TH, this is why I emphasize attacking evolution than defending creation. There are so many unscientific holes in the theory that it deserves as much scrutiny as creation theory. Even non-creationists are seeing how unwilling the scientific community has become to hear new theories, such as the plasma/electric universe cosmology as opposed to the big bang. The problem is scientism in general.
Science
- Thread starter Abdicate
- Start date
HisManySongs
Passed on, February 28, 2022
It takes MUCH more faith than I have to believe that the beautifully complex life forms on earth came about by minute changes over eons of time using a mechanism which is detrimental to the organism 99.99% of the time.
A theory is simply an attempt to explain what is observed. As observations change/improve, the theory is modified to fit. If a better explanation arises, a new theory is born.
Reminds me of the researcher who discarded 999 pieces of data and kept the 1 which proved his theory.
Yes, exactly... drawing the target after the shots have been fired. And it really does stretch credulity to think that such complexity is anything but a design. I've often wondered how the SETI project ever expected to detect an "intelligent" signal when they could look at even the simplest life form and think design had nothing to do with it.
I might quibble with your choice of words. Old Earth creation is still a Bible based creation subject. So it is not a stark dichotomy between the goodness and light of young earth creation vs godless humanist evolution. I really don't take offense, but wished to point up how the choice of words can confuse, or at least prejudice a subject.
As far as evolution goes I could do a 10 minute stand-up discussion about the inconsistencies. I could do a lot longer given a chance to prepare. Science is always a process of winnowing out the chaff as well as discovering new principles. As time passes and understanding evolves (if I may use the term) confidences increase.
AND just as not all young earth creationists age on all pints, there are major divisions in Old Earth Creationist thought.
There is the Gap theory (I remember reading a book by Dr Barnhouse called The Invisible War),
there is Theistic Evolution (God guided Darwinian evolution),
and Progressive Creation (Where new species were separate new ex nehilo) creations.
Not that anyone should take me as an authority, but I would fall into the Theistic Evolution category.
Sorry for any misunderstanding. I intended to contrast any and all "intelligent design" theories with "molecules to man" evolution. I believe there is much wrong with evo that has nothing to do with creation at all but only with known, empirical science. This is why I didn't specify YEC or OEC or anything. I personally am YEC, but my focus is on what's wrong with evo.
Darwin himself was a Theistic Evolutionist. Atheistic Evolution is a secondary perspective, though they will deny it up and down and suggest it is precisely what Darwin meant.
Ah, the public fool system. *wink wink*
And he even questioned if his ideas(theories) were sound.
Well yes, he mentioned in his biography that this was by no means a statement of fact -- that it's a theory. I don't mind if people lean to the theory of evolution, but it's just not a good idea to treat it as fact.
Remember too that academia is in it for the money, not the science. It's very sad. I believe we'd be so much further along in understanding if it weren't for academia and the "scientific" community. I remember some years back when the study of the speed of light was brought into question (my fav topic). Years went by and some scientist in England wanted to disprove it... but he ended up proving it. He was summarily banned by the scientific community. Years later still two Australians tired of hearing about this issue, set out to disprove it too and only ended up proving it - they too were ostracized. Why is this important? Their studies show that all the atoms in the universe are slowing down at the same rate, about 1%/100 years. What does that matter? During the time of Adam and Eve the speed of the atoms (thereby light) was in the neighborhood of 10,000 times faster! It's a fascinating study - if you can find the information
May I ask who were the English and Australians mentioned in this post, and the approximate dates of their work? I enjoy testing my understanding against new facts and viewpoints. There have even been times when I changed or even reversed an opinion based on a cogent discussions.
It has been my impression (and I have read several papers on the subject) that much of the changes in the measured speed of light is, until recently, a measurement of the inherent difficulty in measurement. In antiquity an experiment would go something like (in the example of Galileo's measurement in 1638) one person at night at the top of one hill uncovers a lamp and starts counting or looks at a timepiece. When another person at the top of a hill a known distance away sees the first light, he uncovers another light. When the first person sees the light from the second lamp, he stops counting or looks at his timepiece. The speed of light is then calculated using the elapsed time as the measurement of how long it took a beam to go up and back. Reaction time as well as the crudity of timepieces are, of course the biggest problems. Several means of dealing with this included repeating the test from hills of different length, and attempting to determine how much time was due to human reaction delay, and subtract that from the result. None of these really succeeded in brining experimental error below the magnitude of the measurement.
Other methods included astronomical methods, which were sometimes fascinating, but still the error bounds were greater than the values obtained, for example one involved using the orbital speed of the Earth in such a way that even small errors in the values used created relatively larger errors in the result. Look up James Bradley's measurements.
It wasn't until Fizeau's experiment in the 1860's of a shining light through a toothed wheel onto a mirror a known distance away, and by observing how far the wheel had moved when the light returned that the information outweighed experimental error, and in a way that could be duplicated by interested scientists. Foucault's use of rotating mirrors a few years later further refined the value.
Michelson (who along with Morley failed to find their either wind) further improved on Foucault's design, and his measurements were published by his associates Pease and Pearson after Michelson's death. This value is within 0.006% of the value known today.
Modern interferometry now gives amazing precision (and repeatability by other scientists).
The point here is that if you put the historically held values of the speed of light in a table, and particularly if you pick and choose which experimental results to include, it is fairly easy to apparently show that light is slowing down (or speeding up for that matter), when all you are truly doing is measuring the decrease in experimental error.
