The Age of the Universe--and Days of Creation

Corey · Apr 23, 2002

I don't believe this because I believe that God gave us enough information to come to our own conclusion. It's just that the communists are trying to keep it out of schools.

Corey's corollary:

S/He who equates her/his opponents with communists also automatically loses.

You lose, Jonathan.

Psalm6 · Apr 23, 2002

The cubit problem was simply about math...it didn't matter. A cubit could vary from time to time, they may have used it differently then.

Sinai · Apr 23, 2002

Thank you for stating your opinions regarding the various theories, Jonathan ("messenjah"). Although some may disagree with some of your rationales or may question how you arrived at certain conclusions, I personally appreciate your taking the time to respond--which is what I originally requested readers of this thread to do.

Joe, thank you for taking the time to share your evaluations of the various theories. It might be useful for some if you went into greater detail regarding the flaws you think are inherent in each position, and your supporting data...if you have time to do so.

How about the rest of you? Are there any theories you particularly agree with? Why? Are there some that you disagree with? Why? In either case, what are your reasons, rationales, and supporting evidence (if any)?

Similarly, if any of you care to respond to the comments posted by someone, please do so.

Thank you.

Joe Nobody · Apr 23, 2002

"Joe, I'm asking an honest question...do you not see any flaws in any of your views?"""

Hi Psalm6. Not off the top of my head. I gave quick answers but I could go in depth. For number 5 I have read 2 of Schroeder's 3 books (the third is on my shelf). I think I've read 4 of 5 Hugh Ross books (which is what question 3 and 4 is about). I've read a good deal of science books and yec literature (gish, hoving, morris et al) so I can firmly say I think that all of 2 (a and b as well) contradict established facts. View one is close but it misses the literary genre of the creation account. Its a reworked creation myth IMO. Do you have any specific questions?

Joe Nobody

seebs · Apr 23, 2002

Originally posted by Psalm6
The cubit problem was simply about math...it didn't matter. A cubit could vary from time to time, they may have used it differently then.

It doesn't matter how long a cubit is; it could be an inch or a mile, but a circle 10 cubits across will be more than 30 in diameter.

And I don't buy this "it didn't matter" thing; if you can dismiss even *ONE VERSE* of the Bible as "approximate" or "not literally true", then you can't say that every last verse is literally true.... and then you have to start asking which parts of it seem likely to be literally true (I consider the New Testament gospels to be the most likely) and which parts are handed-down stories or dependant on context (a lot of the epistles, and much of the old testament).

After all, in any practical sense, it doesn't matter one bit *how* God created the universe. If He felt that the best way to do it was to build it from scratch, so to speak, then He's allowed.

messenjah · Apr 23, 2002

Corey's corollary:

S/He who equates her/his opponents with communists also automatically loses.

You lose, Jonathan.

Do you know why evolution first started getting taught in schools. Remember Sputnik? First rocket to get launched into space. Launched by the Russians. Well after the launch of Sputnik, the Americans started getting scared that we were losing the science race. So what did they do. They decided to adopt the Russians science. Unfortunately, the textbooks where then being payed for by the Churches and they didn't have enough money to by the new textbooks that would be needed. Ever since then the schools have been getting their funding for textbooks from the government. The government, in a Republic, is not supposed to fund the schools and is not supposed to have any part of the schools curiculum. But unfortunately, we stopped being a Republic 40 years ago and instead became a Democracy. Therefore we are slowly becoming socialist.

God bless,
Jonathan

messenjah · Apr 23, 2002

Hmm. Even 1 Kings 7:23?

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Now, I'm gonan bet you that, if you make a round thing ten cubits across, you'll find that it's 31.415 cubits around, or very close to that. Not 30 exactly.

In other words, God expects us to think, and understand, and accept that the words written down are not always literal or precise.

Here's an interesting article that might solve this problem. Tell me what you think. http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=9

God bless,
Jonathan

brt28006 · Apr 23, 2002

Originally posted by messenjah

Do you know why evolution first started getting taught in schools. Remember Sputnik? First rocket to get launched into space. Launched by the Russians. Well after the launch of Sputnik, the Americans started getting scared that we were losing the science race. So what did they do. They decided to adopt the Russians science.

Evolution had been taught in schools prior to the famous Scopes "Monkey" trial, and that was quite some time before Sputnik (1925, to be accurate.)

As for Soviet science, quite a bit of it was either borrowed or outright stolen (but can science really be "stolen") from Western sources... and then in some cases improved on by the Soviets, but still, it was not originally researched by them. Over time, yes, Soviet science advanced by leaps and bounds independant of Western learning... a great tribute to what can be done when deistic beliefs don't hold you back.

Unfortunately, the textbooks where then being payed for by the Churches and they didn't have enough money to buy (sic) the new textbooks that would be needed. Ever since then the schools have been getting their funding for textbooks from the government. The government, in a Republic, is not supposed to fund the schools and is not supposed to have any part of the schools curiculum. But unfortunately, we stopped being a Republic 40 years ago and instead became a Democracy. Therefore we are slowly becoming socialist.

