juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 72
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
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.
How does God participate in the making of a cheese sandwich?
I think the point she was trying to make is that the TE view seems to make God unecessary to explain anything that occurs in our world. If everything has a natural explanation, where is the supernatural? It turns into Anthony Flew's death by 1000 qualifications.
That is the problem. They aren't going to blow apart in the distant future, they are blowing apart now, and at phenomenal velocities.Its only unstable in an old universe model. If I don't eat, I am at risk of starving, but I don't constantly need to be eating to remain "stable". The galaxies can easily last thousands of years without blowing apart.
If you know what the scientists said, was the question of galaxies holding together part of the general discussion, or was it the basis of their calculation?Dark matter was a result of scientists confusion as to how the galaxies were staying together. In the words of the scientists themselves, the galaxies should have fallen apart. Therefore, in order for the universe to be in the state its in now, AND be billions of years old, dark matter had to be made up. This is not a "creationist" argument at all. That is how dark matter came about in the minds of scientists.
Because that is what you describe.Perhaps you shouldn't over read into what people say. I have no idea why you think I believe galaxies are flying apart.
If the universe was young the galaxxies would still be flying apart. Don't forget too, a young universe is only part of the creationist view. They also claim Adam and Eve, all the animals, plants and bacteria were created immortal, and they were meant to live with God forever in this perfect world. The creationist model need galaxies that will hold together for billions of years too, it is just their billions of years were in the future when God created man and animals immortal.They should have flown apart under an old universe model, but under a young universe, there is no problem.
Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMaybe you should look into why scientists came up with dark matter.
The problem with you comparison is that the ball is pretty easy to pick up and examine and the path easy to study. What creations have done is look at science at the very limits of our ability to observe, that we cannot being into a lab and shove under microscope but can only make distant observations. The creationist look for some puzzle that cannot be answered across the vast distances in the inky dark of space, and say Ahah! that was God. The answer is he made it that way.Let me expand on the ball example I gave.
Pretend God created a new universe that was just a hill, a ball, and 2 people. When created, the ball is already halfway down the hill in motion toward the people standing at the bottom. God says to the people, "I created that ball halfway up the hill." but one of the people says, "Well if we apply the laws of physics to it, we can see that the ball actually came from the top of the hill. The speed it was going and the direction it was coming from indicates that it wasn't made halfway up the hill, but actually it came from the top of the hill. Sorry God."
Now the second person says, "Well wait a second. If we run tests on the ball, we see that it only has enough dirt on it to have come from halfway down. Since we know the rate the ball would pick up dirt, it can't have come from the top. God must have been right when he said he made it only halfway down."
First person replies, "There must be an invisible dark barrier that kept the ball from picking up dirt."
I was a creationist myself, I know they can spin a great line of rhetoric but the evidence simply isn't there to support their claims.I think you just broke my irony meter.
Don't think I mentioned membranes. No, science holds them simply as the best explanation we have until they are confirmed or a better explanation comes along, in the meantime they keep looking for evidence that can support or contradict dark matter or modified gravity.So until a better theory comes along, we should all hold to these theories on faith. You believe the best explanation is convoluted, unfalsifiable hypothesis on dark matter and bouncing membranes.
The bible doesn't change, but interpretation certainly do and it wouldn't be the first time a literal interpretation was shown to be wrong when we learned more about science. There was a time when everyone thought the bible said the sun went round the earth. But in the end the church went with science, because science is testable and we can be mistaken in our interpretation of scripture. At lest the geocentrists based their ideas about the sun going round the earth on scripture, the bible says nothing about the stability of galaxies. You simply want it to be true because it would be evidence for a young earth, but even if creation were recent it wouldn't mean galaxies had to be unstable.I believe the best explanation is God and what he has revealed to us in the scriptures. One of these sides is static, the other constantly changing because its never quite right.
He allows your hand still be functional.
You're not who I asked.
That is the problem. They aren't going to blow apart in the distant future, they are blowing apart now, and at phenomenal velocities.
To take your parallel about eating, it is like you have been abducted by aliens who look at your metabolism, the way you burn carbohydrates producing CO[sub]2[/sub] and water, the way you keep excreting waste products (what do you think the probes are for?) They propose without any evidence that such a thing exists, that there is a source that replaces the carbohydrates being used up and the material being expelled past their probes which for reasons know only to their unworldly intelligences the label 'darq phood'. Would your aliens be mistaken?
If you know what the scientists said, was the question of galaxies holding together part of the general discussion, or was it the basis of their calculation?
Because that is what you describe.
If the universe was young the galaxxies would still be flying apart. Don't forget too, a young universe is only part of the creationist view. They also claim Adam and Eve, all the animals, plants and bacteria were created immortal, and they were meant to live with God forever in this perfect world. The creationist model need galaxies that will hold together for billions of years too, it is just their billions of years were in the future when God created man and animals immortal.
Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The first person to provide evidence and infer the presence of dark matter was Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, of the California Institute of Technology in 1933.[8] He applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster of galaxies and obtained evidence of unseen mass. Zwicky estimated the cluster's total mass based on the motions of galaxies near its edge and compared that estimate to one based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of the cluster. He found that there was about 400 times more estimated mass than was visually observable. The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required. This is known as the "missing mass problem". Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that there must be some non-visible form of matter which would provide enough of the mass and gravity to hold the cluster together.
As far as I can tell the virial theorem is about velocities, not age. Apparently Zwicky proposed back in the 30s that mass of galaxies could be confirmed by gravitational lensing.
