Is it possible that the earth is only 6,000 or so years old?

[SkyWriting]

No. Those were merely sinners making an observation AFTER Jesus had performed a miracle, a miracle which they did not know about. Don't you get it?

We all are sinners. And we all see an old earth. How we got it is a matter of faith. What it looks like is not a matter of faith. It looks and tests out to be old. "Creation Scientists" are mistaken to claim it should test out to be 10,000 yo or so. That's a mistake. The scriptures testify to a well aged earth. Perhaps it came that way straight from God's mind. Perhaps the Creation process all took place in God's mind (well duh), and not in "our time". Perhaps time did not really start until The Fall. We measure time as what happens before we die.

Still, to claim that Christians will see a "young" earth around them if they just look hard enough is wrong. It's like saying the wine will turn back into water if they have enough faith. Or that Adam will cry like an infant if they read scriptures the right way.

 

[Assyrian]

Like when Jesus died for our Sins, type of Metaphor.
Like Him being the Messiah type of Metaphor.

Since these aren't metaphors, then obviously no. There are metaphors that describe Jesus dying for our sins, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, this cup is the new covenant in my blood. It's odd, I show you the anthropomorphic metaphor Moses was using when he used Genesis to teach Sabbath observance, you agreed wholeheartedly. Then when I point out that means Moses used the Genesis story metaphorically you run a mile and start mixing up metaphor and literal.

 

[SkyWriting]

Six days? Or all at once?

"He that lives forever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and He remains an invincible King forever. Who is able to declare His works? For who shall search out His glorious acts?" - Sirach 18:1-3
-CryptoLutheran

Did you want an answer? Believers.

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest

 

[Greg1234]

Since these aren't metaphors, then obviously no. There are metaphors that describe Jesus dying for our sins, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, this cup is the new covenant in my blood. It's odd, I show you the anthropomorphic metaphor Moses was using when he used Genesis to teach Sabbath observance, you agreed wholeheartedly. Then when I point out that means Moses used the Genesis story metaphorically you run a mile and start mixing up metaphor and literal.

These things get more spiritual when interpreted.

 

[Gozreht]

Wow. I may have read this all wrong but it felt like the demeanor changed.

You need to specify the noun/verb/topic/adjective that backs up your case rather than just claiming it supports your interpretation. Not sure how 'day' and 'in the day' mean we are talking about two different time periods either. But you haven't tackled the real problem that 'in the day' isn't a literal use of the word day because the word 'these', Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, refers either to the six day creation account in chapter 1 or the creation account in chapter 2, which starts before the creation of plants and covers the creation of birds, animals man and woman, which span days three to six in chapter 1. So even if it refers to chapter two 'in the day' isn't a literal single day.

Here is an example. It is from a site called Accuracy in Genesis. "As early as Genesis 2:4 we see yowm in the singular with an attached infinitive used to indicate an extended period of time. Strong's does not show this since the King James Versions retain the translation of day, but other translations recognize that in this case yowm refers to the time of the entire creation of the heavens and earth as recognized by the The Bible: An American Translation and others, "At the time when God made the earth and the heavens."" The way I see it is this is an account looking back at creation. Genesis 1 is showing (starting if you will) from the actual beginning. Genesis 2 is starting from the writers viewpoint and completely looking back. It is a different account. Even if you read the NIV 2:4 says, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created". The Living Bible translates this as "Here is a summary". The Jewish Bible I have says, "Here is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created."

I don't recall anybody here else addressing the misunderstanding of yours that I was talking about, or made the same point I made, so I don't know how you could have addressed my point in other threads. I think it is very significant that Creationists have to keep switching arguments, thinking "I can't answer that but here is another argument for creationism instead." I have yet to come across an argument that does hold up.

I am sorry you feel that way. I am discussing this on three different threads on this website, General Theology, Society, and Non-Denominational. I have written a lot. I thought I expressed these ideas already here but maybe I didn't. I didn't think I was switching arguments. But that is okay.

I don't think God has ever promised to defend your interpretation of scripture.

