[_ Old Earth _] Time does not exist, and this impacts evolution

[Jim Parker]

The universe and everything in it was created in an instant..
Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

The world doesn't want to do this..8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
So it creates its own version...

True.
Slightly different topic but true.

iakov the fool

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Jim ,True. Slightly different topic but true.

You agreed with Turnorburn that God created the universe in an instant, by the breath of His word.... so how can the universe be billions of years old, whatever you mean by that....

Also you will have to explain to me the difference between a revelation and a science....... see science is the gaining of knowledge, revelation is the gaining of knowledge usually from someone who knows and has it written down, so I see the end results are basically the same....

In The Genesis account God tells us basically how He created the universe using a few Hebrew sentences, and human have been trying to grapple with the awesome work of creation ever since, the process of learning how and why creation was done, is called science in my humble understanding.

Now rather than attacking my words all the time as you do, why not help me with your meaning of science and Creation, so I can meet my posts better with your frame of communication... presently I am very confused with your words and direction.

Shalom

 

[Jim Parker]

so how can the universe be billions of years old, whatever you mean by that....

You don't seem to be unintelligent so I and at a loss to understand why you would ask such a question.
I believe that God indeed created the universe by His command.
There is no reason that he could not have done it 13.7 billion years ago.
And by saying that the universe is billions of years old I mean that the universe is billions of years old.

You continue to insist on avoiding anything that resembles a rational conversation.

I'm not interested in playing childish word games with you.

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Jim

"I believe that God indeed created the universe by His command.
There is no reason that he could not have done it 13.7 billion years ago.
And by saying that the universe is billions of years old I mean that the universe is billions of years old."

Have you not watched Gerald Schroeder a Jewish professor on this science problem, which I have shown you already, but you neglect...

Here is the verse again

Ge 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,


How does a verse written 2000BC or so, make such a strange time statement, a generation = 40 years or so and day = 24 hours ? Einstein answers this by saying time is relative.... so Professor Schroeder says God made the universe in 6 literal 24 hour days, but as time rushes away from Himself and earth, the galaxies move away stretching out time, hence things get older...This Jewish professor calculates the age of earth from Scripture as 14 billion years of relative time.... so the creation took a literal week of time.... as the Sabbath day of rest tells us the rest of the 6 stages of time were literal days too.... the apparent looking of age is a time stretching effect known as relativity.


I'm not interested in playing childish word games with you.

I don't play with my readers...you made a strange remark saying the Hebrew word madda does not mean Science today, and I looked up the WWW to show you a Jewish university that agrees with me.... What I am trying to present here on this thread is that time is only a FORWARD progression of events, not the time Science defines in days past....ie: time does not go backwards...

I also get the impression you don't like the science efforts from the Creation Science websites and others like them....Since I believe in a young earth and a young universe created roughly 6,000 years ago, that puts my theories of faith different from yours, but it is not childish or without scientific merit... There are many professional scientists who agree with a Creation account as Genesis shows us...

I agree with you, that one can measure stars moving away and they tell us their current relative movement is billions of years ahead of earth time.... but relativity is a difficult thing to understand... things can appear old yet also be young...it depends upon the time of reference..... I suggest listening to Professor Schroeder, U Tube video, if you don't follow....

Shalom

 

[turnorburn]

i think the problem lies in the fact that no man can tell us what happened to creation after sin entered the picture. A new born baby looks fresh and new but over time shrivels like a ripe prune. The same can be said of creation, Gods word gives a timeline for the age of creation but sin has marred the picture..

 

[Jim Parker]

Have you not watched Gerald Schroeder a Jewish professor on this science problem, which I have shown you already, but you neglect...

I'm not neglecting it; I'm ignoring it.
If it's where you get your "information" then it's a waste of time.
Have a nice day.

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Turnorburn,

i think the problem lies in the fact that no man can tell us what happened to creation after sin entered the picture. A new born baby looks fresh and new but over time shrivels like a ripe prune. The same can be said of creation, Gods word gives a timeline for the age of creation but sin has marred the picture

I think that is a good line to add to your theory of faith Turnoburn.... indeed God can do anything, and sin is a law of disorder and chaos, which opposes everything God stands for....