God bless,
Jonathan

Click to expand...

Since when is a republic not allowed to fund schools?
Also, since when has America become a democracy instead of a republic?
If anything, over the past fourty years, we've been edging closer to an autocratic security state.

Also, what the heck is the correlation between direct democracy and socialism?
Why is socialism bad? (I don't personally believe communism to be superior to capitalism) But if you could answer these questions I'd be appreciative.

StPaulofHurstbridge · Apr 23, 2002

I go for the Yom being 24 hours and a period of time - this is what is accepted from the platform at our church,
and I have seen many fact and faith type of films and radio program documentaries head down this line - when it comes to science I am a real dummy - so I am quite happy to go on beleiving this - it does not go against what God said, I don't have to think about it too much( just beleive) when all said and done I do not really care much about putting one over the other - maybe there is a little truth in all of the theories - and maybe there all wrong - we see through a glass darkly - bu later on I'm sure we will know....

Sinai · Apr 23, 2002

Before this thread totally digresses from its topic, perhaps it would be beneficial to quickly define a few terms that have more to do with government than with this topic of discussion:

Democracy is, quite simply, rule by the people--either directly (pure democracy or direct democracy) or through elected representatives (representative democracy, also known as a republic). It comes from the Greek words demos (the people) and kratein (to rule).

Republic, on the other hand, is the most popular form of democracy. In a republic, the people elect political leaders who are at least supposed to represent the people.

In a pure democracy or direct democracy, the people as a whole meet to decide the issues. The most common form is a town hall meeting. Each person has an equal vote--but it becomes very time consuming and very difficult to manage if the population gets very large or the issues become very complex or time consuming.

Oliver · Apr 24, 2002

Originally posted by messenjah

Do you know why evolution first started getting taught in schools. Remember Sputnik? First rocket to get launched into space. Launched by the Russians. Well after the launch of Sputnik, the Americans started getting scared that we were losing the science race. So what did they do. They decided to adopt the Russians science.

As brt28006 said, this theory would imply that evolution was not taught prior to the late 50s. (Sputnik was launched in 1957 if I remember well).
I have a very hard time believing this...

Originally posted by messenjah

The government, in a Republic, is not supposed to fund the schools and is not supposed to have any part of the schools curiculum.

Where did you get this strange idea?

Ray K · Apr 24, 2002

Originally posted by Sinai
The Age of the Universe--and Days of Creation

there seem to be at least five major theories that have been advanced:

...

What do you think? Do any of these five theories make sense to you? Why or why not? Or do you have a different belief or theory? If so, share it and your reasons here. Thank you. [/B]

I find it humorous that you list one scientific theory and four that are based in the Christian bible. What about the creation stories from other myths and religion. Are they not entitled to equal time?

The reality is that the scientific theory has more evidence and more explanatory power than all of the religious/mythological stories combined. So presenting the scientific theory as simply one of many possibilities is very misleading.

One key difference is that all of the religiously based theories are ultimately thought experiments, since mirals can be invoked to shrug off contradictory observations.

The current scientific theory, however, is one of many previous scientific theories. However, all of the others have been discarded (falsified) when contradictory observations were found.

I'm guessing in another 50 years, we'll still have one scientific theory and about 20 Bible-based theories and Christians will still be presenting them as if they all stand on equal ground.

Sinai · Apr 24, 2002

Originally posted by Ray K

I find it humorous that you list one scientific theory and four that are based in the Christian bible. What about the creation stories from other myths and religion. Are they not entitled to equal time?

If you personally believe a creation story from some other religion, you are more than welcome to bring it up as a response, Ray. In fact, the paragraph you quoted invites you to add any other theory you personally believe, though I seriously doubt that you find any of the creation stories from some other myth or religion to be particularly compelling either. (I don't know about you, but personally I always found the one that claimed the Earth was laid by a giant turtle particularly interesting.)

However, since the name of this message board is Christian Forums and since the issue of whether the first chapter of Genesis is consistent with mainstream scientific thought, evidence and theories is one that probably tends to be of greater interest to participants of this board than would be the creation accounts of other religions, I did not include those other religions (other than those religions that accept the Genesis account: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). That is why my original post said (in the first sentence you partially quoted) "Judging from the discussions of this and related questions on various threads on both the CF and other Christian message boards I have seen thus far, there seem to be at least five major theories that have been advanced:"

The reality is that the scientific theory has more evidence and more explanatory power than all of the religious/mythological stories combined. So presenting the scientific theory as simply one of many possibilities is very misleading.

One key difference is that all of the religiously based theories are ultimately thought experiments, since mirals can be invoked to shrug off contradictory observations.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Ray. It might have been more instructive, however, if you had stated why you believe or disbelieve a particular theory rather than merely accepting one because it appears to be scientific and rejecting others because they attempt to be consistent with the Bible (including those that attempt to be consistent with mainstream scientific evidence and thought). Nevertheless, many thanks for your input.

