-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Creationism
- Thread starter yec_12
- Start date
The oldest known whale-like fossil is Himalayecetus subathuensis and it dates back around 53 million years. There's also Pakicetus which dates back about 52 million years.
Of course, there creatures aren't really the same as modern whales, which would be much younger.
Archaeopteryx, I believe, is considered to be one of the oldest bird fossils, dating back around 150 million years or so.
Upvote
0
I hadn't read Schroeder's book (The Science of God), but after looking it up, it does seem to be where you're getting a lot of your ideas from. I'll have to add it to my list of readings, to see what kind of arguments he puts forth for his time dilation explanation (among other things).
Upvote
0
tof
Regular Member
Pete, there's a review of the book by Victor J. Stenger at http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Briefs/genesis.html
It appears this book is an exercise in futility, rendering both cosmology and the Bible meaningless.
From the article :
Schroeder's use of quark confinement as the defining moment for his cosmic time scale is completely arbitrary. He seems to have chosen it for no better reason than it gives the right answer. Alternatively, he might have chosen the moment in the early universe called "decoupling," which represents the point where radiation separates from matter. Indeed, he relates this event to the separation of the "light from the darkness" described in Genesis day one. But the redshift from decoupling to the present is only 1,000, which would give an earth time interval of only fifteen years since decoupling!
Upvote
0
My degree is from Univ of Southern California.
Please present Schroeder's actual argument, rather than just a claim that he is right. Science claims are weeded out by the process of peer-review in leading journals--in which journals has Schroeder published his claims? If he hasn't published in any physics journals, I have no reason to think that his claims are the least bit sound.
Present the actual physics. Is he actually accounting for the 4 dimensional fabric of space-time changing over the expansion time of the universe? Going through the tensor math describing such expansion?
If you can't actually present the physics, then you have no argument other than argument from dubious authority. True, Schroeder has a degree in physics, but his claims haven't gone through the process that weeds the BS out from actual science.
Upvote
0
Ah, good link to Stenger's review, tof! Yeah, if Schroeder is trying to use an exponential redshift since the time of quark confinement, then he's just making a wild guess and trying to shoehorn everything into that picture. As Stenger nicely points out, most of cosmology doesn't fit into that picture at all.
So with Schroeder's picture, there actually IS no creation. Whoops!
So with Schroeder's picture, there actually IS no creation. Whoops!
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
Yes, that is what we are talking about is Schroeder's theory of creation. Because he combines YEC with OEC. This actually is not a modern theory at all. Let me explain.
2000 years ago, Christians took over the Old Testament from the Hebrew. What they did not take was the traditions of the Hebrew Priesthood, which was quite extensive. There is even a oral tradition that is suppose to go back to Moses. Also there is an area of Jewish mysticism that very few christians study. So there is the Talmud, Midrash, and the Kabbalah that the early Gnostics picked up on, but Gnosticism was pretty much banned by the early church.
Around the 1300's in Spain was a Jewish doctor and who became a Rabbi by the name of Nachmanides who studied all of the referances to what Moses had to say about Creation in the Hebrew writtings. This sort of study could take years and years. So Schroeder builds upon Nachmanides work and tries to reconcile it with what we know today from Science.
There is a huge amount of support in the Hebrew writtings for Schroeder's theory, that is why he has the support of Zola Levitt, who maybe the leading Messianic Jewish theologian today. At least the most popular.
People may want to brush it off without putting any effort into trying to understanding this theory of creation. It has the most support going back to Moses than any of the other theorys.
The YEC is a rather new theory in comparison, only going back about 500 years. But even a casual reading of the Bible can show that the authers of the new testament had some knowledge of the teachings that are more supported by the creation theory that Schroeder puts forth. It is anything but a "new" theory. LIke I said, it can be pretty well traced back to Moses. Who we are told gave a "oral" tadition to the priesthood that later became written in the Talmund and the Midrash.
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
According to the Bible, the great whales were created on the fifth day and using Schroeder math, you looking at a time frame of around half a billion years.
