Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
The sun is expanding, not shrinking. In ~5 billion years it will expand, swallowing Mercury and Venus, and probably the Earth. If it does not, it will boil off the oceans and live the planet uninhabitable. Your statement about the moon, should it be correct, assumes the moon as always been in orbit around our planet. There is always a point at which mathematical models' predictions are no longer relevant--such as when you get negative numbers from something that models positive numbers. If you're creating a graph that correlates ice cream sales and number of ninjas, the line will eventually be negative somewhere on that graph assuming its slope is not zero. There obviously cannot be negative sales of ice cream or negative numbers of ninjas on the planet.
Also, saying "if it can't be observed, it isn't science" is a dangerous statement. Something more correct would be "if it can't be tested, it isn't science." The existence of the oort cloud can be tested via observation of itself directly, of things that may come from it, or perhaps even mathematical calculations or modeling. As far as I am aware, it is a hypothesis right now.
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
The sun is expanding, not shrinking. In ~5 billion years it will expand, swallowing Mercury and Venus, and probably the Earth. If it does not, it will boil off the oceans and live the planet uninhabitable. Your statement about the moon, should it be correct, assumes the moon as always been in orbit around our planet. There is always a point at which mathematical models' predictions are no longer relevant--such as when you get negative numbers from something that models positive numbers. If you're creating a graph that correlates ice cream sales and number of ninjas, the line will eventually be negative somewhere on that graph assuming its slope is not zero. There obviously cannot be negative sales of ice cream or negative numbers of ninjas on the planet.
Also, saying "if it can't be observed, it isn't science" is a dangerous statement. Something more correct would be "if it can't be tested, it isn't science." The existence of the oort cloud can be tested via observation of itself directly, of things that may come from it, or perhaps even mathematical calculations or modeling. As far as I am aware, it is a hypothesis right now.
You are apparently ignorant as to processes concerning the life cycle of stars. I get this from atheistic material, so it cannot be said to be biased towards a young-earth. Stars are continuously burning fuel, and this causes them to slowly but surely shrink. When the reaction of the old fuel starts burning out, the star begins to rapidly shrink and burn the old fuel more slowly in a desperate attempt to save itself, and when the fuel ultimately runs out the star expands quite rapidly using the new fuel and creates a red giant. It is a slow process of implosion resulting in an ultimate explosion, not a slow process of explosion.
I don't see any shrinking there until after it expands and destroys the first three planets of the solar system. Check the sources at the bottom of the article. They're from astronomy textbooks and papers.
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
I looked to see if those claims are indeed true, and surveys have indeed suggested that is the case.
What claims - those from a poll? Fortunately I have had not come to the point where some sort of poll determines my faith in God.
As for scientists "proving" the age of the Earth, they'll never prove the age of the Earth.
I guess that is where you are science leave off. A scientist would never say never. You are confident in that science will never prove the age of the earth. You sound like those arguments that said the sun rotated about the earth.
In order to determine the age of the Earth, you have to assume something that cannot be scientifically observed to be true.
If science is based on something that is not scientifically true then it seems to be metaphysical. Is this what you are suggesting?
However, the entire story of the Bible depends on a straightforward reading of Genesis.
I see - this little exercise is all about your personal belief that the Bible is scientifically true. No wonder scientists go off the deep end about Christians and their beliefs. I can't blame when they come up against statements such as that.
As for the Temple of Solomon not having a record outside the Bible, that doesn't mean it wasn't there.
That was not my point.
The reason why other writings wouldn't have mentioned it was because they didn't really care about some foreigner's religious beliefs, and the Israelites recorded their history in the Bible. The only reason why historians don't accept the Bible as true is because it has religious connotations. As far as the Kingdom of Israel goes, it has as much credibility as any other ancient text describing the events of their civilizations, but those didn't invoke God as being involved in their events, so secular historians readily accept them.
What you say here is not archaeology - it is you own personal belief which is any but scientific. Archaeology is not about writings - its about what is found in the ground. What I have said stands. You cannot hide something which was to suppose to have been as impressive as KST without some evidence somewhere indicating such an edifice existed.
The only reason why historians don't accept the Bible as true is because it has religious connotations.
Really?
__________________ Not all those who wander are lost
Thread moved to Origins Theology from Christian Apologetics.
__________________ If two friends ask you to judge a dispute, don't accept, because you will lose one friend; on the other hand, if two strangers come with the same request, accept because you will gain one friend. Augustine
If the lack of evidence for evolution leads you to not believe it then how could you possibly even entertain a belief in God. If all the evidence for evolution and absolutely no convincing evidence for "special creation" leads you to believe special creation then how can the lack of any tangible evidence at all allow you to entertain a belief in God at all?
If the lack of evidence for evolution leads you to not believe it then how could you possibly even entertain a belief in God. If all the evidence for evolution and absolutely no convincing evidence for "special creation" leads you to believe special creation then how can the lack of any tangible evidence at all allow you to entertain a belief in God at all?
