Light created in transit, not from the past, but the future...

[mindlight]

Mindlight wrote:


Um, how can anyone claim that "No non-physical requirements are placed on" a model that includes an "enormous time dilation" amounting to billions of years, a suspension of the laws of physics, and the popping into existance of all animals, plants, and such as described by a literal Genesis?

:o

That sounds about as "non-physical" as one could get, right?

Papias

The creation event is a unique miracle that defies analogy and according to the scriptural account the Earth is central to this as the place where God himself would walk in Eden, come to save us and set the New Jerusalem. But no economy of miracles is required to explain physical observations of things like Supernova 1987a in this model. It is accepted the light travelled 250000 astronomical years but that time on the earth was experienced in a much shorter time frame.

 

[Papias]

Mindlight wrote:

no economy of miracles is required to explain physical observations of things like Supernova 1987a in this model. It is accepted the light travelled 250000 astronomical years but that time on the earth was experienced in a much shorter time frame.

Sure miracles are invoked by the model. What do you call a supernatural bubble of massively slowed time around the earth, the supernatural creation of everything, and the "suspension of the physical laws"? Those are all miracles by definition.

Look, you can subscribe to the "model" if you like, but call a spade a spade and recognize that the "model" uses miracles, or everyone will think you are playing word games.

Papias

 

[NGC 6712]

To call that a model is insulting to scientific modelling. It is purely ad hoc.

 

[gluadys]

Hi I am a creationist too and I must confess this is an issue I wrestle with.

But an interesting theory I read recently may offer an answer to this:

A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem



Effectively he expounds on the miraculous event of Creation week on earth with the view that time on Earth was experienced considerably slower than cosmological time which accelerated past it. So starlight from stars millions of light years away travelled most of it on Day 4 as experienced on Earth.

Basically, this model is an admission that if one does not call on miracles as an explanation, the scientific model is an accurate description of the reality we see.

Not saying it is wrong to call on miracles.

But since the scientific model explains what we see accurately, the only way to get a different time scale is to call on miracles. So it is not a reconciliation of scripture with science but a way of contradicting the science to hold on to a literal interpretation of the scripture. IOW, the evidence means nothing because it is obliterated under the cover of miracle.

 

[mindlight]

Basically, this model is an admission that if one does not call on miracles as an explanation, the scientific model is an accurate description of the reality we see.

Not saying it is wrong to call on miracles.

But since the scientific model explains what we see accurately, the only way to get a different time scale is to call on miracles. So it is not a reconciliation of scripture with science but a way of contradicting the science to hold on to a literal interpretation of the scripture. IOW, the evidence means nothing because it is obliterated under the cover of miracle.

The creation event was a miracle and unique work of God however we look at it. What is being said here is that the uniformitarian assumption that underlies naturalistic scientific theories of origins may be false. That we might not be able to generalise from what we know about what we do not know. Time dilation of this sort may well be the methodology that an all powerful creator used. Indeed to say he used processes that we can observe today for this unique action is to put God in box that might not fit Him.

 

[Papias]

Mindlight, what Gluadys, NGC and I are all pointing out in recent posts is that it is pointless for you to claim miracles while denying that you are claimiming miracles. If you want to invoke miracles, fine - but don't deny that you are doing so in the same breath.


Mindlight wrote:

The creation event was a miracle and unique work of God however we look at it.

Well, if you only count supernatural miracles as "miracles", then your statement excludes TEs. But that's really beside the point.

What is being said here is that the uniformitarian assumption that underlies naturalistic scientific theories of origins may be false. That we might not be able to generalise from what we know about what we do not know. Time dilation of this sort may well be the methodology that an all powerful creator used. Indeed to say he used processes that we can observe today for this unique action is to put God in box that might not fit Him.

OK, in other words, you see the creation as a supernatural miracle. I get that you see it that way. What I don't get is why some creationists like yourself work so hard to calim to be adding a bunch of scientifically plausible steps (which are usually scientifically implausible anyway), when you've already explicitly thrown away any pretense of your description being fully compatible with known science. Since God in your description is already doing tons of supernatural stuff, why bother with positing a time dilation or such? Or in the case of similar creationist descriptions like the hydroplate story, why bother? Why not just have God create extra water at the start, then uncreate the extra water when done? Why posit flying hydroplates in violation of known geology, and falling vapor canopies in violation of known thermodynamics? Isn't it easier to keep it as simple as the text of Genesis is, if you are going to toss out the uniformitarian assumption from the start anyway?

