[__ Science __ ] A very long Wednesday... Young Earth and Old Universe Creationism reconciled?

[Jim Parker]

I don't think I would have appreciated what was said in the movie in the OP if I had not watched "The Principle". There are some amazing findings in recent cosmology that Christians are unaware of and atheists are very troubled by!

Ah! The poor troubled atheists!
I would not attempt to use science that is beyond my understanding to convince atheists of the existence of God. And I would avoid using the Bible as "scientific proof" for anything since it is not a science book.
Jesus told us to use a different approach.
Mat 5:16 “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven."

Arguments about the interpretation of observed data can and do go in circles for decades and have done so within the scientific community's experts for centuries.

But there is observable and countable data of the meaning which cannot be mistaken.
Mat 25:35-26 "I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me."

Acts of mercy, which imitate God's mercy, (HE so loved the world...) cannot be denied.


iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

The current consensus within the scientific community is that life on Earth has evolved within 4 billion years, with most of that time taken up by single cell organisms. Once life got past that, it got knocked down and almost out repeatedly, with strong indications that 20 million years is plenty of time for very substantial evolution to occur.
Thought since things found in the mid 90's has changed a LOT!

Of course the theory of evolution has had to be modified since one of its original basic assumptions was that the universe and the earth were infinitely old so there would be plenty of time for evolution. Since the discovery of the "red shift" by which astrophysicists date the universe at some 13.7 billion years old, the theory has had to be modified by a series of flights of imagination.

And one basic issue is, at this moment, insurmountable: life arising from non-life.

I read a book about 25 years ago written by a biologist. He pointed out that the DNA double helix is made up of thousands of identical amino acids. He explained that the particular amino acid could be formed in two configurations which, when polarized light was shone through them, would rotate the plane of polarization to the left or to the right according to the configuration of the amino acid. He then stated that all the thousands of amino acids in a DNA strand must be right-rotating for it to support life. A single left-rotating amino acid molecule would render the strand useless for life.

Then he calculated the possibility of a 100% right-rotating, DNA strand forming by chance to be 1X10 to the minus 80.
That's 1 divided by 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

Statistically, at 1X10-12, the chances of an event are considered to be zero.

So, evolution theory seeks to discover how, if God didn't create all this, how could it have happened by serendipity?

Iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

A general comment.

I have repeatedly stated that Christians err when they attempt to use the Bible as a science book. It is not a science book; it is the revelation of God to mankind. It's purpose is not to understand how the universe works but to understand how a relationship with God works.

In reality, mixing a little bit of science and a little bit of Bible only convinces Christians who already believe or those on the brink of deciding to follow Jesus. An atheist will not be convinced.

I intend to continue to repeat that view hoping that someone, somewhere will "get it" and then I can die a happy man.

But there is more to the story.

Why was Jesus so convincing?
(1) He healed the sick, cast out demons, gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, speech to the mute, movement to the lame and paralyzed and even raised the dead.
(2) Having done so, He preached the Gospel.

Paul did the same.
1Co 2:4-5 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Trying to "prove" God by using science is using persuasive words of human wisdom instead of the "proof" of the demonstration of the power of God.

So, why don't we do that?

Did the Holy Spirit take His power and go home?

Or would Jesus say to us; "You don't do those things Because of your unbelief; for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you."? (Mat 17:20)


And, yes. I'm including myself in that answer of Jesus.


iakov the fool

 

[Razeontherock]

Of course the theory of evolution has had to be modified since one of its original basic assumptions was that the universe and the earth were infinitely old so there would be plenty of time for evolution. Since the discovery of the "red shift" by which astrophysicists date the universe at some 13.7 billion years old, the theory has had to be modified by a series of flights of imagination.

And one basic issue is, at this moment, insurmountable: life arising from non-life.

I read a book about 25 years ago written by a biologist. He pointed out that the DNA double helix is made up of thousands of identical amino acids. He explained that the particular amino acid could be formed in two configurations which, when polarized light was shone through them, would rotate the plane of polarization to the left or to the right according to the configuration of the amino acid. He then stated that all the thousands of amino acids in a DNA strand must be right-rotating for it to support life. A single left-rotating amino acid molecule would render the strand useless for life.

