[_ Old Earth _] If you reject knowledge because of the messenger dont bother

[jwu]

He argues that if abiogenesis is proven false, evolution, being dependent on abiogenesis is also false by default.

He is dead wrong about that. The TOE does not in any way care how life came to be. If it were somehow proven that the first cell was created ex nihilo by a deity, then that wouldn't put a dent in the ToE, which explains the things which happened after that event.

Let me ask you this chicken and egg question.

What came first? The big bang which generated all of the matter in the cosmos, or the gases which generated the big bang?

Do you really believe that there could be such a totally obvious flaw in the Big Bang theory? The Big Bang was not generated by "gases" in first instance.

Young Earth. Hovind sheds doubt on aging techniques better than anything else he does. He explains how the geologic column is a farce and I could give you at least 20 scientific citations to prove radiometric dating, including potassium argon (P-AR) is oopsie.

Uhh no. He has no clue what he is talking about, he is just good at rhetorics.

Anyway, if radiometric dating is fatally flawed, how come that various independent dating methods give correlating results? Should they not vary wildly instead of lining up as nicely as they do below?

Full image here:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/suigetsu.htm

 

[Ashua]

[quote="logical bob":1au7ltoc]I'm not spending two and a half hours watching that, but I skipped about a bit in the first 20 minutes or so. I stopped when he said "you have to have time, space and matter simultaneously." Anyone who can talk about "having time simultaneously" and presume to discuss scientific ideas in a place like UCB is an idiot. Period.

Science classifies time as a physical fourth dimension. The purpose of that part is to explain that there is a major fallacy in logic when you argue that a big bang can occur before matter. (How can the physical components of the big bang manifest except the matter predate it. How did matter come except by some sort of cosmic cataclysm (big bang) There are major 'simultaneous' contradiction issues with this theory.

Oh dear.

Cosmology proposes that the big bang was a singularity - a point of zero size and infinite density. Nobody thinks it had "physical components." Matter and space-time are consequences of the big bang, so it makes no sense to talk about "before" the big bang.

People far cleverer than you or me have devoted thier careers to developing this very rigourous theory. It's incredibly arrogant to think you can dismiss it all without bothering to learn what it actually says because you think it contradicts some armchair notion of common sense.

This guff is all well and good in creationist circles where nobody's expected to know anything about science you can say what you like because nobody checks. It takes a special kind of hubris, however, to go to a centre of learning like Berkeley and carry on as if you had the same audience.[/quote:1au7ltoc]

So what was that 'infinite density"? What is density if not matter? And how did it exist? Isn't gas dense? Isnt a star dense? Even if I blow it off and give you the benefit of the doubt, it doesnt explain how 'nothing' begets everything. Ex Nihilo Esse. Cannot God also be a 'singularity' this 'rigorous' theory is not saying a whole lot that cannot also apply to God.

It's funny but I heard just yesterday or the day before on the news that people 'far cleverer' than you or I, who devoted their whole careers in the field had to steal an idea from a blue collar plumber to plug that hole in the gulf.

Its very arrogant of man to think he knows more than his creator. It's arrogant to say that the imagination of some physicist is any more plausible than the imagination of anyone else. This 'singularity' notion seems like code for abra cadabra. When it comes down to it, the theory is untestable and nothing says its any more likely than God or any other idea that has come up.

It is not science. It is theory. Until it is proven, "the scientific method" would reject it. Thats how it works in every other facet of science except in genesis theory.

Why are there no observable instances of this happening all over space?

 

[jasoncran]

"its the amateur that is deadly the pros are predictable"

murphy's law of combat.

 

[Barbarian]

Its very arrogant of man to think he knows more than his creator.

But we see every day those who deny His creation because they don't think He's powerful enough to do it the way the evidence shows He did.

It's arrogant to say that the imagination of some physicist is any more plausible than the imagination of anyone else.

On physics, I'll go with the consensus among physicists. Only those who hire their barber to do their electrical work would disagree.

This 'singularity' notion seems like code for abra cadabra. When it comes down to it, the theory is untestable and nothing says its any more likely than God or any other idea that has come up.

The math is daunting, but what I can get of it, seems pretty good. Plus predicted effects from the singularity have been found after they were predicted, which is always an indicator of accuracy.

It is not science. It is theory.

Theory is as strong as it gets in science. Theories have to be supported by evidence and they have to explain the phenomenon.

Until it is proven, "the scientific method" would reject it.

No. Nothing is ever "proven" in science. It's mostly inductive, and it makes inferences on evidence. If you learn nothing else about science, know that.

Thats how it works in every other facet of science except in genesis theory.

You should have paid better attention in 8th grade.

Why are there no observable instances of this happening all over space?

In fact, a couple of Bell Labs engineers actually found it:

This article concerns the accidental discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation. Although predicted by earlier theories, it was first found accidentally by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson as they experimented with the Holmdel Horn Antenna.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_ ... _radiation

 

[Ashua]

I watched one of of those lectures with overrated science mares. The one I'm talking about began with richard dawkins as he turned it over to a physicist named krauss. You may know of the man and or video.

