[_ Old Earth _] Please watch this video

[Milk-Drops]

You most certainly have to do better than posting articles by biased Theo-Evos.
Hugh Ross seems to be avoiding Humphreys.
Hugh Ross has even been challenged....
So, to be honest.....I really can't accept your link as trustworthy.

Ok, even when I meet your demands you move the goal posts. XD You have not explained why Humphrey's is right once yet keep invenitng reasons to discredit anyone who points out his basic flaws. Welp, I'll just file this under religion and not science. Have a great day Cygnus. XD

 

[Edward]

Except the parts where the gravity would have destroyed the earth. The way how stars would magically have moved faster than the speed of light to get to their current positions, and then ignoring how light years still wouldn't change even if what all he said was true because the light wouldn't be able to magically shoot back to earth for us to see in just 6000 years. He didn't provide evidence for any of what he said, he literally made it up.

Are you forgetting exactly who we are talking about here? And what was going on? This is GOD, ok? This was the moment of creation and you seem to be assuming that God is limited by physics. He created the laws of physics for us. Us men on this earth, at best are on the retarded scale instead of on God's level of intelligence. So of course we wont get it, but will have a lot of questions. That your particular questions were not answered in this video doesn't mean that it is wrong. Your presumption of impossibility of God being able to do something similar to what is described is laughable at best. He could have bent the rules of physics if He needed to or perhaps they hadn't even taken effect yet (in HIS creation), or maybe you don't even really understand gravity yet or maybe gravity is a deception and not even true. You don't know. You wren't there. Neither was I. So you have no leg to stand on to say he is wrong. And Barbies, thus sayeth the Lord, you are wrong...is even funnier. You guys want to say it's wrong because of gravity maybe? Ok. Well you prove to me that gravity is even real. Sure, we stick to the surface of the planet, but gravity may or may not be the reason why. So prove this unseen force and we'll go from there.
You said you didn't demand evidence, but here you do it again. The revelation of truth is a process for man. Of course Dr. Humphry doesn't have 100% of it correct. But that hardly makes him wrong in his premise. Here a little truth, there a little truth, over time. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So we don't outright reject it, as you have and Barbie have done.

Proverbs 18:13
13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.../

We discuss it and see how feasible it really sounds.

No, Edward the reason this can be denounced is because the Dr.'s assertion doesn't work or make sense with the mathematical constants and laws of physics. The field the Dr. says this works in.

I know, isn't that something? God probably made it confusing for us to give us a challenge, lol. God has a great sense of humor.

Back to Proverbs...25:2
2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.../

I do believe that we're the kings. We might not have been coronated yet, but it's coming for some. Scripture does say that Jesus is...King of kings, and Lord of lords so there you are. You have God, with His infinite sense of Humor making things difficult for us, and He reveals a little at a time to us. Then you have us, who are diligent, and rightly divide His Words. Some of it is so farout that we actually have to become as a little child in order to receive it. To try to comprehend it. Then He slips in that, spiritual things are spiritually discerned clause...and boom! We're at square one without a clue. No wonder we have to become as little children. So because the mathematicians can prove God don't exist on paper (or whatever, lol)...means nothing because spiritual matters are spiritually discerned.

We do know something funny happened at the time of creation that we don't understand. Because some archaeological finds seem to indicate an old earth, and some other archaeological finds indicate youngness...it doesn't add up. There's something that we don't understand how or why. It's pretty apparent that Dr. Humphrey did NOT make this up as you suggested. This man is on to something, from doing his studies and research and stuff. He didn't get to where he is by writing fictional stories. Something he ran across set him on this path to imagine this possibility and theory, if you will.

Not being a scientist myself, (nor you or Barbie), we can't really add to or take away from what he says. The best we got, is to consider his words the best we can and try to get a feel for his credibility through his words and body language. Sort of a spiritual discernment? (Holy Spirit, be with me...) is this truth?
I know enough about this stuff to say, it sounds feasible. Something else was going on at the moment of creation, as a result of the creation process and effect from Jesus speaking the words. This could explain it.

