Creation more than 6 DAYS

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,301
982
Houston, TX
✟154,100.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
And yet, I showed that the observance of supernovas contradicts your interpretation that the universe was created on day 4 of 6 24 hour days. I would say it has occurred. But in this you disagree, and this is why this subject is so controversial.

This is your response to my statement "And if a traditional interpretation of some verse of scripture contradicts what is observed in nature, then is it possible that the traditional interpretation of scripture is wrong?" Yes, it is a distinct possibility.

I didn’t provide a link.
You did practically, since you mentioned Dr. Lisle, which I had to google to find out what you were talking about. That led to the link I posted, in which I refuted his hypothesis. Ok, my mistake, I posted the link, but this is beside the point.

It’s not a straw man. You are arguing that that if science says something different than scripture, then science wins. And science would say that the resurrection is impossible.
Yep, a straw man, just as this argument is. Science observes nature and natural processes to find out how things work. It has nothing to do with miracles mentioned in scripture.

My point is that it is pointless to argue science if you conclude that Gen. 1 describes only miracles. Either God used miracles to create the universe, or He used natural processes. And if you demand that people believe in literal 24 hour days in Gen. 1, then you must come up with a plausible explanation of why we observe supernovas that are up to 10B light years distant. I've yet to see a plausible explanation.
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm a creationist, never once spoke of evolutionary theory. Is a 24 hr timetable used in Scripture?

The only possible meaning to the specific language stating that each creation day consisted of EVENING and MORNING, is 24 hour days based on the rotation of the earth.

An unspecified long time period involving centuries or millennia, cannot be referred to as being compromised of EVENING and MORNING.

Also the New Testament confirms all creation was completed in 7 days.

Shalom.
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,301
982
Houston, TX
✟154,100.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The only possible meaning to the specific language stating that each creation day consisted of EVENING and MORNING, is 24 hour days based on the rotation of the earth.

An unspecified long time period involving centuries or millennia, cannot be referred to as being compromised of EVENING and MORNING.

Also the New Testament confirms all creation was completed in 7 days.

Shalom.
Based on the rotation of the earth? Then do you believe that the earth orbited the sun also on day 1, since by your logic, the sun also had to exist on day 1? If day 1 is the same as the day we know, then the source of light had to be the sun. So in that vein, the sun was created before day 1, not on day 4. How would you explain it?
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,180
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Yep, a straw man, just as this argument is. Science observes nature and natural processes to find out how things work. It has nothing to do with miracles mentioned in scripture.

How are miracles different than creation?
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,301
982
Houston, TX
✟154,100.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
How are miracles different than creation?
1. If God used only miraculous power to create everything as we see it today, then you can't argue creation on the basis of natural process, which is what creationists like ICR and AIG do. Young-U creationists actually do assume that God used natural processes called Providence in creation, and is the basis of their arguments.
2. If God miraculously created everything only 6k years ago, then what we see in the cosmos would reflect a 6k year history, not a 14B year history. What we observe in astronomy shows at least a 10B year history, because we have observed supernova events 10B light years distant.
3. Your hero Dr. Lisle admits that the distances measured are real. Therefore there is a discrepancy between the claim that the U was created 6k years ago and what is observed in the cosmos.
4. The difference between a miracle and Providence is that a miracle is an obvious violation of what we know to be natural process, where as Providence is a God-directed natural process. A miracle is an obvious supernatural event, whereas a Providential event is a natural event, so the fact of it being God-driven is hidden.
5. A miracle might look like the earth was non-existent, and suddenly it exists without any apparent cause. For example, like a person born without eyes suddenly has eyes and can see. Providence could mean that God established the laws of physics (unseen forces) before matter was created, and then when matter was created from the raw energy of God, the matter then conformed to those physical laws. It might have looked like the "Big Bang" or something similar to that. I think the reason why Creation scientists assume Providence is because imagining that the universe just magically appeared as it is without any apparent cause is a stretch of the imagination, and is not in harmony with what is observed in astronomy.