Because Mom/Dad/Pastor "told him so". He'll be frustrated for me mentioning this but the truth hurts and the reality is that so many people have a difficult time believing that they've been fed nothing but speculative tales concerning evolution their entire lives. In their minds, "well if Mom/Dad/Pastor were wrong about the creation, then they must also be wrong about..." A lot of times that sentence is ended with "God's existence", "life after death", or "all other spiritual matters". The point is that it doesn't really matter how that sentence is ended, THEY'RE TERRIFIED. In their mind they've been fed the notion that knowledge is an all or nothing ordeal without ever even considering that perhaps knowledge is given "line upon line, precept upon precept" and that the Bible isn't in fact the end all be all source of truth. That sentence should be ended "well, I guess only the creation".
Who knows what else they've been taught but it is undeniable that speciation and natural selection are real and are taking place as we speak. Evolution is funny because it happens to be one of those scientific principles that just so happens to have "tangible" evidence, as you say, yet it is probably the most widely attacked branches of science by religious folk all around the world. Isn't it interesting that the grand majority of all people who vehemently contest the reality of all aspects of evolution are the fundamental believers of religion? This alone shows that they're afraid of something. Yes, others contest, but seriously, if you were gather all vehement disbelievers together, the religious group of disbelievers would surely be the outlier with significant difference from the rest of all groups of disbelievers. In many of their minds, they have much reason to be so as well.
That said, I don't blame them. It's hard accept the fact that perhaps your "mentor" was wrong concerning this issue. Naturally, they'll do anything to protect both their mentors' reputation as well as their own pride for refusing to come to terms with the fact that all this time they were led to believe what has and continues to reveal itelf as suppositional hearsay. Again, cognitive dissonance.
If the lack of evidence for evolution leads you to not believe it then how could you possibly even entertain a belief in God. If all the evidence for evolution and absolutely no convincing evidence for "special creation" leads you to believe special creation then how can the lack of any tangible evidence at all allow you to entertain a belief in God at all?
You are apparently ignorant as to processes concerning the life cycle of stars. I get this from atheistic material, so it cannot be said to be biased towards a young-earth. Stars are continuously burning fuel, and this causes them to slowly but surely shrink. When the reaction of the old fuel starts burning out, the star begins to rapidly shrink and burn the old fuel more slowly in a desperate attempt to save itself, and when the fuel ultimately runs out the star expands quite rapidly using the new fuel and creates a red giant. It is a slow process of implosion resulting in an ultimate explosion, not a slow process of explosion.
Ignorant's a strong word to use, no?
The creation of a red giant isn't really an explosion. It's a big swell. Think of when you blow a balloon. The balloon gets a lot bigger, and then it stops getting bigger (while you take a breath) but maintains its larger size. That's what becoming a red giant looks like.
Anyhow. Some people are creationists because they genuinely believe that that is the viewpoint which best explains the physical evidence before us; other people are creationists because they need that to underpin their ideologies, with less regard for what the physical evidence actually says. Which are you?
Because if you're the latter I'm not really going to bother to try to change your mind about the scientific facts. But I can tell you straight out that a lot of "science" that you hear from certain creationist sites is plain out wrong. And if you are a creationist because you trust those websites, that is a very bad reason to be a creationist - and you will in future meet many people who, unlike me, will be raring to burst your creationist bubble without having any regard to preserving your entirely wonderful and sure faith in Christ.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
I also was an TE who became a YEC. However to be perfectly honest the science had little to do with my conversion. My main reason was that I had very good reasons to trust the veracity of scripture and I am came to realise that the straight forward reading of passages was very often the one that had been intended.
Since I trusted scripture about the resurrection of Christ and his miracles it seemed inconsistent not to extend the principle to the rest of scripture also and to accept the straight forward reading of the first chapters of genesis which the rest of scripture seem to affirm also.
Also when one examines the main tradition of the church and Jews over the last 3000 years its clear that belief in a young universe and special creation has been the prevalent mainstream view over that time period. It is for our opponents to prove their case not us. The church calendars of innumerable denominations date creation as less than 10,000 years old. The notable exceptions e.g. Augustines instantaneous creation and 7 days of revelation are exceptions not the rule.
Having argued on this site sporadically over a period of years now my view on the science is that it is hard to argue a creationist case and Creationists are not as well resourced for this as their opponents and are often isolated figures. But it strikes me as unconvincing to argue about our origins and remote cosmology for instance when so much of the evidence is degraded by time and distance or simply not available to us, there are some very intelligent scientists on this board with a mission to justify their life long commitment to macro-evolutionary assumptions - not to mention jobs. But in the end their most considered thoughts are actually guesses (albeit intelligent ones) about what actually happened. Since an exhaustive scientific case is impossible to argue I find myself agnostic about main stream science but not necessarily willing to simply buy into the creationist ways of trying to explain things either.
Therefore I believe it is possible to be a creationist even here without being able to argue a supporting scientific case. Although the debunking of cases of exaggerated certainty is definitely a worthwhile calling
__________________ Great and small they rise and fall but the Lord, He is God forever!!! Ein Englander in Deutschland.
Linear Mode