His video was probably as long as this hovind video and it is also on youtube. Something kept sticking out in his lecture. He would say a bunch of crap like "We know how many atoms are in the universe." (which they also say is expanded so how they can claim to know this is beyond me.) He also was saying how "we know such and such because it fits" In other words, the theory looks good on paper because they ping other theories and possibilities around until it fits like a forced jigsaw. The instance that comes first to mind he was talking about how there are three possibilities to explain something I think pertaining to a 'flat universe' and that the one possibility he claimed was only because it was convenient to his physics. The mathematics he was using are 100% good and work. Its the data values which make it all a joke because the data they plug into the formulas are suspect.

Here, I'll link for anyone who cares. The point is, there is a lot of voo-doo science which works circularly to prop up other theories.

[youtube:39d83ey2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo[/youtube:39d83ey2]

I do watch/research a lot of things. I look at the other side's most highly rated arguments too. I dont say goddidit and scientific theory is wrong because it contradicts my religion. I see a lot of problems with it. I have not finished my education so of course I dont have a doctorate or anything yet, but I will before its all said and done, "God willing" that I dont get hit by a truck or something. Anyways, I didnt just stumble on kent hovind and suddenly feel a eureka moment crescendo. I've spent the last decade thinking about things and researching different things independently. I dont have a certificate, but I'm not exactly 'new' to trying to learn about different things to support religion.

I'll tell you this right now: If God is a lie, or even if the God of my knowledge is not the true God, I dont want to believe in a lie. It started with faith, but more and more I am convinced by evidence both within scripture and outside of it. It is 'easier' to not worry about being accountable to a just and holy god, so I dont want to believe in a lie. If you or science or a man off the street can show me to the contrary, I will 'make like a scientist' and throw away my error of belief. Dont think that Im desperately trying to convince myself of God, because the sinner in me would be relieved. That said, I thank my God through Yeshua that a wretched man like me might have hope. If my faith is built on a straw house, then by all means huff and puff and blow it down. I really am trying to be genuine in this. I want to know the truth, irrespective of whatever it may be. I don't think science has offered anything that destroys the Bible. Evidence can be interpreted in many ways and I dont think radiometric dating and the geologic column hold their weight in dung. I have scientific citations to back it up too.

 

[jasoncran]

pm me those the scientific quotations or links thereof.

 

[Barbarian]

I watched one of of those lectures with overrated science mares.

Might I suggest that watching You Tube videos is probably not a good way to learn about science. There may be some good things therein, but there are many, many videos that are ignorant and sometimes dishonest.

Libraries are free.

 

[Ashua]

I watched one of of those lectures with overrated science mares.

Might I suggest that watching You Tube videos is probably not a good way to learn about science. There may be some good things therein, but there are many, many videos that are ignorant and sometimes dishonest.

Libraries are free.

I dont only watch links. I fail to see your beef with this though. Its a recording of a lecture given at a university by a well known celebrated PH.D. physicist I might as well be in the classroom. I really don't understand how you can say that about the video in question. So it only counts if you are there in person?

 

[Barbarian]

I dont only watch links. I fail to see your beef with this though. Its a recording of a lecture given at a university by a well known celebrated PH.D. physicist I might as well be in the classroom. I really don't understand how you can say that about the video in question. So it only counts if you are there in person?

A word to the wise is sufficient. Most of the time, it's a mistake to believe You Tube videos.

I'll tell you this right now: If God is a lie, or even if the God of my knowledge is not the true God, I dont want to believe in a lie.

Fortunately, God doesn't care if you believe Him or if you believe the creationists. It's not how He will decide your salvation.

But creationism is a false doctrine, one that is often a stumbling block for those who might otherwise come to Him, and a trap that has caused countless believers to lose their faith.

 

[Ashua]

I dont believe that video. That video is atheist material. The guy is a big name scientist. You can check him out. People here disregarded Hovind for his lack of credential, but this guy is the polar opposite. If You cant trust a lecture by someone like that, where is trustworthy information? The whole point of posting it was to show I dont just look at creationist content. That video wasnt made for youtube. IT was uploaded to it. youtube has a a lot of garbage, but not everything on it is.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Krauss

 

[jasoncran]

barb, name one person that came to the cross cause of evolution. odd since darwin himself doubting god was real if genesis was real. surely he knew of agustines on time statement on that.yet he still doubted and died in unbelief sadly.

 

[Barbarian]

barb, name one person that came to the cross cause of evolution.

I don't know of anyone who came to the cross because the Earth orbits the Sun. But many were kept from coming to the cross, because some fools declared it was God's will that the Sun orbited the Earth. Evolution won't save souls. Rather, YE creationism will lose them.

We should never add new hoops for people to jump through on the way to the cross.

