Can you be an Adventist and an Evolutionist?

[Xenon]

Another way to say this is that one is inclusive of the other—God as the one inclusive of physics as the other. That way we don't kludge physics, and we recognize that there are many things outside of our current understanding that when understood from a large-enough frame of reference, make sense.

Agreed. I've often heard physics described as making a model of how a watch works.......without being able to open the watch and look at the inner workings. Except this watch is enormously complicated, new functions are being discovered all the time, and old functions constantly need to be reevaluated through new discoveries. There's too many unknowns to really say much with absolute certainty.

All I can really think of when reading about physics is "Wow, God made a masterpiece."

 

[Jimlarmore]

You were talking about the speed of light changing so much so that the stars wouldn't have to be billions of years old. This is craziness, unless you made up a theory that was so different from our current theories but still had as much evidence in favor. I don't think you will do this.

Speculation has little point to good science, which you have evidence in favor of other theories. If you are lacking evidence, then speculation allows you to create theories, which then need to be testable. Speculation doesn't enable you to ignore data though.

We have crazies come and talk at our physics conferences all the time. The fact that very occasionally one isn't crazy, doesn't change the fact that most of them are and that we are right in calling them crazies.

The folks who wrote those articles on the change in the speed of light were mostly all physicists and cosmologists who have worked in their perspective fields for a long time. The emperical data shows a measureable change in "C" in the last few hundred years. So how would that be accouted for exactly? I could understand it for a 200 years ago but we have known how to calculate it very precisely for well over a hundred years now yet we still see the slow down.

Cosmology and string theory are at the edge (I feel string theory is beyond) science. They aren't good examples of what physics is. There is a lot more speculation in these fields then most of the rest of the fields in physics.
That is actually one of the current key assumptions of physics. It was the key to relativitiy, and a lot of other physics. While some still want to let go of this assumption, the broad majority of the community hasn't yet seen to do so.

My background in physics is limited to about 5 courses the last of which was an engineering physics course I took. I have studied way beyond that but there is a ton I don't know in this field.

Yes, as far as most physicists are concerned, the laws of physics are the same everywhere.
Not among sub-atomic particles, I don't know what you are refering to here (I think you might be refering to quantum mechanics, but you would be wrong).

Friction depends on the electromagnetic interaction between material. The permitivity of free space is a constant of this interaction, and is inversely proportional to the square of the speed of light. If the speed of light wasn't constant, it wouldn't be constant, and if there was any great change, most everything would be screwy. Including friction.

JM
*I would like to note that I still haven't looked at that site.

Please do and tell me what you think.

As far as the interaction of "C" and material science I agree it would be much different than what we know now. However, whose to say that the way things are now is the way things have always been? We seem so confident in what we know and observe. Such arrogance we have at times. We may not even realize just how much of what we see may in fact be illusionary in nature at it's base. Remember the Bible says that with God all things are possible .

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[JonMiller]

The folks who wrote those articles on the change in the speed of light were mostly all physicists and cosmologists who have worked in their perspective fields for a long time. The emperical data shows a measureable change in "C" in the last few hundred years. So how would that be accouted for exactly? I could understand it for a 200 years ago but we have known how to calculate it very precisely for well over a hundred years now yet we still see the slow down.

I have heard of such a theory, it isn't commonly accepted though.

And most experimental data does point to the speed of light being a constant C. There is a bit of data which could point otherwise, in some theories, which these theorists prefer. (this is from my memory of a discussion of it, I haven't read the theory)

If there was an experimentally (Directly) change in the speed of light, it would be a much bigger deal as it would point to many of our theories being wrong.

As far as the interaction of "C" and material science I agree it would be much different than what we know now. However, whose to say that the way things are now is the way things have always been? We seem so confident in what we know and observe. Such arrogance we have at times. We may not even realize just how much of what we see may in fact be illusionary in nature at it's base.

It would be insanely different then what we know now. To have the effects on light that you postulated would require completely different physics (all the laws and understandings that we have would have to be wrong, all our observations/etc would have to be wrong, everything would have to be so different that we couldn't even comprehend or talk about how different it was) or a completely different world (so different that we also couldn't comprehend how different it was). Through the history we don't see the second, and all our evidence points to the first being wrong as well.

Once more, affecting the speed of light (by a lot) isn't a small change. It is a massive change that would cause our biology not to work and the wheel not to work... pretty much unless all our history is faked this is not correct.

I would bet that these theorists are claiming that the speed of light isn't a constant, but rather changes (slightly) due to other things... that the speed of light isn't a fundamental quantity. This might be true (most physicists don't agree with them), but the effects on biology, chemsitry, and most of the rest of physics would be very extreme for changes that are other then very slight.

