- New Earth/Old Earth

Andrea---

I enjoy talking about it also. Although it has no importance in regards to Salvation, etc., it's a fascinating subject to ponder. I'm glad you started another thread. I said I was going to keep my mouth shut, but I think I'll share a little bit more. I've read several books that say there is a parenthesis so to speak inbetween verse 1 and verse 2 in Genesis. It does seem a bit strange that it would say "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and then state "and the earth was without form and void". Despite what Arthur has stated several theologians have said that the Hebrew word seems to connotate "became without form and void". Remember, it never mentions the creation of Lucifer when referring to the creation of the heavens and the earth. It's all conjecture for sure, but several theologians have stated that God created the earth, but someone destroyed it, or laid waste to it. It could be associated with the fall of Lucifer. Remember, he was a cherubim, possibly assigned to the earth--but he sought to garner praise for himself--was this praise solely from angels? Or was it possibly from some other creation right here on earth? When he fell either he laid waste the earth or maybe God himself did in judgement. We know that Lucifer is called "The Lord of this world" and seems to have some right in regards to this world and it's inhabitants.In Jeremiah chapter 4:23 it says "I beheld the earth, and, lo. it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and the birds of the heaven were fled. I beheld, and , lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger." If this is referring to the earth when the Spirit of God again visited it and came upon the face of the waters(and I believe it is due to the way the Lord uses the same words "I looked upon the earth and behold it was without form and void and to the heavens, and there was no light")
then there must have been birds beforehand or they could not have "fled" as God states. In this scenario God was "re-visiting" an earth that had been laid waste, and creating again--but this time creating man. Lucifer already existed--
he was in the garden very quickly to tempt man and hold onto the earth that he felt was his to begin with. Remember when he tempted Jesus he said that he would give Jesus anything in the world he wanted--implying he held some right to it. As I mentioned in another post, read John Barnhouse's book "The Invisible War"---it is a very interesting book, but filled with far more than conjecture--there are many things in the book to help with your walk--in regards to warfare, etc. I believe this "gap" in time can explain much in regards to how old the earth really is. When we look at the stars WE KNOW that many of them are light-years and light years away. We are seeing light that may have left that star a million years ago. The Universe is very old, and we know that for a fact---if the Universe is very old, the earth itself may be just as old. Another good book that deals with this is "The Fingerprint of God" by Hugh Ross. I find the whole thing to be very interesting, and exciting in a way. there are many things the Bible doesn't tell us---but may give us a glimpse, a very small glimpse---enough to make you wonder. And there's nothing wrong with that or God wouldn't have given us imaginations.

Take care, Joe

: Joe Sperling March 07, 2003, 02:10:53 AM

It could be associated with the fall of Lucifer. Remember, he was a cherubim, possibly assigned to the earth--but he sought to garner praise for himself--was this praise solely from angels? Or was it possibly from some other creation right here on earth? When he fell either he laid waste the earth or maybe God himself did in judgement. We know that Lucifer is called "The Lord of this world" and seems to have some right in regards to this world and it's inhabitants.

No this is not true. Let's take a look at what the Bible says:

1. In Exodus 20:11, the Bible says, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is and rested on the seventh day: wherefore God blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
And in Exodus 31:17, the Bible says, "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested."

Notice the phrase, "and all that in them is" - this includes Lucifer (also known as Satan), the angels, space, rocks, trees, earth, plants, animals and man. There is no way to state this more clearly! Since everything was made in six days, then obviously Lucifer was also made during the those first six days.

2. As I already mentioned in a previous post, there was neither creation nor time before God spoke creation into being.
The Bible says, in Genesis 1:
"1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
It doesn't say, "a day" or "one day". No, the Bible says, "the first day". On the first day God created light. Obviously, there was no time--no billions of years each consisting of days--before the first day. Therefore Satan, the dinosaurs and everything else were created sometime on or after the first day.

3. The Bible makes no mention of the specific timing of God's creation of Lucifer or the angels in the Genesis account. However, the Bible contains references to Satan as one of the sons of God in the book of Job. And in Job 38:4-7 we read: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
The Bible says that the sons of God, which includes Satan, were present when God laid the foundations of the earth, and they shouted for joy. This clearly shows that Satan was created before God laid the foundations of the earth. The "foundations" probably refer to the "land" appearing in Gen 1:9, the account of the third day of creation, therefore Satan was created on or before the third day.