 

[Cygnus]

Ok, even when I meet your demands you move the goal posts. XD You have not explained why Humphrey's is right once yet keep invenitng reasons to discredit anyone who points out his basic flaws. Welp, I'll just file this under religion and not science. Have a great day Cygnus. XD

Currently I have basically two choices. Humphreys model or BB.
I've looked at the BB and understand it is riddled with problem after problem. An afternoon on the internet will show that to be true. I can even find atheistic scientist who argue against the BB..much like you found Ross to argue against Humphreys model.

...But, the bottom line for you is that the bible is hog wash....and because of that you can never even begin to look at what Humphreys has to say.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Are you forgetting exactly who we are talking about here?

No, we are talking about Dr. Humphrey. Unless you want to make this about someone else.

And what was going on? This is GOD, ok?

God didn't make the claims that Dr. Humphrey did. I'm critiquing Humphrey.

This was the moment of creation and you seem to be assuming that God is limited by physics.

Humphrey is though. Science is though. Humphrey wants to scientifically explain how the Earth is young, so he has to use the limitations of science.

He created the laws of physics for us. Us men on this earth, at best are on the retarded scale instead of on God's level of intelligence. So of course we wont get it, but will have a lot of questions.

Here is the biggest problem I always run into when talking about science and religion. Science is a tool used to understand the world around us and to help us learn how to both understand and work with us. That means we have to work within constants we discover. When you throw in "God" who can't verified, tested, or evaluated and can immediately throw any question or investigation of theories and hypothesis out the window because "God" can be used to explain away inconsistencies, you stop doing science. In short it makes it impossible to verify anything because whenever we hit a brick wall you can just throw in "God" to explain it and nothing was actually learned. Any attempt to do science turns into relativism if we can just throw out the scientific constants and insert the unknown "God" explanation.

That your particular questions were not answered in this video doesn't mean that it is wrong.

The problem isn't that he didn't answer my questions. The problem is that he is ignoring laws and constants to make his idea work. His theory only works if he can plug God into the very things he needs to provide evidence for. If I was to walk into a store and pick up a TV and try to walk out without paying, and when stopped asked what I was doing I can't just say I don't have to pay because its the will of God that I have this tv. I actually have to explain why I get to circumvent the rules ( paying for things) in order to keep going. Its the same thing.

Your presumption of impossibility of God being able to do something similar to what is described is laughable at best.

You are laughing but don't understand what the problem is. You can say its possible for God to do it this way, but what evidence do you have that it did happen this way? Where is the evidence that this happened?

He could have bent the rules of physics if He needed to or perhaps they hadn't even taken effect yet (in HIS creation), or maybe you don't even really understand gravity yet or maybe gravity is a deception and not even true. You don't know. You wren't there. Neither was I. So you have no leg to stand on to say he is wrong. And Barbies, thus sayeth the Lord, you are wrong...is even funnier. You guys want to say it's wrong because of gravity maybe? Ok. Well you prove to me that gravity is even real. Sure, we stick to the surface of the planet, but gravity may or may not be the reason why. So prove this unseen force and we'll go from there.

This entire paragraph right here shows exactly why creation stuff isn't science. Science has a basic bench mark. You have to be able to demonstrate what you claim. You have to be able to show through evidence that something is both possible and you have to show that the evidence leads to it. If you can throw the constants out and make up whatever you want the entire concept of science falls apart. It turns everything into relativism. It also makes it that I could claim my broom created the universe and you can't disprove it because you weren't there and that the broom simply bent the laws of physics, and then the broom only wants you to think its incapable now. See, you can make up what ever you want. If you use science you can demand that I provide evidence that the broom created the universe and has these claimed powers. If you want to believe that God created the universe, fine that is no problem. Just don't say its science, just like you wouldn't call it cooking or gardening.

You said you didn't demand evidence, but here you do it again.

What? I asked for evidence from the first post and didn't ever deny asking for evidence. Don't lie here, there is no point in it.

The revelation of truth is a process for man. Of course Dr. Humphry doesn't have 100% of it correct. But that hardly makes him wrong in his premise.

Yeah it does, his premise is that the earth was put into a timeless pocket through a gravitational force. His explanations don't fit with the mathmatical constants and he doesn't provide any evidence to support this claim. He is wrong.