Papias

 

[mindlight]

Mindlight, what Gluadys, NGC and I are all pointing out in recent posts is that it is pointless for you to claim miracles while denying that you are claimiming miracles. If you want to invoke miracles, fine - but don't deny that you are doing so in the same breath.


Mindlight wrote:


Well, if you only count supernatural miracles as "miracles", then your statement excludes TEs. But that's really beside the point.






OK, in other words, you see the creation as a supernatural miracle. I get that you see it that way. What I don't get is why some creationists like yourself work so hard to calim to be adding a bunch of scientifically plausible steps (which are usually scientifically implausible anyway), when you've already explicitly thrown away any pretense of your description being fully compatible with known science. Since God in your description is already doing tons of supernatural stuff, why bother with positing a time dilation or such? Or in the case of similar creationist descriptions like the hydroplate story, why bother? Why not just have God create extra water at the start, then uncreate the extra water when done? Why posit flying hydroplates in violation of known geology, and falling vapor canopies in violation of known thermodynamics? Isn't it easier to keep it as simple as the text of Genesis is, if you are going to toss out the uniformitarian assumption from the start anyway?

Papias

Its not that hard to believe what I believe.

If I create something I use tools for the job or techniques. A scientist may observe that I am using certain techniques today and then surmise that the techniques he actually sees me use are my full tool set. But actually long before he started watching me at work I had been using completely different techniques.

So applying that to creation. God created the universe using techniques he has not needed to call on for the last 6000 years. Thus a scientist observing his creation will never pick up on those techniques. The idea therefore that what I can observe today will help me work out what happened then is the faulty assumption. But this is the uniformitarian assumption of modern naturalistic science.

The time dilation theory outlined in the link does actually make sense of the evidence that we actually have and does not contradict it. So no economy of miracles is required to explain how God created in 6 days 6000 years ago. The theory is that God simply used processes and techniques with which He is familiar and we are not.

 

[gluadys]

The creation event was a miracle and unique work of God however we look at it.

Agreed.

What is being said here is that the uniformitarian assumption that underlies naturalistic scientific theories of origins may be false.

Perhaps that is so. But scientists can only work with evidence that it is not so. That evidence has not been found. Science works from the known to the unknown. It can only stop generalizing from the known when there is evidence that the generalization no longer works.

But what do you have other than faith in a literal interpretation of Genesis to indicate the generalization no longer works? Does it not make more sense to question the validity of this particular interpretation than the universality (in time and space) of the properties of matter and the laws of physics?

 

[Papias]

Mindlight wrote:

The time dilation theory outlined in the link does actually make sense of the evidence that we actually have and does not contradict it.

That "time dilation" miracle doe indeed contradict everything we know about real time dilation. They don't happen on that scale, and especially without cause (such as due to speed). That's a contradiction of natural law as much as any other miracle, such as Jesus' resurrection, or walking on water, or the bread, wine, or whatever. Tossing out the uniformatarian assumption is the definition of a miracle, because any miracle can be explained by tossing out uniformatarian assumption.

So no economy of miracles is required to explain how God created in 6 days 6000 years ago. The theory is that God simply used processes and techniques with which He is familiar and we are not.

Sorry mindlight, but a miracle (the violation of the natural laws we observed today) is a miracle, regardless of whether you like to pretend it isn't. You yourself can see this clearly because your above statements, like "using different tools" or "God simply used processes and techniques with which He is familiar and we are not." can be applied equally well to any other miracle. For instance:

How did Jesus miraculously walk on water? Was it a miracle? No. God simply used processes and techniques with which He is familiar and we are not.

How did Jesus change the water into wine? Was it a miracle? No. God simply used processes and techniques with which He is familiar and we are not.

How did Jesus raise Lazarus? Was it a miracle? No. God simply used processes and techniques with which He is familiar and we are not.