So inorder to come up with a more recent time frame, then you would have to say that Genesis 1:1 does not talk about the creation of the universe, but just the creation of the earth. Then you would only be going back about 4.6 billion years instead of going back 14 billion years. So day one would have a length of 2.3 billion years, rather than 8 billion years. Day two would be a billion years, day three around have a billion. Day four a quarter of a billion and day five would be around 125 million years. This would put you into a more recent time frame. Day six, would bring you up to about 64 million. Then you have God's day of rest. On day eight about 6000 years ago, Adam and Eve enter the scene.
64 is an amazing number. It is the number of squares on a chess board. It is the number of generations from Adam to Jesus. If you took one grain of rice and put it on square one of a chess board, then put two grains on square two, four grains on square three, eight grains on square four and so on. By the time you get to square 64, you would be up to the amount of rice that is produced in the whole world on any given calander year.
So, in other works, if you had one male and one female, you could populate the whole earth in 64 generations. 64 million is a date I have set before as the beginning of God's day of rest.
64 million day 7, 128 million day 6, 256 million, day 5, 512 million day 4, 1.24 billion day 3, 2.28 billion day 2, 4.56 billion day 1. That is very close to the science date of 4.65 billion years for the age of the earth. This is my theory of the 7 days in Genesis.
Upvote
0
Oops, you're right, it's day 5 when the whales and birds were created, not day 4.
Ignoring your glaring rounding errors (you have to start at 4 billion even on day 1, not 4.6, to get to 64 million years for day 6), how do you jump from 64 million years on day 6 to 6000 on day 8? Following your math, day 7 would be 32 million and day 8 would be 16 million.
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
Lets give it a try, 4 billon, 2 billion, 1 billon, 1/2 billon, 225 million, 112.5 million, 56.25 million. Nope, that does not work.
Sixty four million is the date that Nova uses for when a "doomsday astroid" hit the earth and wiped out 2/3 of the life. I just get this thought that maybe God said: Ops, maybe I need a day of rest. Then He comes back on monday, renewed and refreshed with a new idea for a man: Adam and Eve, some new and better plants and trees, and domesticated animals to round it all off.
I see what you mean, but creation is 7 days and then we begin the genologys. So I give day 7 a length of 64 million years. Day 8 has really only just begun, sense we are only 6000 years along. Day 8 could last for 32 million years I suppose.
Were you around when I was doing all that math about how the earth was spinning so fast that as it began to slow down, the first day was only 1/100,000 of a second long? Using the spindown rate from NASA I figured it took 10 billion years for the earth to slow down enough that the day was long enough for grass to grow. As the earth continues to slow down and the day becomes longer, then more advanced life that requires more day light could emerge.
Of course at first there would only be enough sun light at the equator, then as the earth continued to slowed down more, then life could begin to move north and south of the equator because there was enough sunlight and long enough days to substain life.
The problem with that is that my theory would tend to suggest that life evolved. But it would be different from the theory of evolution, because everything would be programed from the beginning and as the conditions became ideal, then the building blocks would come together and form into life as God planned it.
Everyone who has ever gardened knows that if you provide ideal conditions for plants, they will thrive. But if the conditions are poor, not enough light, not rich enough soil, then plants do poorly.
Upvote
0
Actually, 4.096 billion (or 4096 million) is what you need to start with to arrive at 64 million.
4096 / 2 = 2048
2048 / 2 = 1024
1024 / 2 = 512
512 / 2 = 256
256 / 2 = 128
128 / 2 = 64
Btw, your math is wrong. 1/2 billion divided by 2 equals 250, not 225.
It's 65, not 64. It's also worth noting that the Earth has experienced more than one mass extinction event in its history.
I gotcha now.
Yes I was. I also remember pointing out that that spindown rate you obtained was not constant (and this was mentioned on that NASA you referenced at the time). It's erroneous to extrapolate the number along a linear path back into the past, since the spindown rate would vary (you know why the Earth's spin is slowing down, right?).
There's no real difference. Whether God is deliberately guiding evolution or just letting it happen by itself isn't something that science can really determine. All science can do is gather evidence that shows that, indeed, life has evolved over time.
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
Okay let's do some simple math here John...
The Earth's circumference is about 24,902 miles...
To make a day last only 1/100.000th of a second the Earth would have to be spinning at 2,490,200,000 miles per second...