You misunderstood me. All I have to do is be a witness. If I am right then God will talk to the person I am witnessing to. If I am wrong God will talk to me about it.

If

it is the Holy Spirit teaching you to interpret Genesis literally. But claiming the Holy Spirit mnoved you isn't an argument either because we are told to test every spirit and every prophesy...I am with the Bereans on this on this one, examining the Scriptures to see if these things were so (Acts 17:11), and your arguments don't hold up.

I hope this is exactly what you do. I hope this is what we all do.

Just follow the links in the posts back, you can see what you skipped.

My links? What do you mean? I tried not to skip anything.

Let me get this straight you recognise that there are metaphors, similes, analogies, allegories, parables are used in the bible, but because you think it is difficult to decide where poetry and metaphor end, we should just take it all literally?

Who said I found it difficult? There are books that are written as poetic. There are parables that start and end. There are prophecies that are clearly marked. There is also clearly literal areas of the Bible. I would agree that there are some places that it takes faith and the spirit to help with interpretations. That is why I go to theser sites to see what His people say.

In the first century, Jews from Josephus, a priest in Jerusalem, to Hellenistic Jews like Philo of Alexandria thought the creation accounts were allegorical (Josephus thought the allegory began in chapter two).

I like Josephus. I bought The Works of Josephus a couple of years ago. The problem is many of his narratives are not accurate in history. Some of his credibility is under question. It's a shame because he has some good things he says in certain areas.

It is the reason we stopped taking the geocentric passages literally when Copernicus showed it was the earth that went round the sun. In fact, when the church eventually got round to reinterpreting the the texts Copernicus showed we got wrong, they were following a much older principle of interpretation going back to Augustine and Aquinas, that if science contradicts and interpretation of scripture, then that interpretation was never the true meaning of the text.

I know. I have dealt with this a lot of times. If I give you my opinion, it wil just be shot down so...

That is simply an exercise in balancing risk versus benefits, eggs were always nutritious but high blood cholesterol was a serious risk factor for heart disease. At the time the best way to reduce cholesterol was to cut down intake in the diet. We now have better ways to reduce cholesterol levels through cutting back on trans fats, saturated fats and through medication. Before we had those approaches, people with heart disease or high cholesterol needed to cut down drastically on the cholesterol in their diet and it was a judgment call whether this was important for the general population too, whether or not the nutritional benefits of eggs outweighed the increased risk across the whole population of the slight increase in cholesterol it brought.

Okay.

You are not seriously bringing up a change in how the label planet is classified?

Who classified them? Scientists. They had a guideline but changed the guideline. All I am saying is that as new information comes in sicentists change what they "know". Which is fine if it gets us closer to the truth. This was just an example of how things change.

We have vastly more evidence confirming evolution and the age of the earth than we had for heliocentrism when the church changed its mistaken geocentric interpretations. Augustine warned us long ago that when Christians contradict science because of their interpretation of the bible, it brings the bible and the the gospel into disrepute. What would have happened if the church back then followed your approach and was still teaching geocentrism when Apollo astronauts stood on the moon watching the earth rotating?

Don't know. That goes with what I said above about Copernicus. You wouldn't like my answer. It will only start more junk. See the ending of this post.

Presumably you would say verses 1 to 4 are part of day one. What about verse 6, creating a firmament part of day one, or was it second day? What was the last part of the day mentioned in day one?

Ok. Verse 6 starts day two since it is mentioned after day one. The last part of day one is light, making day and night. What does that have to do with the firmament?

The Genesis days don't need to be consecutive to be a metaphorical illustration of the various Sabbaths days weeks, years, weeks of years in the OT Law. The value of a metaphor is what it illustrates, not what the metaphor doesn't cover. I wasn't arguing they weren't consecutive there, I was arguing that the duration wasn't important. You don't seem to be able to address my actual arguments.

Ok. I answer the things I see. If I misunderstood your ideas, then it is my loss. I liked hearing your ideas.

So when Moses used the six day creation and God resting on the seventh to teach Sabbath observance, it was a metaphor?

It is literal.

