ONCE BIG BANG SCIENCE IS KIND OF VERY UNSCIENTIFIC.

[Lost4words]

Actually it is held by 10's of millions and taught by tens of thousands of Scientists who are believers and were led to young earth special creation by their studies as evolutionists and big bangers!

I accept them as written that is not interpretation, that is acceptance!

Interpretation. Yours.

God bless you

 

[nolidad]

Interpretation. Yours.

God bless you

Agreed time to give this discussion a merciful burial. So you have your interpretation, and I have mine! We will see who held the truth and who believed a lie won't we.

 

[Lost4words]

Agreed time to give this discussion a merciful burial. So you have your interpretation, and I have mine! We will see who held the truth and who believed a lie won't we.

God bless you my friend

 

[Dale]

Science is the quest for knowledge which leads to truth and fact.

July of the is year Big bang cosmology suffered a minor nervous breakdown when two different studies were peer reviewed and published in 2 different big bang believing science journals and gave an age of the universe that differs by 1,200,000,000 years!

One article published in the astronomical journal (volume 160 #2pegs the age of the universe at 12.6 billion years.

Another article published in Science daily of July 15 pegs the age of the universe at 13.8 billion years old!

This is not a rounding error or little difference folks. But of course both are very very wrong. We can know the age of the universe because the one who was there and who called it all into existence gave us a road map to let us know that it is very young according to big bang standards!

The onlly thing this discrepancy proves is that science measures things.

Creationists don't measure anything, they just believe whatever they want.

 

[nolidad]

God bless you my friend

and to you as well.

 

[nolidad]

The onlly thing this discrepancy proves is that science measures things.

Creationists don't measure anything, they just believe whatever they want.

You have made it very very obvious that you have not bothered to read the "measuring" creation scientists have done!

Also when you start with the wrong co-efficients in your measuring, you can be very complex and come up with an answer, but teh answer is wrong! That is what teh Big Basng and Darwinian Evolution and the ages of life have done. Started with wrong assumptions and produced vastly erroneous ages.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

you have not bothered to read the "measuring" creation scientists have done!

Only measuring creation scientists do is naked on front of a mirror and that is where they get the low numbers they use to project age of creation on some random non peer reviewed papers.

 

[nolidad]

Only measuring creation scientists do is naked on front of a mirror and that is where they get the low numbers they use to project age of creation on some random non peer reviewed papers.

Once again you show you have not bothered reading their research papers!

These are phd scientists, award winning scientists, published scientists in their fields.

Your negative prejudice is duly noted.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Your negative prejudice is duly noted.

Perhaps I was unfair.

How about linking some peer reviewed doctoral work proving creation ?

 

[nolidad]

Perhaps I was unfair.

How about linking some peer reviewed doctoral work proving creation ?

I can't! Just as you can't link to peer reviewed doctoral work proving the big bang or Darwinian evolution!

Bot are not subject to the scientific method of hypothesis, test, observe repeat.

So both are simply models of origins from two worldviews.

The secularists mock theistic evolutionists. Men like Dawkins, and others who are in the media all declare the universe is self existing! It is a world view that some Christians try to marry to appease what appeared to be real science.

What we have is two opposing world views. They both look at the same evidence and coem to radically differing conclusions based on their presuppositional biases.

Having said that, empirical tested, observed repeated science that deals with origins far more supports divine young earth special creation than the two opposing theories of how th ebig bang started and how life advanced over X years.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Having said that, empirical tested, observed repeated science that deals with origins far more supports divine young earth special creation than the two opposing theories of how th ebig bang started and how life advanced over X years.

How can science support an imaginary supernatural event ?

Do open this a bit.

 

[nolidad]

How can science support an imaginary supernatural event ?

Do open this a bit.

It cannot! Nor can it support nothing creating everything!

But the account of creation and how God ordered life on earth can be opened to study and what is known about science and proven supports much of the creation model.

Such as:

All animals created after their kind! We have never seen mutations create new information in the genome- they only corrupt information.

The flood- the earth is loaded with enormous evidence for a global flood!

The separation of the continents.

The essential symbiosis of plants and animals requires simultaneous creation!

On and on.

Once again let me repeat- we cannot test or observe either the big bang or creation, but we can study what we can see and test and it favors divine creation as recorded in the bible. If you are initerested, I can give you links to sites where scientists who are young earth creationists and have written extensively on teh evidence as to why young earth makes more sense scientifically.