As far as being banned from the scientific community, it happens, but less than many who distrust scientists think. We are all human, and scientists will often protect their reputation (and their grants) fiercely. On the other hand a claim of great magnitude requires proof (hopefully reproducible) of similar magnitude. If you try to publish a paper claiming to show the design of a working perpetual motion machine, you wouldn't get anyone to read it
If you want to open up a can of worms (and get nowhere), we can discuss Occam's Razor: How it is most usefully stated, what it means, and how it is to apply it. It is surprising how little Occam's Razor is at deciding between two competing ideas. It doesn't mean that the view that can be understood by the most people (simplest?) is likely to be most correct.
True science should never contradict the Word of God, neither should true revelation of God's contradict true science. After all God created the universe just so man could study it! Studying science is really studying God himself, as it tells us here......
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Scripture tells us we can "see" invisible things!!! How so, ".....being understood by the things that are made...." There is a similarity between what God created and those things in the spiritual Kingdom of God!! Not only that , but God created something in this physical world that we can see with our physical eyes that gives us a clear understanding of God " even his eternal power, and Godhead". "....being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;....."
I wonder what that is?
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Scripture tells us we can "see" invisible things!!! How so, ".....being understood by the things that are made...." There is a similarity between what God created and those things in the spiritual Kingdom of God!! Not only that , but God created something in this physical world that we can see with our physical eyes that gives us a clear understanding of God " even his eternal power, and Godhead". "....being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;....."
I wonder what that is?
Last edited:
It is my belief they ignore the word of God because they do not have the Spirit of God. To the natural man the spiritual Truth of the Bible is foolishness.
You are right about this purpose of the universe (more generally, it is to bring glory to God); but if you look at this passage in context, it is part of a stern warning starting in verse 18 that God has shown us (everybody, not just believers), but the unrighteous and unbelievers mishandled and ignored the truth and refused to glorify God and have earned God's wrath.
As far as 'Godhead', I always thought that it is emphasizing God's Holiness and authority, but I would be interested in other views. I note that several translations use the same term, but English Standard Version translates it as "divine nature" and Darby translates it as "divinity"
I stand amazed at what the Lord has done to convince man that he exists. Not only did write his laws on their heart, but also revealed to man in his heart that he is real. "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared unto ALL men", and not only that, but all of creation declares his Glory in the things he created. He covered all the bases, spiritual, physical,, and mental so man truly has no excuse to not believe.
Last edited:
Brother, If I give you a few scriptures, I can guarantee that you from these scriptures, you will be able to know exactly what God created in this physical universe that we can see with our eyes, that gives us a revelation of how God is in the spiritual world. Here they are.....
Mat 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
Mat 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
Joh 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
Psa 84:11 For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.
For our God is a consuming fire. (Heb 12:29)
God is light. (1 John 1:5)
http://science.slashdot.org/story/1...us-years-of-sun-images-in-a-four-minute-video
How could God be near us, and at the same be far away? Are we not in the presence of the sun by the fact it's light shines upon this earth, and on all it's planets in our solar system? Yet, at the same time it is very far away. The Lord is NOT the sun, but he is like the sun. Contrary to popular belief God is not every where, but his presence is. If the Lord was every where then why would Jesus need to come and get us, or why would the Bible tell us to come to the throne of Grace if we where already there? All light sources must have a place where its light shines from. The sun is at "rest" in the middle of our solar system, and every thing revolves around it. If we knew where God was at rest, then we would know where God's presence emanates from. God's light shines forth from where ever he is at rest personally.
Psa 132:13 For the LORD hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation.
Psa 132:14 This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it.
No wonder he tells us to come boldly to his throne. God desires our presence to be in his presence!
Now, this is where science and the Bible completely agree.
PS: I did not learn this from the "Discovery" channel.
Every day when I go outside and I feel the warmth of the sun rays striking my skin, I am reminded that the Lords presence is always with me, even though he is far away.
God is light. (1 John 1:5)
http://science.slashdot.org/story/1...us-years-of-sun-images-in-a-four-minute-video
How could God be near us, and at the same be far away? Are we not in the presence of the sun by the fact it's light shines upon this earth, and on all it's planets in our solar system? Yet, at the same time it is very far away. The Lord is NOT the sun, but he is like the sun. Contrary to popular belief God is not every where, but his presence is. If the Lord was every where then why would Jesus need to come and get us, or why would the Bible tell us to come to the throne of Grace if we where already there? All light sources must have a place where its light shines from. The sun is at "rest" in the middle of our solar system, and every thing revolves around it. If we knew where God was at rest, then we would know where God's presence emanates from. God's light shines forth from where ever he is at rest personally.
Psa 132:13 For the LORD hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation.
Psa 132:14 This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it.
No wonder he tells us to come boldly to his throne. God desires our presence to be in his presence!
Now, this is where science and the Bible completely agree.
PS: I did not learn this from the "Discovery" channel.
Every day when I go outside and I feel the warmth of the sun rays striking my skin, I am reminded that the Lords presence is always with me, even though he is far away.
Last edited:
That's a mistranslation: it's
Jeremiah 23:23 (KJV)
[Am] I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off?
The word "not" is being used in the same sense as if I would say to my son, "Mike, am I not your father" The answer would be yes.
Jesus referred to some of his followers saying, "they draw near me with their mouth, but their heart is far from me.