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

Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins In Today's Modern Scientific

Physics Young Earth Creation Biblical Genesis. Science Speculations Evidence Observation Old Earth

This topic has been archived.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

#1
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,022 posts

From A Dear Non-Believer In The Creator Christ Of The Bible

Yet A Proud Believer In The Knowledge Of Dirt

Sans Any Personnel Knowledge

Of God

 

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6

 

This was not a debate over the existence of a creator deity in general, but of a specific, 6,000-year-old creation scenario. Ken Ham is a young Earth creationist, the president of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum. He believes that God directly created the universe, the Earth, humanity, and all other life on Earth about 6,000 or so years ago, following a literal interpretation of the Biblical story of Genesis.

 

Is Creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?

 

It would be easy to anticipate that we could just dismiss him, but he's clearly an intelligent guy and has spent much time formulating his explanations to justify his belief system. And it might surprise you to learn that (in my opinion, at least) he made a number of extremely valid points. http://physics.about...ionist.htm?nl=1

 

So.... Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins In Today's Modern Scientific Era?

 

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

 

God's Thoughts, Your Thoughts

And How These Thoughts Relate To Your Hopes

 

He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them. 2 Samuel 2:8

 

All Respectful And Loving Truths, Speculations, Musings And Cogitations Are Welcome

As Long As They Are Respectful Of The LORD Jesus

And Of The Clear Words Of His Holy Bible

And Of The Trust Of The

Little Children

 

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

 

A Short Observation Of Mine

The Field Of Physics Has Been Known

To Occasionally Function As A Science Of Observations

As Well As A Hot Bed Of Seething Philosophical

And Metaphysical Expressions

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

And May You All Be Richly Blessed

By Your Time Spent

On Worthy

 

Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend. Proverbs 27:17

 

Love, Your Brother Joe



#2
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

From A Dear Non-Believer In The Creator Christ Of The Bible

Yet A Proud Believer In The Knowledge Of Dirt

Sans Any Personnel Knowledge

Of God

 

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6

 

This was not a debate over the existence of a creator deity in general, but of a specific, 6,000-year-old creation scenario. Ken Ham is a young Earth creationist, the president of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum. He believes that God directly created the universe, the Earth, humanity, and all other life on Earth about 6,000 or so years ago, following a literal interpretation of the Biblical story of Genesis.

 

Is Creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?

 

It would be easy to anticipate that we could just dismiss him, but he's clearly an intelligent guy and has spent much time formulating his explanations to justify his belief system. And it might surprise you to learn that (in my opinion, at least) he made a number of extremely valid points. http://physics.about...ionist.htm?nl=1

 

So.... Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins In Today's Modern Scientific Era?

 

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

 

God's Thoughts, Your Thoughts

And How These Thoughts Relate To Your Hopes

 

He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them. 2 Samuel 2:8

 

All Respectful And Loving Truths, Speculations, Musings And Cogitations Are Welcome

As Long As They Are Respectful Of The LORD Jesus

And Of The Clear Words Of His Holy Bible

And Of The Trust Of The

Little Children

 

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

 

A Short Observation Of Mine

The Field Of Physics Has Been Known

To Occasionally Function As A Science Of Observations

As Well As A Hot Bed Of Seething Philosophical

And Metaphysical Expressions

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

And May You All Be Richly Blessed

By Your Time Spent

On Worthy

 

Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend. Proverbs 27:17

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

 

Thanks for posting this Joe:  http://http://physic...ionist.htm?nl=1

 

I did a quick skim through (Busy the rest of today and tonight) but oh yea, lets systematically eval the merits of this piece.  I can't wait !!!! 

 

I have no life LOL

 

Thanks for the Mission!!!!  :thumbsup:



#3
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

From: http://physics.about...ionist.htm?nl=1

 

All "Quotes" from article above in Green.
 

"Mr. Ham's core tactics: distinguishing between observational/experimental science and origins/historical science. His argument in this regard is that in order to construct a theory of origins, scientists have to make assumptions, and that these assumptions must, by necessity, move beyond the observable evidence.

And, as formulated above, it's certainly a valid statement. The current age of the universe, of the Earth, and of the various animal species located on it is calculated as ancient using a variety of assumptions, and these assumptions can not (and should not) be beyond question."