Then he calculated the possibility of a 100% right-rotating, DNA strand forming by chance to be 1X10 to the minus 80.
That's 1 divided by 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

Statistically, at 1X10-12, the chances of an event are considered to be zero.

So, evolution theory seeks to discover how, if God didn't create all this, how could it have happened by serendipity?

Iakov the fool

EXACTLY! Even more emphatically, the left handed molecule is DEATH, not life. That orientation literally starts to reverse after we die.

Now I'm not going to try to turn that into Doctrine that this has any bearing on the second death, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Judgment involves things at the level of molecules, or sub-atomic particles.

God's got this! We only wish we knew ... and that desire to understand comes straight from Him

 

[Razeontherock]

I am not a member of the denomination; “Church of Christ”. I am an engineer (use science to actually build useful stuff. Rockets, bombs and missiles in particular).

Church of Christ is different from Christian scientists. I worded it the way I did (Church of Christ, scientist) because my only known interaction with them IRL is seeing the label on their 'reading room' in my hometown, which was written that way.

 

[Razeontherock]

If you mentioned Eastern Orthodox to most of my fellow local church members you’d get a blank stare, not knowing much about it one way or the other.

Bottom line is I’m pretty familiar with both current physical science and the Scripture and there’s no conflict between them. Take the age of the heavens, for example. Scripture says they are old (ancient). Sounds about right to me.

Psalm 68:32-33 O kingdoms of the earth, sing to God;sing praise to the Lord, Selah to the one who rides in the highest heavens of old.

Yeah, EO only started getting much of a toe hold in the US in the past decade or so. They do not have a congregation close enough to me for me to really be a part of

 

[New Day Coming]

EXACTLY! Even more emphatically, the left handed molecule is DEATH, not life. That orientation literally starts to reverse after we die.

Now I'm not going to try to turn that into Doctrine that this has any bearing on the second death, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Judgment involves things at the level of molecules, or sub-atomic particles.

God's got this! We only wish we knew ... and that desire to understand comes straight from Him

I once asked my Biochemistry professor if racemic life was possible, and what mechanism could have selected for "handedness" in chiral amino acids. She didn't answer very well, and avoided me after that. To prove a point I set out to (and got) the top grade on my degree course in the Evolution elective, and had profound satisfaction in telling the head of the course that it was a faith, not a theory and a faith full of holes at best ;-)

 

[tdidymas]

If you mentioned Eastern Orthodox to most of my fellow local church members you’d get a blank stare, not knowing much about it one way or the other.

Bottom line is I’m pretty familiar with both current physical science and the Scripture and there’s no conflict between them. Take the age of the heavens, for example. Scripture says they are old (ancient). Sounds about right to me.

Psalm 68:32-33 O kingdoms of the earth, sing to God;sing praise to the Lord, Selah to the one who rides in the highest heavens of old.

But it doesn't say how old. 6k yrs is old compared to a man's life or kingdoms on Earth.
TD

 

[Razeontherock]

I once asked my Biochemistry professor if racemic life was possible, and what mechanism could have selected for "handedness" in chiral amino acids. She didn't answer very well, and avoided me after that. To prove a point I set out to (and got) the top grade on my degree course in the Evolution elective, and had profound satisfaction in telling the head of the course that it was a faith, not a theory and a faith full of holes at best ;-)

What do you mean by the term, "racemic life?"

 

[New Day Coming]

What do you mean by the term, "racemic life?"

A mixture of left and right handed amino acids in a protein. The Miller experiment which created amino acids was only able to form a racemic mixture (left and right handed versions of the simple amino acids it produced). Since this is the "Genesis" of evolutionary faith, it needs to be understood that the little pond of Darwin's imagination contained no such selection mechanism to create functional proteins.

If you can't form the "bricks" of proteins, you certainly can't build the "city" of a "simple" cell.

 

[chessman]

But it doesn't say how old.

Correct, just that it’s old/ancient.

6k yrs is old compared to a man's life or kingdoms on Earth.

Not really, especially compared to lifespans pre-flood, or trees. I have underwear that’s almost 1% of 6,000 years. But that’s just me.

 

[Razeontherock]

A mixture of left and right handed amino acids in a protein. The Miller experiment which created amino acids was only able to form a racemic mixture (left and right handed versions of the simple amino acids it produced). Since this is the "Genesis" of evolutionary faith, it needs to be understood that the little pond of Darwin's imagination contained no such selection mechanism to create functional proteins.

