[_ Old Earth _] Except that it didn't...

[Knotical]

http://news.discovery.com/space/ast...h-our-solar-system-70000-years-ago-150218.htm

Sometimes I just find amusement in seeing how scientists try to explain certain things, especially things they have the remotest, circumstantial evidence to support their claims.

The even in the article supposedly took place over 70,000 years ago, which is interesting as it was well before God actually created the universe.

 

[Barbarian]

So God created a star rushing away from us, as though it actually passed through the solar system, but it was merely set up to make it look that way?

I believe God must have a sense of humor, but I don't think He sets up hoaxes.

 

[Knotical]

God certainly created the star, but the idea that this occurrence was over 70,000 is completely ludicrous considering the fact that the universe nowhere near that old.

 

[Lewis]

God certainly created the star, but the idea that this occurrence was over 70,000 is completely ludicrous considering the fact that the universe nowhere near that old.

 

[Sinthesis]

Pretty neat.

 

[john darling]

So God created a star rushing away from us

The question is, what was it running away from? *looks around nervously*

 

[tim-from-pa]

http://news.discovery.com/space/ast...h-our-solar-system-70000-years-ago-150218.htm

Sometimes I just find amusement in seeing how scientists try to explain certain things, especially things they have the remotest, circumstantial evidence to support their claims.

The even in the article supposedly took place over 70,000 years ago, which is interesting as it was well before God actually created the universe.

I'm just wondering how you reconcile the idea that there are space objects more than 6000 light years away, and even our own galaxy is supposedly 100,000 light years? All light should stop after 6000 years if that's the start.

 

[Barbarian]

I think the usual explanation is that God created the light on the way, so as to make it look very old. This would involve showing us light from exploding supernovae that never existed.

Given that God is not deceptive, that won't fly for a Christian. Haven't heard a different story, so far.

 

[Knotical]

I'm just wondering how you reconcile the idea that there are space objects more than 6000 light years away, and even our own galaxy is supposedly 100,000 light years? All light should stop after 6000 years if that's the start.

You are assuming that what we "know" about the speed of light is absolutely true. There are plenty of things that man things it knows is either not completely correct, or simply just wrong.

Since there are objects out in space that we will never hope to see first hand is it too much of a stretch to consider that what we know about the speed of light might be wrong?

 

[Free]

You are assuming that what we "know" about the speed of light is absolutely true. There are plenty of things that man things it knows is either not completely correct, or simply just wrong.

Since there are objects out in space that we will never hope to see first hand is it too much of a stretch to consider that what we know about the speed of light might be wrong?

Or the speed of light is correct and you are making assumptions about what the Bible says regarding the age of the universe. When it seems as though the Bible and science disagree, it could just as well be that our interpretation of Scripture is incorrect. There is usually no reason to automatically assume that science is wrong.

 

[Knotical]

Or the speed of light is correct and you are making assumptions about what the Bible says regarding the age of the universe. When it seems as though the Bible and science disagree, it could just as well be that our interpretation of Scripture is incorrect. There is usually no reason to automatically assume that science is wrong.

Well, considering the bible is God breathed, and everything in science was developed by man, which would you put more stock in?

 

[Barbarian]

It's clear that we can be as wrong about what scripture says, as we can be about the physical universe. If that wasn't so, we wouldn't have several hundred different sects, each convinced its own interpretation is right.

So, either way, one can be wrong. As St. Augustine said, we should have the humility to recognize that we can be wrong, and change our opinions of what scripture says, if the facts require it.

 

[tim-from-pa]

You are assuming that what we "know" about the speed of light is absolutely true. There are plenty of things that man things it knows is either not completely correct, or simply just wrong.

Since there are objects out in space that we will never hope to see first hand is it too much of a stretch to consider that what we know about the speed of light might be wrong?