Okay, here is my end of this post. Since it seems like the demeanor has changed and it seems like I hit a nerve, I will back off. I thought we had a good discussion going. Maybe I am reading the emotions wrong. But I will let you and those who believe the same way as you have the final words. I am sure it will be cordial and not demeaning. I enjoyed talking to you. I am sure you and I will never see the same here. See you on another thread? Take care. I tried...

 

[Assyrian]

Wow. I may have read this all wrong but it felt like the demeanor changed.

Sorry if I came across that way, I have been pretty tired lately It is great chatting with you, but it is hard get anywhere if we keep switching topics, which is why I was try to get you to respond to my replies.

Here is an example. It is from a site called Accuracy in Genesis. "As early as Genesis 2:4 we see yowm in the singular with an attached infinitive used to indicate an extended period of time. Strong's does not show this since the King James Versions retain the translation of day, but other translations recognize that in this case yowm refers to the time of the entire creation of the heavens and earth as recognized by the The Bible: An American Translation and others, "At the time when God made the earth and the heavens."" The way I see it is this is an account looking back at creation. Genesis 1 is showing (starting if you will) from the actual beginning. Genesis 2 is starting from the writers viewpoint and completely looking back. It is a different account. Even if you read the NIV 2:4 says, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created". The Living Bible translates this as "Here is a summary". The Jewish Bible I have says, "Here is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created."

I agree it is talking about the time when the heavens and the earth were created, but it isn't that the construction b'yom gives a completely different meaning to the word yom. It is still the same word day and when it is being used to describe an extended period, it is being used metaphorically.

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.
These are b'yom and unless you take the days of creation as extended period the b'yom God rested on is a single 24 hour period. We see b'yom referring to a specific day again in Gen 15:18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,

Is the day of the Lord a single day or an extended period? Because both yom and b'yom are used talking about it.
Ezek 13:5 ...that it might stand in battle in the day of the LORD.
Isaiah 13:6 Wail, for the day of the LORD is near.

I am sorry you feel that way. I am discussing this on three different threads on this website, General Theology, Society, and Non-Denominational. I have written a lot. I thought I expressed these ideas already here but maybe I didn't. I didn't think I was switching arguments. But that is okay.

No problems. It is hard to keep different threads you are posting on all separate.

You misunderstood me. All I have to do is be a witness. If I am right then God will talk to the person I am witnessing to. If I am wrong God will talk to me about it.

I am not sure 'God hasn't told me to stop' is a good basis for exegesis either. The Holy Spirit certainly leads us deeper and deeper into the truth of God's word, but I think he is much more concerned with how we how we show the love and grace God in our lives and in how we treat others, than in correcting every mistaken interpretation of Genesis. How we handle the word of God is our responsibility too, 2Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

I hope this is exactly what you do. I hope this is what we all do.

amen

My links? What do you mean? I tried not to skip anything.

When you quote a post there is a little arrow after the persons username, you cam follow the arrow back and see what we were discussing when I said you weren't answering my points. Or not. They are a fair bit back by now

Who said I found it difficult? There are books that are written as poetic. There are parables that start and end. There are prophecies that are clearly marked. There is also clearly literal areas of the Bible. I would agree that there are some places that it takes faith and the spirit to help with interpretations. That is why I go to theser sites to see what His people say.

And there are books that have both literal and figurative and don't tell you when a passage is a parable, Jesus didn't always say when he was speaking parable or using a metaphor. He expected his disciples to learn to recognise them. Unfortunately the sites you go to are trying to justify literalism, which the bible never taught, and they look for grammatical rules and labels to help separate out the metaphorical from the literal so they can take everything else literally. It isn't how God spoke in the the bible it isn't how Jesus taught his disciples.

I like Josephus. I bought The Works of Josephus a couple of years ago. The problem is many of his narratives are not accurate in history. Some of his credibility is under question. It's a shame because he has some good things he says in certain areas.

I have Antiquities and War of the Jews as modules on e-sword myself. But it wasn't his historical accuracy I was taking about, but what we learn about Josephus himself from his writings, and how as a first century Jew he approached the Genesis creation accounts.He tood the days of Gensis 1 literally, but thought Moses began speaking allegorically or philosophically after that.

I know. I have dealt with this a lot of times. If I give you my opinion, it wil just be shot down so...

It's not a question of whether the church was right to teach interpret those passage geocentrically, or whether the bible teaches geocentrism, but how we should respond when an interpretation is contradicted by science. We are not the first people feel their faith shaken to the core when science challenged what seemed to them the plain meaning of scripture. But te simple answer was that they got their interpretation wrong.

Okay.

Who classified them? Scientists. They had a guideline but changed the guideline. All I am saying is that as new information comes in sicentists change what they "know". Which is fine if it gets us closer to the truth. This was just an example of how things change.

Planet is simply a label, none of the science changed, it didn't change anything they knew about the solar system., it didn't change what they knew about Pluto, just what they called it. Science does change, there are scientific revolutions. Renaming Pluto wasn't one of them. It was just bookkeeping.

Don't know. That goes with what I said above about Copernicus. You wouldn't like my answer. It will only start more junk. See the ending of this post.

It is worth considering. It isn't enough that you have your interpretation of the geocentric passage and think they were wrong, while your interpretation of Genesis is right. They thought their interpretation of the geocentric passage was right too. Yet we can see how disastrous it would have been if the church kept arguing against the science when the Russians and Americans showed Copernicus Kepler and Newton's understanding of orbital mechanics was right all along. But you have said you don't know, which is fair enough. We can leave Copernicus there for now.

Ok. Verse 6 starts day two since it is mentioned after day one. The last part of day one is light, making day and night.

That is just the first half of day 5
Gen1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.
day one is still running the last half of the verse too.
And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
So what time of day does day one end?

What does that have to do with the firmament?

Just that creating the firmament is day two, after the morning day one.

Ok. I answer the things I see. If I misunderstood your ideas, then it is my loss. I liked hearing your ideas.

No problem. Thanks

It is literal.

Yet you agreed Moses was using an anthropomorphic metaphor? You see I am not asking if Genesis is a metaphor here, but how Moses interpreted Genesis when he taught the Sabbath command. You could still argue for a literal six day creation, even if Moses treated the passage metaphorically. Your only problem is you lose your star witness for a six day creation, and you begin to see how writers in the the rest of the bible approached the creation account.

Okay, here is my end of this post. Since it seems like the demeanor has changed and it seems like I hit a nerve, I will back off. I thought we had a good discussion going. Maybe I am reading the emotions wrong. But I will let you and those who believe the same way as you have the final words. I am sure it will be cordial and not demeaning. I enjoyed talking to you. I am sure you and I will never see the same here. See you on another thread? Take care. I tried...

I was enjoying the conversation too, which was why I was trying to keep it on track, sorry if I came across badly.

 

[begt]

The earth is obviously extremely old, judging by the many layers of salt in salt mines for example. So if the christian god exists (and approve of whats in the bible) he must be a deceptive god.

As an atheist I don't see why an omnipotent being would be responsible for the universe as we know it. Such a being cannot exist since an omnipotent being is unable to create a rock thats too heavy for him to lift for example.

What is more probable: a god that can create/destroy the whole universe in 1 second at will. Or that the universe created itself somehow without violating natural laws?

Exploding stars (supernovae) are observable yet truly grand/amazing and unfathomable events. To me it seems more reasonable that the origin of the universe happened similarly (on a larger scale of course).

P.S when physicists talk about nothing they might be talking about anti-matter. So to say there was nothing (in everyday language) and then all of a sudden there were countless stars and planets- is misleading.

 

[SkyWriting]

P.S when physicists talk about nothing they might be talking about anti-matter. So to say there was nothing (in everyday language) and then all of a sudden there were countless stars and planets- is misleading.

That's not in the least bit misleading. But if you'd like to cut and paste a quote that better explains what you've been led to believe, please do.

As I understand it, the theory goes that for unknown reasons, matter and antimatter were both produced, and lucky for us, there was an excess of matter and what we see is the tiny excess left over after the two battled it out.

Something like that. It's all theory.

But according to "Science" matter cannot be naturally created or destroyed.
Nor does anything moved unless pushed.

So, Science demands a "super-natural" solution as to where matter came from and what caused it to be.

 

[pjnlsn]

SkyNatural, begt is referring to that sometimes a scientist might say that all matter in the universe came from nothing, when in fact they don't mean matter, but antimatter and matter, and they don't mean nothing, but the combination of matter and antimatter, which, because we are able to define it (without defining it merely as the lack of something else) is not actually nothing.

As far as the idea that matter and antimatter were both produced, but there was slightly more matter than antimatter, well, I haven't heard that myself, not that no one's said that, but.....

Anyway, what I have actually heard said, is that there were equal parts matter and antimatter, and, by the action of gravity, or, to otherwise state it, the nature of space time, space expanded, and, among other things, matter somehow seperated from antimatter (forgive me, I can't remember the exact details).

Hypothetical, of course.

Now, as to the explanation for that happening and such, well, an explanation is required, but I don't see how it has to involve some kind of godly being, or something 'supernatural', whatever that is.

 

[SkyWriting]

SkyNatural, begt is referring to that sometimes a scientist might say that all matter in the universe came from nothing, when in fact they don't mean matter, but antimatter and matter, and they don't mean nothing, but the combination of matter and antimatter, which, because we are able to define it (without defining it merely as the lack of something else) is not actually nothing.

As far as the idea that matter and antimatter were both produced, but there was slightly more matter than antimatter, well, I haven't heard that myself, not that no one's said that, but.....

Anyway, what I have actually heard said, is that there were equal parts matter and antimatter, and, by the action of gravity, or, to otherwise state it, the nature of space time, space expanded, and, among other things, matter somehow seperated from antimatter (forgive me, I can't remember the exact details).

Hypothetical, of course.

Now, as to the explanation for that happening and such, well, an explanation is required, but I don't see how it has to involve some kind of godly being, or something 'supernatural', whatever that is.

I checked into it.

No matter what "they" say. Matter and antimatter, both "created" during the "big bang" event should have been in equal parts and have resulting in nothing again. Matter won out a little, they say.

What ever the case, "matter" cannot come from a void. Nor can the energy needed to cause anything to happen come out of no where.
So, science proves that the cause is "super-natural", meaning not from natural origins.

God is Spirit. Just the ticket.

 

[chris4243]

What ever the case, "matter" cannot come from a void. Nor can the energy needed to cause anything to happen come out of no where.

What proof is there of this? Have you ever observed nowhere, to see what happens nowhere?

Second, you also need to prove matter/energy had to come from anywhere, rather than having an eternal existence.

So, science proves that the cause is "super-natural", meaning not from natural origins.

So now you're saying it's not impossible.

 

[SkyWriting]

What proof is there of this? Have you ever observed nowhere, to see what happens nowhere?

“The universe is incredibly more orderly than it has any right to be." Link below.

Science cannot "prove" anything. It can only deny a theory.
But I didn't write the laws that science has adopted because of their repeated value in examining our reality.

A) Law of conservation of matter
The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.

The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.

B) First law of energy (first law of thermodynamics)
The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.
dU = dQ - dW
Where dU is a small increase in the internal energy of the system, dQ is a small amount of heat added to the system, and dW is a small amount of work done by the system.

C) Second law of energy (second law of thermodynamics)
It is impossible to convert heat completely into work

Second, you also need to prove matter/energy had to come from anywhere, rather than having an eternal existence.

Eternal existence was a valid theory for a long time.

But it has been ruled out by
New Calculations Suggest Universe May be Closer to Heat Death - US News and World Report


Meaning, the idea that there was a perpetual cycle of cooling and heating has been generally ruled out. The data suggests that the "Big Bang" was a one time event that can't be repeated.

Science has defined "Creation" in a fundamental way that is closely alined with the Bible's message of just one beginning and one end.

 

[pjnlsn]

I checked into it.

No matter what "they" say. Matter and antimatter, both "created" during the "big bang" event should have been in equal parts and have resulting in nothing again. Matter won out a little, they say.

What ever the case, "matter" cannot come from a void. Nor can the energy needed to cause anything to happen come out of no where.
So, science proves that the cause is "super-natural", meaning not from natural origins.

God is Spirit. Just the ticket.

So it doesn't matter what they say, but then you talk about what they say as though it has importance? I'll just ignore that bit.

Firstly, I'm not sure what exactly super-natural means, except, any explanation involving some sort of godly being. Assuming that's correct, I'll go with that definition.

What ever the case, "matter" cannot come from a void. Nor can the energy needed to cause anything to happen come out of no where.

Sure.

So, science proves that the cause is "super-natural", meaning not from natural origins.

Mm. Even if we assume that everything said by anyone else in the world but you is wrong, how does this prove what you are saying?

Put simpler, do two wrongs make a right?

==============================

Anyway, doing some looking around, I have not found the exact or quite similar phrasing anywhere that "matter [just] won out in the end," rather I've found a few articles about how it has been determined that antimatter, under the influence of gravity, decays more quickly than matter, which is a valid explanation, for there being more matter than antimatter, as far as I can see. Mostly hypothetical, of course.

As far as matter not coming from a void, yes, but nobody says it does. They say that there were equal parts matter and antimatter. Yes, it's hypothetical, again, but I don't see any huge problem with the idea.

 

[SkyWriting]

So it doesn't matter what they say, but then you talk about what they say as though it has importance? I'll just ignore that bit. Firstly, I'm not sure what exactly super-natural means, except, any explanation involving some sort of godly being. Assuming that's correct, I'll go with that definition.

Mm. Even if we assume that everything said by anyone else in the world but you is wrong, how does this prove what you are saying?

Put simpler, do two wrongs make a right?

==============================

Anyway, doing some looking around, I have not found the exact or quite similar phrasing anywhere that "matter [just] won out in the end," rather I've found a few articles about how it has been determined that antimatter, under the influence of gravity, decays more quickly than matter, which is a valid explanation, for there being more matter than antimatter, as far as I can see. Mostly hypothetical, of course.

As far as matter not coming from a void, yes, but nobody says it does.

Creation came from nothing. - Hawking
http://www.usatoday.com/news/ Creation came 'from nothing,' not God: Stephen Hawking

They say that there were equal parts matter and antimatter. Yes, it's hypothetical, again, but I don't see any huge problem with the idea.

And where did these equal parts come from, what caused them to be, then to combine? Basically what caused time to flow?

You are free to look up Super Natural. Do you have internet access?
Does you browser open new tabs? It works great for looking stuff up.

 

[SkyWriting]

Comes to the same thing if truth is identified with science.


Imagine making a Venn diagram with two circles: one labelled "science" and the other "truth". How do they relate?

Do they partially overlap, so that some "science" is not "truth" and some "truth" is not "science"?

Or do they have the same centre so that one is superimposed on the other?

Do "science" and "truth" have the same dimensions leaving no room for "truth" outside of "science"? Or is "science" a part of the circle of "truth", contained within it, but not filling it up?

Try various relations, then decide where you would place the Genesis creation accounts and why. Will they be in the overlap between "science" and "truth"? Or in an area of "truth" outside the sphere of "science"?

The implications for the terminology of the account ("day" "evening" "morning") might be different depending on where you decide to place it.

Truth and science overlap in all areas except where God intervenes in Realm of Men. If Jesus (or God) raises a man from the dead, Science will disagree and say he never died. That would be "impossible". Or not repeatable at least.

Anything God does is not a repeatable event and falls outside Science.
When God answers my prayers to Him, the science fails.

 

[chris4243]

“The universe is incredibly more orderly than it has any right to be." Link below.

Science cannot "prove" anything. It can only deny a theory.
But I didn't write the laws that science has adopted because of their repeated value in examining our reality.

A) Law of conservation of matter
The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.

The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.

B) First law of energy (first law of thermodynamics)
The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.
dU = dQ - dW
Where dU is a small increase in the internal energy of the system, dQ is a small amount of heat added to the system, and dW is a small amount of work done by the system.

C) Second law of energy (second law of thermodynamics)
It is impossible to convert heat completely into work

As far as I know, no scientist ever claimed that these rules applied nowhere, nor have been tested nowhere. These rules have held everywhere we have tested them, but we can't test them nowhere because we can't go to nowhere and if we did it would be somewhere.

If by "nowhere" you meant an empty vacuum, then what of virtual particles? And if you don't believe in virtual particles, how do you explain the Casimir force?

Eternal existence was a valid theory for a long time.

But it has been ruled out by
New Calculations Suggest Universe May be Closer to Heat Death - US News and World Report


Meaning, the idea that there was a perpetual cycle of cooling and heating has been generally ruled out. The data suggests that the "Big Bang" was a one time event that can't be repeated.

Science has defined "Creation" in a fundamental way that is closely alined with the Bible's message of just one beginning and one end.

Entropy hasn't been tested to keep increasing in a contracting universe though has it? I'm not an expert but it seems to me that contracting the universe into a near singularity would reduce the entropy since there would be less possible states. And as far as I know, it's still an open question as to whether the universe will continue expanding or start contracting.

 

[SkyWriting]

As far as I know, no scientist ever claimed that these rules applied nowhere, nor have been tested nowhere. These rules have held everywhere we have tested them, but we can't test them nowhere because we can't go to nowhere and if we did it would be somewhere. If by "nowhere" you meant an empty vacuum, then what of virtual particles? And if you don't believe in virtual particles, how do you explain the Casimir force?

You'll have to link to a published explanation. You lost me.

Entropy hasn't been tested to keep increasing in a contracting universe though has it? I'm not an expert but it seems to me that contracting the universe into a near singularity would reduce the entropy since there would be less possible states. And as far as I know, it's still an open question as to whether the universe will continue expanding or start contracting.

Scientifically speaking, it's been settled.
The Big Freeze | Dr. Kaku's Universe | Big Think

That's only if majority provides truth. Not a Christian message in my opinion.

 

[chris4243]

You'll have to link to a published explanation. You lost me.

"Look at me, I can't scroll down to the bottom where the references are because I don't want to believe what you said! Next, I plan not to be able to understand what the reference type I asked for says because they usually assume familiarity of the subject!"

1. ^ a b Hoult, D. I. and Bhakar, B. (1997), NMR signal reception: Virtual photons and coherent spontaneous emission. Concepts in Magnetic Resonance, 9: 277&#8211;297. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0534(1997)9:5<277::AID-CMR1>3.0.CO;2-W. See [1] for online PDF.
2. ^ 0
3. ^ Craig and Thirunamachandran, Molecular Quantum Electrodynamics, 1984, Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-40214-2
4. ^ see Dirac Equation#Dirac's Coup
5. ^ G. Nimtz, On Virtual Phonons, Photons and Electrons, Found. Phys. 39, 1346-1355 (2009)
6. ^ A.Stahlhofen and G. Nimtz, Evanescent Modes are Virtual Photons, Europhys. Lett. 76, 198 (2006)
7. ^ Matt McIrvin(1994)"Some Frequently Asked Questions About Virtual Particles"
8. ^ Larry Gilman"Virtual Particles"
9. ^ David Raymond(2006)"Virtual Particles"
10. ^ Pete Edwards(University of Durham)"Virtual Particles"

Scientifically speaking, it's been settled.
The Big Freeze | Dr. Kaku's Universe | Big Think

That's only if majority provides truth. Not a Christian message in my opinion.

There's a difference between "most widely accepted" and "consensus". The consensus is that no one is sure that the world will end like that, they just either consider it somewhat more likely than not, or somewhat more convenient.

 

[SkyWriting]

"Look at me, I can't scroll down to the bottom where the references are because I don't want to believe what you said! Next, I plan not to be able to understand what the reference type I asked for says because they usually assume familiarity of the subject!"

Your attitude is entertaining.