 

 

:thumbsup:  Where have we heard this before?? :noidea:

 

 

"...just because we are confident that we see light moving at a constant speed in labs on Earth doesn't necessarily mean that this assumption should never be called into question, nor that we should be completely unskeptical about its validity throughout the universe at large."

 

Not throughout the Universe @ Large, just in the past...and Specifically on Day 4.

 

 

"We can very easily embrace a viewpoint that science is a completely objective discipline, insulated from human subjectivity."

 

Well that's how it should be, but....

 

‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.
Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14.

 

 

 

"All scientific investigations do require a set of assumptions, a worldview if you will, in order for them to be extended beyond the immediate observations into a viable scientific hypothesis, which is then tested against the evidence"

 

He's teetering on the Edge here.  But I like this..."a viable scientific hypothesis, which is then tested"  so, I give him a pass.

 

 

 

"The presence of this radiation in the universe was predicted by the Russian physicist George Gamow, based upon calculations of the expected energy left over from the big bang"

 

 

Gamow Predicted, eh? :huh:   Went from teetering on the edge to OFF the Reservation......WRONG!!

 

Source:  http://creation.com/...-big-bang-proof

 

'However, this nice story is undermined by the fact that later in the 1950s, Gamow and his students made a number of estimates of the background temperature ranging from 3 to 50 K.
More importantly, spectral analysis before Gamow had already found a 2.3 K background temperature. This means that it was known before the big bang, just as the expansion of the universe was, so they were not ‘predictions’ of the big bang at all!'

 

'Starting in 1937, Adams and Dunham had found some absorption lines, which were later identified with interstellar molecules CH, CH+ and CN.'
Dunham, T., Jr. and Adams, W.S., Publ. Am. Astron. Soc. 9:5, 1937

 

'So, in 1940/1, the Canadian astrophysicist and spectroscopist Andrew McKellar (1910–1960) could analyze the data. From the observed ratios of the populations of these energy states, he calculated that the CN molecules were in thermal equilibrium with a temperature of about 2.3 K.'
McKellar, A., Proc. Ast. Soc. Pac. 52:187, 1940; Publ. Dominion Astrophysical Observatory Victoria B.C. 7(15):251, 1941

 

-----------------

Moreover....

 

‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published .....New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). **Currently over 300 have signed up.**

Some Highlights.....

‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’

‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’

‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.'

‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’
aka......"Just So" Stories or "Recovery Hypothesis"

 
Big Bangs Afterglow fails Intergalactic Shadow Test.  Dr. Richard Lieu.... ‘Either it (the microwave background) isn’t coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or … there is something else going on.'

http://www.scienceda...60905104549.htm

 

‘But you don’t see this fluctuation’, said Lieu. ‘There appear to be no lensing effects whatsoever.
Lieu, R. and Mitaz, J.P.D., On the absence of gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background, Astrophysical Journal 628:583, 2005.

 

 

 

".. and is a good example of the scientific flaws that can be seen in Ken Ham's approach to science."

 

He then tries to tie the failure of the Steady State Model to Ken Ham's "Approach To Science"....right out of the BLUE!!  With a tie in to a Link from another article "Role of Consensus in Science" (I can't wait to review this!!!)  Ok, the Gloves are OFF!!

 

 

 

"one of the weakest points of Mr. Ham's overall argument, because naturalism in science is not a religion: it is a methodological requirement. When you are conducting science, you simply must assume naturalism."

 

But evolution, big bang et al ARE RELIGIONS!! ....

 

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000

 

Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity.
Michael Ruse: Science, March 7 2003 p. 1524

 

And Again......

 

Science = Knowledge..... to...... Science = Naturalistic Explanations of Knowledge only.

The Irony turns into a Full Blown Contradiction, How?  Well "Naturalistic" explanations are Material....and Knowledge is SUPERNATURAL.  You can't put Information >>>>> Knowledge >>>>>> or TRUTH in a Jar and Paint it RED. .......

It's tantamount to trying to discover what we breathe...... but, "a priori" excluding AIR from the choices....and breathing it, all while refusing to acknowledge its Existence!!!!!

 

 

"The religious, young-Earth creationist inventor of the MRI Machine could not have done it if he did not assume natural causes in constructing it."