 

[Dale]

Guess you misunderstand it too!

But give me one tested repeated observed piece of science that supports the billions of years you seem to believe in!

Then give me the research you have done to prove that Genesis is just a fable. God could have said He took an unspecified long time (owlam) to create the earth, and universe, but He didn't. So you believe the genealogy of Jesus which traces Him back to Adam is a lie then? Adam was said to have been made on the sixth evening and morning approx. 6,000 years ago.

Do you believe Adam was homo erectus, homo habilis, homo zinjanthropes, Homoe neanderthalis, or homo sapien? When did God infuse man with His image? Or are we not infusesd with that image?

Nolidad: "But give me one tested repeated observed piece of science that supports the billions of years you seem to believe in!"

Since you put it that way I'll outline the evidence for the Big Bang. In 1900, astronomers believed that the universe was a mass of stars hanging in space. In the 1920's astronomers began to grasp that we are in a galaxy of stars, the Milky Way and that there are other galaxies out there. Quite a few of them.

Shortly after that, Edwin Hubble discovered the red shift in light coming from distant galaxies. The wavelengths of light coming from the most distant galaxies are definitely shifted to the red end of the spectrum, which means that they are in motion and getting further away from us and from each other. If they were coming toward us there would be a violet shift. Since this amazing fact was discovered, it has been checked many times and has withstood much criticism. It may seem surprising to you that astronomers would draw far reaching conclusions from this, but a lot of what we know about the universe comes from spectroscopy. We know that stars are mostly hydrogen, for instance, and this comes from spectroscopy.

The first person on record to draw the inevitable conclusion from this is Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Jesuit priest, and also a professor of astrophysics. Since more space is appearing between galaxies as they recede, what happens if we calculate their positions at some point in the past? They must have been closer together, indeed, they must have all emerged from the same point. The Big Bang.

The Red Shift is the observational evidence that leads to a Big Bang as the origin of the physical universe.

 

[nolidad]

Nolidad: "But give me one tested repeated observed piece of science that supports the billions of years you seem to believe in!"

Since you put it that way I'll outline the evidence for the Big Bang. In 1900, astronomers believed that the universe was a mass of stars hanging in space. In the 1920's astronomers began to grasp that we are in a galaxy of stars, the Milky Way and that there are other galaxies out there. Quite a few of them.

Shortly after that, Edwin Hubble discovered the red shift in light coming from distant galaxies. The wavelengths of light coming from the most distant galaxies are definitely shifted to the red end of the spectrum, which means that they are in motion and getting further away from us and from each other. If they were coming toward us there would be a violet shift. Since this amazing fact was discovered, it has been checked many times and has withstood much criticism. It may seem surprising to you that astronomers would draw far reaching conclusions from this, but a lot of what we know about the universe comes from spectroscopy. We know that stars are mostly hydrogen, for instance, and this comes from spectroscopy.

The first person on record to draw the inevitable conclusion from this is Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Jesuit priest, and also a professor of astrophysics. Since more space is appearing between galaxies as they recede, what happens if we calculate their positions at some point in the past? They must have been closer together, indeed, they must have all emerged from the same point. The Big Bang.

The Red Shift is the observational evidence that leads to a Big Bang as the origin of the physical universe.

No the red shift is simply showing that galaxies are moving away from us and approximated speeds.

But you forget that light travels as waves and matter and that light waves are subjected to the gravitational pull of bodies in space. So a galaxy that is 13.2 billion light years distant according to the theories of its place in space/time cannot take into account all the gravitational effects on that light wave as it travelled those 13.2 billion light years to reach us!

Also if the universe is c. 13.8 billion light years as the hypothesis goes- there is a very very serious problem with the big bang!

1.The big bang is said to have created the space time continuum and matter (time and space cannot exist without matter according to Einstein).

2, As soon as the big bang occurred- it created a coordinate in space where all matter of the universe was flung out omnidirectionally.

3. According to the hypotheses, as time progressed and matter cooled it clumped and formed moons, planets, stars and galaxies.

4. Big Bang astrophysicists are saying we can see fully formed galaxies 13. 2 billion light years out! Which means that that galaxy was at that point in space time 13.2 billion light years ago to shine that light that took 13.2 billion years to reach earth so we can observe it.