4. Eze. 28
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

The Bible says in Eze 28:13, and 15 that God created Satan. Satan is a created being. Since the Bible says that all of creation was created in six days (Exo20:11), and that Lucifer is a created being, therefore Lucifer must have been created during the six days and not billions of years earlier (which did not exist, as stated in point #2.
We also see that Satan was in the garden of Eden, in an unfallen state. This invalidates the claim that Satan fell during the fabricated billion years before Gen 1:2, since the Garden of Eden wasn't created until after Gen 1:2.


5. So when did Satan fall? We have already established that Satan was created either on the first, second or third day.
In Isa 14:13, we have the record of the words of Satan at the time of his fall. "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
And in Isa 14:14, he said "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." Since there were no clouds until the second day, Satan could not have fallen before this time. Since there were no stars until the fourth day, he could not have fallen before day four.
Also, the Bible says in Gen 1:31 that God "saw every thing that he made, and behold, it was very good." If Satan fell before this time, God could not have said that. So Satan fell sometime after the sixth day.

In Gen 5:3, we read "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:"
From this statement we can deduce the following:
from the time of the sixth day until the 130 years later, when Seth was born, we know the following occurred:
-Satan fell
-Adam and Eve fell as a result of Satan's temptation, and were expelled from the Garden of Eden.
-Cain and Abel were born
-Cain killed Abel

Therefore Satan fell sometime between the sixth day and 130 years later.

We can limit that time down even further (by probably 20 - 50 years) by considering that facts that:
-Cain and Abel were adults at the time that Able was murdered by Cain
-Cain murdered Abel before Seth was born (since Eve said that Seth was a "replacement" for Abel)
-Cain complained to God about his punishment, saying "every one that findeth me shall slay me." And then we read that he settled in the land of Nod and there his wife gave birth to his son Enoch. So there must have been other brothers and sisters of Cain and Abel around at this time.

6. There was no sin or death in the world until Adam was created.
The Bible says in Romans 5:
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

So you see, there is no need to speculate about Lucifer's origins, or a pre-Adamite judgement of a world that was never created. Lucifer was created during the six days and fell some time after that.

<more to follow...>

<continued...part II>

In Jeremiah chapter 4:23 it says "I beheld the earth, and, lo. it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and the birds of the heaven were fled. I beheld, and , lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger." If this is referring to the earth when the Spirit of God again visited it and came upon the face of the waters(and I believe it is due to the way the Lord uses the same words "I looked upon the earth and behold it was without form and void and to the heavens, and there was no light")
then there must have been birds beforehand or they could not have "fled" as God states. In this scenario God was "re-visiting" an earth that had been laid waste, and creating again--but this time creating man.

The phrase "without form, and void" in Jer 4:23-24 is not a reference back to Gen 1:2. In this passage the word "earth" is not a reference to the planet earth. "Earth" in this verse refers to the land of Judah, as discussed in Jeremiah 4:7, 20 & 27, and not to the past at all. These two verses, when read in the context of the whole chapter, reveal the prophet Jeremiah's insight into the coming destruction of Judah by the Babylonian armies.

Lucifer already existed--
he was in the garden very quickly to tempt man and hold onto the earth that he felt was his to begin with. Remember when he tempted Jesus he said that he would give Jesus anything in the world he wanted--implying he held some right to it. As I mentioned in another post, read John Barnhouse's book "The Invisible War"---it is a very interesting book, but filled with far more than conjecture--there are many things in the book to help with your walk--in regards to warfare, etc.

"Lucifer already existed" - see the immediately preceding post, as I already covered that the Lucifer could not have existed before the creation of the world.

I believe this "gap" in time can explain much in regards to how old the earth really is. When we look at the stars WE KNOW that many of them are light-years and light years away. We are seeing light that may have left that star a million years ago.

Recent experiments have shown that the speed of light is not constant. In fact in one laboratory experiment, they slowed light down to a halt and then released it. Scientific evidence shows that the speed of light was much faster in the past than it is now.
Also, we have no accurate way to measure any distance beyond one hundred light years. I can go more into detail about why that is or you can check it out here: http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=8 (http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=8)

The Universe is very old, and we know that for a fact---if the Universe is very old, the earth itself may be just as old.

Not true. Show me one piece of evidence that shows that the universe is billions of years old.

Another good book that deals with this is "The Fingerprint of God" by Hugh Ross. I find the whole thing to be very interesting, and exciting in a way. there are many things the Bible doesn't tell us---but may give us a glimpse, a very small glimpse---enough to make you wonder. And there's nothing wrong with that or God wouldn't have given us imaginations.

