So where's the error/s?

[KWCrazy]

There are 333 miracles listed in the Bible, all of which share the same commonality; none of them are possible within the laws of nature. Currently, about 25% of Americans say that they've witnessed or experienced a miracle, including many in this forum. This raises a question. Are miracles real or are millions of people delusional? If miracles are real, then there is a power which supersedes natural law. If you believe they are not real, then you will have to somehow explain that to the dozens if not hundreds in this forum alone who will attest to things which science cannot explain.

So for the moment let's say that God COULD exist. In Genesis we read about everything being created in its mature state. Adam was an adult man. There were trees created bearing fruit. Birds were created in multitudes. The seas teemed with fish in an instant. On day four, the entity called light became the sun, moon and stars; all fully formed and perfectly positioned. Would that not look like a multi-billion year-old universe to one who was not aware it was formed that way?

While natural law was quite obviously not in effect during the creation of the world, it has functioned quite well in keeping things functioning so perfectly that many refuse to believe it could ever be violated. Natural law can only be overcome by the will of God, which has happened many, many times. This said, any tests or predictions relating to an ancient world would likely be consistent given that everything in the universe including the universe itself was created in its mature state. As easily as an author could write, "A ship appeared on the horizon," God could say "Let there be..." and there is.

The reason there is such a debate over the age of the earth is that neither side is completely wrong. We may live in a 13 billion year-old universe, but it was created from nothingness a few thousand years ago. A single common progenitor is a myth, but all living breathing animals descended from pairs on the ark. The fact that such is not possible with science only makes it more likely since God is the god of the impossible. In answer to your question, the error lies with presuming that the universe in which we live came about via natural processes. It did not. It was created in its mature state by a Creator who told us exactly how He did it; who knew that it would take increasingly greater faith to believe as time went on and man grew a better understanding of how his world functions. Faith alone is the key to everlasting life. That's why it is so hard.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Thanks for the response KWC.

However, what you've written would appear to fall outside the remit I set in my opening post.

Specifically, not faith-based reasons why the two counts of time (scientific and scriptural) do not appear to match up.

Thank you,

E.I.

 

[Hawkins]

I must re-iterate the point Hawkins.

I never said that God can alter time and space...you did.

I don't need to defend a position that isn't mine.

Nor do I need to answer a question about a claim that isn't mine.

It's just as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. I speculate people like you can only be logical to the extent that you are confident that you are right. You will throw out all kinds of intellectual dishonesty once the argument is no longer on your side.

Question 1: Answer it with sincerity
Can you rule out the possibility that God can alter time and space?

If you can't. Logically it means that it is possible for God to alter time and space.

Question 2:
If it is possible for God to alter time and space, how can you justify that earth must be created by a natural cause? How can you justify that earth must be in its current position all the times?

 

[EverettInterpretation]

It's just as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. I speculate people like you can only be logical to the extent that you are confident that you are right. You will throw out all kinds of intellectual dishonesty once the argument is no longer on your side.

Question 1: Answer it with sincerity
Can you rule out the possibility that God can alter time and space?

If you can't. Logically it means that it is possible for God to alter time and space.

Question 2:
If it is possible for God to alter time and space, how can you justify that earth must be created by a natural cause? How can you justify that earth must be in its current position all the times?

This is going nowhere, Hawkins.

I'm not obliged to answer questions that do not represent my position and that I have not written about.

Please desist or I shall be obliged to ignore you.
.
.
.
Please also note that I have made no negative or derogatory comments, suggestions or implications about your character.

I'd appreciate it if you desisted from writing anything like this about me.

 

[029b10]

Question 1: Answer it with sincerity
Can you rule out the possibility that God can alter time and space?

Do you believe that all things are possible with God?

Even if the possibility that something could occur, that doesn't mean that there is any probability of it occurring.

So yes, I can rule out the possibility that God can alter time and space on the basis that it would be a form of lying my altering the truth..

 

[Job8]

Can someone help me to understand (in terms of logic, rather than faith) why the cosmos doesn't agree with scripture?