5. NOw the problem. How can a galaxy be 13.2 billion light years out when the universe was only 600 million years old 13.2 billion years ago???

6. That would mean from the point of the big bang (or whooosh or whatever they may call it now) that galaxy would have had to travel at 20 times the speed of light while the initial material was cooling, then clumping, (which is another problem all its own), then form bodies, then squish together to create one star after another until there were millions of stars, all the while travelling at speeds 20X faster than these same astrophysicists say is the limit of how fast anything can travel?

 

[Dale]

Guess you misunderstand it too!

But give me one tested repeated observed piece of science that supports the billions of years you seem to believe in!

Then give me the research you have done to prove that Genesis is just a fable. God could have said He took an unspecified long time (owlam) to create the earth, and universe, but He didn't. So you believe the genealogy of Jesus which traces Him back to Adam is a lie then? Adam was said to have been made on the sixth evening and morning approx. 6,000 years ago.

Do you believe Adam was homo erectus, homo habilis, homo zinjanthropes, Homoe neanderthalis, or homo sapien? When did God infuse man with His image? Or are we not infusesd with that image?

Nolidad: "Then give me the research you have done to prove that Genesis is just a fable."

Nolidad: "Adam was said to have been made on the sixth evening and morning approx. 6,000 years ago."


I have never said that Genesis is a fable and I'm getting tired of hearing this accusation. I have said that creationists don't understand what Genesis means. Creationists have clearly inserted later thinking into their version of Genesis, like the idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

A couple of years ago I did a thread with a very modest objective, to show that the earth must be at least ten thousand years old. We can determine that from tree rings alone. I know that creationists don't understand radioactive decay, so I confined myself to tree rings in that thread. Creationists were ready to argue with me but not one looked at the evidence I presented. Not one had anything to say about tree rings. Creationists aren't interested in evidence.

Here is the OP from that thread:

Many creationists insist that the earth should be no more than 6,000 years old. Apparently the idea is that the Second Coming is imminent, and after that there will be the 1,000 Millenial reign, and then the Final Judgment. The world, from creation to Second Coming to Final Judgment will come out to 7,000 years. By this reasoning, the world began around 4,000 BC (Bishop Ussher?) and Noah's Deluge was about 3,000 BC.

The Bible simply doesn't say how old the earth is or how long God intends the earth's history to be. A 6,000 year old earth is an arbitrary idea.

Science is in constant collision with the notion of a 6,000 year old earth.

Take tree rings, for example. How simple can you get?


"Bristlecone pine wood that has fallen to the ground can remain intact for thousands of years in the cold, dry climate of the White Mountains. Using a cross-dating technique that overlaps tree-ring patterns of living trees with the still intact patterns of dead wood, scientists have assembled a continuous tree-ring chronology extending nearly 10,000 years."


Link
Inyo National Forest - Nature & Science

This thread can be found at
Tree Rings a Problem for 6,000 Year Old Earth

 

[Dale]

Once again you show you have not bothered reading their research papers!

These are phd scientists, award winning scientists, published scientists in their fields.

Your negative prejudice is duly noted.

Nolidad: "These are phd scientists, award winning scientists, published scientists in their fields."

Nolidad: "Once again you show you have not bothered reading their research papers."

I am more impressed by scientific method than by degrees or PhD's. One thing I've noticed is that some famous Christians have degrees but they come from schools that are not accredited. I am doing a thread on Rev. Chuck Baldwin, an Independent Baptist minister, in another forum, for instance, He has a Bachelor's, a Masters, and a Ph.D, and none of these came from accredited colleges. In other words, his degrees are worthless. The colleges where he received these degrees don't meet even the barest minimum of standards, like the number of books in the library, to be taken seriously.

I have seen some of the claims that came out of Bryan College, named after William Jennings Bryan. At Bryan College, they claim to be studying "Baraminology," the study of Biblical kinds. It's a complete farce.

 

[The Barbarian]

Now if there was a shred of evidence to support that few more people might believe it.

Of course, God never told us how old the universe is. Some people inserted that into Scripture to make it more acceptable to them.

 

[The Barbarian]

Easy cop out to avoid having to face reality!

The key is, your interpretation is the minority view among Christians. Most of the world's Christians do not add YE creationism to scripture.