The problem with you comparison is that the ball is pretty easy to pick up and examine and the path easy to study. What creations have done is look at science at the very limits of our ability to observe, that we cannot being into a lab and shove under microscope but can only make distant observations. The creationist look for some puzzle that cannot be answered across the vast distances in the inky dark of space, and say Ahah! that was God. The answer is he made it that way.
I was a creationist myself, I know they can spin a great line of rhetoric but the evidence simply isn't there to support their claims.
Don't think I mentioned membranes. No, science holds them simply as the best explanation we have until they are confirmed or a better explanation comes along, in the meantime they keep looking for evidence that can support or contradict dark matter or modified gravity.
The bible doesn't change, but interpretation certainly do and it wouldn't be the first time a literal interpretation was shown to be wrong when we learned more about science. There was a time when everyone thought the bible said the sun went round the earth. But in the end the church went with science, because science is testable and we can be mistaken in our interpretation of scripture. At lest the geocentrists based their ideas about the sun going round the earth on scripture, the bible says nothing about the stability of galaxies. You simply want it to be true because it would be evidence for a young earth, but even if creation were recent it wouldn't mean galaxies had to be unstable.
Much better to stick with the science we have tested and know, like the age of earth and the universe, rather than abandon them for some baseless Creationist claim to have the answer for things we don't know yet.
But you said yourself, you haven't observed galaxies being unstable and falling apart, you simply assume they are and that there hasn't been enough time to see them flying apart. On the other hand when dark matter was proposed to explain the rotation of the galaxies back in the 30's, it was predicted that the extra mass would produce another effect, gravitational lensing, which as we have seen they later found. Now there is debate about the reason for the lensing, it fits modified gravitational models too, but that doesn't affect our discussion, because regardless of the source of the extra gravity, dark matter or modified gravitation, gravitational lensing has confirmed there is a stronger force of gravity operating in galaxies than is explained by visible matter and traditional Newtonian gravitational formula and this stronger force of gravity explains the rotation rates of the galaxies.I think you missed my point. I wasn't denying that the scientists don't have good reason for making up dark matter, I'm just saying that in a YEC model, its not necessary. We can stick to what we can observe, and not grasp for air to see if its solid.
I love your sig
Well to put it very simply we can use brightness measurements to estimate the distances of celestial objects, comparing their dimness to their actual brightness as determined by their spectrum, and we find that most are more than a few thousands years distant given the finite speed of light. In other words, the objects are too far away for their light to have reached us in just a short time. Also, the universe may be accelerating in it's expansion, and it's geometry is relatively flat. These characteristics are best explained by a cosmological model that describes a universe composed mostly of dark energy and dark matter.
It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion made from data.
Presumably he wanted it to be spiral patterns because that is the way he created them, he just didn't create them with enough mass to hold together. Which is odd, if you think Adam was supposed to live forever in the perfect universe God created.
Do you actually have any evidence galaxies are falling apart? Because apart form the fact we can tell how old they are, they look pretty stable when we study them. You are assuming, on the basis of no information whatsoever, that there isn't any dark matter, modified gravitation, or any other force holding them together, simply because you want to think they are unstable and would not last more than a few thousand years. Scientists realise space is pretty dark itself and that there is a lot we don't see out there, they prefer to have a good look for dark matter before concluding it does not exist.
The universe is our biggest lab for studying physics, it seems silly to spend money on particle accelerators but ignore evidence of possible exotic matter we see with our telescopes. What makes you think we won't be able to find important applications for new discoveries and understandings of the fundamental nature of matter and the universe? Hospitals are already using the anti matter version of electrons, positrons, in PET scanners. And we are just beginning to discover what matter is made of.
Actually, if you read the conversations going on here, it is creationists who come out pretty deistic. TEs believe God operate not only through miracles, but also through natural processes. These creationists seem to have rejected the historical understanding of God working through providence as well as through miracle, and see God operating purely deistically almost all the time, apart from the occasional supernatural intervention. But I think you would be better off discussing these ideas with the people you disagree with, rather than making up names to call them. Incidentally, where I come from TD is an Irish Member of Parliment.
What does it matter where the supernatural is since God works through the natural as surely as through the supernatural? It is this fencing of God into supernatural works only that TEs object to.
After all, the supernatural is no more a proof of God than the natural. Did the Pharisees believe in Jesus because he healed people? Not at all. God chooses his own signs and the sign he has given us is the created world. Is a rainbow still a sign of God's covenant if we understand the physics behind it?
Creationists, it seems to me, answer in the negative. It seems axiomatic to them that scientific explanation drives God out of the universe.
Your parable is a fine illustration. It assumes throughout that the gardener is not present in the garden all along. Why would he need to get through a fence?
Yek this is a debateable matter. This would depend on the interpretation of data, and I think quite conclusively, the way that gravity affects the speed of light, and the way we can manipulate it in labs today..its not too far off to state that light was moving faster in the past than it is today. I think the data really supports a Young Earth conclusion.
So you disagree with Yeshua when he declares that in the beginning he made them male and female?
I don't think you understand the consequences in physics for the speed of light to have been moving faster. See here:This would depend on the interpretation of data, and I think quite conclusively, the way that gravity affects the speed of light, and the way we can manipulate it in labs today..its not too far off to state that light was moving faster in the past than it is today. I think the data really supports a Young Earth conclusion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?