The speed of light is about 186,000 miles per second...
That would have the Earth spinning at about 13,388 times the speed of light...
Do we see any problems with this??????????
Upvote
0
Let me guess, i havnt been reading all of this but it makes me think of exponention extrapolation.
Unfortunatly things dont work like that, and it ignores most of the evidence.
The last time I heard something like this, it was someone who was trying to say that if you take our population and go exponentially back in time, you will get to two people at around 6000 years. Many people tryed to explain how this didnt work, but he was too bussy being happy in his own little world
Unfortunatly things dont work like that, and it ignores most of the evidence.
The last time I heard something like this, it was someone who was trying to say that if you take our population and go exponentially back in time, you will get to two people at around 6000 years. Many people tryed to explain how this didnt work, but he was too bussy being happy in his own little world
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
Yes I do see problems with it. It has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
The spindown rate of the earth is 1.5 to 2 mili-sec every 100 years. That means 1 million years ago, the day would be 15 seconds shorter. But what about 4.5 billion years ago?
.002 = 100 years
.02 = 1000 years
.2 = 10,000 years
2 seconds = 100,000 years
60 seconds = 3,000,000 years
1 hour = 180,000,000 years
24 hours = 4,320,000,000 years
4.32 billion years ago, a day would be 24 hours shorter than it is now. Based on the current spindown rate of the earth.
So, how many days would there be in a year at that rate? If there were 12 hours in a day that would be 730 days in a year.
A 6 hour day would be a 1460 days in a year.
A 3 hour day would be 2920 days in a year.
A 1 hour day would be 8760 days in a year.
A one min day would be 525,600 days in the year.
A one sec. day would be 31,536,000 days in the year.
Upvote
0
Now all you need to show is that the earth has a constant rate of slow down over the course of millions of years. Without it, its only a hypothesis.
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
Yeah, it's silly. I saw somewhere that some people took the expansion rate of the universe and reversed it. Why do you know that they claim that 13.7 billion years ago the universe started off the size of a dot on this page or maybe even smaller than that?
Now who was that? Oh I remember it was NASA using data from the Hubble space camera.
The spindown rate of the earth is based on the tide of the ocean. The slowdown is caused by the friction of the moving tide. The tide is of course caused by the moon.
The moon is moving away from the earth. 10 billion years ago, the earth and the moon crashed is the most popular theory. This would have pulverised the moon. But somewhere along the way it reformed itself.
If it were not for the moon, the earth would not be able to maintain is's tilt and without the tilt on it's axis, there would be no seasons.
Genesis 1:14-16
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: [15] And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. [16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Even Moses knew 3500 years ago, when God set the moon in it's place it brought about the seasons. When the orbit of the earth around the sun was fixed in place, that brought about the years. How do you suppose Moses know that?
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
Yeah, well, the spindown rate is only 15 seconds in a million years. This is something that takes billions of years. Creation actualy would work againt this theory. According to the Bible everything was set in place on the 4 th day. I assigned the fourth day to begin about a billion years ago.
one min equals 4 million years.
one hour equals 240 million years.
So a billion years ago, your only talking a 4 hour shorter day.
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
Here are a few links for anyone interested on what the Earth's spin down actually is and not just John and a few other creationists misconceptions.
http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99318.htm
http://www.ualberta.ca/ALUMNI/newtrail/02-2/professor022.html
http://www.badastronomy.com/bitesize/moonrock.html
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980421b.html
http://csd.unl.edu/csd/resource/vol-10/tidal.htm
http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99318.htm
http://www.ualberta.ca/ALUMNI/newtrail/02-2/professor022.html
http://www.badastronomy.com/bitesize/moonrock.html
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980421b.html
http://csd.unl.edu/csd/resource/vol-10/tidal.htm
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
That is the figures I used, same as they have on the link you provided. Thanks for verifying my figures.
"A: While the rotation of the Earth appears to be perfectly constant, it is actually slowing down at the rate of 0.002 seconds a century. In other words, as the Earth slowly loses spin energy, the period of rotation (one day) gets one second longer every 50,000 years. "
Upvote
0
Similar threads