How did God cause the sun to go backwards? Was it a miracle? No. God simply used processes and techniques with which He is familiar and we are not.

And so on through the rest of you or my chosen Bible.

I had previously asked:

Isn't it easier to keep it as simple as the text of Genesis is, if you are going to toss out the uniformitarian assumption from the start anyway?

With that, and my other questions, I didn't see an answer.

Maybe I'll put it more bluntly. Why are you reluctant to call a miracle a miracle?

Papias

 

[mindlight]

The distinction between natural law and miracle is a man made one albeit a well established one and one that has proven useful. God created and sustains the natural order and the processes we observe in it are the product of his handiwork. So whether God directly intervenes to grow a withered arm back or to turn water into wine or simply to allow a baby to grow in a womans womb and then be born the Divine is at the back of all that we see and do not see.

The analogy I drew, which you ignored, was of a designer building something and then commentary being provided by a scientific observor from a few late observations. The processes we observe at work in creation today may not be the ones that were originally used and nothing in the Phase 2 evidence set that we do have may help us to understand those previous Phase 1 processes. But why should these Phase 1 processes be considered any less natural than the ones we can observe today when they may have been universally applied and potentially observable in the context had there been someone to observe day 4 of creation.

I have already said that I regard the creation event as a unique miracle but when I say an economy of miracles is not required to explain current observations by this theory I mean just that. What we see is what we see but it still might not contradict the biblical view that the universe is actually quite young if we bring this view of time dilation into consideration.

I am happy to accept Genesis as written - TRUE. Theories that try and reconcile the scientific investigations that have been conducted on the basis of the uniformitarian principle with the biblical revelation come and go. This one makes sense to me but you and Gluadys are right - refute it and I will still be a creationist.

 

[gluadys]

I am happy to accept Genesis as written - TRUE. Theories that try and reconcile the scientific investigations that have been conducted on the basis of the uniformitarian principle with the biblical revelation come and go. This one makes sense to me but you and Gluadys are right - refute it and I will still be a creationist.

Nothing can be refuted until it is set out in such a way that evidence can show it is incorrect. By appealing to miracle, you distance yourself from providing any evidence at all, so your idea is not falsifiable and cannot be refuted.

Basically, you are arguing in a circle. You have determined that by TRUE you mean an interpretation that literally concords with reality. But nothing we know about reality via science concords with your interpretation. So you invent, by appealing to miracle, a former reality which is inaccessible to investigation. Why invent such a miracle? Not to save the truth of scripture, but to save your commitment to a concordist interpretation of scripture. Your interpretation has an entirely imaginary foundation which you are welcome to believe, of course. But I do not find it convincing in the least.

 

[3rdHeaven]

I'm very much a creationist but not your literal orthodox type. Genesis is written so that any one even a child and not even a very smart child can understand and relate to God. It was written that way so every one can understand all that is needed to know. We are spared the technicalities and details that would go over the majority of heads and only confuse.

God is the Creator and Designer, we are the creation. Science has only scratched the surface of just how complicated creation is. I believe the Everything Theory exposes one minute layer of creation and what holds it all together. We will not totally understand every thing until we see God and become like Him. Only then will our hunger be satisfied!

 

[mindlight]

Nothing can be refuted until it is set out in such a way that evidence can show it is incorrect. By appealing to miracle, you distance yourself from providing any evidence at all, so your idea is not falsifiable and cannot be refuted.

Basically, you are arguing in a circle. You have determined that by TRUE you mean an interpretation that literally concords with reality. But nothing we know about reality via science concords with your interpretation. So you invent, by appealing to miracle, a former reality which is inaccessible to investigation. Why invent such a miracle? Not to save the truth of scripture, but to save your commitment to a concordist interpretation of scripture. Your interpretation has an entirely imaginary foundation which you are welcome to believe, of course. But I do not find it convincing in the least.

The thing is scientists are really not qualified to say if there was a former reality or not which makes their theories on this merely speculative. I accept the traditional mainstream interpretation of the creation event that has prevailed for most of the last 4000 years because its what the Bible says. One way to deal with apparent discrepancies between the little we know of the book of nature and the teaching of scripture is articulated in this theory. To resist it on the grounds you do is to extend the realm and authority of science into that of speculation and to suggest firm conclusions from the scientific method which quite simply cannot be made. on the basis of the available evidence as has been argued on innumerable occasions on this forum.