ANITA · Apr 24, 2002

I BELIEVE THAT GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND ALL THAT IS IN IT IN 6 LITERAL DAYS. EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE PROVES TO ME THAT THE BIBLE IS TRUE AND WE CAN TAKE IT AT IT'S WORD. THE BIGGEST THING THAT GETS PEOPLE ON A DIFFERENT PATH IS THE IDEOLOGY OF OTHERS WHO HAVE THE INFLUENCE TO CHANGE MINDS AND OUTLOOKS. CHARLES LYELL'S BOOK, "PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY" DID A LOT OF DAMAGE IN MY OPINION. THE "GEOLOGIC COLUMN" HE INVENTED DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE ON EARTH BUT IN THE TEXTBOOKS. ONE MUST START WITH THAT AND BUILD. I START WITH SCRIPTURE AND BUILD. I KNOW THAT THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY REAL FOUNDATION WE HAVE ANYWAY...JUST A THOUGHT

brt28006 · Apr 24, 2002

Originally posted by ANITA
I BELIEVE THAT GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND ALL THAT IS IN IT IN 6 LITERAL DAYS. EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE PROVES TO ME THAT THE BIBLE IS TRUE AND WE CAN TAKE IT AT IT'S WORD. THE BIGGEST THING THAT GETS PEOPLE ON A DIFFERENT PATH IS THE IDEOLOGY OF OTHERS WHO HAVE THE INFLUENCE TO CHANGE MINDS AND OUTLOOKS. CHARLES LYELL'S BOOK, "PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY" DID A LOT OF DAMAGE IN MY OPINION. THE "GEOLOGIC COLUMN" HE INVENTED DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE ON EARTH BUT IN THE TEXTBOOKS. ONE MUST START WITH THAT AND BUILD. I START WITH SCRIPTURE AND BUILD. I KNOW THAT THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY REAL FOUNDATION WE HAVE ANYWAY...JUST A THOUGHT

The geological column is well documented in physical reality.
More importantly though, how can everything in science convince you the bible is true, especially when so much science seems to contradict the Bible?
If the Bible is taken as metaphor, then it no longer becomes subject to scientific scrutiny, since if it is taken as metaphor nobody can claim it to be science.

Sinai · Apr 30, 2002

Originally posted by brt28006

...so much science seems to contradict the Bible...

What scientific evidence are your referring to, and which scriptures are contradicted? Thank you.

Also, which theory or theories do you agree with and which do you disagree with? Does the scientific evidence you referred to influence your opinion in either direction? If so, how? Again, thank you.

amie · May 2, 2002

Originally posted by brenda_pulido

You disagree? You will need a PH D....

I don't think anyone needs a PH D to disagree...

Sinai · May 2, 2002

Originally posted by brenda_pulido
I personally know Dr Stanley Swinney, former NASA scientist....You can find his web site by search engine. Apparently NASA found that the Moon dust (about one or two inches) found on the surface was formed no more than in 7 thousand years since the formation of the Moon.

Astronomers have found that the universe seems to be "younger" that it seems. They are trying to accept that it didnt form in "millions of millions" of years. Many accept the theory of a young universe. (Less than 7000 years).

The search engines I used were unable to find Dr. Swinney's website, though they did find a reference to a Stanley Swinney in a "memory lane" family album website (says he worked for NASA in Florida and is now a pastor in Iowa). Do you have his website?

Also, do you have any citations regarding the analysis of the Moon dust or the other data you cited? I would be interested in reading that information, as it is substantially different from other data I've seen. Thank you.

mac_philo · May 2, 2002

The 'moon dust' findings are just another irrelevant creationist red herring; i wouldn't bother researching it, unless you enjoy reading about how and why people will believe absolute nonsense if it backs up their 'faith.'

If someone had predicted X amount of dust on the moon, and we found X/20 amount of dust, that would prove that the prediction was wrong. So? The age of the moon is mind-bogglingly shorter than the age of the universe, and our ideas about dust levels are pretty small potatoes.

But, if you're the kind of person who enjoys, say, articles that debunk people like John Edwards, then head off and research the famous 'moon dust' brouhaha.

Didaskomenos · May 2, 2002

Come on guys! It's like crying at a movie character's death! The Genesis story is a mythological representation of the true event of God's creation. Some of you sound like Trekkies who try to fix every continuity problem in the series - it's just a TV show. And this is a myth, not historical narrative. It's a true myth in that there is truth suggested within the story, but the truth conveyed is not the story's historicity, but much deeper truths and themes than that.

The Age of the Universe--and Days of Creation

Veteran

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

Veteran

Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Cogito ergo sum

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Survivor

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Voiced Bilabial Spirant

Similar threads