1. ^ a b Hoult, D. I. and Bhakar, B. (1997), NMR signal reception: Virtual photons and coherent spontaneous emission. Concepts in Magnetic Resonance, 9: 277&#8211;297. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0534(1997)9:5<277::AID-CMR1>3.0.CO;2-W. See [1] for online PDF.
2. ^ 0
3. ^ Craig and Thirunamachandran, Molecular Quantum Electrodynamics, 1984, Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-40214-2
4. ^ see Dirac Equation#Dirac's Coup
5. ^ G. Nimtz, On Virtual Phonons, Photons and Electrons, Found. Phys. 39, 1346-1355 (2009)
6. ^ A.Stahlhofen and G. Nimtz, Evanescent Modes are Virtual Photons, Europhys. Lett. 76, 198 (2006)
7. ^ Matt McIrvin(1994)"Some Frequently Asked Questions About Virtual Particles"
8. ^ Larry Gilman"Virtual Particles"
9. ^ David Raymond(2006)"Virtual Particles"
10. ^ Pete Edwards(University of Durham)"Virtual Particles"

Thanks. I don't mind that you can't explain it your self.
I get your reference to mass appearing in "empty" space.

Such particles permeate space, mediate particle decay, and mediate the exchange of the fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak, strong, and&#8212;in accord with quantum theory&#8212;gravititational forces).

You might disqualify your source above due to gravitit-ational spelling errors. But I'll use it anyway because you offered it.

Read more: Virtual Particles - Uncertainty, Energy, Principle, and Short - JRank Articles Virtual Particles - Uncertainty, Energy, Principle, and Short - JRank Articles
​

As you can see, virtual particles exist to mediate forces.
So the space is filled with a number of forces (electromagnetic, weak, strong, and gravitational forces).

Granted, not mass per se. But not yet a void. As I said, something cannot come from nothing. Virtual particles exist in energy filled space.
Energy has to come from some person, or some thing.
Work must be done in order for things to happen.
I don't write the laws, just enforce them.

There's a difference between "most widely accepted" and "consensus". The consensus is that no one is sure that the world will end like that, they just either consider it somewhat more likely than not, or somewhat more convenient.

Agreed. Science can't prove anything. Science can't prove past events in particular, but can document the present, and make predictions about the future.

But because it ruins all steady state theories, the fact that so many accept the findings lead to the conclusion that some people are pretty sure they got it right.
The steady state model is now largely discredited, as the observational evidence points to a Big Bang-type cosmology and a finite age of the universe.

And Jesus would approve of the whole "beginning" and "end" thing.
Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

 

[pjnlsn]

Creation came from nothing. - Hawking
Creation came 'from nothing,' not God: Stephen Hawking

I'm familiar with what Hawking has said and written.

It's true I was utilizing a somewhat convuluted definition of void in that previous post. I was saying that nobody says that this matter and antimatter came from a void, in a way which would contradict the idea that matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed. Not really a proper definition at all, so let me explain.

The reason people say, as you have, that matter cannot come from a void is because it is also said that matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed. Just like it is said that matter and energy are the same thing. However, If one were to consider that matter (and by which I mean matter or it's equivalent energy) along with equal amounts of one other thing, came from that which is left when matter and antimatter combine (a void, or nothing, for all intensive purposes), then I don't know why that would be disallowed.

In fact, it has been known for a while, that, throughout space, what we call virtual particles are constantly appearing and disappearing. And that they are actually pairs of particles, one matter, one antimatter, of equal mass and opposite charge, which appear, go about their business for millionths of second, and then disappear.

And where did these equal parts come from, what caused them to be, then to combine? Basically what caused time to flow?

Little is known about the nature of virtual particles, either as they appear in the present, across space, or possibly as they appeared at the event we call the Big Bang.

You are free to look up Super Natural. Do you have internet access?
Does you browser open new tabs? It works great for looking stuff up.

As far as the super natural, I have heard the phrase used before. It's just that I don't know that there is some seperate kind of reality, somehow distinct from "normal" reality, that some call the "realm of the supernatural."

So if you want to claim that there is some kind of special, seperate part of reality, I'd just ask you how you know that.

Otherwise, it suffices to use this descriptive : "Some explanation involving a godly being." Though again, I'd still like to ask, if you would claim such a thing, how you came to know it.