Remember the Bible says that with God all things are possible .

Yeah, I agree, with God all things are possible. But why would He do it that way when He could just create light traveling to the earth? (if the universe is really 7000 years old, which the Bible doesn't claim) Why would He change how everything in the universe works? I mean, you have a lot of assumptions there. And how the universe works (the physics of it) seems to perfect now... why would he change it back then?

JM

 

[JonMiller]

Some of those papers don't look to be very scientific to me.

JM

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I think the bottom line to all of this falls within what we call faith. For God to create something from nothing goes way beyond the laws of physics and nature. The Bible tells us that God spoke the animals into existence. He also spoke and the sun, moon and stars were formed. God stands outside of the known laws we observe just as He stands outside of time. We can either accept that or reject it. I choose to accept it.

True enough of the first Creation account in chapter one but not true of the creation account in Ch. 2

[SIZE=-0][SIZE=-0] 18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them;[/SIZE][/SIZE]

Now you can look at pride that you don't take the story as a myth or parable but you also don't take the story literally. You can't it is not created that way. Hence the reason why I can take it as myth.

 

[Jimlarmore]

True enough of the first Creation account in chapter one but not true of the creation account in Ch. 2


Now you can look at pride that you don't take the story as a myth or parable but you also don't take the story literally. You can't it is not created that way. Hence the reason why I can take it as myth.

I don't get the problem here. In chapter one God speaks the animals into existence and because in Chapter 2 we have God forming the animals out of the ground you say it can't be literal. Why is this? You have to allow for some levity or leeway here. If God spoke and the terra firma we have now came into existence then He spoke again later on and used the material from this terra firma to form the animals then that means He still spoke them into existence. The word "Formed" used in the Bible here does not exclude God speaking them into existence.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I don't get the problem here. In chapter one God speaks the animals into existence and because in Chapter 2 we have God forming the animals out of the ground you say it can't be literal. Why is this? You have to allow for some levity or leeway here. If God spoke and the terra firma we have now came into existence then He spoke again later on and used the material from this terra firma to form the animals then that means He still spoke them into existence. The word "Formed" used in the Bible here does not exclude God speaking them into existence.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Typical Jim you ignore the words and context and say that they are the same things. To speak into existence is not the same as to form from the ground. It is however an impediment to literal interpretation and that is the point.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Typical Jim you ignore the words and context and say that they are the same things. To speak into existence is not the same as to form from the ground. It is however an impediment to literal interpretation and that is the point.

Please explain to me why speaking something into existence would exclude forming it from the ground. The modality God used is obviously way above both of our understandings yet you seem so ready to make a differentiation from arrogance and say one cannot include the other. I'm sorry but I can't do that.

Let me ask you this. Did God "form" the sun when HE spoke it into existence? Did God "form" the moon and stars when He spoke them into existence? The obvious answer is yes He did. Why then do you have a problem with allowing the word "form" to include speaking something into existence?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

So let me be clear here Jim you would have no problem with the concept that God formed the sun, stars or planets out of space dust or gases?

 

[Jimlarmore]

So let me be clear here Jim you would have no problem with the concept that God formed the sun, stars or planets out of space dust or gases?

If that is the way He did it no, not at all, I have no problem. If He made something out of nothing ( fiat creation ) I wouldn't have a problem either. I think either way it falls within what the Bible says happened. Matter exist's because the "Great I AM" called into existence. The problem to me is where we as limited beings arrogantly start to put limits on God by saying He had to use the available matter that was latently lying around to make what ever He was creating at the time. I'm not going to limit a being that stands outside of time and matter to that condition.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

If that is the way He did it no, not at all, I have no problem. If He made something out of nothing ( fiat creation ) I wouldn't have a problem either. I think either way it falls within what the Bible says happened. Matter exist's because the "Great I AM" called into existence. The problem to me is where we as limited beings arrogantly start to put limits on God by saying He had to use the available matter that was latently lying around to make what ever He was creating at the time. I'm not going to limit a being that stands outside of time and matter to that condition.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Ok good I don't have a problem with that either, that is why I like theistic evolution. The point of the story is that God created not how God created. It is the literalist that get us in trouble because they are the arrogant ones who declare that this is what God did and this is when He did it. So we don't know how He formed things, theistic evolution is simply one explanation of how the forms we see today came about. I would not have a problem with God creating everything out of nothing. But that is not what the records left in the earth indicate so we have to try and fit what we see around us with the story of God.