 

[mindlight]

I'm very much a creationist but not your literal orthodox type. Genesis is written so that any one even a child and not even a very smart child can understand and relate to God. It was written that way so every one can understand all that is needed to know. We are spared the technicalities and details that would go over the majority of heads and only confuse.

God is the Creator and Designer, we are the creation. Science has only scratched the surface of just how complicated creation is. I believe the Everything Theory exposes one minute layer of creation and what holds it all together. We will not totally understand every thing until we see God and become like Him. Only then will our hunger be satisfied!

Amen!

 

[gluadys]

The thing is scientists are really not qualified to say if there was a former reality or not

True, scientists are not qualified to say anything existed when there is no evidence that it did.

I accept the traditional mainstream interpretation of the creation event that has prevailed for most of the last 4000 years because its what the Bible says.

We all know what the Bible says. But even thousands of years ago, long before there was modern science, Christian interpreters varied in their interpretation of what it says. You are engaging in circular reasoning when you say your interpretation is based on what the Bible says. All interpretations of scripture are based on what it says. Why do you choose this one?

One way to deal with apparent discrepancies between the little we know of the book of nature and the teaching of scripture is articulated in this theory.

This is not a theory. This is an ad hoc appeal to miracle to save your interpretation of scripture. There is neither scriptural nor natural evidence why this appeal should be made.

 

[Papias]

mindlight wrote:

The analogy I drew, which you ignored, was of a designer building something and then commentary being provided by a scientific observor from a few late observations. The processes we observe at work in creation today may not be the ones that were originally used and nothing in the Phase 2 evidence set that we do have may help us to understand those previous Phase 1 processes.

Mindlight, I not only read and understood your analogy, but you can see that I even referenced it in my reply, by quoting your "different tools" description. Did you read my reply?

\What we see is what we see but it still might not contradict the biblical view that the universe is actually quite young if we bring this view of time dilation into consideration.

Which is exactly what a miracle is, as described in my previous post.

I notice that you didn't explain how your attempt to redefine "miracle" out of existence destroys all of Jesus' miracles too. I gave many examples that you didn't respond to. Would you like to do that now?

Papias



.

 

[mindlight]

mindlight wrote:

Mindlight, I not only read and understood your analogy, but you can see that I even referenced it in my reply, by quoting your "different tools" description. Did you read my reply?

Which is exactly what a miracle is, as described in my previous post.

I notice that you didn't explain how your attempt to redefine "miracle" out of existence destroys all of Jesus' miracles too. I gave many examples that you didn't respond to. Would you like to do that now?

Papias
.

My previous posts tried to indicate that the absolute separation made between natural law and supernatural intervention or miracle could be a slightly artificial one in this case as the tools /processes God used in creation might be potentially things that a person could have observed had they been looking on Day 4 of creation. Alternatively what God did could be regarded as a part of the miracle of creation as you seem to want me to say of my position. Either way I think we are splitting semantic hairs on this.

The creation event itself was a unique miracle and I have said that and also accepted that the list of miracles you made are also miracles.

What I have also said is that given this time dilation explanation no economy of miracles is now required to expound on why we see what we see. What we see is what we see and there is neither deceit nor contradiction in the evidence from the biblical account if we accept that the Creator acted in this way whether miraculously or naturally at the beginning. I do not think you can say current evidence rules out the possibility of time dilation being possible as a natural and scientitifcally observable process as you only have a small subset of the total evidence to draw on and Creation is not going on right now. So just because no scientific observation of these processes is now possible does not mean it was not a natural process.

 

[Papias]

mindlight wrote:

I do not think you can say current evidence rules out the possibility of time dilation being possible as a natural and scientitifcally observable process as you only have a small subset of the total evidence to draw on and Creation is not going on right now. So just because no scientific observation of these processes is now possible does not mean it was not a natural process.

Yes, I can. I can because a miracle is defined as a divine abrogation of the natural laws as we know them today. Thus, if God changed the natural laws to perform the creation, that was a miracle. Using your approach to say that the creation event isn't a miracle is the same as saying that Jesus' miracles aren't miracles, and that no miracle is even conceptually possible. You've even agreed on that. Are you arguing that Christians shouldn't use the term "miracle" anymore?