Yes, I think it would be a stretch to consider we have the speed of light wrong --- a big stretch. Take for instance radio waves. If we did not know the speed of light, then antenna length theory would all be wrong, and radio towers would be a different height than they are. But we know what a "quarter wave" and "half wave" antenna length is like, and we could not do that if we had the speed of light wrong. And that's one of many examples. Actually, they had the speed of light accurately determined for quite some time, now.

 

[Knotical]

It's clear that we can be as wrong about what scripture says, as we can be about the physical universe. If that wasn't so, we wouldn't have several hundred different sects, each convinced its own interpretation is right.

So, either way, one can be wrong. As St. Augustine said, we should have the humility to recognize that we can be wrong, and change our opinions of what scripture says, if the facts require it.

To what facts are you referring?

The only test we can use against scripture is scripture, and only if we endeavor to understand the context in which it was written.

 

[Barbarian]

To what facts are you referring?
The only test we can use against scripture is scripture, and only if we endeavor to understand the context in which it was written.

Saint Augustine had considered the problem of Christians trying to present personal interpretations of scripture that are contrary to observed reality:

Whenever … [unbelievers] catch out some members of the Christian community making mistakes on a subject which they know inside out, and defending their hollow opinions on the authority of our books, on what grounds are they going to trust those books on the resurrection of the dead and the hope of eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, when they suppose they include any number of mistakes and fallacies on matters which they themselves have been able to master either by experiment or by the surest of calculations?
St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis (I.19.39)

He wrote more than that, but some of it was not as gentle as this.

 

[john darling]

Well, considering the bible is God breathed, and everything in science was developed by man, which would you put more stock in?

This "everything in science was developed by man" comment is a little confusing. It sounds like you are suggesting that man invented the speed of light. We observe what happens around us and we make conclusions based on those observations. We call this process "science" but the speed of light is not based on our ability to "develop" a process by which we can measure it. The speed of light, as we are able to observe it, was created by God. It's the same with things like magnetism and gravity. We can observe and test these things; we can manipulate them and yes, develop them for our benefit, but God still created them.

Perhaps there really is some mystery which is yet to be discovered about the speed of light; some difference of perspective from our normal view of how light should work. But if that is true for our understanding of light, can't it also be true for our understanding of the creation story?

Perhaps there is something more to what is being described than a literal 24 hour day (I'm not opposed to a literal 7 day interpretation, but just exploring possibilities). I mean, the story talks about "evening and morning" to mark the days, but the sun wasn't even created until the fourth day. How can there be an evening and a morning without the sun? Though I suppose it's the rotation of the earth which marks a full day so we could still have a full 24 hour day even without the sun, but the words "evening" and "morning" only have meaning in the context of sun rise and sun set.

The story also says God divided the light from the dark and called the light "day" on the first day but again the sun wasn't created until 4 days later. I'm not questioning the order of events, but when examining the actual words there is a fair bit of reason to consider that "evening and morning were the first day" could easily have other interpretations besides a literal 24 hour day as we recognize it now.

 

[Knotical]

This "everything in science was developed by man" comment is a little confusing. It sounds like you are suggesting that man invented the speed of light. We observe what happens around us and we make conclusions based on those observations. We call this process "science" but the speed of light is not based on our ability to "develop" a process by which we can measure it. The speed of light, as we are able to observe it, was created by God. It's the same with things like magnetism and gravity. We can observe and test these things; we can manipulate them and yes, develop them for our benefit, but God still created them.

Perhaps there really is some mystery which is yet to be discovered about the speed of light; some difference of perspective from our normal view of how light should work. But if that is true for our understanding of light, can't it also be true for our understanding of the creation story?

Perhaps there is something more to what is being described than a literal 24 hour day (I'm not opposed to a literal 7 day interpretation, but just exploring possibilities). I mean, the story talks about "evening and morning" to mark the days, but the sun wasn't even created until the fourth day. How can there be an evening and a morning without the sun? Though I suppose it's the rotation of the earth which marks a full day so we could still have a full 24 hour day even without the sun, but the words "evening" and "morning" only have meaning in the context of sun rise and sun set.