So we are left with really only one arrogant position and that is those who claim that the six literal days of creation is the only acceptable idea of God's creation. Which is what Cliff believes and why the op article was presented.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Ok good I don't have a problem with that either, that is why I like theistic evolution. The point of the story is that God created not how God created. It is the literalist that get us in trouble because they are the arrogant ones who declare that this is what God did and this is when He did it. So we don't know how He formed things, theistic evolution is simply one explanation of how the forms we see today came about. I would not have a problem with God creating everything out of nothing. But that is not what the records left in the earth indicate so we have to try and fit what we see around us with the story of God.

So we are left with really only one arrogant position and that is those who claim that the six literal days of creation is the only acceptable idea of God's creation. Which is what Cliff believes and why the op article was presented.

If you take the interpretation of mainstream science then you cannot accept the literal account of what the Bible says. Theistic evolution is a cop out and tries to marry religion to science. In some areas that cannot be done, macro-evolution is one of them.

BTW, I disagree that the "records left in the earth" do not allow for a literal acceptance of the creation account. There's some problematic areas but for the most part the evidence supports the Bible and it's stories as being literal.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[JonMiller]

I disagree with both of you.

I do agree with RC though that scienitific evidence does not support the creation account.

JM

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

If you take the interpretation of mainstream science then you cannot accept the literal account of what the Bible says. Theistic evolution is a cop out and tries to marry religion to science. In some areas that cannot be done, macro-evolution is one of them.

BTW, I disagree that the "records left in the earth" do not allow for a literal acceptance of the creation account. There's some problematic areas but for the most part the evidence supports the Bible and it's stories as being literal.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Clearly my interpretation is not that of main stream science because Science very correctly does not delve into supernatural ideas. So theistic evolution is not really accepted by modern science anymore then Hoyles life seeded from outer space is accepted.

Now you may disagree with the records on the earth all you want but you become the arrogant one you demand the literal view of Genesis.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Clearly my interpretation is not that of main stream science because Science very correctly does not delve into supernatural ideas. So theistic evolution is not really accepted by modern science anymore then Hoyles life seeded from outer space is accepted.

Now you may disagree with the records on the earth all you want but you become the arrogant one you demand the literal view of Genesis.

In my opinion when it's appropriate the literal view is the only way to take the Bible. I'm fully aware of the symbolic nature of a lot texts in the Bible. In some cases the Bible is purely symbolic and in some cases literal events such as the life of Elijah and even some of Christ's life can be taken in a symbolic way. There's nothing in the narrative to demand we take the creation account as symbolic or as a myth or allegory. In the process of discussing all of this I don't demand you believe any certain way. I only aggressively assert my side of this and tell the reasons why I believe the way I do.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

I disagree with both of you.

I do agree with RC though that scienitific evidence does not support the creation account.

JM

What scientific evidence is that?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

In my opinion when it's appropriate the literal view is the only way to take the Bible. I'm fully aware of the symbolic nature of a lot texts in the Bible. In some cases the Bible is purely symbolic and in some cases literal events such as the life of Elijah and even some of Christ's life can be taken in a symbolic way. There's nothing in the narrative to demand we take the creation account as symbolic or as a myth or allegory. In the process of discussing all of this I don't demand you believe any certain way. I only aggressively assert my side of this and tell the reasons why I believe the way I do.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

I have pointed out several of the things that indicate it was meant in other ways. The creation begins with a watery void. That is the chaos that so many myths begin with. The order of the creation is different in the two accounts of chapter 1 and 2 is different. Chapter 2 has God bringing animals to man searching for a suitable helpmate. Then He takes a rib from the man and shapes another person. the woman who is stated to have come from man.

It proceeds to say that the serpent was the most cunning creature who then proceeds to talk and think and communicate just like a human. It has two trees both of which are clearly symbolic the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

How many things do you need to see symbolism?

 

[thecountrydoc]

Hi Jon & RC,

From Jon's post:

"I do agree with RC though that scienitific evidence does not support the creation account."

It would be well if you both could take an upper division, or post graduate, course from my oldest son. He teaches micro-biology using nuclear research to support Creation. I doubt very much that either of you would want to engage him in debate as to whether there is scientific evidence to support creation as stated in the Bible.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[JonMiller]

What scientific evidence is that?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

That is just the point, there doesn't exist any scientific evidence that supports the creation account.

JM
(that I know of, and my studies are mostly in physics)

 

[JonMiller]

Hi Jon & RC,

From Jon's post:
It would be well if you both could take an upper division, or post graduate, course from my oldest son. He teaches micro-biology using nuclear research to support Creation. I doubt very much that either of you would want to engage him in debate as to whether there is scientific evidence to support creation as stated in the Bible.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

I study physics, not micro-biology, but I know of no evidence supporting the creation account in physics.

And physics is a better science then micro-biology.

JM