God can answer that question (or any other) but before He does that, He must be acknowledged. If you want to rule out faith, then you can also rule out the proper answer.

 

[Job8]

The fundamental flaw in all such questions is a failure to understand the limits of human logic and reason. The arrogance of some humans is to assume that logic and reason are sufficient for all issues.

 

[AvgJoe]

Hello.
I have some questions for any Young Earth Creationists willing to respond.
Ok, the questions themselves may be flawed and maybe the assumptions I'm making are too (so any help on those fronts would be appreciated), but what I can't figure out is this.

How can this be?
In 1980 a scientist made a prediction about the properties of a then-undetected type of radiation coming from the very ancient universe. In 1990 this radiation was detected and measured for the first time and it's properties agreed exactly with the 1980 prediction of it. In fact, this example is the most precise agreement between prediction and observation ever made. This linked image shows the agreement between the prediction (green) and the observed data (red). (Please see first graph on the right.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

So, if the universe isn't billions of years old and is only around 6,000 years old, why is there such a precise agreement between what was predicted and what was observed?
(Remembering that this is not a post-diction - an interpretation of previously known data - but a prediction of something that was unknown in 1980.)

So, where's the error/s?
How can the universe be telling us it's billion's of years old if it's actually about 6,000?
Can someone help me to understand (in terms of logic, rather than faith) why the cosmos doesn't agree with scripture?

Thanks,

E.I.

There are Young Earth Creationists and there are Old Earth Creationists, but you know what, neither side knows for sure if they are right. The Bible doesn't come right out and say how old the earth is. I used to be a YEC but now lean more toward the OEC. I think you'll find the "Does God Exist?" website helpful~~~> http://www.doesgodexist.org/ . All that aside, whether you believe the earth is young or old has no bearing on the existence of God.

 

[CGL1023]

Hello.
I have some questions for any Young Earth Creationists willing to respond.
Ok, the questions themselves may be flawed and maybe the assumptions I'm making are too (so any help on those fronts would be appreciated), but what I can't figure out is this.

How can this be?
In 1980 a scientist made a prediction about the properties of a then-undetected type of radiation coming from the very ancient universe. In 1990 this radiation was detected and measured for the first time and it's properties agreed exactly with the 1980 prediction of it. In fact, this example is the most precise agreement between prediction and observation ever made. This linked image shows the agreement between the prediction (green) and the observed data (red). (Please see first graph on the right.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

So, if the universe isn't billions of years old and is only around 6,000 years old, why is there such a precise agreement between what was predicted and what was observed?
(Remembering that this is not a post-diction - an interpretation of previously known data - but a prediction of something that was unknown in 1980.)


So, where's the error/s?
How can the universe be telling us it's billion's of years old if it's actually about 6,000?
Can someone help me to understand (in terms of logic, rather than faith) why the cosmos doesn't agree with scripture?

Thanks,

E.I.

I am taught by one who believes the Adamic race is 6000 old, placed in a universe that approx 16 billion years old. This accomodates the predicted "cosmic background radiation" at predicted levels and includes an aspect of the 6000 years in human life originating with Adam. I don't know if the cosmic background radiation I mention, is the same as what you mention but I believe it has to be included in any valid explanation.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

God can answer that question (or any other) but before He does that, He must be acknowledged. If you want to rule out faith, then you can also rule out the proper answer.

Thank you for your response, Job8

 

[EverettInterpretation]

The fundamental flaw in all such questions is a failure to understand the limits of human logic and reason. The arrogance of some humans is to assume that logic and reason are sufficient for all issues.

The perhaps you can explain to me how it was possible for a human being (using logic and reason) to make such an accurate prediction about something that was unknown to any human being at that time, Job8?

His logic and reason seem to have been sufficient.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

There are Young Earth Creationists and there are Old Earth Creationists, but you know what, neither side knows for sure if they are right. The Bible doesn't come right out and say how old the earth is. I used to be a YEC but now lean more toward the OEC. I think you'll find the "Does God Exist?" website helpful~~~> http://www.doesgodexist.org/ . All that aside, whether you believe the earth is young or old has no bearing on the existence of God.

