[_ Old Earth _] What A Wonderful World

[Barbarian]

You seem like a smart person, but i am afraid all this running in circles is not beneficial to ones health.

Every thing above is a Cop out, your bending scripture to squeeze in secular teachings

As you saw, I'm just accepting it as it is; you're trying to add things to make it more acceptable to you.

God said he created everything in 6 days, this means:

That he used an allegory to explain things in a way anyone could understand. It was not meant to be a literal scientific description, as the early Christians knew.

Since we seem to be talking about the Bible in literalness, the first few chapters of Genesis must be how God did it,

It is. The only difference between us, is that I'm willing to accept it as it is, and you feel that you need to edit it a bit.

 

[Barbarian]

What about the time dilation effect?

You have no idea what that means, or how it works, do you?

 

[John]

Exodus 20:11 makes one of the most unbelievable statements of the Bible: “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.†It is hard to imagine a clearer statement defining how long God took to create the entire universe. However, this simple statement has presented a seemingly impossible dilemma for Christians. On the one hand, modern cosmology teaches that the universe has taken billions of years to form. On the other hand, if this clear and straightforward statement of the Bible cannot be trusted to mean what it says; how can we know that any statement of the Bible can be trusted to mean what it says?
This was the dilemma that Dr. Russell Humphreys (recently retired physicist from Sandia National Laboratory) set out to solve as he studied what the Bible had to say about the formation of our universe. Most people have been taught that the universe is the result of a gigantic explosion called the “Big Bangâ€Â. During this explosive expansion, all of the matter of the universe supposedly expanded outward from a tiny pinpoint. All modern cosmological models start with the assumption that the universe has neither a center nor an edge. When these assumptions are plugged into Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the result is an expanding universe which is billions of years old at every location.
Rather than start with these arbitrary assumptions (a universe having no center and no edge), Dr. Humphreys decided to take the most apparent meaning of the Biblical text and see what model of the universe developed. He reasoned that, if the Bible was inspired by God, as it claims to be, it should not have to be twisted to be understood. It should have the same straight forward meaning for a “man on the streetâ€Â, a brilliant physicist, or a theologian.
The Bible clearly indicates three things about God’s formation of the universe: first, the earth is the center of God’s attention in the universe; By implication, the earth may also be located near the center -- perhaps so man can see the glory of God’s creation in every direction. Second, the universe (both matter and space itself) has been “stretched outâ€Â1. Third, the universe has a boundary, and therefore it must have a center. If these three assumptions are plugged into the currently accepted formulas of physics, and the mathematical crank is turned; we find that we live in a universe in which clocks tick at different rates depending on your location.
Furthermore, this “time dilation†effect would have been magnified tremendously as the universe originally expanded. There would have been a point at which time was moving very rapidly at the outer areas and essentially stopped near the center. In other words, only days were passing near the center, while billions of years were passing in the heavens. This is the inevitable conclusion based on our current knowledge of physics and starting with Biblical assumptions instead of arbitrary ones.
Albert Einstein rejected the idea that the Bible could be literally true. He wrote that, “Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that many of the stories in the Bible could not be true.â€Â2 How ironic that the most ridiculed Biblical text (the account of the recent, literal, six day creation of the universe) is exactly the account which Albert Einstein’s work showed to be entirely possible. A comprehensive explanation of Dr. Humphreys work, can be found in his popular book, Starlight and Time.3

1. Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Jeremiah 10:12, Zechariah 12:1, 2 Sam. 22:10, Psalm 144:5,
Ezekiel 1:22, Isaiah 48:13, Job 26:7, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 51:13, Job 37:18, Isaiah 44:24, Jer. 51:15,
Psalm 18:9, Isaiah 45:12.
2. Joseph Schwartz, Einstein for Beginners, Pantheon Books, New York, p.31.
3. Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time, Master Books, 1994.

 

[Barbarian]

The Bible doesn't say that we are at the center of the universe. That's mans addition to scripture. Not a good idea, is it?

There are huge problems with Humphrey's doctrines which he has mixed with some major misunderstandings of relativity.