The creation event itself was a unique miracle and I have said that and also accepted that the list of miracles you made are also miracles.

That statement is in direct contradiction to your next statement:

What I have also said is that given this time dilation explanation no economy of miracles is now required to expound on why we see what we see.

and also contradicts:

So just because no scientific observation of these processes is now possible does not mean it was not a natural process.

*****************

My previous posts tried to indicate that the absolute separation made between natural law and supernatural intervention or miracle could be a slightly artificial one in this case as the tools /processes God used in creation might be potentially things that a person could have observed had they been looking on Day 4 of creation.

Only if you redefine miracle to fit your own personal wishes, which is what you've been doing for pages now.

Alternatively what God did could be regarded as a part of the miracle of creation as you seem to want me to say of my position.

I simply want you to use words according to their definitions if you are going to speak English.

Either way I think we are splitting semantic hairs on this.

No, we aren't. You are redefining an English word an I'm pointing out that you are doing so.


Because you are making up your own personal definition for the word "miracle" in contradiction to the actual definition, you have to then pretend your definition is the actual definition and the actual definition is wrong. As a result, you are contradicting yourself, and contradicting most English speaking people. It looks dishonest to redefine words.

That kind of behavior doesn't help our credibility in trying to reach the unsaved. They see that kind of behavior from us, and think "if these Christians normally make their arguments by making up new definitions for words, then why should I take anything they say seriously?".

And they'd be right in doing so. That's why what you are doing here makes it so much harder for us to bring people to Jesus.


Papias

 

[mindlight]

mindlight wrote:
Yes, I can. I can because a miracle is defined as a divine abrogation of the natural laws as we know them today.

You've added the bit in bold yourself

• A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.
• A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment.

That kind of behavior doesn't help our credibility in trying to reach the unsaved. They see that kind of behavior from us, and think "if these Christians normally make their arguments by making up new definitions for words, then why should I take anything they say seriously?".

And they'd be right in doing so. That's why what you are doing here makes it so much harder for us to bring people to Jesus.


Papias

People started falling away from the church after people started questioning the authority of scripture and subordinating their interpretations of it to scientific accounts of our origins. So I would say that TEs were undermining the church with their acceptance of worldly opinions and indeed the fastest growing denominations tend to be more fundamentalist in their outlook.

 

[Papias]

mindlight wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

mindlight wrote:
Yes, I can. I can because a miracle is defined as a divine abrogation of the natural laws as we know them today.

You've added the bit in bold yourself

​

• A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.
• A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment.

That part in bold is so blatantly obvious that it is sometimes not explicitly written. Scientific laws are based on current observations, so your definition above matches what I've said, and contradicts your made up definition you've been using. Not that it's needed, but some dictionaries do include it for those so scientifically illiterate that they are unaware of that fact.

for instance:

Miracle noun

1. an event or action that apparently contradicts known scientific laws and is hence thought to be due to supernatural causes, esp. to an act of God
2. a remarkable event or thing; marvel

Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio. Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
​

Mindlight wrote:

Papias wrote:

That kind of behavior doesn't help our credibility in trying to reach the unsaved. They see that kind of behavior from us, and think "if these Christians normally make their arguments by making up new definitions for words, then why should I take anything they say seriously?".

And they'd be right in doing so. That's why what you are doing here makes it so much harder for us to bring people to Jesus.

Papias
​

People started falling away from the church after people started questioning the authority of scripture and subordinating their interpretations of it to scientific accounts of our origins. So I would say that TEs were undermining the church with their acceptance of worldly opinions

Or could it be that people started falling away from the church after people started insisting on literal interpretations that were obviously false when compared to the real world? Remember that non-literal interpretations (your idea of "questioning the authority of scripture") have been around since the church fathers, such as Origen and Augustine, who could see that Genesis was not best interpreted literally.

and indeed the fastest growing denominations tend to be more fundamentalist in their outlook.

.....and the fastest growing among them are the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons. Are you arguing that those theologies are correct?

Papias