Thanks for your response, AJ.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

I am taught by one who believes the Adamic race is 6000 old, placed in a universe that approx 16 billion years old. This accomodates the predicted "cosmic background radiation" at predicted levels and includes an aspect of the 6000 years in human life originating with Adam. I don't know if the cosmic background radiation I mention, is the same as what you mention but I believe it has to be included in any valid explanation.

Thanks CGL.

Yes, I'm aware of certain doctrines that work to reconcile the disparity between scripture and scientific observation.

E.I.

 

[com7fy8]

How can the universe be telling us it's billion's of years old if it's actually about 6,000?

Hi, Everett I am Bill, pleased to meet you I have read the genealogies in the early scripture and sort of "calculated" how long that would have taken. And, "of course", the times of each person's life can't be added end-to-end, because lifetimes overlapped. So, with a literal direct straightforward interpretation, I see how this is "interesting".

I have sort of a hodgepodge approach, that I do not even personally know the people who are supposed to be doing all the secular and "Christian" research and discussing and arguing about creation versus evolution, and making the claims that people make about history and artifacts and dating. So, I don't know about all that. And I do not claim to have gotten a direct revelation from God.

But from the Bible I consider. Adam and Eve sinned, then things became different. Before Adam and Eve the earth was not in its present physical nature state, but in a spiritual, supernatural condition. The "appearance" of oldness and various things started with the fall of mankind, and I need to invest my attention in submitting personally to God in His peace; and I experience that He is correcting and processing me in this > Colossians 3:15.

I believe the Bible tells us that the earth will be resurrected after the resurrection of Jesus Christ's church > I mean, as I understand Romans 8:21 > and from this I see that if the earth can be converted into our resurrectional "glorious liberty", then it could have started this way, in the process of creation, then it was brought down to the experiential level of Adam and Eve so they could live on this earth, after they fell into the degradation of sin which made them unable to relate with the resurrectional quality earth.

And it does say that "the creation was subjected to vanity", in Romans 8:20. So, I see this means that the earth was not always in its present vain and corruptible state "which even very evil people can use for wrong things".

One thing I find curious, is how ones believe the universe started with a single big "bang", about ten billion years ago. And already we have stars which are maybe at least ten billion light years from the earth. And ones even say those stars are moving at some speed away from here. But if they are not moving at the speed of light, how ever can they have gotten to their present ten and even more billions light years from here or from some other center where the bang started?

And, "of course", if they have been moving in empty space, their inertia would keep them always at the same speed. So, there is no way that for a while they were going fast enough to get there, then they slowed down . . . from the speed of light to how fast they move now.

But any imperfect human can create what they decide to be true, from the Bible and from whatever they themselves decide are facts. I am sure I can, too

But being personally shared with by God and being personally guided by Him in His peace is not what I was thinking about "inventing" while I was a perpetual bully and then a Roman Catholic trying to do anything to make sure I got to Heaven. And then I got into criticizing pretty much anyone, and giving up on myself more or less suicidally. But God's love won. His love has been my best "circumstance" to effect how I have become.

If atoms and molecules and various forms of physical energy have the ability to produce a universe and all the marvelous organisms nonhuman that we see, I find it strange that now such capable atoms and molecules and physical principles would produce us humans who are so highly developed, yet so stupidly self-destructive and incapable of getting straight about what the truth really is!! I mean, humans themselves can make computers which work better than the minds of humans work; so why the atoms and molecules do not make humans with functional minds and wisdom enough to stay clear of tobacco and lethal sexual activity, etc. which is not exactly survival of fit people. And if nature has produced born-again Christians, I find it interesting how certain but not all atheists would be upset that we have "evolved", if we really are a product of DNA and physical principles only.