If you can't form the "bricks" of proteins, you certainly can't build the "city" of a "simple" cell.

Yes! Just checking. I don't want to forge ahead on mere assumption.

You would not believe the ruckus that was raised when I first brought this topic up. I was on a talk forum for telemark skiers; little did I know I was chatting with THE head of the project to map the human genome. Neither did I realize how many other working scientists were regular posters, but I sure found out in a hurry! I was in way over my head. That's a good way to learn though! And not one of them could address this issue of racemic mixing.

 

[New Day Coming]

Yes! Just checking. I don't want to forgo ahead on mere assumption.

You would not believe the ruckus that was raised when I first brought this topic up. I was on a talk forum for telemark skiers; little did I know I was chatting with THE head of the project to map the human genome. Neither did I realize how many other working scientists were regular posters, but I sure found out in a hurry! I was in way over my head. That's a good way to learn though! And not one of them could address this issue of racemic mixing.

Scientist like to use terminology to shut out regular folk from the debate sometimes, or make their research sound more important!

As far as this question of racemic mixing is concerned, it is simply like going into a big sock draw, full of loose socks in the dark, and expecting to get all black, left footed ones!!!

 

[Jim Parker]

Scientist like to use terminology to shut out regular folk from the debate sometimes, or make their research sound more important!

Scientists use "terminology" because it is necessary to accurately communicate. "Regular folk" are shut out because of their ignorance of the terminology. (Like me.)

 

[New Day Coming]

Scientists use "terminology" because it is necessary to accurately communicate. "Regular folk" are shut out because of their ignorance of the terminology. (Like me.)

Lol - don't be hard on yourself! Some of the terms and the Latin are daunting, and yes, they are there for precision in description. Psychologically though, something intended for accurate communication between professionals can also be used to obfuscate meaning. When I started noticing this, I found myself spotting the way that particular scientific perspectives were sold to the public...

 

[Razeontherock]

As far as this question of racemic mixing is concerned, it is simply like going into a big sock draw, full of loose socks in the dark, and expecting to get all black, left footed ones!!!

My dryer makes this possible. I want to discover the black hole where my matching socks wind up. And while it is old, I'm pretty sure it is not 4BY old, to be able to account for biogenesis.

 

[Jim Parker]

I want to discover the black hole where my matching socks wind up.

According to the Orange Catholic Bible, your socks go to Limbo.

 

[Barbarian]

The video messes up immediately. So far, no one's found soft tissue in dinosaur fossils. And proof isn't part of science.
So another ignorant person who doesn't understand what Dr. Schweitzer found. They found some collagen, some heme, and so on, but no tissues. BTW, scientists have long known that organic molecules can survive for millions of years. One key discovery was that the heme, when tested, turned out to be more like that of birds than like that of modern reptiles, which contradicts creationism, but is a prediction of evolutionary theory.

Science is primarily inductive, so there is no such thing as "proof" in science. At least this guy didn't try to tie creationism to Christianity, which deeply harms people who might otherwise accept Jesus.

 

[Razeontherock]

According to the Orange Catholic Bible, your socks go to Limbo.

Now I know where to go to get them back. As long as I don't get a one-way ticket ...

 

[Razeontherock]

One key discovery was that the heme, when tested, turned out to be more like that of birds than like that of modern reptiles, which contradicts creationism

This claim of 'contradicting creationism' is based merely on assumptions. A LOT of them! Including at least one that is incorrect. Creationism says precisely nothing about heme, much less about this specific instance..

At least this guy didn't try to tie creationism to Christianity, which deeply harms people who might otherwise accept Jesus.

Creationism means that God created things; more specifically, that He created everything that was made, seen and unseen. That is part of the Creed that even RCs profess. More specifically, within Christianity, Jesus made all that stuff. Again, saying nothing about heme, be that from bird, reptile, or otherwise.

In terms of "soft tissue having been found in dinosaur remains' (fossils) that was in the news. In the headlines. Really BIG headlines! So if you're saying that's ignorance, you're saying it was fake news. This promotes the understanding that reporting on scientific discovery is fake, generally. One might think that runs counter to your goals?