This is from a creationist website (Reasons to Believe) in which his beliefs are analyzed:

The Unraveling of Starlight and Time
By Samuel R. Conner and Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
Final Revision March 22, 1999
The author, Dr. Humphreys, is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory, and his initial article and book acknowledged the tentative character and possible falsity of the new proposal. He also solicited, publicly and privately, feedback from Christian physicists who did have formal training in these disciplines. Starting even before the appearance of Starlight and Time and continuing to the present, such feedback has been forthcoming, and, to our knowledge, it has been uniformly critical of the theory. In fact, Starlight and Time and related writings by Humphreys exhibit profound misunderstandings of relativity theory and cosmology. Humphreys’ theory is irremediably flawed. It is very unfortunate that these writings have been so widely distributed in the young-earth community and have misled so many Christians.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... eling.shtm

 

[Deep Thought]

John, I'm sure you don't see how inconsistent you are. One moment you're arguing for the literal truth of the Bible and the other moment, you are saying that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally.

If you take Genesis to be literal (including its contradictions), then the rest of the Bible must also be interpretted literally.

 

[John]

John, I'm sure you don't see how inconsistent you are. One moment you're arguing for the literal truth of the Bible and the other moment, you are saying that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally.

If you take Genesis to be literal (including its contradictions), then the rest of the Bible must also be interpretted literally.

No, you just need to have little intelligence.

On one hand God said he made the world in 6 days. one the other Jesus says he is a door. both can't be taken literally.

 

[Deep Thought]

I've asked you these questions before and you never gave a satisfactory answer, so I'll ask it again. What criterion do you use to determine which bits of the Bible to interpret literally and the parts to interpret metaphorically/allegorically?

You see the problem here don't you? Most Christians interpret most of the Bible metaphorically, in particular, Genesis, whereas fundamentalists use a mostly literal interpretation. Then there are all the arguments as to what a "True Christian (tm)" really is.

 

[Deep Thought]

On one hand God said he made the world in 6 days. one the other Jesus says he is a door. both can't be taken literally.

Did you really mean to write that? Are you now admitting that the Genesis account of creationism can't be taken literally?

 

[freeway]

"The Barbarian"
More correctly, evolution is a change in allele frequency over time.

Yes you wish it was proven, but the truth is it does not change one species into another, never has and it never will..... wishful thinking on your part...

Actually, the modern species is unknown in the fossil record, although there are somewhat similar fossils.

the point is that it is still a horseshoe crab,, like a great dane and winnie dog are different but of the same species...

While there are only three extant genera and five extant species of Class Xiphosura, they were quite diverse during the Palaeozoic Era. Because they have apparently undergone little change, the extant horseshoe crabs are often considered to be living fossils. Horse shoe crabs have a large shield that covers the cephalothorax, and the carapace is hinged between the cephalothorax and abdomen. The sturdy exoskeleton comprises three parts, the large semicircular cephalothorax, the opisthosoma which is the posterior portion of body behind the cephalothorax, and a long tail spine or telson. The resemblance to trilobites is apparent, and, in fact, the Xiphosura are considered by many to be the closest living relatives of the long-extinct trilobites.

sooooo. what you are sayingggg... its a horseshoe crab..... big..words... hurt... brain.....

So macroevolution has also happened to horseshoe crabs over that time, but not nearly as much as it has happened to most other lines. Why is this so?

no its micro not macro... same species not a crab that turned into a bird...

Evolutionary theory does not predict that everything must evolve. In fact, for well-adapted organisms like the horseshoe crab, in an environment with stable selective pressures, evolutionary theory predicts that natural selection will prevent much evolution. This is called "stablizing" selection, and is one of the reasons punctutated equillibrium works

wait a minute do you not believe and promote that everything came form a single cell millions and millions of years ago.. atheist evolution ....if that is the case, then yes "everything evolves and continues to do so........ are you kidding me punct. equil.. first off it can't happen a cow giving birth to a crock.. not only does it not happen once in 50,000 years but it would have to happen twice in a very close time frame, as in a year ...after all we need a male and female crock to reproduce and plus they would have to be within crawling distance of each other, what are the odds of that. but wait, evolution is all about the billion in one shot now isn't it?

Not surprisingly the emergence of man coincides with the pleistocene, with dryer, colder climate, and shrinking forests with growing grasslands. Large primates could either retreat with the forests and become better at exploiting what was left, or adapting to the savanna. The ancestors of modern apes chose the former, and the ancestors of humans, oropithecus and baboons chose the latter.
Those moving onto the savanna underwent rapid evolution. Those remaining in the old environment did not. For reasons which should now be obvious to you.

this story and I say story is noway proven... you don't know for sure about of these theories..

[quote:e64c9]freeway says: Who? is it thats to blind to see the obvious. Yes God has given his creation the room to adapt, but never to change into a complete new and different species..