As I have shown, above, I have been a very stupidly self-destructive person, and I have well discovered how I can fool my own self and not even know I am doing so, including by paranoia and worry. So, even though I have the above considerations, I leave it alone, pretty much, and offer myself to God, about everything, as well as I can; but I need how He makes me able to even offer myself, or else my own character and nature can mess it up and trick me into thinking I am submitting to Him when I'm just self-producing this. But love has won, more and more, I would say, through Jesus and His death and burial and resurrection sharing God's very own with us.

 

[Troy Rambo]

Hello.
I have some questions for any Young Earth Creationists willing to respond.
Ok, the questions themselves may be flawed and maybe the assumptions I'm making are too (so any help on those fronts would be appreciated), but what I can't figure out is this.

How can this be?
In 1980 a scientist made a prediction about the properties of a then-undetected type of radiation coming from the very ancient universe. In 1990 this radiation was detected and measured for the first time and it's properties agreed exactly with the 1980 prediction of it. In fact, this example is the most precise agreement between prediction and observation ever made. This linked image shows the agreement between the prediction (green) and the observed data (red). (Please see first graph on the right.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

So, if the universe isn't billions of years old and is only around 6,000 years old, why is there such a precise agreement between what was predicted and what was observed?
(Remembering that this is not a post-diction - an interpretation of previously known data - but a prediction of something that was unknown in 1980.)

So, where's the error/s?
How can the universe be telling us it's billion's of years old if it's actually about 6,000?
Can someone help me to understand (in terms of logic, rather than faith) why the cosmos doesn't agree with scripture?

Thanks,

E.I.

The answer is really quite simple. If you accept the Bible as the ultimate truth, then anything that contradicts it is a lie. The world is full of lies and deceptions. Now Im not God, therefore I dont have all the answers and I cant speak for Him. We may have to wait until we become spirits before we get all the answers.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Hello Bill.

Hi, Everett I am Bill, pleased to meet you I have read the genealogies in the early scripture and sort of "calculated" how long that would have taken. And, "of course", the times of each person's life can't be added end-to-end, because lifetimes overlapped. So, with a literal direct straightforward interpretation, I see how this is "interesting".

I have sort of a hodgepodge approach, that I do not even personally know the people who are supposed to be doing all the secular and "Christian" research and discussing and arguing about creation versus evolution, and making the claims that people make about history and artifacts and dating. So, I don't know about all that. And I do not claim to have gotten a direct revelation from God.

But from the Bible I consider. Adam and Eve sinned, then things became different. Before Adam and Eve the earth was not in its present physical nature state, but in a spiritual, supernatural condition. The "appearance" of oldness and various things started with the fall of mankind, and I need to invest my attention in submitting personally to God in His peace; and I experience that He is correcting and processing me in this > Colossians 3:15.

I believe the Bible tells us that the earth will be resurrected after the resurrection of Jesus Christ's church > I mean, as I understand Romans 8:21 > and from this I see that if the earth can be converted into our resurrectional "glorious liberty", then it could have started this way, in the process of creation, then it was brought down to the experiential level of Adam and Eve so they could live on this earth, after they fell into the degradation of sin which made them unable to relate with the resurrectional quality earth.

And it does say that "the creation was subjected to vanity", in Romans 8:20. So, I see this means that the earth was not always in its present vain and corruptible state "which even very evil people can use for wrong things".

One thing I find curious, is how ones believe the universe started with a single big "bang", about ten billion years ago. And already we have stars which are maybe at least ten billion light years from the earth. And ones even say those stars are moving at some speed away from here. But if they are not moving at the speed of light, how ever can they have gotten to their present ten and even more billions light years from here or from some other center where the bang started?

Well there you have it, Bill.
The Big Bang is not considered to be any kind of explosion from a central point, outwards. It's better understood as an explosive expansion (inflation) of each and every point of space from each other - not from anything central. Ok, it's completely counter-intuitive and outside of human experience, but the observed data indicate that the inflationary model is the best one we have at the moment.

So while the concepts are difficult to comprehend, what should persuade one to accept it is the fact that the Inflationary model was predicted a decade before the evidence to support it came in. Since then a lot of other evidence to support inflation has been forthcoming.

