• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Creation more than 6 DAYS

Discussion in 'Semper Reformanda' started by wandering misfit, Mar 29, 2021.

  1. tdidymas

    tdidymas Newbie

    +838
    Baptist
    Single
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  2. chad kincham

    chad kincham Well-Known Member

    +661
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  3. tdidymas

    tdidymas Newbie

    +838
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Republican
    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?
     
  4. Hammster

    Hammster Can you describe the ruckus? Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +21,203
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    How are miracles different than creation?
     
  5. tdidymas

    tdidymas Newbie

    +838
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Republican
    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.
     
  6. Hammster

    Hammster Can you describe the ruckus? Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +21,203
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Out of curiosity, do you believe in a literal Adam and original sin?
     
  7. tdidymas

    tdidymas Newbie

    +838
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Republican
    Yes.
     
  8. wandering misfit

    wandering misfit Nowhere man Supporter

    304
    +99
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    Cept Yahweh never took nor takes a day off, neither does His Son.
     
  9. chad kincham

    chad kincham Well-Known Member

    +661
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  10. tdidymas

    tdidymas Newbie

    +838
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Republican
    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.
     
  11. chad kincham

    chad kincham Well-Known Member

    +661
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  12. tdidymas

    tdidymas Newbie

    +838
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Republican
    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.
     
Loading...