What is observed in the cosmos is what appears like a 10+ billion year history. So if the Bible really does teach a 6k year old universe, then something is wrong with this picture. It's like saying God is lying to humanity, because it appears like the universe is 10+B years old, but it's actually only 6k years old, according to God. It's as if He created Adam complete with work related scars as if Adam had a history of scratches and cuts from working the garden, even though it was his first day of existence. I'm saying there is something wrong with the picture, and I don't believe that what is wrong is what we observe. I'm saying that what is wrong is most likely the traditional interpretation of the Bible. And I continue to take the stand that there has yet to be a viable hypothesis to reconcile the picture. I hope you are beginning to understand what my objection is.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,180
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
1. If God used only miraculous power to create everything as we see it today, then you can't argue creation on the basis of natural process, which is what creationists like ICR and AIG do. Young-U creationists actually do assume that God used natural processes called Providence in creation, and is the basis of their arguments.
2. If God miraculously created everything only 6k years ago, then what we see in the cosmos would reflect a 6k year history, not a 14B year history. What we observe in astronomy shows at least a 10B year history, because we have observed supernova events 10B light years distant.
3. Your hero Dr. Lisle admits that the distances measured are real. Therefore there is a discrepancy between the claim that the U was created 6k years ago and what is observed in the cosmos.
4. The difference between a miracle and Providence is that a miracle is an obvious violation of what we know to be natural process, where as Providence is a God-directed natural process. A miracle is an obvious supernatural event, whereas a Providential event is a natural event, so the fact of it being God-driven is hidden.
5. A miracle might look like the earth was non-existent, and suddenly it exists without any apparent cause. For example, like a person born without eyes suddenly has eyes and can see. Providence could mean that God established the laws of physics (unseen forces) before matter was created, and then when matter was created from the raw energy of God, the matter then conformed to those physical laws. It might have looked like the "Big Bang" or something similar to that. I think the reason why Creation scientists assume Providence is because imagining that the universe just magically appeared as it is without any apparent cause is a stretch of the imagination, and is not in harmony with what is observed in astronomy.

What is observed in the cosmos is what appears like a 10+ billion year history. So if the Bible really does teach a 6k year old universe, then something is wrong with this picture. It's like saying God is lying to humanity, because it appears like the universe is 10+B years old, but it's actually only 6k years old, according to God. It's as if He created Adam complete with work related scars as if Adam had a history of scratches and cuts from working the garden, even though it was his first day of existence. I'm saying there is something wrong with the picture, and I don't believe that what is wrong is what we observe. I'm saying that what is wrong is most likely the traditional interpretation of the Bible. And I continue to take the stand that there has yet to be a viable hypothesis to reconcile the picture. I hope you are beginning to understand what my objection is.
Out of curiosity, do you believe in a literal Adam and original sin?
 
Upvote 0

wandering misfit

Nowhere man
Supporter
Jan 25, 2012
304
101
Indiana
✟54,351.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
The comparison throughout the scriptures is six days God worked so six days we work. I don’t understand why anyone would think that creation didn’t happen in 6 days. Would you say that God’s commandment for the sabbath was 6 periods of time? The Jews obviously understood it to mean 6 days which is why they honored the sabbath once a week ever since the commandment was given to Moses. I don’t see why you are questioning this brother.
Cept Yahweh never took nor takes a day off, neither does His Son.
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I read this link:
Distant Starlight in a Young Universe: Concepts of Simultaneity | Biblical Science Institute

IMO he has a fundamental problem with light travel time according to the general relativity equation. He proposes that light speed is different relative to moving observers in different directions. I believe this to be false. Light actually travels the same speed in all directions regardless of observer motion. What happens is the wavelength of light is different for each observer.

What he uses to confirm his hypothesis is that in experimenting with light speed, they use the average of the data. But averaging the data is not about different speeds, but rather about the tolerance of the equipment. Therefore, it is examples like this that makes creationists appear ignorant to the atheist, and in that way they think of creationists as idiots.