And, "of course", if they have been moving in empty space, their inertia would keep them always at the same speed. So, there is no way that for a while they were going fast enough to get there, then they slowed down . . . from the speed of light to how fast they move now.

The Big Bang is not considered to have taken place in any kind of space or space-time continuum, Bill.
It was the origin of space and time itself. Again, counter-intuitive and difficult to visualize, but the observed data points to this being so. If you like, I can provide a link to a science blog that explains it far better than I can. Please let me know.

But any imperfect human can create what they decide to be true, from the Bible and from whatever they themselves decide are facts. I am sure I can, too

But then how did an imperfect human make such an accurate prediction, Bill?
The scientist involved didn't decide what he wanted to be true - he calculated it from first principles (Grand Unification theory of particle physics) and made his prediction accordingly. He didn't fit existing data into what he wanted to be true. He predicted that something then unknown would later be discovered - and ten years down the line it was. Surely this tells us he was right about the age of the universe and it's true nature?

But being personally shared with by God and being personally guided by Him in His peace is not what I was thinking about "inventing" while I was a perpetual bully and then a Roman Catholic trying to do anything to make sure I got to Heaven. And then I got into criticizing pretty much anyone, and giving up on myself more or less suicidally. But God's love won. His love has been my best "circumstance" to effect how I have become.

If atoms and molecules and various forms of physical energy have the ability to produce a universe and all the marvelous organisms nonhuman that we see, I find it strange that now such capable atoms and molecules and physical principles would produce us humans who are so highly developed, yet so stupidly self-destructive and incapable of getting straight about what the truth really is!! I mean, humans themselves can make computers which work better than the minds of humans work; so why the atoms and molecules do not make humans with functional minds and wisdom enough to stay clear of tobacco and lethal sexual activity, etc. which is not exactly survival of fit people. And if nature has produced born-again Christians, I find it interesting how certain but not all atheists would be upset that we have "evolved", if we really are a product of DNA and physical principles only.

I can only speak for myself here, Bill.
And I'm not at all upset by the notion that we humans evolved from un-living, unthinking base materials produced in the Big Bang.

As I have shown, above, I have been a very stupidly self-destructive person, and I have well discovered how I can fool my own self and not even know I am doing so, including by paranoia and worry. So, even though I have the above considerations, I leave it alone, pretty much, and offer myself to God, about everything, as well as I can; but I need how He makes me able to even offer myself, or else my own character and nature can mess it up and trick me into thinking I am submitting to Him when I'm just self-producing this. But love has won, more and more, I would say, through Jesus and His death and burial and resurrection sharing God's very own with us.

Thanks very much for your humble and self-effacing response, Bill.

E.I.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

The answer is really quite simple. If you accept the Bible as the ultimate truth, then anything that contradicts it is a lie. The world is full of lies and deceptions. Now Im not God, therefore I dont have all the answers and I cant speak for Him. We may have to wait until we become spirits before we get all the answers.

That's an interesting take, Troy.

So do you think that the prediction and confirmation I've talked about in this thread contradict what the Bible says about the age of the universe?

E.I.

 

[com7fy8]

The world is full of lies and deceptions.

And how we understand what even is true can have our own deceptions . . . since we are not perfect. This is why we need God.

So do you think that the prediction and confirmation I've talked about in this thread contradict what the Bible says about the age of the universe?

It "might" confirm what the Bible says > God's ways are "past finding out." (in Romans 11:33) His ways which can't be figured out are working in His creation. And it appears that whenever scientists find something out, they keep finding out that there is more to find out, which they have not explained. So, from this I predict that they will keep on finding out that they can't find every thing out

So, yes I can comprehend that we can not understand how the universe started.

By the way . . . if all in existence is only material, with only physical principles controlling what happens, I understand that those principles should have done what they do to produce a universe "before" ten billion years ago. So, from this, I consider that God who always exists made the choice about when to start. But I can see He has had physical things work in order, from that point in eternity. So, there are predictable principles which always produce the same result; however they got started when they did and not before.