Here a little truth, there a little truth, over time. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So we don't outright reject it, as you have and Barbie have done.

If you can stand here and claim that you can't understand God and God can change the laws of physics and reality at will, how do you know you know any truth? Really, this is the crux of the issue with all of this.

We discuss it and see how feasible it really sounds.

How can you determine what is feasible if your constants can be changed at any moment to fit with what ever you want it to say?

I know, isn't that something? God probably made it confusing for us to give us a challenge, lol. God has a great sense of humor.

Ed, how do you know any of this? What is the constant or constants you base all this on?

I do believe that we're the kings. We might not have been coronated yet, but it's coming for some. Scripture does say that Jesus is...King of kings, and Lord of lords so there you are. You have God, with His infinite sense of Humor making things difficult for us, and He reveals a little at a time to us. Then you have us, who are diligent, and rightly divide His Words. Some of it is so farout that we actually have to become as a little child in order to receive it. To try to comprehend it. Then He slips in that, spiritual things are spiritually discerned clause...and boom! We're at square one without a clue. No wonder we have to become as little children. So because the mathematicians can prove God don't exist on paper (or whatever, lol)...means nothing because spiritual matters are spiritually discerned.

We do know something funny happened at the time of creation that we don't understand. Because some archaeological finds seem to indicate an old earth, and some other archaeological finds indicate youngness...it doesn't add up. There's something that we don't understand how or why. It's pretty apparent that Dr. Humphrey did NOT make this up as you suggested. This man is on to something, from doing his studies and research and stuff. He didn't get to where he is by writing fictional stories. Something he ran across set him on this path to imagine this possibility and theory, if you will.

Not being a scientist myself, (nor you or Barbie), we can't really add to or take away from what he says. The best we got, is to consider his words the best we can and try to get a feel for his credibility through his words and body language. Sort of a spiritual discernment? (Holy Spirit, be with me...) is this truth?
I know enough about this stuff to say, it sounds feasible. Something else was going on at the moment of creation, as a result of the creation process and effect from Jesus speaking the words. This could explain it.

How do you know what you know?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Currently I have basically two choices. Humphreys model or BB.
I've looked at the BB and understand it is riddled with problem after problem. An afternoon on the internet will show that to be true. I can even find atheistic scientist who argue against the BB..much like you found Ross to argue against Humphreys model.

...But, the bottom line for you is that the bible is hog wash....and because of that you can never even begin to look at what Humphreys has to say.

Cygnus, your entire argument style is disingenuous. You project onto people what you want their position to be, ( your assertion that I think the Bible is hog wash is completely unfounded) and you constantly shift the goal posts or try to divert from the conversation when asked to back up or explain yourself. Your assertion of problems with the Big Bang Theories run hollow because you don't explain what your problems with it are. I explained my problems with Humphrey's assertion because it violates the Laws of Gravity, Hubble's law, and the theory of Relativity. I then pointed out why. You have not done that once, and when I posted a critique of Humphrey's model form another Christian Scientist you dismiss immediately because he isn't a young Earth Creationist. Not because of the laws, the work, the evidence, no it a presupposition. At the end of the day what would we actually learn from you Cygnus other than that you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old and you don't like Evolution and the Big Bang?

 

[Cygnus]

Cygnus other than that you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old and you don't like Evolution and the Big Bang?

That would be true...the earth is about 6,000 years old. Can I turn over a rock and see stamped on the bottom....made 3,400 years ago? Of course not.
But recent discoveries have shown dated rock ages has a drastic problem. They find still soft tissue in dino fossils. This still soft material must be "young" as it couldn't survive the hundreds...tens of millions of years.
When we understand the earth isn't as old as it is claimed to be by the old earthers....we need to look at other models that the BB doesn't explain. Russ Humphrey's has such a model.

 

[Milk-Drops]

That would be true...the earth is about 6,000 years old. Can I turn over a rock and see stamped on the bottom....made 3,400 years ago? Of course not.
But recent discoveries have shown dated rock ages has a drastic problem.

No, in the thread you posted about these new discoveries you abandoned it when Barb and a few others pointed out that other methods still hold up and that the very thing your sourced talked about still would Date the Earth as way older than 6000 years.

They find still soft tissue in dino fossils. This still soft material must be "young" as it couldn't survive the hundreds...tens of millions of years.

Look, another thread you abandoned when others showed you that what you claimed wasn't the case.

When we understand the earth isn't as old as it is claimed to be by the old earthers....we need to look at other models that the BB doesn't explain.

To bad neither of the ecamp les demonstrate a young Earth.

Russ Humphrey's has such a model.

And it's wrong based on Hubble's law and the theory of Relativity.

 

[Cygnus]

No, in the thread you posted about these new discoveries you abandoned it when Barb and a few others pointed out that other methods still hold up and that the very thing your sourced talked about still would Date the Earth as way older than 6000 years.
Look, another thread you abandoned when others showed you that what you claimed wasn't the case.
To bad neither of the ecamp les demonstrate a young Earth. And it's wrong based on Hubble's law and the theory of Relativity.

Long yawn.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Long yawn.

Are you a pastor by chance?

 

[Cygnus]

Are you a pastor by chance?

Sorry, you're replies are boring me. If you don't like the theory...then so be it.

 

[Barbarian]

Sorry, you're replies are boring me. If you don't like the theory...then so be it.

It's not a theory. A theory is a set of ideas that has been repeatedly verified by confirming the predictions it makes. The big bang has been repeatedly confirmed by new evidence. But Humphreys' doctrine lacks any experimental or observational evidence.

 

[Cygnus]

It's not a theory. A theory is a set of ideas that has been repeatedly verified by confirming the predictions it makes. The big bang has been repeatedly confirmed by new evidence. But Humphreys' doctrine lacks any experimental or observational evidence.

Why do you not mention all the established "facts" confirmed by the BB...then changed when new facts over rules the old facts?
As one of my earlier post said...I can visit BB sites on the net and find plenty of them that point out error after arror in the BB.
Despite the many errors with the BB...when a Theo-Evo reads Genesis they filter Genesis through the errors of the BB.

 

[Edward]

Here is the biggest problem I always run into when talking about science and religion. Science is a tool used to understand the world around us and to help us learn how to both understand and work with us. That means we have to work within constants we discover. When you throw in "God" who can't verified, tested, or evaluated and can immediately throw any question or investigation of theories and hypothesis out the window because "God" can be used to explain away inconsistencies, you stop doing science. In short it makes it impossible to verify anything because whenever we hit a brick wall you can just throw in "God" to explain it and nothing was actually learned. Any attempt to do science turns into relativism if we can just throw out the scientific constants and insert the unknown "God" explanation.

That's exactly the point. You don't know that he's wrong. Yep, God seems to mess up the best theories of mice and men.

If you can stand here and claim that you can't understand God and God can change the laws of physics and reality at will, how do you know you know any truth? Really, this is the crux of the issue with all of this.

That sure is the crux of it, and you're right. I can't know that I am right. Consequently, you can't know that he's wrong. The way to know truth is to see how anything lines up with scripture. We can't go by man genius, lol. We can compare it to scripture and see how it lines up. If it seems to, then it's a good possibility that it is.

Ed, how do you know any of this? What is the constant or constants you base all this on?

The constant of God being all powerful.

 

[Milk-Drops]

That's exactly the point. You don't know that he's wrong. Yep, God seems to mess up the best theories of mice and men.

Just because something is possibel, doesn't mean it's correct. You can't throw out demonstrable data with hypotheticals.

That sure is the crux of it, and you're right. I can't know that I am right.

And thus you cant demonstrate yoyr claim, meaning it isnt science, but instead just apologetics.

Consequently, you can't know that he's wrong.

Except that wholenpart where his claims are not verifiable. That means he is wrong.

The way to know truth is to see how anything lines up with scripture.

I dont hold scrioture to be a solid rock to judge truth by since scripture itself needs to be held to standards as well.

We can't go by man genius, lol. We can compare it to scripture and see how it lines up. If it seems to, then it's a good possibility that it is.

Why can't we use what man has discovered to derive truth?

The constant of God being all powerful.

How do you demonstrate God's allbpowerfulness? I can drop a ball and verify gravity. How do I measure God's power in a given system?