Some science people say the universe cannot be billions of years old relative to earth, because the law of thermodynamics says things run into disorder and the clock says the universe is running down.... so its as you say sin has marred many things , not just our lives on the earth but even how we perceive the heavens on our earth.... Its a welcome relief to find this thread attracting other readers too...

Other things science does not consider is the laws may not be constant...I remember reading a journal paper by Barry Setterfield in the 1990's on the Speed of light, and he thinks the speed of light was much faster then it is now, and is getting slower over time... so not everything is as it seems...so trusting in Science today takes a great deal of faith, since they have assumptions and leave God out of their material studies of Nature.

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

Some science people say the universe cannot be billions of years old relative to earth, because the law of thermodynamics says things run into disorder and the clock says the universe is running down....

That's not what any of the laws of thermodynamics says. The net energy of the universe is always equal to zero, so it's not a problem.

Other things science does not consider is the laws may not be constant...I remember reading a journal paper by Barry Setterfield in the 1990's on the Speed of light, and he thinks the speed of light was much faster then it is now, and is getting slower over time...

That wouldn't work. You see, the speed of light is a determinant of radioactive decay. If it was significantly faster a few thousand years ago, the increased radioactivity would have fried all living things on Earth.

 

[Hyla C]

That wouldn't work. You see, the speed of light is a determinant of radioactive decay. If it was significantly faster a few thousand years ago, the increased radioactivity would have fried all living things on Earth.

It's also the c in E=mc^2, which governs the amount of energy liberated by every mass-energy conversion. Muck with c and the stars all blow up. And since it's the underpinning for about 90% of physics that's just the start of your problems.

 

[rthom7]

Most of us Christians believe GOD created the heavens and the earth.... We also believe GOD is outside time and matter, and not subject to these things...

So on a certain thought GOD creates matter, and time automatically takes hold of this new material and so time begins. The question is; does GOD speak into existence new things for His creation, or does He allow his material to do further evolving for Him?

This question is fairly easy to think through.... consider He foreknew the fall of Adam with sinning, and its impact upon the whole of His Creation...So He would have to create a "universe of material" that allows both 'function and dysfunction', so that after the fall, the laws of chaos and thermodynamics would drive a different kind of existence, which has both good and evil in it. What is the probability of allowing random material events to produce a state of perfect 'functional and dysfunctional' factors ? Zero.... for example, the universal constant physics' say has over 100 decimal places, in order for our universe to work as it does... in fact so complex are the fundamental values for our universe that everything is very finely tuned for life .

The Bible says GOD spoke and things stood fast, indicating He was able to make the correct number of constants immediately and perfectly, as if He had already planned this kind of universe from the beginning.

In olden times Science was gained by observation. Indeed the Hebrew word 'madda' tells us that Babylon had wise men, wizards and "science thinking" people working on gaining more knowledge (definition of science). Daniel was one of these wise scholars of ancient science. Daniel was a type of person who gained knowledge using Scripture as a foundation key to his understanding. Modern science thinking tends to leave GOD out of Natural events, which leads one to think only of materialism and material laws. Time is also founded on materialism, the movement of matter though space creates time, so time is just a by-product of materialism.

If we believe GOD is above HIs Creation, then He is above his materials of Creation as well, and that includes time.... He would have created materials in time and space as fast as He spoke them into existence.
To those of us who say GOD allowed materials to evolve over time, makes GOD less smart and a slave to His Creation. God would not allow DNA to evolve over time to just what He wants...chaos does not evolve uphill, it runs downhill...indeed dysfunction makes things run downhill, wear out and lose their energies of order.

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

So on a certain thought GOD creates matter, and time automatically takes hold of this new material and so time begins. The question is; does GOD speak into existence new things for His creation, or does He allow his material to do further evolving for Him?

Since God tells us that He created Heaven and Earth, and then Earth produced living things according to His will. that's settled. (assuming you believe God) Creationists think God is not powerful enough to create a universe that grows and changes according to His will. How sad for them.

Even contingency is under God's lordship, and can be used to His purposes. Have some faith in God, not your man-made doctrines.

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Barbarian

Creationists think God is not powerful enough to create a universe that grows and changes according to His will. How sad for them.

Sure I believe God's created material that moved and rushed according to natural laws He created, but your implying it took millions of years....

Since time is a by-product of material in space, why would God become a slave to it?
He would created as the Scripture years, within each "yom" a single day of time is enough for a God to allow materials to grow and move in space.


Even contingency is under God's lordship, and can be used to His purposes. Have some faith in God, not your man-made doctrines.

Modern time is defined using a man-made doctrine...the concept that time can move backwards as well as forwards in time, is a man made science doctrine that does not exist, there are plenty of other scientists who dispute this idea of time as well as me.
Bible time only is a forward movement of events in present consciousness since Creation of heaven and earth.

Secondly the oldest possibility of time in Scripture is a thousand days is like a day....this is a poetry saying for time...it is not alluding to millions of years... apart from this single verse there is no mention of time being so huge.....

Have you ever listened to John Sanford a genetics science expert, who created the web site Mendel's Accountant in which you can place variables and mutation rates both good and bad, and simulate time for organisms to evolve better....the fact is TIME is an enemy, not a friend of evolution at all, assuming this process exists.... given more and more time the organisms run genetically downhill and become extinct. In fact John says human DNA is making so many errors per generation that is just another 3 or 4 generations humans themselves will become extinct on planet earth....An old person of say 50 years has about 50,000 mutations per human cell, and its the catastrophic collapse of DNA function that causes death per cell, all due to the rising burden of mutations.... natural selection does not remove them fast enough... evolution just not work on a genetics level... His papers have been published for years but no peer review critique has ever been attempted.... his conclusions are just ignored...

So much for time.... it does not help evolution at all, assuming useful evolution exists...which I believe doesn't exist... evolution is simply the result of sin, evolution is a dysfunctional process that causes life to spoil and cease to work properly.

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Creationists think God is not powerful enough to create a universe that grows and changes according to His will. How sad for them.

Sure I believe God's created material that moved and rushed according to natural laws He created, but your implying it took millions of years....

So the evidence shows. You think God could have only done it, if He did it in a few days?

Since time is a by-product of material in space,

Actually, it's not. What makes you think that?

He would created as the Scripture years, within each "yom" a single day of time

As you learned earlier, "yom" can mean almost any period of time.

Barbarian suggests:
Even contingency is under God's lordship, and can be used to His purposes. Have some faith in God, not your man-made doctrines.

Modern time is defined using a man-made doctrine.

No. Theories are different than doctrines. It's important for you to learn the difference. But the man-made doctrine of a literal six-day creation week is not supportable by the evidence, or by Scripture.

Secondly the oldest possibility of time in Scripture is a thousand days is like a day....this is a poetry saying for time...it is not alluding to millions of years... apart from this single verse there is no mention of time being so huge.....

Why would you want the Bible to be a science textbook? Its purpose is to tell us about God and man and our relationship. Don't add things that He didn't intend to be there.

Have you ever listened to John Sanford a genetics science expert

I've seen the computer model. It's a bizarre misunderstanding about evolutionary theory. He assumes all mutations are harmful, arguing "do you want a mutation in your genome?" Well, I'd be happy to have a copy of the mutated myostatin gene that makes muscles stronger. I was always stronger than most, and now that I'm 69, it's annoying that I can't do some of the things I used to do without help. If I had that gene, I'd still able to do so. I wouldn't mind the mutation that makes one's bones denser and stronger.

Sanford's next misconception is that fitness is quantity that never varies. So "perfect fitness" in his model is "1." In reality, fitness counts only in terms of environment, and will be different for different environments.

Which brings us to his next woofer. He thinks environmental effects are merley "noise" that can be cancelled out. In fact, environment is the driver of natural selection.

the fact is TIME is an enemy, not a friend of evolution at all, assuming this process exists.... given more and more time the organisms run genetically downhill and become extinct.

See above. His assumptions are not based on any evidence at all. He assumed some weird things about evolution, and then built a program to make them happen. But it doesn't act the way real populations act in the real world. Observations have shown that populations tend to become more fit over time. If they are moved to a new environment, allele frequencies change to fit the new environment, and mutations that make and organism more fit in the new environment tend to increase in that population.

This is the basis of the genetic algorithms used by engineers. It turns out that evolution is more efficient than design at solving very complex problems. Turns out God knows better than creationists would like Him to know.

In fact John says human DNA is making so many errors per generation that is just another 3 or 4 generations humans themselves will become extinct on planet earth....An old person of say 50 years has about 50,000 mutations per human cell,

Most of us have a few dozen mutations in our genome that neither parent had. That's another error that Sandford makes. He fails to get the difference between a somatic mutation (which happens in a body cell that is not an egg or sperm) and a mutation that will be passed on to the next generation. We probably have many more than 50,000 mutations in our cells over a lifetime, but these are not passed on,nor do they spread from the cell in which they happened. Only the descendants of those cells would have them. And since almost all mutations do nothing noticable, it's not surprising that most of us live for 70 years or more.

Would you like to see how real populations evolve over time, on a genetic level?

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Barbarian

Your reply is interesting and scholarly put. I respect that.



"So the evidence shows. You think God could have only done it, if He did it in a few days?

You would be familiar with relativity and frames of reference...so why couldn't GOD have created the universe in 6 literal days of time, relative to earth, but as these material objects more away from each other (rapidly) the expanding universe and the stretching of time associated with it, causes galaxies to appear older relative to earth frame of reference.... in other words God could have made an old universe but in reality is young, because time is not a fixed fundamental, its a relative concept based on the movement of bodies relative to each other.... does this make science sense to you?


"No. Theories are different than doctrines. It's important for you to learn the difference. But the man-made doctrine of a literal six-day creation week is not supportable by the evidence, or by Scripture.

Your statement here is contradictory... the Creation also included the Sabbath ceasing day, in which GOD ceased from all his work of creation, are we also to suppose Sabbath mentioned in Genesis is a million days long? It complements the 6 days of creation, the Sabbath is another day, making a week of time, not measured by moving bodies, but by counting the days of time since creation...this proves the "day" is a literal day of time as it concludes with Ceasing Day, the conclusion of Creation...so that makes this doctrine a Biblical one, and the millions of years for Creation is a man made doctrine, because if aligns itself with false Science ideas of God and His power.


"Why would you want the Bible to be a science textbook? Its purpose is to tell us about God and man and our relationship. Don't add things that He didn't intend to be there.

Actually Barbarian, the Bible is a Science book, the greatest Science book of them all. In a Jewish university, thanks to Jim (another reader to this forum), the Hebrew word "madda" means Science, as well as knowledge...in fact Science is a special term for simply the means of increasing our knowledge about things. The greatest knowledge one can gain, is the science of salvation, the special process GOD has written in His science book on how one is saved by the gracious acts of a loving God. Modern science today specializes in material knowledge and materialism, so they do not want a God in their thinking, hence why they attack the Bible as some other book, but it wasn't always that way, if you study the older Science persons, such as Daniel, and Isaac Newton.




"I've seen the computer model. It's a bizarre misunderstanding about evolutionary theory. He assumes all mutations are harmful, arguing "do you want a mutation in your genome?" Well, I'd be happy to have a copy of the mutated myostatin gene that makes muscles stronger. I was always stronger than most, and now that I'm 69, it's annoying that I can't do some of the things I used to do without help. If I had that gene, I'd still able to do so. I wouldn't mind the mutation that makes one's bones denser and stronger.

This is an interesting remark. Do you have a peer review critiquing Sanford's work ?
Or perhaps a science paper remarking on how this good mutation works on human muscles ?


"Sanford's next misconception is that fitness is quantity that never varies. So "perfect fitness" in his model is "1." In reality, fitness counts only in terms of environment, and will be different for different environments.

So you can supply me with a peer review critique of Sanford's work, written by other Scientists?




"It turns out that evolution is more efficient than design at solving very complex problems. Turns out God knows better than creationists would like Him to know.

In the Garden of Eden GOD placed two trees....

They were called the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Function and Dysfunction.

Evolution as I understand it, is a process of going from more disorder towards more order, from bad design towards good design, is this correct? Though not a single example of this exists today....though they try a few examples in microevolution where they steal God's design of being fruitful and multiply....a term that could also mean, 'fill the earth with genetic variation within your kind'.

So the Tree of function and dysfunction is in another name Evolution.

Now as far as I am aware, God Created things for life..., not evolution.... evolution only came into being when sin came, and is a general process for the decay and spoiling of the tree of life...when God created all things very good.

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

You would be familiar with relativity and frames of reference...so why couldn't GOD have created the universe in 6 literal days of time, relative to earth, but as these material objects more away from each other (rapidly) the expanding universe and the stretching of time associated with it, causes galaxies to appear older relative to earth frame of reference....

No. If so, we would be watching supernovae light showing stars that never existed, blowing up. This would mean that God is deceptive. So that won't work for a Christian, although it might be acceptable to other faiths.

Your statement here is contradictory... the Creation also included the Sabbath ceasing day, in which GOD ceased from all his work of creation, are we also to suppose Sabbath mentioned in Genesis is a million days long?

Why do you think that couldn't also be a parable?

Barbarian observes:
"Why would you want the Bible to be a science textbook? Its purpose is to tell us about God and man and our relationship. Don't add things that He didn't intend to be there.

Actually Barbarian, the Bible is a Science book, the greatest Science book of them all.

I know you want to believe that, but it isn't so.

In a Jewish university, thanks to Jim (another reader to this forum), the Hebrew word "madda" means Science, as well as knowledge...in fact Science is a special term for simply the means of increasing our knowledge about things.

No. Science is a very specific method, which was not known to the Hebrews at that time.

The greatest knowledge one can gain, is the science of salvation

No. Science is limited to the physical universe. It can say nothing at all about the supernatural.

Barbarian observes:
"I've seen the computer model. It's a bizarre misunderstanding about evolutionary theory. He assumes all mutations are harmful, arguing "do you want a mutation in your genome?" Well, I'd be happy to have a copy of the mutated myostatin gene that makes muscles stronger. I was always stronger than most, and now that I'm 69, it's annoying that I can't do some of the things I used to do without help. If I had that gene, I'd still able to do so. I wouldn't mind the mutation that makes one's bones denser and stronger.

Do you have a peer review critiquing Sanford's work ?

Sanford has not submitted it to a peer-reviewed journal. So

Or perhaps a science paper remarking on how this good mutation works on human muscles ?

Sports Medicine
June 2011, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp 433-448
The ACE Gene and Human Performance
Some 12 years ago, a polymorphism of the angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE) gene became the first genetic element shown to impact substantially on human physical performance. The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) exists not just as an endocrine regulator, but also within local tissue and cells, where it serves a variety of functions. Functional genetic polymorphic variants have been identified for most components of RAS, of which the best known and studied is a polymorphism of the ACE gene. The ACE insertion/deletion (I/D) polymorphism has been associated with improvements in performance and exercise duration in a variety of populations. The I allele has been consistently demonstrated to be associated with endurance-orientated events, notably, in triathlons. Meanwhile, the D allele is associated with strength- and power-orientated performance, and has been found in significant excess among elite swimmers. Exceptions to these associations do exist, and are discussed.

Barbarian observes:
Sanford's next misconception is that fitness is quantity that never varies. So "perfect fitness" in his model is "1." In reality, fitness counts only in terms of environment, and will be different for different environments.

So you can supply me with a peer review critique of Sanford's work, written by other Scientists?

He has so far, refused to submit the simulation or his article for peer review. However, he is wrong about assuming fitness is not contingent on environment. You can find a readable discussion of the importance of environment in The Beak of the Finch. The author documents repeated cases of populations changing over time as environment changes.

Barbarian explains why engineers have started to copy evolution for difficult problems:
It turns out that evolution is more efficient than design at solving very complex problems. Turns out God knows better than creationists would like Him to know.

In the Garden of Eden GOD placed two trees....

They were called the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Function and Dysfunction.

Got a verse for the second one?

Evolution as I understand it, is a process of going from more disorder towards more order,

Nope.

You should learn what it is before you discuss it.

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Barbarian,



Why do you think that couldn't also be a parable?

Are you saying the whole of the Genesis story including the Ceasing Day (Shabbat) mentioned at the end is just a parable? Where do you get that idea?


I know you want to believe that, but it isn't so.

This list defines 633 sciences, arts and studies of various degrees of respectability and rarity, ranging from the common and esteemed (chemistry) to the obscure and quirky (peristerophily). Over the past century, the range and scope of scientific endeavours has expanded exponentially, so that practically any field of study has a name associated with it. Most of these terms end in 'ology', from the Greek logos, meaning 'word'
From http://phrontistery.info/sciences.html

This website list 633 science studies..... one of them is

philosophy science of knowledge or wisdom

http://practicalphilosophy.in/writings/science-religion-and-philosophy/ An interesting website on religion which is defined as mind, apart from modern science which only is defined as matter and energy.....


According to Richard Dawkins, "not only is science corrosive to religion; religion is corrosive to science. It teaches people to be satisfied with trivial, supernatural non-explanations and blinds them to the wonderful real explanations that we have within our grasp. It teaches them to accept authority, revelation and faith instead of always insisting on evidence.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

This perhaps the modern definition of science today...but sadly this is a science that denies God or mind or anything supernatural....

A Jewish university say the Hebrew word madda is similar to the word science...which I propose before the modern era, Biblically speaking science was just the means of gaining knowledge. including knowledge about God. Today science has changed its meaning and leaves God out of its studies....

For example, according to Tesla, the Egyptians used zero point energy to power light tubes without wires.... does science define zero point energy today ? no Why? because such a field of energy comes from God, its supernatural, yet its real as the ether, today's science ignores..

So Barbarian we have different views of science....


No. Science is a very specific method, which was not known to the Hebrews at that time.

Maybe modern science. but not madda, the gaining of knowledge by observation and experimentation....Daniel was trained in the madda of Babylon.


No. Science is limited to the physical universe. It can say nothing at all about the supernatural.
Modern science discusses only matter and energy...
Madda science discusses all things, matter energy and God.






Got a verse for the second one?
Ge 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

function and dysfunction

Thank you for the mutation that helps muscle power,,,, do you have a link to the good article on this ?

I quote " Madda means science in modern Hebrew. Science and madda are rooted in ancient words for knowledge - science in the Latin and madda in the Hebrew.

Upon his coronation, King Solomon asked God for wisdom and madda to lead this people (II Chronicles 1:10). God praises him for not asking for wealth and honour but rather for "wisdom and madda to be able to govern My people". From these verses, it seems that madda in the Bible means a type of practical knowledge. You need wisdom plus madda in order to govern.

With madda meaning applied knowledge in the Bible, it was considered to be the perfect term for science. " End Quote

http://www.thejc.com/judaism/jewish-words/31719/madda

“Hashem” is the Author of Torah and “Elokim” is the Legislator who promulgated the laws of nature. They are one and the same, neither two gods, nor a schizophrenic god at odds with himself or divorced from reality. As a result, our language should not allow for the question of whether Torah and madda [science] are ever in conflict–not if we restrict madda to God’s world of science and exclude man-made madda recorded in the literature of sociology, social biology, psychology and the arts and letters.

Yet, madda must yet be put to the test; it must be measured by the yardstick of Torah to determine whether it is fit for the human experience. http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/torah-and-science/3/

Article suggests madda can include God in the study of science.



Shalom