And now I am busy with finding out how to love. And I keep finding out that God's ways of loving are "past finding out." Love is better than what I can control and does me more good than I have done to myself and others. So, this is what I am exploring and finding to be beyond comprehension. I "think" atoms and molecules and principles of energy did not produce love

In loving relationships, I find I can't figure out things; however, I can submit to God and obey how His ways work, and enjoy . . . instead of worrying and trying to possess and control for what I want.

Love is smarter than humans > "Love does not harm to a neighbor" (in Romans 13:10).

 

[EverettInterpretation]

And how we understand what even is true can have our own deceptions . . . since we are not perfect. This is why we need God.

You seem to be equating truth with perfection, Bill.
Yet, if I may refer you back to the example given in my opening post, an imperfect scientist clearly predicted a truth about the nature of the universe. Ok, you could say that since he is imperfect, whatever he predicted was not perfect and whatever was discovered and was confirmed was not perfect, either. But what you cannot say is that his prediction was not... true.

It clearly is.
There is no deception involved - unless we choose to disbelieve the evidence of our own senses or to invoke some kind of global scientific conspiracy theory. If you say that what he predicted doesn't qualify as absolute truth, that's ok. Science doesn't deal in absolute truth and humans cannot understand it either.

It "might" confirm what the Bible says > God's ways are "past finding out." (in Romans 11:33) His ways which can't be figured out are working in His creation. And it appears that whenever scientists find something out, they keep finding out that there is more to find out, which they have not explained. So, from this I predict that they will keep on finding out that they can't find every thing out

Sorry Bill, but there's a problem with your statement.
Scientists will never find every thing out and explain every thing. That is correct. But the fact that there remains more to find out and explain doesn't invalidate or disqualify what has already been found out and explained. Such as the example I mentioned above. That particular item of knowledge is valid and stands on it's own merits. It doesn't cease to be valid because there are still more things to discover and explain.

So, yes I can comprehend that we can not understand how the universe started.

But would you accept that some day we may do so... albeit, imperfectly?
(Remembering that imperfect knowledge is all we humans will ever have about anything and further remembering that knowledge isn't invalid because it is incomplete.)

By the way . . . if all in existence is only material, with only physical principles controlling what happens, I understand that those principles should have done what they do to produce a universe "before" ten billion years ago. So, from this, I consider that God who always exists made the choice about when to start. But I can see He has had physical things work in order, from that point in eternity. So, there are predictable principles which always produce the same result; however they got started when they did and not before.

Could you explain those principles to me or give a link to where I can read about these principles, please Bill?
Cosmologists employ the Copernican and the Cosmological principles in their work, as well as the principle of Parsimony and various other principles. It'd be nice to know how the principles you refer to square up with the ones I'm familiar with.

Thanks.

E.I.

And now I am busy with finding out how to love. And I keep finding out that God's ways of loving are "past finding out." Love is better than what I can control and does me more good than I have done to myself and others. So, this is what I am exploring and finding to be beyond comprehension. I "think" atoms and molecules and principles of energy did not produce love

In loving relationships, I find I can't figure out things; however, I can submit to God and obey how His ways work, and enjoy . . . instead of worrying and trying to possess and control for what I want.

Love is smarter than humans > "Love does not harm to a neighbor" (in Romans 13:10).

 

[com7fy8]

Could you explain those principles to me or give a link to where I can read about these principles, please Bill?
Cosmologists employ the Copernican and the Cosmological principles in their work, as well as the principle of Parsimony and various other principles. It'd be nice to know how the principles you refer to square up with the ones I'm familiar with.

I don't have any specific principles in mind. What I mean is simply a general thing, that principles of nature would be scientific and therefore predictable, set in what they do. Therefore, why didn't they operate to make the universe sooner, if they alone were involved?

And I simply understand that any real principles were created by God and have worked when and how He has pleased, with Him starting it all.

And I agree that we can know something is true, even while we are not perfect; but how we are, in our character, can effect how we understand and apply what we have discovered.

I can be a perfectionist, rejecting a whole thing because I find some one little fault in it. But in loving, this does not work well.