 

[nolidad]

I have never said that Genesis is a fable and I'm getting tired of hearing this accusation. I have said that creationists don't understand what Genesis means. Creationists have clearly inserted later thinking into their version of Genesis, like the idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

A couple of years ago I did a thread with a very modest objective, to show that the earth must be at least ten thousand years old. We can determine that from tree rings alone. I know that creationists don't understand radioactive decay, so I confined myself to tree rings in that thread. Creationists were ready to argue with me but not one looked at the evidence I presented. Not one had anything to say about tree rings. Creationists aren't interested in evidence.

Here is the OP from that thread:

Many creationists insist that the earth should be no more than 6,000 years old. Apparently the idea is that the Second Coming is imminent, and after that there will be the 1,000 Millenial reign, and then the Final Judgment. The world, from creation to Second Coming to Final Judgment will come out to 7,000 years. By this reasoning, the world began around 4,000 BC (Bishop Ussher?) and Noah's Deluge was about 3,000 BC.

And you are wrong about Creationists inserting a young age. The Jews have a calendar they created in teh OT. This is the year 5780 from Creation! So young earth was believed by Jews and the early church! It is only after the corruption of the church starting in the fourth century did old ages start to creep in.

And as for dendochronolgy? It has been empirically proven that trees have grown multiple rings in years and also whe climate turns.

No most creationists take their belief the earth is approximately 6000 years old based on the genealogies found in teh Bible.

We can trace lines directly back to Noah approx 4400 years ago and trace them genetically!

We have a geneaology of Jesus that goes back to Adam! The only time frame that is not known is how much time elapsed from Adam being formed and the fall.

ALL and I repeat ALL dating methods are loaded with problems and untestable assumptions. Even ice core dating, dendochronolgy and other supposed hard fact dating.

I am more impressed by scientific method than by degrees or PhD's. One thing I've noticed is that some famous Christians have degrees but they come from schools that are not accredited. I am doing a thread on Rev. Chuck Baldwin, an Independent Baptist minister,

Well tehn you should look up all the YEC scientists who are members of the Creation Research society! these are all masters and doctors in accredited schools, have had many published articles , chair science depts. in secular colleges and award winners in their fields as well as discoverers and inventors! There are over 15,000 of them!

I know not who Baldwin is or what His field of study is in. But hundreds of Bible colleges in America are not secularly credited simply because they do not offer the courses set up by the secular boards for awarding degrees in fields. They are institutes for training pastors and missionaries and church leaders. They are accredited by Christian institutions to grant recognized degrees in theological fields. But yes there are men in both secular and Christian fields who got their degrees from diploma mills.

I am more impressed by scientific method than by degrees or PhD's.

As am I! I became a YEC from being a staunch evolutionist simply because I attacked both models of origins with the scientific method in the forefront!

I have seen some of the claims that came out of Bryan College, named after William Jennings Bryan. At Bryan College, they claim to be studying "Baraminology," the study of Biblical kinds. It's a complete farce.

Really? Because they study creatures using a biblical term instead of a term made up by secularists?
kingdom, order, phyla, family genus species clades are all made up words to define groups mistly by morphology (another made up word)

And one of the base theories of baraminology is that each "kind" reproduces after itself. And guess what ? we have never seen a dog kind ever change into something that is not a dog kind! We have proven that dogs have the capability for variation within their "kind" but as far as the scientific method can actually confirm- a dog has always been a dog! Just different kinds of dog!

Another scientific method they use is that mutations always corrupt and never advance a genome in a creture population. And we have no emprical observable testable observation that mutations have ever added new and previously unrecorded information in the genome.

Those two proven tested facts in teh study of "baraminology" should be enough to topple th emyth of evolution by random undesigned, unplanned undesigned mutations.

Science is in constant collision with the notion of a 6,000 year old earth.

See you have acccpeted the myth that evolution is a fact! it is not science that collides with creation approx 6,000 years ago, but a secular atheistic worldview held by scientists that collides.

 

[nolidad]

The key is, your interpretation is the minority view among Christians. Most of the world's Christians do not add YE creationism to scripture.

And more and more "Christians are rejecting teh deity of Christ, the physical resurrection and the lake of fire is real. doesn't make them any less fact either! We are living in a time when many shall depart from the faith and give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons.