Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Dialogue envisioning: Creationist vs Conventional scientist


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
151 replies to this topic

#1
nebula

nebula

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,992 posts

In the process of debating things in other threads, this thought formed in my head. I thought it best to express in a new thread because the other ones are so . . . convoluted.

 

In any event, I imagined a dialogue between a Creationist and a Conventional scientists (that is someone who believes in the conventional science on the matter). For ease of typing, I will use "C" for the Creationist" and "S" for the conventional scientist.

 

I admit this is not perfect, but I'm trying to wing this off the top of my head in as short a time as possible for the sake of getting a discussion going (and because my time is limited).

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

C: The Big Bang theory goes against Scripture.

 

S: Why?

 

C: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:11)

 

S: What are "the heavens"?

 

C: "Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. (Genesis 1:14-19)

 

S: So the heavens would be the sun, the moon, and the stars and the expanse that they are in?

 

C: Yes.

 

S: How about galaxies.

 

C: They are included.

 

S: How do you figure?

 

C: The simply are included in "the stars".

 

S: But galaxies could not be seen with the naked eye. The concept of galaxies was not in the paradigm of any ancient culture.

 

C: It does not matter.

 

S: This is making no logical sense whatsoever.

 

C: It does not matter, either you believe the Bible or you don't.

 

S: But galaxies are not mentioned in the Bible.

 

C: It does not matter, they are included with the stars.

 

S: By what passage do you base this claim?

 

C: No passage is needed. [The author is open to someone else filling in C's words.]

 

Errrrr....

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Fast forward

 

 

S: When we see the images of galaxies through our telescopes, we see galaxies at different stages of development. From these we can make discernments on how galaxies are formed. Likewise, when we look at nebulae, we can see the birth of stars. When we look at various stars, we can see the aging and death of stars. Why should I believe our galaxy is any different from any other galaxy in its formation, and why should I believe our sun is different than any other star in its formation?

 

C: The Creation was a unique spiritual event. It goes against and defies all other created things.

 

S: But you said the stars were created in one day. Yet we see stars being born and stars dying. We see the remnants of dead stars.

 

C: It does not matter. You either believe the authority of the Bible or the authority of science.

 

Errrrr....

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

Anyway, I have more thoughts to formalize. But that's a start if anyone wants to comment.

 

 



#2
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,485 posts

I admit this is not perfect, but I'm trying to wing this off the top of my head in as short a time as possible for the sake of getting a discussion going (and because my time is limited).

 

Part of the imperfection  lies in how you oversimplify the creationist's response.



#3
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

 

S: When we see the images of galaxies through our telescopes, we see galaxies at different stages of development. From these we can make discernments on how galaxies are formed. Likewise, when we look at nebulae, we can see the birth of stars. When we look at various stars, we can see the aging and death of stars. Why should I believe our galaxy is any different from any other galaxy in its formation, and why should I believe our sun is different than any other star in its formation?

 

C: The Creation was a unique spiritual event. It goes against and defies all other created things.

 

S: But you said the stars were created in one day. Yet we see stars being born and stars dying. We see the remnants of dead stars.

 

 

Scientist: "we see galaxies at different stages of development. From these we can make discernment's"

 

YEC: Can you define "discernment's"?  Do those discernment's have any connection with this....“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”

(Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.)

 

Also by your "Stages" of development can you explain the "Winding Problem" in general and specifically with BX442 (which is 10 Billion Light Years away)....

 

(Phys.org) July 18, 2012 -- Astronomers have witnessed for the first time a spiral galaxy in the early universe, billions of years before many other spiral galaxies formed. In findings reported July 19 in the journal Nature, the astronomers said they discovered it while using the Hubble Space Telescope to take pictures of about 300 very distant galaxies in the early universe and to study their properties. This distant spiral galaxy is being observed as it existed roughly three billion years after the Big Bang, and light from this part of the universe has been traveling to Earth for about 10.7 billion years.

 

"The fact that this galaxy exists is astounding," said David Law, lead author of the study and Dunlap Institute postdoctoral fellow at the University of Toronto's Dunlap Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics. "Current wisdom holds that such 'grand-design' spiral galaxies simply didn't exist at such an early time in the history of the universe." A 'grand design' galaxy has prominent, well-formed spiral arms."

http://phys.org/news...-discovery.html

 

According to the current stellar evolution, these "spirals" shouldn't exist and they most assuredly shouldn't exist beyond the Red Shift Desert but they are everywhere in every direction.

 

The winding problem is discussed here...and many other sites; http://en.wikipedia....ity_wave_theory

 

Also can you speak to this....

 

'The galaxy cluster lies in the direction of the southern hemisphere constellation Grus (the Crane). Dr Francis himself expressed the problem, ‘The simulations tell us that you cannot take the matter in the early universe and line it up in strings this large’, he said. ‘There simply hasn’t been enough time since the big bang to form structures this colossal.’
Why galaxy cluster is too grown-up for early universe, New Scientist 181(2430):14, 17 January 2004

 

 

Scientist:  "Likewise, when we look at nebulae, we can see the birth of stars."

 

YEC:  I CALL  ....SHOW!!!!  :mgdetective:  Can you also explain in a 2LOT context whilst discussing Jeans Mass and Boyle's Gas Law.

 

also.....

 

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt, "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them.", Sun And Stars, p.111

 

Geoffrey Burbidge, Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory, "If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect."

Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002

 

Abraham Loeb, of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics, says, “The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.”
Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26–30, 7 February 1998

 

 

YEC:  I have so much more but I'll let my Brothers and Sister's take a crack @ this :)



#4
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts

I appreciate the gleaning of other ideas but a quote is a snapshot and doesn't always offer what the true beliefs of the individuals making them are.  You may post one which calls into question some aspect of evolution by a scientist, yet when you read other narratives by the same source it is apparent that they are still evolutionists.  Same for astronomy or any field, really.



#5
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

I appreciate the gleaning of other ideas but a quote is a snapshot and doesn't always offer what the true beliefs of the individuals making them are.  You may post one which calls into question some aspect of evolution by a scientist, yet when you read other narratives by the same source it is apparent that they are still evolutionists.  Same for astronomy or any field, really.

 

"I appreciate the gleaning of other ideas but a quote is a snapshot and doesn't always offer what the true beliefs of the individuals making them are."

 

They offer just fine and are CITED for your benefit for further investigation for the veracity of the message and source identification.  Also, due to the medium in which we are communicating, it would be impractical to CITE the whole article. Furthermore, we are discussing "science" subjects of which we are all not credentialed in so we research and provide CITED References in support of our claims so as to eliminate or reduce the Speculation/Conjecture Opinion Parade that so often accompanies subjects of this nature.

 

Moreover, I'm not really interested in what they "Believe" only what they can prove.

 

If there is a claim of "quote mining" then make the claim and support it.

 

Thanks



#6
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

I appreciate the gleaning of other ideas but a quote is a snapshot and doesn't always offer what the true beliefs of the individuals making them are.  You may post one which calls into question some aspect of evolution by a scientist, yet when you read other narratives by the same source it is apparent that they are still evolutionists.  Same for astronomy or any field, really.

 

"I appreciate the gleaning of other ideas but a quote is a snapshot and doesn't always offer what the true beliefs of the individuals making them are."

 

They offer just fine and are CITED for your benefit for further investigation for the veracity of the message and source identification.  Also, due to the medium in which we are communicating, it would be impractical to CITE the whole article. Furthermore, we are discussing "science" subjects of which we are all not credentialed in so we research and provide CITED References in support of our claims so as to eliminate or reduce the Speculation/Conjecture Opinion Parade that so often accompanies subjects of this nature.

 

Moreover, I'm not really interested in what they "Believe" only what they can prove.

 

If there is a claim of "quote mining" then make the claim and support it.

 

Thanks

 

 

What can you prove about your beliefs? Very little in life can be proven


Edited by LookingForAnswers, 17 January 2014 - 05:15 PM.


#7
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

The winding problem..

 

http://astronomy.swi...Winding Problem

 

Winding Problem The simplest idea for the origin of spiral arms is that somehow the material in the galaxy condensed into its spiral pattern from the very start, and that pattern has remained fixed since then. Unfortunately, this idea immediately runs into trouble because galaxies exhibit differential rotation. Every object in the disk of the galaxy moves with the same orbital speed, but because objects further from the centre of the galaxy have larger orbits, it will take them longer to complete one revolution than those closer to the centre. The result is that the outer objects lag behind the inner objects causing the spiral to wind up tighter and tighter until ultimately it disappears. This is known as the ‘winding problem’.

#8
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
Oldest Spiral galaxy BX442 supports Hubble’s belief: Redshift does not mean expansion

 

http://cosmologyscie...mean-expansion/

 

Commentary:

Standard cosmology interprets BX442 as a surprising observation since it is such a rare event. The very symmetric shape of BX442 seems to indicate that it is a very old galaxy.

All these surprises result from the cosmological redshift being interpreted as expansion of space. However, several interpretations of the cosmological redshift have been suggested in which there is no expansion. One of these, suggested by Zwicky in 1929, explains the redshift via a “tired-light” mechanism[2]. Although Zwicky’s mechanism was shown to be ineffective, recently proposed tired-light mechanisms involving an interaction of light with electrons[3] can explain the measured characteristics of BX442:

- Broadened spectroscopic lines result from the quantization of the redshift mechanism. This is clearly explained by Ashmore in reference [4]. The apparent hot disk of BX442 is in reality a result of the broadening due to the statistical distribution of the number of photon-electron interactions. BX442 is a stable galaxy.



#9
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

 

 

I appreciate the gleaning of other ideas but a quote is a snapshot and doesn't always offer what the true beliefs of the individuals making them are.  You may post one which calls into question some aspect of evolution by a scientist, yet when you read other narratives by the same source it is apparent that they are still evolutionists.  Same for astronomy or any field, really.

 

"I appreciate the gleaning of other ideas but a quote is a snapshot and doesn't always offer what the true beliefs of the individuals making them are."

 

They offer just fine and are CITED for your benefit for further investigation for the veracity of the message and source identification.  Also, due to the medium in which we are communicating, it would be impractical to CITE the whole article. Furthermore, we are discussing "science" subjects of which we are all not credentialed in so we research and provide CITED References in support of our claims so as to eliminate or reduce the Speculation/Conjecture Opinion Parade that so often accompanies subjects of this nature.

 

Moreover, I'm not really interested in what they "Believe" only what they can prove.

 

If there is a claim of "quote mining" then make the claim and support it.

 

Thanks

 

 

What can you prove about your beliefs? Very little in life can be proven

 

 

I will not be commenting to you henceforth.

 

Hope you find the Truth



#10
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts
Easy does it. I wasn't accusing you of qoute mining. I'd prefer a journal article to get a better understanding.
As for the interview, I'd say C is not doing very well

#11
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,485 posts

Easy does it. I wasn't accusing you of qoute mining. I'd prefer a journal article to get a better understanding.
As for the interview, I'd say C is not doing very well

Yeah, well "C" isn't being accurately represented in the OP.



#12
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

Edwin Hubble on Cosmology...http://oregonstate.e...n_Cosmology.pdf



#13
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

Easy does it. I wasn't accusing you of qoute mining. I'd prefer a journal article to get a better understanding.
As for the interview, I'd say C is not doing very well

 

Hey Gray Wolf,

 

I'm often Curt and to the Point and it appears most people take that as aggressive....Military has ruined me in that regard. 

 

Forgive me, I mis-perceived your message.

 

:bighug2:



#14
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts
I had a great time in the military! I maintained a lifelong preference for hair off the ears, though.

#15
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

I had a great time in the military! I maintained a lifelong preference for hair off the ears, though.

 

Yes,

 

I just recently retired.  It's funny I couldn't grow my hair long enough growing up.... now, I can't cut it short enough :D



#16
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

YEC:  The Big Bang goes against "science"

 

Scientist:  Why/How?

 

Well the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT) "Pillar of Science", states: Nature can't create or destroy matter/energy...they can just change form.

And we are here :)

 

Scientist:  :help: You're right.  Can I see that Bible of Yours???

 

YEC: Yes, you surely can :thumbsup:



#17
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

Scientist: The big bang was a change in form, not the creation of new matter or energy. 

 

YEC:  That is not what AIG told me!   :help:



#18
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts
Very good! It is a blessing to laugh at ourselves.

#19
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,485 posts

Very good! It is a blessing to laugh at ourselves.

It wasn't an attempt at humor.  It was an attempt at mockery.



#20
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts
I dunno. I thought both scenarios were amusing. Faith is serious business, but humor can open up the door to more lasting results. I love debates when the audience laughs.




Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network