The story also says God divided the light from the dark and called the light "day" on the first day but again the sun wasn't created until 4 days later. I'm not questioning the order of events, but when examining the actual words there is a fair bit of reason to consider that "evening and morning were the first day" could easily have other interpretations besides a literal 24 hour day as we recognize it now.

Ah, so you allow for the frame-work hypothesis, which has been considered a heresy, and should be dismissed entirely.

Time is an invention of man in order to measure events, not something God ordained. God exists outside of time and has no use for it. Therefore, since time is a human invention it is inherently flawed, including, but not limited to, our understanding of the speed of light.

 

[jasonc]

This "everything in science was developed by man" comment is a little confusing. It sounds like you are suggesting that man invented the speed of light. We observe what happens around us and we make conclusions based on those observations. We call this process "science" but the speed of light is not based on our ability to "develop" a process by which we can measure it. The speed of light, as we are able to observe it, was created by God. It's the same with things like magnetism and gravity. We can observe and test these things; we can manipulate them and yes, develop them for our benefit, but God still created them.

Perhaps there really is some mystery which is yet to be discovered about the speed of light; some difference of perspective from our normal view of how light should work. But if that is true for our understanding of light, can't it also be true for our understanding of the creation story?

Perhaps there is something more to what is being described than a literal 24 hour day (I'm not opposed to a literal 7 day interpretation, but just exploring possibilities). I mean, the story talks about "evening and morning" to mark the days, but the sun wasn't even created until the fourth day. How can there be an evening and a morning without the sun? Though I suppose it's the rotation of the earth which marks a full day so we could still have a full 24 hour day even without the sun, but the words "evening" and "morning" only have meaning in the context of sun rise and sun set.

The story also says God divided the light from the dark and called the light "day" on the first day but again the sun wasn't created until 4 days later. I'm not questioning the order of events, but when examining the actual words there is a fair bit of reason to consider that "evening and morning were the first day" could easily have other interpretations besides a literal 24 hour day as we recognize it now.

most Hebrew scholars wont agree to that. yom is the word age when there is no number in front of it . when it has a number its means day.

 

[john darling]

Ah, so you allow for the frame-work hypothesis, which has been considered a heresy, and should be dismissed entirely.

I'm not sure what the "frame-work" hypothesis is, but why should it be dismissed entirely? Isn't the point of discussion to base conclusions on reasons?

Time is an invention of man in order to measure events, not something God ordained.

Interesting. So you're suggesting the "7 days" in the "literal 7 day creation" theory is a man made invention in order to measure the event of creation rather than God ordained? I think that is consistent with what I suggested in my previous post, that perhaps there is something missing in our understanding about the time frame of creation, especially since the days mentioned in the creation story do not seem to specifically relate to what we typically understand as a 24 hour day where "evening" and "morning" specifically depend on there being a sun.

God exists outside of time and has no use for it. Therefore, since time is a human invention it is inherently flawed, including, but not limited to, our understanding of the speed of light.

I get the impression that you're using this argument because you think it lends credibility to your argument about the speed of light. I don't disagree. However, I do think it's important that our arguments be consistent.

Can you see how your argument about time being a human invention and God operating outside of time also affects the "literal 7 day creation" theory? In other words, perhaps creation did take longer than 7 literal days, but man came along and quantified the process into a time frame much easier to understand while still keeping the same basic principles (i.e. God is awesome). Whether it took 7 literal days or a few billion days doesn't really matter; the bottom line is still that God did it all and he's amazing for it.

 

[john darling]

most Hebrew scholars wont agree to that. yom is the word age when there is no number in front of it . when it has a number its means day.

Sure, but what do you think about the point I was making about how Genesis 1 describes a day as "morning and evening" when there was no sun to mark morning and evening? Those two words only having meaning in the context of sun rise and sun set, and yet Genesis 1:5 uses those words to describe a day before the sun existed. Obviously something is missing in the standard, 24 hour day interpretation.