 

What in The World??  I think I know what he was trying to portray here (Current "fixed" Laws of Nature) but...this was just too funny.

 

 

 

"So what Ken Ham is really suggesting above is that public school science textbooks should teach that sometimes science just doesn't work."

 

No....what he was trying to suggest was to keep the stories/myths/fables out of Public Science Textbooks.

 

 

 

"In fact, the very notion that these natural laws were eternal began as a philosophical and theological stance!"

 

Natural Laws were Eternal??  :huh:    He needs a Crash Course in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.....Quick!!

 

 

 

"Fundamentally, Ken Ham's argument is that science is wrong. And it's not just a little wrong. It's massively wrong."

 

Strawman.  Ken Ham thinks (and justly so) that the Historical Sciences (Cosmology, Paleontology, Archeology, evolution, et al) are chalk full of Unverifiable/Unfalsifiable conjured Fairytales.

 

 

"To recap:

   1.   Any investigation in science requires adopting a stance of naturalism: that is, assuming that natural phenomena are caused by natural causes.
   2.   In addition, science investigating the past (which Ham calls "historical science" or "origins science") does require additional
assumptions, because there are components of the investigation we cannot directly view.
   3. 
One core assumption is that the laws of the universe are "eternal," or at the very least that any time-dependent variability can be discerned from the present state of the universe by scientific inquiry.

 

So what does it take for Ken Ham's creation science to be true? First, it requires that all three of the above are flawed, at least when it comes to investigating origins."

 

 

:24: :24:   Each One has "ASSUMPTIONS" as a CORE TENET.  The COUP DE GRAS.....  :24: :24:

 

 

So Ya Think Ken has a CASE??  :thumbsup:

 

 

"If the Earth and the entire universe are only 6,000 years old, then independent assumptions from geology, astrophysics, cosmology, biology/zoology, atomic physics, and various other disciplines are wrong. It would seem like the whole enterprise of science is, in fact, fundamentally flawed!"

 

 

Now the Fallacy Parade:  Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Popularity, complete with some Elephant Hurling "cherry on top".  Funny, he never talks about anything specific?  :mgdetective:

 

 

"Because, you see, these assumptions were not the product of a collaboration. They are not the results of a handful of scientists getting together and contriving a way to reach the result they wanted, but rather the product of the scientific community at large"

 

Now the Justification LOL.  So because These "ASSUMPTIONS" are now a "Blind-folded" Collective, that denotes some Validity??

 

An equal statement would be......"Because, you see,  these LIES were not the product of a collaboration."  Are they still LIES?? :whistling:

 

 

 

"Where will you find scientists gathered together, creating elaborate arguments in an attempt to justify a pre-conceived conclusion?"

 

Ahhh yes,  an appeal to "Sane" people who do not entertain for a moment any impropriety or dare I say "Conspiracy Theories"..... 

 

You mean that 2 or more people can get together to accomplish some Agenda???  Who ever heard of such Preposterousness!!!!!!!

 

 

"the steady state model would work, but few people are supporting that these days, since there's no evidence. No, today you could go to creationist groups like Answers in Genesis."

 

So another "Right out of the Blue" Juxtaposition between the Steady State Model and Answers in Genesis??? No Agenda Here :happyhappy:

 

Lets Juxtaposition evolution with "Scientific Evidence" just for kicks, eh??  Lets try that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

"As Bill Nye said, science is both the body of facts about nature and the method of obtaining and interpreting those facts."

 

Let's put one of Nye's so called "FACTS" into the "Scientific Method" then :clap:

 

 

"It is on this last point that the real scientific fail comes in Creation Science."

 

He must have attended the same "No True Scotsman" Fallacy School as Bill Nye.

 

 

"Interpreting the evidence with a pre-ordained conclusion is not, in any sense of the word, good scientific method"

 

You mean like evolution and the big bang??  :clap:

 

 

 

 



#4
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

Addendum to above:

 

I missed this GEM....

 

"As Ken Ham has pointed out in the debate, these scientists can be perfectly valid at doing observational and experimental science, but I can think of no brilliant theoretical physicists who embraced this view."

 

 

Thats It!!   I knew there was something wrong...... how silly of me.

 

:bored-1:

 

 

Theoretical: http://www.merriam-w...ary/theoretical  

 

1 a :  relating to or having the character of theory :  abstract

   b :  confined to theory or speculation often in contrast to practical applications :  speculative


2    :  given to or skilled in theorizing

3    :  existing only in theory :  hypothetical

 



#5
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,271 posts

"And, as formulated above, it's certainly a valid statement. The current age of the universe, of the Earth, and of the various animal species located on it is calculated as ancient using a variety of assumptions, and these assumptions can not (and should not) be beyond question."

 

Sure. A number of assumptions are made including the uniformity of nature in space and time.

 

"For example, one of my major objections to a young-Earth creationism from a physics standpoint has to do with the speed of light. One of the key discoveries of the last century of physics is Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, which dictates that light photons always move at the same constant speed in a vacuum. We know this speed, and there are various astronomical methods (which are widely accepted based upon our understanding of physics) for calculating the distances to stars. Using this, we know that when we look at stars, then we are actually looking at that star as it looked in the past ... however many years ago the light left the star, which can be calculated using the distance and the speed of light. We know that there are many stars - including some visible to the naked eye - that are so far away the light we are seeing would seem to have left them much more than 6,000 years ago."

 

Yes...

 

"All of that having been said, however, just because we are confident that we see light moving at a constant speed in labs on Earth doesn't necessarily mean that this assumption should never be called into question, nor that we should be completely unskeptical about its validity throughout the universe at large."

 

Right, even though relativity has been thoroughly tested, people are still attempting to break it in a variety of ways. But does this really help the YE-creationist case?

 

"Completely independent from young-Earth creationism, there are cosmologists who are interested in and investigating the concept of variable speed of light (VSL) cosmology to answer completely unrelated open questions in cosmology. However, there is no real suggestion among scientists at large or those studying VSL that this variability would even conceivably be sufficient to justify a 6,000 year age to the universe, and it seems to not even be widely adopted within the creationist community."

 

This is a good example about why I think trying to attack this from a thoroughly scientific standpoint is not useful or helpful. While I do agree that God could make the universe to appear as old as He desired, for a variety of reasons, that would be a theological/biblical matter that is established. If God did that, we could not tell that is the case scientifically.

 

I do think that many go beyond the strictures of the scientific discipline in being overly confident about ultimate origins questions, about being unjustifiably dismissive of God as a potential explanation for things, and so on. Insofar as YEC make that case, or OEC, or whoever, I think that is appropriate. Cosmology, for instance, often blurs the distinctions between what is clearly scientific pursuit into the realms of extreme speculation on rather shaky empirical grounds and questionable philosophical presumptions.



#6
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

"And, as formulated above, it's certainly a valid statement. The current age of the universe, of the Earth, and of the various animal species located on it is calculated as ancient using a variety of assumptions, and these assumptions can not (and should not) be beyond question."

 

Sure. A number of assumptions are made including the uniformity of nature in space and time.

 

"For example, one of my major objections to a young-Earth creationism from a physics standpoint has to do with the speed of light. One of the key discoveries of the last century of physics is Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, which dictates that light photons always move at the same constant speed in a vacuum. We know this speed, and there are various astronomical methods (which are widely accepted based upon our understanding of physics) for calculating the distances to stars. Using this, we know that when we look at stars, then we are actually looking at that star as it looked in the past ... however many years ago the light left the star, which can be calculated using the distance and the speed of light. We know that there are many stars - including some visible to the naked eye - that are so far away the light we are seeing would seem to have left them much more than 6,000 years ago."

 

Yes...

 

"All of that having been said, however, just because we are confident that we see light moving at a constant speed in labs on Earth doesn't necessarily mean that this assumption should never be called into question, nor that we should be completely unskeptical about its validity throughout the universe at large."

 

Right, even though relativity has been thoroughly tested, people are still attempting to break it in a variety of ways. But does this really help the YE-creationist case?

 

"Completely independent from young-Earth creationism, there are cosmologists who are interested in and investigating the concept of variable speed of light (VSL) cosmology to answer completely unrelated open questions in cosmology. However, there is no real suggestion among scientists at large or those studying VSL that this variability would even conceivably be sufficient to justify a 6,000 year age to the universe, and it seems to not even be widely adopted within the creationist community."

 

This is a good example about why I think trying to attack this from a thoroughly scientific standpoint is not useful or helpful. While I do agree that God could make the universe to appear as old as He desired, for a variety of reasons, that would be a theological/biblical matter that is established. If God did that, we could not tell that is the case scientifically.

 

I do think that many go beyond the strictures of the scientific discipline in being overly confident about ultimate origins questions, about being unjustifiably dismissive of God as a potential explanation for things, and so on. Insofar as YEC make that case, or OEC, or whoever, I think that is appropriate. Cosmology, for instance, often blurs the distinctions between what is clearly scientific pursuit into the realms of extreme speculation on rather shaky empirical grounds and questionable philosophical presumptions.

 

Hey Alpha,

 

Can you do me a favor....next time can you Identify/delineate who's speaking (You/Article) and any other players.  Thanks
 

 

Sure. A number of assumptions are made including the uniformity of nature in space and time.

 

 

I have no problem with the CURRENT "uniformity of nature in space and time".  If that weren't the case....there would be no discoveries, it would be random chaos. My issue is with the "Number" of other assumptions.

 

Right, even though relativity has been thoroughly tested, people are still attempting to break it in a variety of ways. But does this really help the YE-creationist case?

 

 

This is a Strawman to the YEC case.  We are saying that the "Light" from those stars arrived Instantaneous on DAY 4:

 

(Genesis 1:14-19) "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:  {15} And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.  {16} And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.  {17} And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,  {18} And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.  {19} And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

 

"Give Light" .... "and it was so".  Why would GOD make those lights for signs and seasons, days, and years; if Adam and people following Adam COULDN'T SEE THEM??  It's absolute nonsense to conclude otherwise, IMHO.

 

Our position is that during Creation Week the LAWS of Physics/Chemistry/Biochemistry weren't fixed as we know them today.  How can we make such a statement?  Is there Precedence? 

 

The Whole First Chapter Of Genesis is the WITNESS!...one for Example (expanded on in Genesis 2:7....Forming Adam).  Forming Adam from the dust of the Ground VIOLATES all Current Known Laws of Physics/Chemistry/Biochemistry and Myriads of others.  Wouldn't you agree?

 

This is a good example about why I think trying to attack this from a thoroughly scientific standpoint is not useful or helpful. While I do agree that God could make the universe to appear as old as He desired, for a variety of reasons, that would be a theological/biblical matter that is established. If God did that, we could not tell that is the case scientifically.

 

 

The VSL is another Strawman; See our position above.  And this "Appearance of Age"....what would a "Young" Universe look like?  If you're predicating this "Appearance of Age" on the Current Speed of Light....it's MOOT (again see position above) and you're "Begging the Question" (Fallacy).  Also did Adam have the "Appearance" of Age?

 

Moreover, "If God did that, we could not tell that is the case scientifically."  ....Scientifically??  You can't tell anything "Scientifically" about the past because it's UNTESTABLE.  All you can do is make Inferences/Assumptions.

 

Cosmology, for instance, often blurs the distinctions between what is clearly scientific pursuit into the realms of extreme speculation on rather shaky empirical grounds and questionable philosophical presumptions.

 

 

I agree 100%



#7
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,271 posts

Yeah, Enoch, I was addressing the OP and the linked article.



#8
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

Yeah, Enoch, I was addressing the OP and the linked article.

 

Yes I know; however, it was difficult to distinguish your comments from the article's comments.



#9
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,271 posts

 

Yeah, Enoch, I was addressing the OP and the linked article.

 

Yes I know; however, it was difficult to distinguish your comments from the article's comments.

 

The quotes from the article I have enclosed in quotation marks.



#10
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

 

 

Yeah, Enoch, I was addressing the OP and the linked article.

 

Yes I know; however, it was difficult to distinguish your comments from the article's comments.

 

The quotes from the article I have enclosed in quotation marks.

 

 

Ahhh, I see.  My mistake/oversight



#11
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,271 posts

 

 

 

Yeah, Enoch, I was addressing the OP and the linked article.

 

Yes I know; however, it was difficult to distinguish your comments from the article's comments.

 

The quotes from the article I have enclosed in quotation marks.

 

 

Ahhh, I see.  My mistake/oversight

 

No worries. It's too bad all issues aren't so easy to clear up.






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