 

[Ashua]

Barbarian, I thought you were calvinist? Maybe that was someone else. I agree with the comment about the sun orbiting the Earth. The difference is, the Bible never teaches that. It does teach young Earth. Look at the Hebrew. Some in modern times teach a symbolic interpretation, but I don't see any evidence whatsoever that the author of Genesis (Moses?) believed that.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, I thought you were calvinist?

Catholic.

I agree with the comment about the sun orbiting the Earth. The difference is, the Bible never teaches that.

It does for a literalist, who sees every word as inerrant. Martin Luther and Calvin both pointed this out in condemning heliocentrism.

It does teach young Earth.

Actually, it doesn't. Even the early Christians knew this. Augustine, for example, showed that the days of creation could not be literal days. This is why the Church never accepted the idea of a young Earth as a doctrine. It isn't supported by Scripture.

Look at the Hebrew.

Jewish scholars have. Most of them don't see how it could be construed as a young Earth. Indeed, the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly contradicted by Genesis. Until the 20th century, most creationists were old Earth. That's the creationism that was presented at the Scopes trial, for example.

YE is a modern revision of Christian doctrine.

 

[Ashua]

constantine was also a pagan and distorter of the original faith. The hebrew word in Genesis, yom has a definition of one literal day. Yom Kippur -- day of atonement Yom Teruah day of trumpets. This isn't even a science discussion at this point. It's purely theological when we are discussing the source data. (Bible). How can you build a case for old Earth from the Bible alone?

How does creation ex nihilo directly contradict Genesis? I forget which, and possibly both Kepler and Copernicus wrote on the subject in favor of it. This is not a 20th century notion-- quite the opposite.

 

[Barbarian]

The hebrew word in Genesis, yom has a definition of one literal day.

Or it can mean unspecified period of time, or an age, or one's lifetime as "in my day." And so on. It has never been used only for "day."

How does creation ex nihilo directly contradict Genesis?

Gen. 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.


God says that living things were not produced from nothing, but were brought forth by nature, from pre-existing created things.

This is why Christian theologians did not assume a special creation; God says that life was produced naturally. He still does that today.

 

[Ashua]

The hebrew word in Genesis, yom has a definition of one literal day.

Or it can mean unspecified period of time, or an age, or one's lifetime as "in my day." And so on. It has never been used only for "day."

[quote:nuiaxl2w]How does creation ex nihilo directly contradict Genesis?

Gen. 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.


God says that living things were not produced from nothing, but were brought forth by nature, from pre-existing created things.

This is why Christian theologians did not assume a special creation; God says that life was produced naturally. He still does that today.[/quote:nuiaxl2w]


ex nihilo is about the creation of the cosmos, not animals in particular. Even in your interpretation (which is quite a stretch given that Eve was made (relatively) right away when she was taken from Adam's side as he was in deep sleep) --But even if I give you that leeway, that doesnt prove an old Earth. That has nothing to do with the formation of the planet which was set in one yom (even though Genesis explicitly states that Man was made just a few yoms later.

Anyways, Here is strongs concordance for day/yom

1) day, time, year

a) day (as opposed to night)

b) day (24 hour period)

1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1

2) as a division of time

a) a working day, a day's journey

c) days, lifetime (pl.)

d) time, period (general)

e) year

f) temporal references

1) today

2) yesterday

3) tomorrow

It is possible you are confusing yom with another Hebrew word which means a period of time (and not always literally as translated) The definition of Yom can mean "time" or year", so I see what you are saying, but there are other words that could mean that without being linked to a day. I don't see anything from the Bible that would suggest the meaning is that God created the earth in seven "times" (seven years wouldnt matter so that definition is pointless)


This word is often translated as "week" and appears in places such as Daniel chapter 9. The word is:

shabuwa` ????????

and Strongs has it as:

1) seven, period of seven (days or years), heptad, week

a) period of seven days, a week

1) Feast of Weeks

b) heptad, seven (of years)

Shabuwa' is essentually a period of sevens. (seven days seven years seven centuries seven minutes whatever.)

Genesis uses YOM which is and has always been one literal unit of time which we call a "day".

If I am wrong, please show me another scripture which uses yom in the sense you are using it.

 

[jasoncran]

barb, in the book city of God, agustine recanted his interpreatation. he states that genesis speaks of 1000's of yrs.and is meant to take literaly though still dificult to grasp.

 

[Ashua]

Genesis 1 also states that the light (which he called day) and the darkness was the first yom. It seems that day in Genesis 1 is directly contexted to the creation of day and night (the literal sense).


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

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day (YOM), and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day (YOM).

 

[jasoncran]

were getting to theology a tad here, but its needed.

the book genesis in its beginning, isnt like the hebrew wisdom poetry.

how does one not take the verses on the commandment to be fruitful and multiply allegorically or the statement that adam and eve were given fruits to eat(herbovore) and what the animals eat.

who said God make senses. should we compromise the trinity as i dont understand that idea as well, but i believe it.