The Barbarian says:It's been directly observed. Want to learn about it?

[/quote:e64c9]
Learn more? well first off it hasn't happen. so how could I learn more, if your "more" is learning lies then again No...

[quote:e64c9]feeway says: like I've said and every other true Christian....

If you were a true Christian, you would not be adding your own doctrines to the faith[/quote:e64c9]
This is by far your funniest statement... adding my own doctrines....oh please.. I believe God created the heaven and earth in 6 yes 6 days and on the 7th He rested.. I believe He created man and woman in his image.. non of his other creations he says this about.... He did not created monkey and then had it evolve into a man... or does Jesus look like a monkey to you... the Jews knew him as a man.... and the earth in around 6 to 10,000 yrs old.... I Believe>>> nowhere in the billion of yrs you need for your program to work...

One other thing... if the earth took God billion of years to create. Then please explain why did God create plant life on the third day.... all plant life.... then on the fourth day he created the moon and sun... question??? how did the plants live for million of years without the sun.... or did he make an exception here and created the sun and moon the very "next day" for the plants to live?

[quote:e64c9]freeway says: where's the missing fossils..... I know! their rushing them to a museum near you right now.................not

Well, let's test your new doctrine. Name me two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if I can find a transitional. Do you have enough faith to test your belief?[/quote:e64c9][/quote]
TWO... hell any... isn't thats what evolutionist have been praying for all along the missing link.. like I say.... thousand upon thousands of museums and freeway standing looking at all the dead bones.... but not to his surprise!!! no missing links.... :

 

[freeway]

A true Christian is not governed by whether or not he/she believes in evolution, but it would seem that they do not trust,believe,understand many things about what God has told them, and this simply confuses me why one would "cherry pick" scriptures. In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth in 6 days, simple.

Yet all of the evidence does not lead to the heavens and earth being formed in 6 literal days. Nothing supports that, not one branch of science. The only options you have if you are grounded in reality, is that it's allegorical or incorrect. Pick one.

Ok you are a better expert than lets say, oh I don't know.... Jesus...... Jesus said in the beginning God created them male and female talking about who? well Adam and Eve of course... and Jesus of course quoted Moses quite often.. and I don't believe Jesus would quote someone that just made up stories to tell around a camp fire....but then again you probably don't believe in Jesus...

 

[jmm9683]

Ok you are a better expert than lets say, oh I don't know.... Jesus...... Jesus said in the beginning God created them male and female talking about who? well Adam and Eve of course... and Jesus of course quoted Moses quite often.. and I don't believe Jesus would quote someone that just made up stories to tell around a camp fire....but then again you probably don't believe in Jesus...

The evidence does not support the earth being created in 6 literal days; this is universally accepted by all of science. Until you actually provide some credible evidence to the contrary, that apparently the whole world is missing, you are deluded and living in a fantasy world. Just admit that you pick and choose whichever science that doesn't interfere with your warped view of the world.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
More correctly, evolution is a change in allele frequency over time.

Yes you wish it was proven, but the truth is it does not change one species into another,

The first such example to be observed was in 1904. Would you like to learn about it?

Barbarian on Limulus:
Actually, the modern species is unknown in the fossil record, although there are somewhat similar fossils.

the point is that it is still a horseshoe crab,, like a great dane and winnie dog are different nbut of the same species...

So, in your opinion, is Archaeopteryx a bird or a dinosaur, and on what criteria did you make your decision?

sooooo. what you are sayingggg... its a horseshoe crab.....

Yep, but quite different from the trilobites or even ancient horseshoe crabs.

So macroevolution has also happened to horseshoe crabs over that time, but not nearly as much as it has happened to most other lines. Why is this so?

Evolutionary theory says that if a well-adapted organism is in a relatively stable environment, then natural selection will prevent much evolution. It's called "stabilizing selection."

no its micro not macro... same species not a crab that turned into a bird...

You think that's what evolutionary theory says? No wonder you hate science. I'd hate it too, if I thought it was like that.

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionary theory does not predict that everything must evolve. In fact, for well-adapted organisms like the horseshoe crab, in an environment with stable selective pressures, evolutionary theory predicts that natural selection will prevent much evolution. This is called "stablizing" selection, and is one of the reasons punctutated equillibrium works

wait a minute do you not believe and promote that everything came form a single cell millions and millions of years ago..

Evidence says billions of years.

atheist evolution ....

Is an oxymoron.

if that is the case, then yes "everything evolves and continues to do so........