He argues for the convention of simultaneity, and proposes that the starlight reaching the earth was simultaneous to the creation of the stars with a view to one-way travel. This is nonsense for someone trying to understand the starlight distance issue from a general relativity perspective. You cannot mix physics with ancient convention and come up with a solution. Light takes time to travel to a mirror and back, as is proven in a laboratory. Therefore to say that one-way travel is different is nonsense.

Unless someone can show me clearly by reason and example using the equation, I don't go for this. I consider it to be nonsense.

We don’t know what took place in the first second after the Big Bang singularity created an energy burst that converted to matter, and the time/space continuum was created and expanded rapidly, (which would include the laws of physics that govern the universe).

For all we know, in that first second, the speed of light could have been infinite along with the expansion of the universe from a single point to millions of light years in diameter.

It can’t be dogmatically stated that the laws of physics today, work exactly as they did when space itself was expanding from the BB.
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,301
982
Houston, TX
✟154,100.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
We don’t know what took place in the first second after the Big Bang singularity created an energy burst that converted to matter, and the time/space continuum was created and expanded rapidly, (which would include the laws of physics that govern the universe).

For all we know, in that first second, the speed of light could have been infinite along with the expansion of the universe from a single point to millions of light years in diameter.

It can’t be dogmatically stated that the laws of physics today, work exactly as they did when space itself was expanding from the BB.
Firstly, the BB is theoretical, and in creation there is nothing that shows us that a BB had to have happened. All we know is that God "spread out the heavens." There is indication that the U is expanding by red shift, but this is being debated.

Secondly, either the creation was done completely miraculously, or it was done providentially (within the laws of physics). You can't argue both, and this is why creationists have lots of trouble resolving issues. If you always fall back on miracles to explain discrepancies between traditional creationist ideas and what is observed and measured in the cosmos, the apologetic fails.

Thirdly, the hypothesis that the laws of physics are broken early in the BB has been thoroughly refuted by cosmologists. You might as well say it was a miraculous event, and the physical laws don't apply.

Fourthly, the light seen from stars 13B light years away is a real measurement of light from that distant source. Even if you argue that light speed was faster at first (which violates general relativity), the U still had to settle into a stable form as it is today, so you still have to deal with 13B LY distance. I just don't think you can get around this with wild conjectures.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thirdly, the hypothesis that the laws of physics are broken early in the BB has been thoroughly refuted by cosmologists. You might as well say it was a miraculous event, and the physical laws don't apply.

Sorry, but the creation of energy violates the laws of thermodynamics that state that energy cannot be created, yet it was created and wound up the universe so that it can unwind, so to speak - as entropy occurs.

Thus right from the get go, the creation of the uni was outside of the natural, making it, by definition, super-natural, and violated known laws of physics - meaning BB cosmologists have refuted nothing regarding laws of physics in operation or not in operation in the first moments of existence

And anyone who accepts quantum theory with its spooky action at a distance, and matter not coming into definite existence until observed, should have no problems with miraculous events being part of the BB creation event.
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,301
982
Houston, TX
✟154,100.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Sorry, but the creation of energy violates the laws of thermodynamics that state that energy cannot be created, yet it was created and wound up the universe so that it can unwind, so to speak - as entropy occurs.

Thus right from the get go, the creation of the uni was outside of the natural, making it, by definition, super-natural, and violated known laws of physics - meaning BB cosmologists have refuted nothing regarding laws of physics in operation or not in operation in the first moments of existence

And anyone who accepts quantum theory with its spooky action at a distance, and matter not coming into definite existence until observed, should have no problems with miraculous events being part of the BB creation event.
What's your point? What did you think I meant? I don't want to argue about the BB. My point was that there is yet any valid argument from YECs about light travel time. Your hypothesis about that doesn't hold water. Unless you are willing to provide a link to a viable hypothesis, then I think this conversation is done. What I've read so far from YEC sites like ICR and AIG, I've yet to see anything that is feasible.

I think that Gen. 1 is an accommodation to man's perspective at that time, as this is the most viable explanation so far IMO. To poke attempts at making it a modern science textbook is, IMO, a fool's errand.
 
Upvote 0