, so He created different creatures throughout earths history.

The fossil record in the rocks is a snapshot of what occupied God's interest in the long history of the earth. I am an old earth creationist, believing in a universe which is 13.75 billion years old, where, 500 million years ago, God suddenly in one event, populated the earth with most of the Phyla of animals that now exist. I believe that if Christians knew the truth of this Cambrian explosion, they would be able to silence the evolutionists right there. Later, I will explain how the Bible nowhere says earth is just 6000 years old. Here pseudo-religion has made Christians sound ignorant.

There have been many explosions of life on earth. Modern man exploded onto earth 6000 years ago in the form of Adam and Eve. But before that there were many mass extinctions, including the aftermath of one which left earth "without form and void". God never originally created earth "without form and void". Why would God do such a bad job in the first place, and then take six days to repair it?

This is what I hope this thread will be about.

I have not read any of the comments in this thread but you are obviously confusing what science is with real science requires observation and repeated experiments. Nobody was there at the beginning to observe things other than our creator and beliefs about the past. Science does always agree with God's word not man's opinions

Clete
November 9th, 2017, 06:20 AM
If you believe that then you can't be a Christian because being a Christian depends on your belief in Jesus and not your belief about the nature of time:

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
I didn't suggest you weren't a Christian. If you were an unbeliever then I'd expect you to behave as an unbeliever. As it is, you're a believer that is being foolish by accepting the premises of atheists. You're undermining your own faith and setting a poor example for those around you and providing ammunition to the enemy in this spiritual fight we in against the forces of evil in the world.

I would say, however, that the very same God who inspired the writing of the book of John also inspired the book of Genesis. Why do you believe the one and not the other?

And don't tell me that you believe Genesis because you don't. You give it lip service but take the side of the atheist's cosmology at every opportunity.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
November 9th, 2017, 06:44 AM
Clete, it sounds to me like you are using C14 dating to prove a point. Mostly YEC refute C14 as totally inaccurate, and I agree that it is largely worthless, for the reason you gave, its short half life. C14 is never used to date fossils older than a few thousand years old, and even then testing the same mammoth will give thousands of years difference for the two tests.
I already said this. Did you just miss the point or are you ignoring it?

They not only don't use C14 to date fossils, they don't even bother to look for it because their paradigm tells them that the fossils are way past being too old. And if their paradigm was correct, they'd be right not to look for it because it aught not be there. My point is that it is there. It is there in quantities several times above minimal detectable levels. There is so much C14 in fossils that there is no possible way that they could be even hundreds of thousands of years old, never mind millions or billions.


Science has its pure science (like the indisputable speed of light) and its "so called" science (1 Ti 6:20) like the theory of evolution. We have to tell the two apart. And calling me names is very unscientific, and counterproductive, and more like the church in the Dark Ages calling everything they cannot explain "witchcraft".
How do you propose we tell the two apart?

There is a very specific answer to that question. I want to see if you have an idea of what it is.


To quote from the link you provided and their explanation of the sorting of fossils into strata, here is a quote...

For scientists called flood geologists or catastrophists, the “major layers” or systems in the geologic column are eco-sedimentary zones, the remains of various ecological groups living in the pre-Flood world. The first creatures buried in greatest abundance in the rising Flood waters would be the heavy-shelled, bottom-dwelling sea creatures, and these would be followed successively by near shore forms and swimmers, then lowland plants and animals, and finally upland forms, with sea creatures found in all the systems of the geologic column as the waters finally covered everything. When the mountains rose and the valleys sank down (Ps. 104:8) at the end of the Flood, the continents were covered with layers of fossils formed as stages in the burial of eco-sedimentary zones during the catastrophe of Noah’s flood (Figure 32).

This "explanation" is laughable. Worldwide, the same organisms are found above each other, and this joker writes that "the remains of various ecological groups living in the pre-Flood world."

So worldwide the same fossils are found organised one group above another, yet he is saying that each ecosystem on earth got buried one after the other in order. Then why are the fossils found worldwide if local colonies were buried locally?
The geologic column is not nearly so uniform as you pretend. You've not only bought their premise, you believe their propaganda too.

You just got through saying that evolution is "so called science". You understand that much of evolutionary theory is based on the so called fossil record and on the premise that is takes a very long time for fossils to form.


I cannot untangle the mangrove swamp of this writer's mind, neither do I need to, because hopefully you have a bull detector, and hopefully statements like the above get you hot and sweaty.
You didn't even bother to read it past that paragraph.

Not everything everyone says in a particular article or theory has to be accepted in order for one to accept it in a general sense and to see that there is another way of thinking about things that isn't mindless stupidity. My entire point on this thread has been that what you are trying to reconcile cannot be reconciled. You ARE wanting to marry theism with atheism. I can't tell whether you're simply ignoring that point or if you just don't have what is needed to understand it. I suspect the former because I understand now that you aren't really interested in reconciling the two. What's really going on is that you desire to accept atheistic science as the truth and aren't willing even to entertain anything else. The evidence for that is your dash to debate evolution (because you think you could defeat me on that ground) and your instant rejection of the very explanation you claimed to be "all ears" for. If you looked at atheistic science with half as much skepticism as you do the bible and the biblical worldview, you'd have a chance. The fact that you don't says everything anyone needs to know about you and your motives here.

Resting in Him,
Clete

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 9th, 2017, 06:51 AM
I didn't suggest you weren't a Christian. If you were an unbeliever then I'd expect you to behave as an unbeliever. As it is, you're a believer that is being foolish by accepting the premises of atheists. You're undermining your own faith and setting a poor example for those around you and providing ammunition to the enemy in this spiritual fight we in against the forces of evil in the world.

I would say, however, that the very same God who inspired the writing of the book of John also inspired the book of Genesis. Why do you believe the one and not the other?

And don't tell me that you believe Genesis because you don't. You give it lip service but take the side of the atheist's cosmology at every opportunity.

Resting in Him,
Clete

No, I said you can't be a Christian. Please read my posts more carefully, this is the third time you have done this. Unless you can respond to what I am saying and not what you are imagining I am saying then there's no point continuing. And stop making up accusations about myself that too is a waste of my time. Are you mentally stable?

iouae
November 9th, 2017, 08:39 AM
I already said this. Did you just miss the point or are you ignoring it?

They not only don't use C14 to date fossils, they don't even bother to look for it because their paradigm tells them that the fossils are way past being too old. And if their paradigm was correct, they'd be right not to look for it because it aught not be there. My point is that it is there. It is there in quantities several times above minimal detectable levels. There is so much C14 in fossils that there is no possible way that they could be even hundreds of thousands of years old, never mind millions or billions.
Clete

I understood your point that fossils like dinosaurs are supposedly so old they should not have one atom of C14 left in them, but they do. I answered that C14 dating is flawed.

From the following site... http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
"Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old".

I fail to see how this helps your cause since this dates fossils as many times older than 6000 years, which you believe is the age of earth.

Clete
November 9th, 2017, 09:00 AM
No, I said you can't be a Christian.
I read it right, I just assumed you had written it wrong because the accusation against me made no sense whatsoever. When did I ever say or even imply that being a Christian had anything to do with the nature of light or what one thinks about it? Don't bother answering, I won't read it.


Please read my posts more carefully, this is the third time you have done this. Unless you can respond to what I am saying and not what you are imagining I am saying then there's no point continuing. And stop making up accusations about myself that too is a waste of my time. Are you mentally stable?
Look, bub. You're the one who hasn't responded to what has been said. There isn't anyone on this site who can rightly accuse me of being unresponsive. You're the one who brings up arguments and then ignores their refutation. You're the one who tells people to "get over it" when you've been rationally ground to powder and have nothing to respond with. I responded to what I thought you were saying. It isn't my fault if you're not making any sense.

Just about the quickest way to land yourself on my ignore list is rank hypocrisy. Seemingly everyone on this entire website is a waste of my time. Good bye and good riddance - fool!

iouae
November 9th, 2017, 09:01 AM
I have not read any of the comments in this thread but you are obviously confusing what science is with real science requires observation and repeated experiments. Nobody was there at the beginning to observe things other than our creator and beliefs about the past. Science does always agree with God's word not man's opinions


Google empirica science and one gets
The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment. Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation.

This is what is meant by true science, which is what you alluded to when you said "real science requires observation and repeated experiments".

I am not sure what you meant by "Nobody was there at the beginning to observe things other than our creator and beliefs about the past."

Science specialises in finding things we cannot see with our usual senses. we see distant galaxies. We see quarks and subatomic particles, and gravity waves and... and...

A telescope is a time machine which we can use to see into the past, with our own eyes, for a few $.
Turns out we can see pretty far into the past.

WatchmanOnTheWall
November 9th, 2017, 09:36 AM
I read it right, I just assumed you had written it wrong because the accusation against me made no sense whatsoever. When did I ever say or even imply that being a Christian had anything to do with the nature of light or what one thinks about it? Don't bother answering, I won't read it.


Look, bub. You're the one who hasn't responded to what has been said. There isn't anyone on this site who can rightly accuse me of being unresponsive. You're the one who brings up arguments and then ignores their refutation. You're the one who tells people to "get over it" when you have rationally ground to powder and have nothing to respond with. I responded to what I thought you were saying. It isn't my fault if you're not making any sense.

Just about the quickest way to land yourself on my ignore list is rank hypocrisy. Seemingly everyone on this entire website is a waste of my time. Good bye and good riddance - fool!

That actually made me laugh. Be shame to ignore me now just when you're getting going.

Clete
November 9th, 2017, 09:40 AM
I understood your point that fossils like dinosaurs are supposedly so old they should not have one atom of C14 left in them, but they do. I answered that C14 dating is flawed.
No, actually, it isn't flawed. That's just the whole point. It is a perfectly valid way, at least conceptually, to date something if one does it consistently and with intellectual honesty. It is the atheistic evolutionists, who's premises you seem to trust implicitly, who's use of it is invalid. It is, for example, perfectly valid to use C14 to set a maximum possible age so long as it can be reasonably presumed that there is no source of additional C14 that could throw off the results. In any case, no specimen found to have ANY C14 could possibly have been alive more than 80,000 years ago - TOPS!

That's about one third of one percent of the age evolutionists claim most dinosaur fossils to be. And the vast majority of the time, even evolutionists won't use C14 to date anything older than 50,000 years - nearly half as old. So, if a dinosaur supposedly live 230 million years ago and there is C14 in the specimen consistent with 22,000 - 39,000 years ago (which is a gigantic range by the way - given that C14 can't typically be used for anything beyond 50,000 years old) then where does the evolutionist come up with the other 99.986% of the fossils age?


From the following site... http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
"Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old".

I fail to see how this helps your cause since this dates fossils as many times older than 6000 years, which you believe is the age of earth.
Four things....

1. It helps my case because if they are less than 6000 years old, you'd expect to find C14, which you do. If the evolutionists were right, there aught not be any at all. Did it escape your notice that the evolutionists persist in their belief in evolution in spite of the C14 dating results you've cited? It should have been impossible to ignore, falsifying evidence but their paradigm blindness just lets them (and you it seems) to just go right on their merry way. Such confirmation bias is rampant throughout the so called "scientific" community that you seem so enamored with. In fact, it is rampant throughout the human race but there is a way to combat it. I notice that you made no effort to answer my question as to what that method is. Care to give it a shot? It isn't a trick question and the answer is very specific.

2. It falsifies - and I use that word intentionally - it falsifies any concept, theory or idea that requires dinosaurs to be millions or even hundreds of thousands of years old.

3. Any date derived from C14 requires the scientists performing the procedure to make assumptions. Those assumptions are directly dependent upon whether they believe the Earth to be very old and whether they believe that the things going on now are basically identical to the way things have always been (uniformitarianism). In other words, if you're an atheistic evolutionist, you will always get older dates than would the theist. It isn't a flaw in the test but in the assumptions used to interpret the data. Just the point I've been making this whole time.

4. You cannot rationally state that C14 dating is flawed and then, in the next breath, use C14 dating as evidence against my case as though its valid!

Clete

Clete
November 9th, 2017, 09:52 AM
That actually made me laugh. Be shame to ignore me now just when you're getting going.

I don't tolerate dishonesty well. If you want to continue like an adult then fine. If you want to be stupid then I'll ignore you and forget you ever existed.

You choose.

iouae
November 9th, 2017, 09:55 AM
How do you propose we tell the two apart?

There is a very specific answer to that question. I want to see if you have an idea of what it is.


I see you have a very specific answer in mind, and it would be scientifically pushing the odds to think I will guess what you have in mind. So, I am all ears to hear how you tell true/empirical and "so called" science apart. I just have a "bull detector" which goes off when folks say something stupid about science.

Clete
November 9th, 2017, 10:20 AM
....we see distant galaxies. We see quarks and subatomic particles, and gravity waves and... and...

A telescope is a time machine which we can use to see into the past, with our own eyes, for a few $.
Turns out we can see pretty far into the past.

Everything you said before these lines was right on but the above quoted portion of your post presupposes so much more than you clearly have any idea about. It just isn't true that we have observed quarks, for example. And the distances to galaxies are based, almost entirely, on red-shift theory, which is not the settled science that you think it is. And gravity wave detection is one of the biggest and most expensive examples of pseudo-science that has ever been performed. They don't even know for a fact that the objects that supposedly produced these waves actually exist! They can't even tell you what is propagating this wave beyond simply giving it the meaningless name "Space-time". The last 100+ years of cosmological science has been devoted to mathematics, not physics. Einstein has been elevated to the level as saint (if not further than that) and ALL of mainstream science is performed from well within that paradigm. Questioning either Einstein or cosmological and/or biological evolution will cost you your telescope (or lab) time, your funding, your professorships, your career.

I'm just telling you that they do not know for a fact half of the things you see and hear on cable television and hear about in "pop science" for want of a better term. Most of what you see and hear about science not only isn't confirmed scientific fact but is, in fact, political. And I do mean political in the sense of liberal vs conservative. It is aimed primarily at discrediting theism in general and Christianity in particular. The left has completely dominated the whole of science. Starting from grade school all the way to and through the centers of "higher learning" and beyond. Why a Christian would choose to trust it implicitly the way you seem to is beyond my ability to grasp. I don't get what would motivate such an attitude toward something so antithetical to the idea that God exists and that the Bible is His word.

Clete

Clete
November 9th, 2017, 10:39 AM
I see you have a very specific answer in mind, and it would be scientifically pushing the odds to think I will guess what you have in mind. So, I am all ears to hear how you tell true/empirical and "so called" science apart. I just have a "bull detector" which goes off when folks say something stupid about science.

There's no guess really. I only have a specific answer in mind because there is only one answer.

The answer is reason. Simple, sound, logical reason.


The law of identity: What is - is.

The law of excluded middle: A claim is either true or it is false given a specific context.

The law of contradiction: Two claims that contradict each other cannot both be true given a specific context.

All knowledge - ALL KNOWLEDGE - no matter the topic or source, is founded upon these three laws. There is no fact that conflicts with them nor any argument that can be formed without using and thereby affirming them. Any thought that does not conform to them is false, by definition. Reason is not only the basis of all knowledge it is the only means anyone has for acquiring, interpreting and understanding any point of knowledge. Any claim to knowledge in spite of reason is a lie, by definition. Any point of knowledge that comes via an error of logic is a misunderstanding, by definition. All truth is rational, by definition - which happens to be the subject of your thread.


Now, let's see if you'll care to take a guess at what the veracity of reason itself is predicated on. I'll give you a hint. There is a fundamental flaw in the atheist's thinking that destroys their entire worldview. I won't belabor the point, I'm not trying to put you on the spot. If you'd rather, I'll just tell you but if you care to give a stab at it, it'll be interesting to see what your guess is.

Clete

iouae
November 9th, 2017, 10:50 AM
Now, let's see if you'll care to take a guess at what the veracity of reason itself is predicated on. I'll give you a hint. There is a fundamental flaw in the atheist's thinking that destroys their entire worldview. I won't belabor the point, I'm not trying to put you on the spot. If you'd rather, I'll just tell you but if you care to give a stab at it, it'll be interesting to see what your guess is.

Clete

Since I would not have come close to guessing your previous answer, I will forego any further guessing what you have in mind. I am all ears.

Clete
November 10th, 2017, 07:59 AM
Since I would not have come close to guessing your previous answer, I will forego any further guessing what you have in mind. I am all ears.

The atheistic worldview is predicated on the idea that nothing is to be taken by faith. This is their most fundamental philosophical pillar. Everything they do, think or say is built on the idea that the veracity of every claim must and can only be established by logic and reason. They do, however, find themselves perched on the horns of a dilemma whenever anyone asks them to establish the veracity of reason itself. They can say that logic is axiomatic, which is what they almost always do, but this is the equivalent to being a presuppositionalist in that they are taking the veracity of logic on faith, which is antithetical to their worldview. The other option is to attempt to make some sort of argument that defends the veracity of logic. This is question begging, since any argument presupposes the veracity of logic and therefore assumes what they are trying to prove. They are forced to either break the laws of reason or else take the veracity of reason on faith. They thereby undermine their own worldview every time they make a truth claim or, for that matter, every time they utter an intelligible word. The atheist is therefore FORCED to violate his own worldview at every turn. The atheistic worldview is therefore false. Therefore, God must exist because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.

That is a brief presentation of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG for short). It is one way of communicating the fact that all truth is predicated on, not just the existence of God, but on God Himself. God must be presupposed in order for reason to work.

Now that doesn't get you all the way to Christianity since Christianity is only one of thousands of theistic worldviews but establishing Christianity would be far outside the bounds of what I'm trying to establish in this thread. It would, however, be worth my time, I think, to point out that the God of the Bible, and Jesus in particular, is presented to us as Reason incarnate. Note the following passage from the first chapter of John's Gospel...


John1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

In this passage, everywhere you see the phrase, "the Word" the Greek word being used is "Logos". It is important to understand what this Greek word means because the use of "Word" as an English translation just doesn't convey what this passage is teaching. Logos conveys the idea of communication or more specifically, discourse and more specifically than that, rational discourse and/or rational argument. It is the word from which we get the suffix "-ology", as in Biology, Theology, Technology, Climatology, Cosmology, etc. So, the study of living things is "Biology" and the processes in a living creature are said to be biological. Notice bio-LOGICAL. To apply logic to the processes in living things, and thus to understand them, is biology, it is the logos of life. This is the meaning conveyed by "Logos".

So now, with this better understanding of the Greek, lets look at this passage again...

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Now, to be clear, I should point out that I do not worship logic except in the specific sense present above. The bible repeatedly tells us that God is Love and no one has any problem with accepting that notion and no one is every accused of worshiping love except in the sense that God is Love and we do worship God. In the same sense that God is Love, God is also Logic and I worship Him as such. I do not worship the process of right thinking, I worship Him from whom that process emanates and derives its meaning and veracity.

For this reason, and several others, Christianity is not only a rational worldview, it is the only rational worldview. That is not to say that everything claimed by unbelievers is false. If the God of the bible is Reason, then the closer an unbeliever comes to having reason as his foundation and the more consistently he uses logic correctly, the closer his conclusions will come to the truth and the more in agreement his "true science" will be with "true religion". The problem is, as I've been attempting to show you here in this thread, they neither have reason as their foundation nor do they use logic consistently. Their paradigm steers them away from the truth because they, in spite of their claims to the contrary, do not merely reject God's existence. On the contrary, they despise the very idea of God and are enemies of those who believe in God, most especially Christians. You would be wise to count them as the enemies that they are.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Hawkins
November 10th, 2017, 09:41 AM
As I understand Einstein, he said that the speed of light (c) is constant for every observer.
Time speeds up, or slows down to accommodate the fact that the speed of light is constant.

If c is constant, which all reputable science has proved it is, then my post above on a telescope being an accurate time machine, is true. I have never heard an astronomer or cosmologist say otherwise.

I say that religious folks don't need to fight scientific fact that the universe is ancient.
Religious folks must instead look to themselves, and acknowledge that they are wrong in their interpretation of scripture. Scripture nowhere says how old the universe is. Bishop Usher and those counting the "begats" mistakenly thing that Genesis 1 is describing the original formation of earth. Its not. Its describing the replenishing of earth after a mass extinction.

To give but one "proof". Earth is full of igneous rock, or rock formed under fire.
Nowhere in Genesis or the last 6000 years has earth been subjected to large-scale fire, except in a few volcanoes, which produce igneous rock or lava.

Science explains that earth was originally a molten ball which slowly cooled down over 4.5 billion years. That's where so much igneous rock comes from.

Thank God we live in an age when "knowledge shall be increased" when we can know so much, including about the origin of the universe. With a big enough telescope, we will almost be able to see how, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

I think you simply missed the point.

Whenever you try to step into the past you have to assume that c is no longer a constant, because you have to assume that time is a constant instead. That's what I meant that whenever you try to study the past, you have to assume that time is a constant (instead of c) to do your speculations.

Moreover, it is not about the limitation of science. It's rather about how a truth can be identified reliably. Science in a nutshell, it's the making use of prediction to confirm a truth. Your way mentioned here is speculation instead of science in a stricter sense. That's where the accuracy of science is coming from. You have to give this accuracy up whenever stepping into researching the past.

iouae
November 10th, 2017, 09:53 AM
The atheistic worldview is predicated on the idea that nothing is to be taken by faith. This is their most fundamental philosophical pillar.
Clete

Your opening statement, the foundation of your argument, is utterly false.

Atheists have faith, just as Christians have. They have the faith to travel on a plane, piloted by some unknown pilot, a plane who's maintenance they have no clue about.

My Dad was an atheist who had more faith in evolution than most Christians have in Christ.

Atheists cross the road in front of someone who waves them to cross, with faith that person has no ill intent.

Atheists have operations, believing in the surgeon. Atheists climb mountains, having faith in their ropes.

It's not the just alone who live by faith. All do.
The just, just live by faith in Christ.

Therefore the rest of your argument, hard as it is to understand, seems to fall.

iouae
November 10th, 2017, 10:14 AM
I think you simply missed the point.

Whenever you try to step into the past you have to assume that c is no longer a constant, because you have to assume that time is a constant instead. That's what I meant that whenever you try to study the past, you have to assume that time is a constant (instead of c) to do your speculations.

Time IS a constant from the point of view of earth.

Only if earth fell into a black hole would time slow down significantly enough to affect time.

Since that has not happened, since we are still here, for all intents and purposes, time on earth is constant.
And no (reputable) science has ever suggested (to my knowledge) that light has sped up or slowed down travelling through space, since the heavens began.

Clete
November 11th, 2017, 08:16 AM
Your opening statement, the foundation of your argument, is utterly false.
As if I'm the one who came up with the Transcendental argument for the existence of God. This argument is about as famous as it gets in theological/philosophical circles. Guess what is NOT accepted as a valid refutation of the argument - the denial of the opening premise.

Now, I wrote that from memory and so don't claim to have worded it as well as some could have but if you're going to deny the veracity of the TAG, you'll have to do far better than to deny that the atheist worldview is predicated on the idea that nothing is to be taken on faith.


Atheists have faith, just as Christians have.
This is why the TAG works. They can't help it but their worldview is predicated against it. It is an inherent and unavoidable contradiction and proof that their worldview is false.


They have the faith to travel on a plane, piloted by some unknown pilot, a plane who's maintenance they have no clue about.

My Dad was an atheist who had more faith in evolution than most Christians have in Christ.

Atheists cross the road in front of someone who waves them to cross, with faith that person has no ill intent.

Atheists have operations, believing in the surgeon. Atheists climb mountains, having faith in their ropes.

It's not the just alone who live by faith. All do.
The just, just live by faith in Christ.

Therefore the rest of your argument, hard as it is to understand, seems to fall.
None of this is the sort of faith that atheists reject. This does happen to have a great deal to do with what the bible is referring to when it talks about faith but, for the purposes of the TAG, faith means belief in the absence of evidence.

What's hard to understand about it? The atheist's worldview rejects faith but atheists are required to use it anyway. Their practice MUST contradict their worldview. Their worldview is therefore false. If atheism is rationally impossible then theism must be true. Therefore, God exists because of the rational impossibility of the contrary. Simple!

The point is that the biblical worldview does not make an argument for the existence of God, it presupposes the existence of God. The bible just starts with telling you what God has always existed and is written on that premise. It doesn't argue for His existence. This is a critical point because to BEGIN with an argument for God's existence places reason as the foundation which is backward. It is God Himself who is the foundation, for reason (i.e. He is Reason), not the other way around. Christianity is the only worldview I know of that acknowledges this which is sufficient, by itself, to establish Christianity as the only truly consistent, rational worldview in existence.

So what's the point in the context of this discussion?

The point is, very simply, that the atheists are forced to borrow from OUR worldview in order to open their mouths. Their every word is predicated on that which defeats their very existence as atheists. WHY OH WHY would you want to give up that rock solid philosophical ground to the point of completely flipping that around by rejecting what the bible CLEARLY teaches in order to grab, borrow, beg and steal ideas that are predicated on the shifting sands of their false premises?

There is tons more that today's science doesn't know than what they do; there's way more that they can't explain than what they can. 99% of modern cosmology is THEORY - not fact; theory based on mathematics - not physics. You have placed you faith into people who have not earned it and do not deserve it, neither on scientific nor philosophical grounds.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
November 11th, 2017, 09:14 AM
Time IS a constant from the point of view of earth.

Only if earth fell into a black hole would time slow down significantly enough to affect time.

Since that has not happened, since we are still here, for all intents and purposes, time on earth is constant.
And no (reputable) science has ever suggested (to my knowledge) that light has sped up or slowed down travelling through space, since the heavens began.

Actually, before they started using light to measure time (atomic clocks) the belief in a decaying speed of light was wide spread. Now, since they use light as the measuring stick for clocks, any variation in it's speed would be impossible to detect because a slower speed of light translates into a slower 'second hand' on the clock face resulting in an identical speed measurement. In other words, atomic clocks detect the radiation that is produced by Ceasium-133 atoms as they fluctuate between two states. This frequency of this fluctuation is dependent on value of C and is only thought to be constant (given a specific set of conditions) because C is thought to be constant. There are other forms of hyper accurate clocks but that are all dependent, in one form or another, on very precise detection of specific frequencies of light. So long as it is atomic or optical clocks doing the measurement, C will forever be perceived to be rock solid, whether it actually is or not.

Now, that's not to say that there aren't work-arounds for this problem. There are, but they are generally not employed because everyone "knows" that the speed of light is constant.

Also, you're wrong on another point in your short post. There are very reputable (i.e. atheistic - secular) scientists who question the constancy of the speed of light. There was a paper publish in November of 2016 on just that topic. The link below is to an article that details the argument and the problem it is intended to solve...

Scientists Think the Speed of Light Has Slowed, and They're Trying to Prove It (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed)



Of course, the idea of a decaying value of c is common in Christian circles. Personally, I haven't studied the problem enough to have formed my own verdict on it but I am open minded enough to acknowledge there are good arguments on both sides of the issue. The two articles below are both published on Christian, young-Earth websites. They are both discussing the same science done by the same scientists. One is supportive the other not.

https://creation.com/speed-of-light-slowing-down-after-all

http://www.icr.org/article/has-speed-light-decayed/

The point here being that the idea of a decaying speed of light is not so outrageous as you pretend. It is, in fact, yet another example of your implicit trust of atheistic science.


Clete

iouae
November 11th, 2017, 09:31 AM
What's hard to understand about it? The atheist's worldview rejects faith but atheists are required to use it anyway. Their practice MUST contradict their worldview. Their worldview is therefore false. If atheism is rationally impossible then theism must be true. Therefore, God exists because of the rational impossibility of the contrary. Simple!

Clete

Crete, the above logic is completely flawed.

First, the proof of the existence of God depends on the "atheists worldview".

This is so obviously wrong. The existence of God does not depend on either the atheists, or believer's worldview.

What humans believe, whether atheist or theist, does not affect what really IS.

Faith is not unique to the religious community. Faith is universal. Even animals have faith.

A wolf would not go hunting if it did not have faith that by randomly running about, it is likely to come upon a deer.
And the same wolf would not tackle the much bigger deer if it did not have faith it could bring the deer down. Logic may tell it that it should hide from this much bigger deer.

And what goes on in the deer's head, does not affect whether there is a God or not.
Likewise what goes on in an atheist's head has zero ability to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Atheists believe the sun will rise tomorrow.
Atheists believe they will be paid at the end of the month.
Atheist's daughters believe that Daddy will catch them if the jump towards his arms.

Nothing anyone/anything believes can ever affect reality (the Truth on the ground).

Clete
November 11th, 2017, 11:10 AM
Crete, the above logic is completely flawed.

First, the proof of the existence of God depends on the "atheists worldview".
No it doesn't! It's just the opposite. The proof is that the atheists worldview is unavoidably self-contradictory which falsifies their worldview by their own standard.
The argument uses reason, which Christian can use without contradicting their own worldview, to demonstrate that the atheist cannot do the same. It's flawlessly brilliant and has been accepted as such for decades.

Look, I'm not kidding. This is not MY argument. This argument has been around for decades and far greater minds than either you or I haven't found it to be "completely flawed" as you have summarily declared it to be. In fact, the most common objection to it has to do with the fact that it usually used by Christians and the atheist that they are debating points out that the argument, by itself, doesn't support Christianity per se but rather theism in general. That, however, isn't a problem since falsifying atheism is all it is intended to do. I mean, if you're debating an atheist and you prove that his worldview is forced to falsify itself by it own standards, you've won the debate, no matter what religion you believe in.



This is so obviously wrong. The existence of God does not depend on either the atheists, or believer's worldview.
No one but you has suggested otherwise.

All that has been shown is that any worldview that is self-stultifying is false and that if there is but one alternative, that alternative must be the truth. To quote a fictional character...

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes - Arthur Conan Doyle


What humans believe, whether atheist or theist, does not affect what really IS.
NO ONE has suggested otherwise! If you think I have, you have totally misunderstood what is a very simple argument.


Faith is not unique to the religious community. Faith is universal. Even animals have faith.
This was a stupid thing to say.


A wolf would not go hunting if it did not have faith that by randomly running about, it is likely to come upon a deer.
And the same wolf would not tackle the much bigger deer if it did not have faith it could bring the deer down. Logic may tell it that it should hide from this much bigger deer.
Instinct is NOT faith in the sense that atheists reject.

And, as you seem prone to do, you entirely ignored the totally clear definition of faith which I stated in my last post. The sort of thing you are talking about here is not the sort of faith that atheists reject. The faith they reject is defined as "belief without (or in sprite of) evidence".

Learned behavior, such as wild animals hunting or people crossing bridges is NOT what is being discussed here, nor is the instinctive responses deer have to seeing predators. The atheist worldview is predicated on the rejection of believing in something without evidence. For the atheist, evidence comes first then belief - except that it doesn't - which is the point of the argument.


Nothing anyone/anything believes can ever affect reality (the Truth on the ground).
If you'd bother to read my posts and try at all to understand them rather than looking for any reason you can dream up to disagree with, and if you'd had spent more than thirty minutes of your whole life studying philosophy, you'd know that this is nothing at all but a restatement of something I've already said and which philosophers have known for 4000 years. It is the law of identity. What is, is. A is A. It makes no difference what anyone thinks about it, it makes no difference if anyone even knows about it. All it depends on it the truth of it's existence. This is the fundamental law of all thought, all understanding, all study, all communication, all meaning of any kind in any context whatsoever. Even the other two laws of reason are corollaries of the law of identity.

What the atheist cannot do is answer the question, "What gives the law of identity its meaning?". Any answer they attempt to give will use the law of identity to pronounce the first syllable of their argument. Their argument, therefore, assumes the truth of that which they are attempting to prove which is the exact definition of begging the question. "Question begging", by the way, has nothing to do with some point implying a next question, which is how the phrase is almost always used on television and in popular culture. What it actually refers to is a logical fallacy. It is a specific form of circular reasoning and it is irrational. It is also unavoidable from withing the atheist's worldview - utterly - totally - and in all other ways - UNAVOIDABLE. Atheism is therefore false. Theism, the only alternative to atheism, is therefore true.

Now, that is a perfectly valid argument but don't make the mistake, which you clearly have, of assuming that this argument is what Christianity is based on. It isn't. As I said in my previous post, Christianity (and Judaism - i.e. the biblical worldview) does NOT make an argument for God. Christians can make such arguments but those arguments are not the foundation of Christianity and Christianity itself, as a worldview, does not begin with, nor is it predicated on an argument for God's existence. On the contrary, it begins from God and understands that rationality itself is predicated on God's existence. The book of John goes so far as to equate God the Son with Reason and states explicitly that Jesus is Logic (Reason) incarnate.

Clete

iouae
November 11th, 2017, 11:39 AM
Atheism is therefore false. Theism, the only alternative to atheism, is therefore true.

Clete

Clete To pick on what I perceive to be the central tenant of your argument....

I can think of plenty of other alternatives to atheism.

Atheism noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Almost anything can be an alternative to this.
disbelief or lack of belief in their being life out there.
disbelief in the tooth fairy.
belief in the tooth fairy.

The definition of "atheism" has two elements viz. "disbelief" and "god/s".
Change any one of these words and one has an alternative to atheism.

Sorry, I am not skilled in philosophy, so I am unmoved by these ancient wisdoms.

And let's suppose the opposite of black is white.
If something is not black, that does not make it white. It could be green or red or blue or....

Just because a concept has an opposite, does not mean if one does not have that concept (atheism), one automatically has the opposite.

6days
November 11th, 2017, 12:17 PM
Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation.You are confusing evidence / data with interpretations. Everyone works with, or observes the same evidence.
Science specialises in finding things we cannot see with our usual senses. we see distant galaxies. We see quarks and subatomic particles, and gravity waves and... and... Clete answered.



A telescope is a time machine which we can use to see into the past, with our own eyes, for a few $.Turns out we can see pretty far into the past.You are confusing distance with time. A 2 part question for you... a) According to Einstein what is the one way speed of light? b) At what speed did God spread the stars / 'stretch the heavens'?

iouae
November 11th, 2017, 01:07 PM
You are confusing distance with time. A 2 part question for you... a) According to Einstein what is the one way speed of light? b) At what speed did God spread the stars / 'stretch the heavens'?

a)The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its exact value is299,792,458 metres per second (approximately3.00108 m/s, or 300,000 km/s (186,000 mi/s)).
When using the term 'the speed of light' it is sometimes necessary to make the distinction between its one-way speed and its two-way speed. The "one-way" speed of light from a source to a detector, cannot be measured independently of a convention as to how to synchronize the clocks at the source and the detector. What can however be experimentally measured is the round-trip speed (or "two-way" speed of light) from the source to the detector and back again. Albert Einstein chose a synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. The constancy of the one-way speed in any given inertial frame is the basis of his special theory of relativity, although all experimentally verifiable predictions of this theory do not depend on that convention.[1][2]

Experiments that attempted to directly probe the one-way speed of light independent of synchronization have been proposed, but none has succeeded in doing so.[3] Those experiments directly establish that synchronization with slow clock-transport is equivalent to Einstein synchronization, which is an important feature of special relativity. Though those experiments don't directly establish the isotropy of the one-way speed of light, because it was shown that slow clock-transport, the laws of motion, and the way inertial reference frames are defined, already involve the assumption of isotropic one-way speeds and thus are conventional as well.[4] In general, it was shown that these experiments are consistent with anisotropic one-way light speed as long as the two-way light speed is isotropic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

b) 68 kilometers per second per megaparsec where one megaparsecond is a distance: One megaparsec is 1 million parsec, which is 3.26 million light-years

6days
November 11th, 2017, 02:16 PM
a)The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is .

.. A a simple and truthful answer to both questions would be "I don't know."


Did God create the one way speed of light as an infinite?... We don't know. Was the speed of light faster in the past? We don't know...( there are secular scientists who speculate that the speed of light may have been trillions of times faster in the past). Did God take an hour to spread galaxies 14 billion light years away? We don't know how long it took him to spread the stars (it likely was in an instant).

IOW... distance in light years and the amount of time are two different things... It is wrong to try insert secular ideas into God's Word, in your attempts to prove His Word incorrect.

iouae
November 11th, 2017, 02:33 PM
A a simple and truthful answer to both questions would be "I don't know."
Not if you were me.



Did God create the one way speed of light as an infinite?... We don't know. Was the speed of light faster in the past? We don't know...( there are secular scientists who speculate that the speed of light may have been trillions of times faster in the past). Did God take an hour to spread galaxies 14 billion light years away? We don't know how long it took him to spread the stars (it likely was in an instant).

I don't think things are as confusing as you want them to be.



IOW... distance in light years and the amount of time are two different things... It is wrong to try insert secular ideas into God's Word, in your attempts to prove His Word incorrect.

Light years are distances. I don't see why they are secular.

Clete
November 11th, 2017, 03:26 PM
Clete To pick on what I perceive to be the central tenant of your argument....

I can think of plenty of other alternatives to atheism.

Atheism noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Almost anything can be an alternative to this.
disbelief or lack of belief in their being life out there.
disbelief in the tooth fairy.
belief in the tooth fairy.

The definition of "atheism" has two elements viz. "disbelief" and "god/s".
Change any one of these words and one has an alternative to atheism.

Sorry, I am not skilled in philosophy, so I am unmoved by these ancient wisdoms.

And let's suppose the opposite of black is white.
If something is not black, that does not make it white. It could be green or red or blue or....

Just because a concept has an opposite, does not mean if one does not have that concept (atheism), one automatically has the opposite.

Your post violates the law of excluded middle.

Truth claim: God exist.

That claim is either true or it is false - period. There is no third (or forth of fifth) option as you'd have with a concept such as color. The presence or absense of light would be a better analogy. There is either light present or not. If there is light then you can discuss what color it is and how bright it is and if there is more than one source but those are ancillary to whether the light exists.

If God exists then theism is true and atheism is false and vice versa. The TAG does not touch ancillary issues such as polytheism vs. monotheism or whether God is relational or impassible or moral or amoral.

Clete

Clete
November 11th, 2017, 03:43 PM
a)The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its exact value is299,792,458 metres per second (approximately3.00108 m/s, or 300,000 km/s (186,000 mi/s)).

I'm curious to know whether you realize that the meter is now defined as 1/299,792,458th of the distance that light travels through a vacuum in one second.

So what? You ask!

Well, if the speed of light was actually changing and the meter is defined by the distance light travels in a given period of time (i.e. by the speed of light) then the meter would change with the change in c and thereby maintain the same speed measurement.

So, not only is the second is based on the speed of light, as I mention in a previous post, but also the meter is based on the speed of light. But speed is just a measure of distance over time and so you have the speed of light defined by terms that are themselves defined by the speed of light. The wheels on the bus go round and round!

This sort of circularity is all through physics and is widely known and admitted and no one cares because, once again, everyone "knows" that c is a constant.

6days
November 11th, 2017, 04:53 PM
a simple and truthful answer to both questions would be "I don't know."Not if you were me.I said a truthful answer. Funny that no one on earth..... other than you knows how fast God spread the stars... or, the one way speed of light.
Light years are distances.Very good... light years has nothing to do with the age of the universe, contrary to what you said before.
I don't see why (light years) are secular.Nobody said such a thing. What I did say is "It is wrong to try insert secular ideas into God's Word, in your attempts to prove His Word incorrect."

iouae
November 11th, 2017, 10:21 PM
I said a truthful answer. Funny that no one on earth..... other than you knows how fast God spread the stars... or, the one way speed of light. Very good... light years has nothing to do with the age of the universe, contrary to what you said before.Nobody said such a thing. What I did say is "It is wrong to try insert secular ideas into God's Word, in your attempts to prove His Word incorrect."

We work with c and the speed of all other waves of the electromagnetic spectrum on a daily basis, and understand how it works just fine. The speed of light and the expansion of the universe hardly would be affected in 6000 years. Thus saying "we don't know" about the more esoteric relativity aspects of light does not hold.

All I have to prove is that over 6000 years light behaves exactly as predicted to prove YEC wrong. And over these time scales, there is virtually no stretching of space-time, according to modern science.

But if you want to say that it all got stretched within 6000 years then things happened in the past vastly different to the expansion of the universe today, which made stretching much faster in the past.

But science says stretching of time-space is accelerating, so it would have been less stretching going on in the past.

iouae
November 11th, 2017, 10:25 PM
Your post violates the law of excluded middle.

Truth claim: God exist.

That claim is either true or it is false - period.
Clete

Yes, and your argument seems to rely on someone (the atheist's) belief or lack of belief in His existence.

But God exists even before He created man to believe in Him.

Greg Jennings
November 11th, 2017, 10:26 PM
I'm curious to know whether you realize that the meter is now defined as 1/299,792,458th of the distance that light travels through a vacuum in one second.

So what? You ask!

Well, if the speed of light was actually changing and the meter is defined by the distance light travels in a given period of time (i.e. by the speed of light) then the meter would change with the change in c and thereby maintain the same speed measurement.

So, not only is the second is based on the speed of light, as I mention in a previous post, but also the meter is based on the speed of light. But speed is just a measure of distance over time and so you have the speed of light defined by terms that are themselves defined by the speed of light. The wheels on the bus go round and round!

This sort of circularity is all through physics and is widely known and admitted and no one cares because, once again, everyone "knows" that c is a constant.

It's constant "in a vacuum."

Length does in fact shorten when traveling at very very high speeds (a significant fraction of c), while time dilates. The same effects can be seen in the presence of an immense gravitational field (such as a black hole). This happens due to the fact that space and time and interwoven

Physics truly is a crazy place

iouae
November 11th, 2017, 10:31 PM
I'm curious to know whether you realize that the meter is now defined as 1/299,792,458th of the distance that light travels through a vacuum in one second.

So what? You ask!

Well, if the speed of light was actually changing and the meter is defined by the distance light travels in a given period of time (i.e. by the speed of light) then the meter would change with the change in c and thereby maintain the same speed measurement.

So, not only is the second is based on the speed of light, as I mention in a previous post, but also the meter is based on the speed of light. But speed is just a measure of distance over time and so you have the speed of light defined by terms that are themselves defined by the speed of light. The wheels on the bus go round and round!

This sort of circularity is all through physics and is widely known and admitted and no one cares because, once again, everyone "knows" that c is a constant.

No one cares either how the meter is defined, because there are thousands of tape-measures around the world that we work with, that do not change, irrespective of the fact that "officially" the m is defined by c.

If memory serves the m or yard used to be defined by a piece of some material kept in some vault at some temperature. It is just more convenient to define it in a way anyone can replicate. c is still a constant and the m is still a constant to all intents and purposes. Only if we apply philosophy and say the universe is expanding, so the m is expanding therefore not constant, do we win philosophy points. But for all intents and purposes, over thousands of years (the length of time man has been on earth) c and m ARE constant.

iouae
November 12th, 2017, 12:44 AM
What I did say is "It is wrong to try insert secular ideas into God's Word, in your attempts to prove His Word incorrect."

When you look at your evidence, namely the Bible, we know the Bible is true - what we question is your INTERPRETATION of the Bible.

When I started this thread, the sciences I had in mind were the science of cosmology and palaeontology.

The universe does not lie, its our INTERPRETATION of what we see which is in question.
Likewise, the rocks and fossils don't lie. Its our INTERPRETATION of what they are telling us which is in question.

No scientist can speak for the cosmos or the fossils. Their pronouncements are always INTERPRETATIONS.
Likewise, no person can speak for God. They only have their INTERPRETATION of what the Bible is saying.

I am taking all three witnesses, because all three have inherent truth, and trying to come up with a unified INTERPRETATION which does not violate inherent truth.
Science can add to theology, and theology to science. Even God tells us this when He says in Psa 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Clete
November 12th, 2017, 07:06 AM
Yes, and your argument seems to rely on someone (the atheist's) belief or lack of belief in His existence.

But God exists even before He created man to believe in Him.

Well, it doesn't, as I have already addressed more than once, without response from you. I see no reason to repeat it again.

I don't understand people who ignore perfectly valid responses to what are, frankly, half baked objections. What exactly is the point? What possible motive could there be to reject these ideas and don a shield of Teflon around your mind against the rebuttal of any objection you can dream up, ignoring it as though it was never presented. I really just don't get it.

Clete

Clete
November 12th, 2017, 07:28 AM
It's constant "in a vacuum."
It's supposedly constant given any medium. That is, it goes at a different speed through water than it does a vacuum but it always goes the exact same speed through water, given the same conditions. It always moves through whatever medium it is going through at the fastest possible rate.


Length does in fact shorten when traveling at very very high speeds (a significant fraction of c), while time dilates. The same effects can be seen in the presence of an immense gravitational field (such as a black hole). This happens due to the fact that space and time and interwoven

Physics truly is a crazy place
Relativistic contraction is not what I'm referring too.
The meter is officially defined as 1/299,792,458th of the distance that light travels through a vacuum in one second. If tomorrow, the speed of light was traveling 1% faster than it is today, the meter would officially become 1% longer.

Or would it?

The second is defined as a specific number of oscillations of Cesium 133, a process that is mathematically dependent on the value of c. If the speed of light is 1% faster, then the processes that dictate the rate that Cesium 133 oscillates would also increase by 1%, thereby shortening the second and off setting the extra speed of light in the measurement of the meter and therefore the measurement of the speed of light.

The point here is that if you are using clocks and measuring sticks that are defined by the speed of light, you can't detect any changes in the speed of light with them because the speed measurement is always going to come out the same whether the speed is actually constant or not. They have built the constancy of the speed of light into the measurement. And, once again, this circularity is known, understood and fully acknowledged and no one in the scientific community at large cares because everyone "knows" that the speed of light it constant. Indeed, it is because of their confidence that it is a constant that they decided to alter the official definitions of these units of measure.

Clete

Clete
November 12th, 2017, 07:49 AM
No one cares either how the meter is defined, because there are thousands of tape-measures around the world that we work with, that do not change, irrespective of the fact that "officially" the m is defined by c.
The problem with this silly objection is that they do not use manufactured meter sticks to measure the speed of light and, as I explain in the post just prior to this one, the second would speed up or slow down along with the speed of light and so the difference in distance that light traveled would be off set by the measured duration of the time it took to make the trip. The distance/time measurement would therefore be the same whether light speed was actually constant or not.


If memory serves the m or yard used to be defined by a piece of some material kept in some vault at some temperature. It is just more convenient to define it in a way anyone can replicate. c is still a constant and the m is still a constant to all intents and purposes. Only if we apply philosophy and say the universe is expanding, so the m is expanding therefore not constant, do we win philosophy points. But for all intents and purposes, over thousands of years (the length of time man has been on earth) c and m ARE constant.
For all intent and purposes?

Really?

Every scientist in existence would laugh you out of the room for making such a comment. When scientist say that c is constant, they are not talking about "for all practical purposes" or anything like that. When they say that c is constant, they mean precisely that.

And I'm not even arguing here that it isn't constant. I'm simply informing you that if it weren't constant, they'd never know it now because they've built the constancy of c into the measurement. And yes, there are sets of physical standard meters kept in various places around the world but those standard meters are created using light. It's official value is not defined by these physical standard meter sticks. The meter's official value is EXACTLY 1/299,792,458 of the distance light travels through a vacuum in one second and any physical standard meter, if found to be different than that length, will be tossed and replaced with a new one - which does happen from time to time, by the way.

Clete

iouae
November 12th, 2017, 08:05 AM
Well, it doesn't, as I have already addressed more than once, without response from you. I see no reason to repeat it again.

I don't understand people who ignore perfectly valid responses to what are, frankly, half baked objections. What exactly is the point? What possible motive could there be to reject these ideas and don a shield of Teflon around your mind against the rebuttal of any objection you can dream up, ignoring it as though it was never presented. I really just don't get it.

Clete

I tried my hardest to understand your argument but my "Teflon mind" just does not get philosophical arguments such as yours. Maybe everyone else reading it finds it irresistible.

Clete
November 12th, 2017, 08:10 AM
When you look at your evidence, namely the Bible, we know the Bible is true - what we question is your INTERPRETATION of the Bible.

When I started this thread, the sciences I had in mind were the science of cosmology and palaeontology.

The universe does not lie, its our INTERPRETATION of what we see which is in question.
Likewise, the rocks and fossils don't lie. Its our INTERPRETATION of what they are telling us which is in question.

No scientist can speak for the cosmos or the fossils. Their pronouncements are always INTERPRETATIONS.
Likewise, no person can speak for God. They only have their INTERPRETATION of what the Bible is saying.

I am taking all three witnesses, because all three have inherent truth, and trying to come up with a unified INTERPRETATION which does not violate inherent truth.
Science can add to theology, and theology to science. Even God tells us this when He says in Psa 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
The point I've been making this whole time is that these interpretations you refer too are directly dependent on one's paradigm and that people with an atheistic paradigm, even if they are not actual atheists, will consistently interpret data in a manner that leaves God out of the picture and the theist will do the reverse. The two are NOT compatible! Any agreement or even similarity in their conclusions is accidental, except when and to the extent that the atheist is borrowing from the theistic worldview in order to do his science.

You, however, seem to prefer to trust the atheistic interpretation over the clear teaching of God's word. You assume that the text of scripture means something other than what it seems to say for no reason at all other than the interpretation of scientific data that atheists have made. But I have news for you! You cannot do that and maintain anything that resembles a rational worldview. Words do indeed have a range of meaning and the same words can be used to convey several potential meanings but that does not mean that language is so plastic that you can rightly make it mean anything you want based on any premise you dare to dream up. It is the context of what is being said as well as the rules of grammar and syntax that determine the meaning of the text, not your cosmological paradigm. What you are doing with scripture renders the whole idea of divine inspiration utterly meaningless because the text can be made to say anything at all.

Clete

iouae
November 12th, 2017, 08:15 AM
The problem with this silly objection is that they do not use manufactured meter sticks to measure the speed of light and, as I explain in the post just prior to this one, the second would speed up or slow down along with the speed of light and so the difference in distance that light traveled would be off set by the measured duration of the time it took to make the trip. The distance/time measurement would therefore be the same whether light speed was actually constant or not.


For all intent and purposes?

Really?

Every scientist in existence would laugh you out of the room for making such a comment. When scientist say that c is constant, they are not talking about "for all practical purposes" or anything like that. When they say that c is constant, they mean precisely that.

And I'm not even arguing here that it isn't constant. I'm simply informing you that if it weren't constant, they'd never know it now because they've built the constancy of c into the measurement. And yes, there are sets of physical standard meters kept in various places around the world but those standard meters are created using light. It's official value is not defined by these physical standard meter sticks. The meter's official value is EXACTLY 1/299,792,458 of the distance light travels through a vacuum in one second and any physical standard meter, if found to be different than that length, will be tossed and replaced with a new one - which does happen from time to time, by the way.

Clete

Newtonian physics is used in everyday use. It is perfect to all intents and purposes.
But sometimes one uses relativity or quantum physics under extremely small, big, or fast conditions.

6days
November 12th, 2017, 08:19 AM
When
Likewise, no person can speak for God. They only have their INTERPRETATION of what the Bible is saying.
A fool suggests absolute truth can not be known. It also is foolish to suggest secular interpretations of fossils, distant starlight etc are as valid as interpretations of God's Word. Jesus often referred to scripture as a source of absolute truth. As Jesus said in Jn 5:47 "But since you don't believe what (Moses) wrote, how will you believe what I say?"
Jesus referred often to various scripture as absolute truth (it is written). He referred more often to what Moses wrote than any other Book. The reason Jesus referred to Genesis as literal history is that the Gospel is dependent on a literal first Adam, and first sin. The cross becomes meaningless when you reject the literal history of Genesis, and the genealogies from first Adam to Last Adam.

iouae
November 12th, 2017, 08:28 AM
What you are doing with scripture renders the whole idea of divine inspiration utterly meaningless because the text can be made to say anything at all.

Clete

You will be amazed what scripture can say. For instance...

Gen 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Change "was" to "became" as the NIV allows, and as the Hebrew allows, and now you have an earth which became this formless and void way, instead of God creating a messed up formless and void world which He then has to repair.

And if the earth became this way, it allows science to tell us how far back the universe came into being.

You are wrong that there is a correct translation of the Bible. Genesis 1:1 actually reads "In beginning, Gods created the heavens and the earth".

No "the". (no definite article in Hebrew "hey")
Gods, not God. (Elohim)
Heavens not heaven.(shamayim)
"Earth" could also mean "land".(eretz)
"in" could also be translated "To begin" or another preposition.

So here are 5 possibilities the translators had to grapple with in the first verse alone.

iouae
November 12th, 2017, 08:36 AM
A fool suggests absolute truth can not be known. It also is foolish to suggest secular interpretations of fossils, distant starlight etc are as valid as interpretations of God's Word. Jesus often referred to scripture as a source of absolute truth. As Jesus said in Jn 5:47 "But since you don't believe what (Moses) wrote, how will you believe what I say?"
Jesus referred often to various scripture as absolute truth (it is written). He referred more often to what Moses wrote than any other Book. The reason Jesus referred to Genesis as literal history is that the Gospel is dependent on a literal first Adam, and first sin. The cross becomes meaningless when you reject the literal history of Genesis, and the genealogies from first Adam to Last Adam.


If I was arguing with Jesus on TOL, I would defer to his interpretation of scripture as "absolute truth".
Sorry if it offends you that I don't accept your INTERPRETATION of scripture as anything more than opinion.

And which chapter and verse is your opening sentence "A fool suggests absolute truth can not be known".
That again is your opinion, and it comes across that you believe that what you write is absolute truth.

Science is more honest to call their beliefs a "working hypothesis" to be rejected if proven false.

Clete
November 12th, 2017, 08:37 AM
I tried my hardest to understand your argument but my "Teflon mind" just does not get philosophical arguments such as yours. Maybe everyone else reading it finds it irresistible.

The entire point of your thread is entirely philosophical!

You are on a THEOLOGY forum! You do understand that theology is just one branch of philosophy - right?

Besides, there's nothing I've said that very difficult to understand. It isn't that you aren't getting it, it's that you are rejecting it.

What I don't get is why! I'd bet that you don't get why either!

Look, the only good reason to be here, spending the ridiculous amount of time it takes to participate in these forums is to THINK and thereby better understand what YOU believe and why. Most people never ever do any real thinking. The closest the average person comes to thinking is to stare into the distance with a thoughtful look on their face while nothing is really going on underneath their hat. They move through their lives reacting to what people say and to the things that happen to them. Thinking takes real effort that most are simply unwilling to muster. It seems to me that you are reacting to my arguments rather than actually thinking them through. I've been doing this for a very long time and I assure you that I am not wasting your time with frivolous nonsense. It is well worth your time to study and understand the things I'm exposing you to.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe you just don't get it but you wouldn't be here in the first place if it were actually beyond you. I urge you not to drop it. You are making a serious mistake that will, at best, retard your spiritual growth of understanding of God and His word and, at worst, it will shipwreck your faith entirely. You are juggling torches on a ship full of gun powder - philosophically speaking, of course.

Clete

6days
November 12th, 2017, 09:07 AM
I don't accept your INTERPRETATION of scripture as anything more than opinion.
Jesus said He is the only way... It is an absolute truth.
Likewise Scripture tells us that in six days of created the heavens and the earth and everything in them...It is an absolute truth


And which chapter and verse is your opening sentence "A fool suggests absolute truth can not be known".Jesus claimed He was absolute truth. Jn 14:6 A fool would suggest that His statement allows for interpretation and other ways to God. We can know absolute truth.


Science is more honest to call their beliefs a "working hypothesis"I understand what I think you are saying, but science does not have beliefs... and science is neither honest, nor dishonest. (I think you meant to use the word scientists?) Evolutionists however are often trying to sell their beliefs, not as a 'working hypothesis', but instead as facts.

Clete
November 12th, 2017, 09:17 AM
iouae,

Something just occurred to me while I was proof reading that last post. I can remember clearly when I was first exposed to the TAG argument that I didn't get it either - although for an entirely different reason.

I think it would be worth your time to read through my exchange with Hilston in this thread...

theologyonline.com/showthread.php?17275-ARCHIVE-Presuppositionalism-What-and-Why

The whole thread is worth reading but if all you do is read my posts and the quotations therein, that'll save you time and still get the gist of the thread across.

iouae
November 12th, 2017, 09:34 AM
The atheistic worldview is predicated on the idea that nothing is to be taken by faith.

Clete, you do go on so, so I decided to hold nothing back and tell you what I really think of your philosophy.

Opening sentence utter bunkum. Science has faith in its methodologies, beliefs, truths, ways of finding truth out.



This is their most fundamental philosophical pillar.

Rubbish. Relativity, quantum physics, cosmology, evolution - all rely on a type of "faith" or belief system not unlike religions. And they have many pillars such as reason, observation, hypothesis, experimentation, blind tests, stats. How can you decide what is their main pillar?


Everything they do, think or say is built on the idea that the veracity of every claim must and can only be established by logic and reason.

This is maybe what science in Socrates day was based on, but now we have observation, instruments like telescopes and microscopes. Of course reason is important to everything from religion to marriage, including science. Many hypotheses are based on hunches.


They do, however, find themselves perched on the horns of a dilemma whenever anyone asks them to establish the veracity of reason itself.

No they don't. They are scientists, not philosophers. Most are taught methodologies.
Reason is common to all humans, and human activities. They don't have to justify reason any more than they justify direct observation, or hypotheses based on hunches.


They can say that logic is axiomatic, which is what they almost always do, but this is the equivalent to being a presuppositionalist in that they are taking the veracity of logic on faith, which is antithetical to their worldview.
Utterly wrong, because of the wrongness of your opening statement, that science is devoid of faith. Nobody can function for a minute awake and doing anything, without faith. Name any human activity, and I will tell you the faith involved. Typing, I have faith my computer will not crash, that when I press send, it will go, that this post may be worth the time it took to type it.


The other option is to attempt to make some sort of argument that defends the veracity of logic.
Wrong, because scientists as a rule take logic for granted, and don't take courses in it, yet win Nobel prises with no courses in logic.


This is question begging, since any argument presupposes the veracity of logic and therefore assumes what they are trying to prove.
Life presupposes the veracity of many things, including that the earth will not just randomly open up and swallow us.


They are forced to either break the laws of reason or else take the veracity of reason on faith.
Or not bother to think of it at all, while they think up ways of making this a better world, by inventing the internet, or devising drought-resistant plants.


They thereby undermine their own worldview every time they make a truth claim or, for that matter, every time they utter an intelligible word. The atheist is therefore FORCED to violate his own worldview at every turn.

Nobody can speak for all science, and there are as many worldview as there are world viewers.



The atheistic worldview is therefore false.

All worldview are false, because such a thing as a worldview is a construct of the mind, and "the heart is deceitful above all things".


Therefore, God must exist because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.

What a long leap off a short pier.
God must exist because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.
You have not brought up God before, so there is no "contrary".
And nothing exists because anyone thinks something.

This supposed proof is a sentence which sits in thin air with no logic to support it. Especially because you never mentioned God before, and because before you were talking about atheistic worldviews which, just because they are wrong, does not prove anything right. One can be wrong in a million ways and this does not make even the opposite worldview correct. And to conjure up God and pop Him into the conversation randomly, and say because atheists think wrong, God must exist - its delusional, irrational, illogical and crazy.


That is a brief presentation of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG for short). It is one way of communicating the fact that all truth is predicated on, not just the existence of God, but on God Himself. God must be presupposed in order for reason to work.

Its a terrible argument, because I see no connection between reason and God.


Now that doesn't get you all the way to Christianity since Christianity is only one of thousands of theistic worldviews but establishing Christianity would be far outside the bounds of what I'm trying to establish in this thread. It would, however, be worth my time, I think, to point out that the God of the Bible, and Jesus in particular, is presented to us as Reason incarnate. Note the following passage from the first chapter of John's Gospel...

Again, nuts. Christ is God incarnate. Yes, God uses reason, as we do. Even my cat reasons how to catch that mouse.




John1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

In this passage, everywhere you see the phrase, "the Word" the Greek word being used is "Logos". It is important to understand what this Greek word means because the use of "Word" as an English translation just doesn't convey what this passage is teaching. Logos conveys the idea of communication or more specifically, discourse and more specifically than that, rational discourse and/or rational argument. It is the word from which we get the suffix "-ology", as in Biology, Theology, Technology, Climatology, Cosmology, etc. So, the study of living things is "Biology" and the processes in a living creature are said to be biological. Notice bio-LOGICAL. To apply logic to the processes in living things, and thus to understand them, is biology, it is the logos of life. This is the meaning conveyed by "Logos".

So now, with this better understanding of the Greek, lets look at this passage again...

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

And folks accuse me of loose interpretation of scripture. At least I look up what "logos" means and "logic" is not on the translators list of choices for the word.


Now, to be clear, I should point out that I do not worship logic except in the specific sense present above.

You sure bang on about it though.


The bible repeatedly tells us that God is Love and no one has any problem with accepting that notion and no one is every accused of worshiping love except in the sense that God is Love and we do worship God. In the same sense that God is Love, God is also Logic and I worship Him as such. I do not worship the process of right thinking, I worship Him from whom that process emanates and derives its meaning and veracity.

For this reason, and several others, Christianity is not only a rational worldview, it is the only rational worldview.

By the illogicality of that last sentence, you have just proved an example to the contrary.


That is not to say that everything claimed by unbelievers is false.

Don't be too nice to the pagan unbelievers now.


If the God of the bible is Reason, then the closer an unbeliever comes to having reason as his foundation and the more consistently he uses logic correctly, the closer his conclusions will come to the truth and the more in agreement his "true science" will be with "true religion".

And here we are on this thread proving the exact opposite.


The problem is, as I've been attempting to show you here in this thread, they neither have reason as their foundation nor do they use logic consistently. Their paradigm steers them away from the truth because they, in spite of their claims to the contrary, do not merely reject God's existence. On the contrary, they despise the very idea of God and are enemies of those who believe in God, most especially Christians. You would be wise to count them as the enemies that they are.

I try to love my enemies. But unbelievers are not automatically my enemies. And scientists don't burn fellow scientists at the stake, or act intolerant of Christians or those with contrary worldviews.



Resting in Him,
Clete

iouae
November 12th, 2017, 09:40 AM
iouae,

Something just occurred to me while I was proof reading that last post. I can remember clearly when I was first exposed to the TAG argument that I didn't get it either - although for an entirely different reason.

I think it would be worth your time to read through my exchange with Hilston in this thread...

theologyonline.com/showthread.php?17275-ARCHIVE-Presuppositionalism-What-and-Why

The whole thread is worth reading but if all you do is read my posts and the quotations therein, that'll save you time and still get the gist of the thread across.

Clete I have just spent time refuting what you now call your incomplete argument.

You summarise the argument in a few lines, and I will look at it. But you need to do the work of getting it straight and presenting it concisely.

Clete
November 12th, 2017, 09:46 AM
Clete I have just spent time refuting what you now call your incomplete argument.

You summarise the argument in a few lines, and I will look at it. But you need to do the work of getting it straight and presenting it concisely.

Don't bother. I was wrong. It is beyond you. I won't waste any more of my time with you. Good bye.

iouae
November 12th, 2017, 09:58 AM
Jesus said He is the only way... It is an absolute truth.
Likewise Scripture tells us that in six days of created the heavens and the earth and everything in them...It is an absolute truth

Just to show you how absolutely wrong you are about absolute truth, let me show you how your worldview caused you to inadvertently misquote scripture.

Exo 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Notice heaven, earth, sea - the three components of earth and earth's creatures.
Heaven for birds
Earth for land animals
Sea for sea creatures.

From the context alone it shows that the larger heavens were not in the writer's mind.

God did not create the heaven He dwells in, or the 3rd spiritual heaven.
And nothing about creating the second or cosmic heaven - no mention of stars, moon etc.
Only heaven referred to is one with creatures in "all that in them is".
It does not even say "heavens".

But because "heaven" is from "shamayim" which can be either sing. or pl. I am not holding you to the singular.

But please give absolutes a rest.

iouae
November 12th, 2017, 10:04 AM
Don't bother. I was wrong. It is beyond you. I won't waste any more of my time with you. Good bye.


Well you kept going on about what a great argument it was, I felt obliged to at least tell you honestly what I thought of it. You are right that philosophical arguments probably are beyond me.

6days
November 12th, 2017, 12:34 PM
Just to show you how absolutely wrong you are about absolute truth Well, at least you seem to believe in absolutes. The problem is that you think you have absolute truth, and God's Word doesn't

let me show you how your worldview caused you to inadvertently misquote scripture.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it..... And nothing about creating the second or cosmic heaven - no mention of stars, moon etc.
Only heaven referred to is one with creatures in "all that in them is".
It does not even say "heavens".
Strongs: 1. a. visible heavens, sky, where stars, etc., are Judges 5:20; Genesis 15:5 (J), Deuteronomy 4:19; Genesis 1:14,15,17 (P), hence ׳כּוֺכְבֵי הַשּׁ Genesis 22:17 (JE) = 9 t. (usually as countless), ׳(כָּלֿ) צְבָא הַשּׁ Deuteronomy 4:19; Jeremiah 8:2 + ( ׳צ
[quote=iouae]
But please give absolutes a rest. [/quote=iouae]God's Word is absolute truth and inerrant.

iouae
November 13th, 2017, 06:17 AM
Increasingly I believe that religion and science are very alike, and both are faith based systems.

Both sets of believers look to their sources of evidence. Christians look to the Bible, and Scientists look to their instruments and methodologies.

Both have their authority figures, the Pope, Darwin, Dawkins, the TV evangelists. And followers put a lot of faith in what the authorities have to say.

Both have their institutions of higher learning, where their particular beliefs and methodologies are espoused.

Humans do almost every human activity, by faith. You name the activity, and there will be a faith basis to that human activity. We are inherently hard-wired to be faith based in our thinking.

So it's not the just alone who live by faith. It's everyone.

For this reason I believe its useless to say that science handles the empirical, the solid, the tangible, and religion takes care of that which cannot be seen.

If we can combine the "evidence" from cosmology, palaeontology and the Bible, maybe we can find a common belief. Maybe we can reconcile Genesis, the Big Bang and the fossil record, because all purport to supply evidence regarding the same events of the past.

And expect every human to be irrational and illogical in his defence and presentation of his evidence. Evolutionists consider YEC irrational and vice versa. I consider both irrational. And most consider me irrational, and that's perfectly reasonable, because reason is based on faith, and faith derives its evidence, for different folks, from different sources.