• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The state of the art in creation cosmology: "We haven't got a clue"

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Beyond Distant Starlight: Next Steps For Creationist Cosmology - Answers in Genesis

The final paragraph before the conclusion is stunning:
A plausible young-universe explanation for the cosmological data may be something that will come at a future date. We learn from the history of science that many seemingly insurmountable problems have been solved by means of novel and creative ways of thinking. It may be that a creationist understanding of the cosmos will prove to be another example. (emphases mine)
Can you see what he's really saying? "We currently don't have a plausible young-universe explanation for the cosmological data ... and we may never have one."

Bam!
 

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Beyond Distant Starlight: Next Steps For Creationist Cosmology - Answers in Genesis

The final paragraph before the conclusion is stunning:
A plausible young-universe explanation for the cosmological data may be something that will come at a future date. We learn from the history of science that many seemingly insurmountable problems have been solved by means of novel and creative ways of thinking. It may be that a creationist understanding of the cosmos will prove to be another example. (emphases mine)
Can you see what he's really saying? "We currently don't have a plausible young-universe explanation for the cosmological data ... and we may never have one."

Bam!

I don't think Carl Sagan had ever said anything different. That is the conclusion remark to ALL sciences.
 
Upvote 0

Siyha

Puppy Surprise
Mar 13, 2009
354
24
✟23,138.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
While I am not a young earth creationist, I don't have issue with a "We don't know" answer. I think it is more honest than many of the conclusions spouted off by people on all sides. At some point, everyone needs to take their stance on faith, because not all questions are answerable, and no models are unbreakable - they are all incomplete and have limitations of some sort.
 
Upvote 0

philadiddle

Drumming circles around you
Dec 23, 2004
3,719
56
44
Canada
Visit site
✟4,522.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
While I am not a young earth creationist, I don't have issue with a "We don't know" answer. I think it is more honest than many of the conclusions spouted off by people on all sides. At some point, everyone needs to take their stance on faith, because not all questions are answerable, and no models are unbreakable - they are all incomplete and have limitations of some sort.
I think the problem is that "I don't know" seems to be in contrast with "We know for certain".

Science doesn't claim to know for certain, but we can do better than just saying we simply don't know. What we do have is a model that explains distant starlight, the red shift, cosmic microwave background radiation, etc. Simply saying "we have no idea" like what AiG does is denial, if not dishonesty.
 
Upvote 0

philadiddle

Drumming circles around you
Dec 23, 2004
3,719
56
44
Canada
Visit site
✟4,522.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oh, us poor creationists. I guess we will just have trust God's Word...just like our faithful forefathers did before Darwin and company came around.

"In the beginning God created the heavens...

"He made the stars also..."

There's our cosmology.
A user's first post with a sarcastic tone....interesting.
 
Upvote 0

Kirkwhisper

Active Member
Oct 7, 2011
315
16
✟588.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Your first post and you couldn't give a simple hello?

Hi welcome to the forum Kirkwhisper :)

I see you've been checking me out. Do you always do that to creationists?

What's wrong with God's cosmology as stated in scripture and why is it not complete enough for you?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I see you've been checking me out. Do you always do that to creationists?
I often check out people's profiles to see what they tell us about themselves. I looked at ViaCrucis's profile yesterday too, he isn't a Creationist. You seem to know you way around the forum, have you been a member here before Kirk?

What's wrong with God's cosmology as stated in scripture and why is it not complete enough for you?
Because we know the earth goes round the sun.
 
Upvote 0

Kirkwhisper

Active Member
Oct 7, 2011
315
16
✟588.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I often check out people's profiles to see what they tell us about themselves. I looked at ViaCrucis's profile yesterday too, he isn't a Creationist. You seem to know you way around the forum, have you been a member here before Kirk?

Yes, as Kirkwhisper a long time ago.

Because we know the earth goes round the sun.

Thank you for being so forthright and telling us why God's Word is not sufficient in such things. Perhaps from now on we should all trust in you rather than in the Word of the Lord.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, as Kirkwhisper a long time ago.
Welcome back :)

Thank you for being so forthright and telling us why God's Word is not sufficient in such things. Perhaps from now on we should all trust in you rather than in the Word of the Lord.
You are assuming the purpose of the bible is to teach us cosmology, yet as I pointed out there is no mention of the earth going round the sun. The bible certainly isn't sufficient to teach us geography either (no mention of Australia for one thing) chemistry, nuclear physics, genetics or the structure of DNA. But does the bible say it is meant to be sufficient source of all scientific knowledge? Because if it doesn't, the problem may be your misunderstanding the bible and how God is speaking to us through it.
 
Upvote 0

Kirkwhisper

Active Member
Oct 7, 2011
315
16
✟588.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Welcome back :)


You are assuming the purpose of the bible is to teach us cosmology, yet as I pointed out there is no mention of the earth going round the sun. The bible certainly isn't sufficient to teach us geography either (no mention of Australia for one thing) chemistry, nuclear physics, genetics or the structure of DNA. But does the bible say it is meant to be sufficient source of all scientific knowledge? Because if it doesn't, the problem may be your misunderstanding the bible and how God is speaking to us through it.

The purpose of scripture is to teach us about Who created the world, why He did so, the time frame in which he did it, and the fall of man into sin bringing us the eventual solution to the sin of man: the atonement of Christ on the cross. A historical, literal fall of man into sin necessitating a historical, literal atonement by Christ upon the cross.

But you still didn't answer the question: What is it about the cosmology that God brought us (example Gen. 1.1 and 1:14) that is wrong or in error?

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."

Why is your stellar evolutionary cosmology superior to what the Lord gives us there?

In what sense is the above quoted verse not literal?

P.S. if you think about vs 14 carefully you should be able to figure out why your position (i.e. The Bible doesn't mention the earth orbiting the sun, etc.) is entirely wrong and a useless posit in this matter. For instance, if the sun in its passing is meant to define a 'day' as we are told in this verse, then one certainly has no need to posit hundreds of thousands or millions of yrs for each day...a day/age theory. From man's vantage point the sun doesn't take eons or ages to pass in its apparent circuit in the sky...it takes only 24 hrs for it to move from one point on the sundial to the same point the next day.

P.S. note that I said 'apparent circuit', that is, from man's vantage point on earth; I don't believe the sun goes around the earth.
 
Upvote 0

Kirkwhisper

Active Member
Oct 7, 2011
315
16
✟588.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
That may be, but the bible was written by humans. And lets face it, we aren't a particularly honest lot.

So should we believe your opinion about this or should we believe Jesus?

"For the scripture cannot be broken." John 10:35

Should we accept your opinion in the matter or should we accept what Paul said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

"For all scripture is given by inspriation of God..." II Timothy 3:16.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0