Unless they are in a well-fitted environment. Then they don't change much, if at all.

are you kidding me punct. equil.. first off it can't happen a cow giving birth to a crock..

You actually believe that's what the theory says, don't you? What they did to you borders on child abuse.

not only does it not happen once in 50,000 years but it would have to happen twice in a very close time frame, as in a year ...after all we need a male and female crock to reproduce and plus they would have to be within crawling distance of each other, what are the odds of that. but wait, evolution is all about the billion in one shot now isn't it?

And you believe that's what evolutionary theory says? Amazing.

Barbarian on why humans emerged:
Not surprisingly the emergence of man coincides with the pleistocene, with dryer, colder climate, and shrinking forests with growing grasslands. Large primates could either retreat with the forests and become better at exploiting what was left, or adapting to the savanna. The ancestors of modern apes chose the former, and the ancestors of humans, oropithecus and baboons chose the latter.

Those moving onto the savanna underwent rapid evolution. Those remaining in the old environment did not. For reasons which should now be obvious to you.

this story and I say story is noway proven... you don't know for sure about of these theories..

Would you like to learn the evidence for it?

Who? is it thats to blind to see the obvious. Yes God has given his creation the room to adapt, but never to change into a complete new and different species..

Barbarian offers:
It's been directly observed. Want to learn about it?

Learn more? well first off it hasn't happen. so how could I learn more, if your "more" is learning lies then again No...

O. lamarckana gave rise to O. gigas in 1904. Both species are still in existence and doing fine.

Barbarian observes:
If you were a true Christian, you would not be adding your own doctrines to the faith

This is by far your funniest statement... adding my own doctrines....oh please.. I believe God created the heaven and earth in 6 yes 6 days and on the 7th He rested..

That has never been the Christian understanding of Genesis, although a few Christians believe it. Most do not because of the obvious logical difficulties in imposing a literal interpretation on it.

I believe He created man and woman in his image.. non of his other creations he says this about.... He did not created monkey and then had it evolve into a man...

You really think that's what science says...?

or does Jesus look like a monkey to you...

A primate. Like us. God had no body at all, until the incarnation.

and the earth in around 6 to 10,000 yrs old.... I Believe

Reality is not obliged to fit your wishes.

One other thing... if the earth took God billion of years to create. Then please explain why did God create plant life on the third day.... all plant life.... then on the fourth day he created the moon and sun... question???

As the early Christians realized, Genesis is an allegory. We know this, because a literal interpretation produces logical absurdities like God not telling the truth.

where's the missing fossils..... I know! their rushing them to a museum near you right now.................not

Barbarian suggests:
Well, let's test your new doctrine. Name me two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if I can find a transitional. Do you have enough faith to test your belief?

(freeway declines)

What a surprise. If you ever get enough confidence in your beliefs to test them, let me know.

The offer is open to any creationist who has more faith then freeway, of course.

 

[Barbarian]

Ok you are a better expert than lets say, oh I don't know.... Jesus...... Jesus said in the beginning God created them male and female talking about who?

He didn't mean that literally, either. How do we know. Because Genesis 1 is very clear about what was there in the beginning, and male and female were not. Jesus never said Genesis was literal. Never.

well Adam and Eve of course... and Jesus of course quoted Moses quite often..

Feel free to explain how repeating an allegory means that it's not an allegory any more.

....but then again you probably don't believe in Jesus...

Not only do I believe in Him, I'm willing to believe what He says without adding any personal "improvements." If you could do that, you'd be a lot better off.

 

[freeway]

just a couple of thing about " The Barbarian post"

So, in your opinion, is Archaeopteryx a bird or a dinosaur, and on what criteria did you make your decision?

Update to the article: Archaeoraptorâ€â€Phony ‘feathered’ fossil

In stark contrast to their sensationalistic ‘Feathers for T. rex’ article, National Geographic has printed a brief, yet revealing statement by Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing. Xu's revelation appears in the somewhat obscure Forum section of the March, 2000 issue, together with a carefully crafted editorial response. The letter from Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, reads:

‘After observing a new feathered dromaeosaur specimen in a private collection and comparing it with the fossil known as Archaeoraptor [pages 100–101], I have concluded that Archaeoraptor is a composite. The tail portions of the two fossils are identical, but other elements of the new specimen are very different from Archaeoraptor, in fact more closely resembling Sinornithosaurus. Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.’ 1

National Geographic followed the letter from Xu with this statement:

‘Xu Xing is one of the scientists who originally examined Archaeoraptor. As we go to press, researchers in the U.S. report that CT scans of the fossil seem to confirm the observations cited in his letter. Results of the Society-funded examination of Archaeoraptor and details of new techniques that revealed anomalies in the fossil’s reconstruction will be published as soon as the studies are completed.’ 2

As more evidence of altered fossils begins to surface, one must seriously question the integrity of the fossil industry and the stories these fossils are supposed to tell. A Feb. 19, 2000 New Scientist article sheds light on the growing problem of faked and altered fossils. Referring to the Chinese fossil birds, paleontologist Kraig Derstler from the University of New Orleans in Louisiana says, ‘almost every one that I’ve seen on the commercial market has some reconstruction to make it look prettier.’ 3

The illegal yet highly profitable market of Chinese bird fossils has enticed the local farmers into creating marketable fossils, real or not. Derstler points out that ‘adhesives and fake rock have become very easy to make and very difficult to spot.’ 4

If you would like me to link this for your critique... happy to... freeway

Barbarian on the creation of man and woman... unquoting Jesus

He didn't mean that literally, either. How do we know. Because Genesis 1 is very clear about what was there in the beginning, and male and female were not. Jesus never said Genesis was literal. Never.

He didn't mean that literally, you mean then also like virgin birth, salvation, redemption, fall of man, demon influence on mankind, the heaven and the earth. and how God created it all form nothing... wow Barb, tell me more.. I seem to be missing something... the Bible says 6 days of creation rest on the 7th... well for a simpleton like me.. that sound like its straight to the point...

Barbarian suggests:
Well, let's test your new doctrine. Name me two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if I can find a transitional. Do you have enough faith to test your belief?

(freeway declines)

If you re read my last post ... I said.. pick any... because there is no evidence for said fossils, unless you wish them to be... p.s...... little glue works wonders on fossils you need for gaps.

have to leave to work... FUN..gotta pay the bill... more later....

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
So, in your opinion, is Archaeopteryx a bird or a dinosaur, and on what criteria did you make your decision?

Update to the article: Archaeoraptorâ€â€Phony ‘feathered’ fossil

No. Archaeopteryx. This one:

The one on the left. Is is a bird or a dinosaur, and how did you decide?

"Archaeraptor" was two fossils confused as a single one. National Geographic, ignoring the advice of scientists to wait for peer review, published the fossil unverified. And when scientists got to look it over, there was one embarrassed magazine publisher.

But we're talking about Archaeopteryx. Since their aren't any transitional fossils, in your estimation, it should be easy to tell us whether this is a dinosaur or a bird, and how you know. Good luck.

Barbarian on Jesus' figurative statement:
He didn't mean that literally, either. How do we know. Because Genesis 1 is very clear about what was there in the beginning, and male and female were not. Jesus never said Genesis was literal. Never.

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

He didn't mean that literally,

Right. Jesus often spoke in parables and in figurative language, and often cited allegories from Scripture.

you mean then also like virgin birth, salvation, redemption, fall of man, demon influence on mankind, the heaven and the earth. and how God created it all form nothing...

It appears that you're convinced that all of the Bible must be literal, or none of it. How...weird.

wow Barb, tell me more.. I seem to be missing something...

It's called "Christianity."

the Bible says 6 days of creation rest on the 7th... well for a simpleton like me.. that sound like its straight to the point...

As Augustine said, a millennium and a half ago, it is absurd to suppose literal mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. Things like this have convinced Christians that much of Genesis is allegorical.

 

[John]

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

He didn't mean that literally,

Umm yes he did. watch some of hovinds videos they contain some really good stuff.

 

[Barbarian]

Do yourself a favor. Don't cut-and-paste to make it look like I said something I didn't.

 

[John]

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

He didn't mean that literally,

Yes he did.

 

[Barbarian]

I asked you not to cut and paste to make it look like I said something I did not. And you did it again.

I can only conclude that you think lying is an acceptable behavior. It might seem like a good idea now, but you will have to live with the consequences.

If you'd like to make a positive contribution to the board, you can try my challenge. Find any two major groups said to be evolutionarily related, and I'll see if I can find a transitional.

 

[John]

Well did you not say the above? If not then i apologize, i must have got confused.

If 2 animals are supposed to be "evolutionary related" then i suppose some ignorant fool suspects the 2 animals to have a transitional and find what ever he/she thinks fits best. I have no time for the imaginations of evolutionary scientists.