Take care, Joe

"there are many things the Bible doesn't tell us."
Yes, that is true. However, that does mean that it is open for us to conjure up and teach that which the Bible clearly says is not true.
After reading the Bible passages that I quoted in the immediately preceeding post, tell me if the gap theory holds any water, or that it is indeed full of holes.
I do agree with you that God's creation is wonderful and awe-inspiring. I'm glad we agree on that. I merely want to point out that God made it in exactly the way that he said he made it, and that the Bible can be trusted. Believing the Word of God for what it says is not contrary to thinking or conducting scientific investigations whatsoever.

Before I continue, I'd like to make a clarification. There are valid experiements and valid discoveries being made today. I AM NOT OPPOSED TO SCIENCE. I am opposed to the religious belief that many scientists hold, which is the belief in evolution (not micro-evolution, but macro, chemical, cosmic, etc.) that they have not proven even once but believe in it, despite the emperical evidence, because they DO NOT want to believe in God.
Now, having said that, I'll continue.

You know, there is a reason why you and others have said that we should use our God-given brains and agree with "science" instead of just going by what the Bible says. In this, you are implying that I, or anyone else who believes the Bible for what it says, are not using our brains.
The reason why you say this is because that's what people have told you. I'm sorry that this has happened to you. I'm trying to help you and others recover from this.

Those who have already succumbed to the religion of evolution prey upon and pressure others to also believe the lie. It is exactly the same kind of thinking that the pharisees had as evidenced in John 7,
"Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? 48 Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? 49 But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed."

You see, the Pharisees didn't want to believe the truth, and they also wanted to prevent everyone else from coming to the truth. So they tried to belittle others by saying, in effect, that they are stupid and don't know anything, whereas they, the Pharisees, were in the know.
That is what evolutionists do. They try to make everyone feel stupid, as if they know and the common people do not. But I say to each one of you. You all can know the truth and be assured of it. God did not make it so complicated that you have to be a guru, a shaman, a priest of what is falsly called science to understand the simple truths of God's creation (I'm not saying that every scientist is one, only those to whom it applies).

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."

"The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory."

Take a look at Romans 1:

"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 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: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

No doubt about it, this is what has happened and is happening today because mankind has bought the lie of the religion of evolution and denied the living God.

Arthur

Arthur---

I don't really want to get into a long convoluted argument about this. The wording in Jeremiah distinctly is referring to something---it is using the same wording as the 2nd verse in the Bible. "I looked upon the earth and it was without form and void, and to the heavens and there was no light"--he is using these exact words for a purpose. Often God does this. When he addresses the King of Tyre(I believe it is in Isaiah) he is really addressing Lucifer--he is addressing an ancient person who once "walked upon the flaming stones in the Heavenly Eden". Yes--the Lord may be addressing the land of Judah, but he is doing it by also addressing something that happened far in the past also. If you read the Genesis account the Lord creates day and night on the first day---he doesn't create heaven(the firmament) until the second day. How can there be day and night, and dividing light from darkness without a heavens, stars, etc.? I believe that is because their was a spiritual creation first--and the light and the darkness were separated. It also states that the Spirit of the Lord came upon the face of the waters---and that God separated the waters from the waters and called it heaven---but wait a minute--the "heavens" are where the earth is located too--
we know that now due to science---we are a planet floating in the heavens of space. So was there an earth before God created heaven? It seems to state the same--God comes upon a planet "without form and void" and then afterwards
separates the waters and calls the firmament "heaven". How is this possible? I believe it is because verse 1 is referring to the creation of the Universe--whereas the separating of the waters from the waters--the firmament--
is our atmosphere. The seven days happen after God's Spirit comes upon the face of the waters of a planet "without form and void". Everything that exists in our earthly heaven and on our planet from that time forward were made within those seven days. But it still seems to infer that that planet was there BEFORE God created the heaven and the earth. Think of an artist painting a picture and saying "Look at my creation"---then painting over it and saying "Look at what I have created".
The earth could be the same thing--God could have created something upon the earth with no atmosphere as we know it(the firmament)--then created it all over again with what we know at the present time. Remember what God calls that day in the future--"A new heavens and a new earth"--
a "New Creation"---but wait--it will still be the same earth--David will reign forever with Israel according to the Bible--but God still calls it a "New" Creation. God will create something new but using the same material all over again. I think it boils down to the word "Create". When it says In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth it may be referring to a time long before the "creation" of the heaven and earth we know of. He created a Garden of Eden on this earth once, and he will "create" a new earth
out of this one some day also. The dinosaurs could possibly be part of another "creation" long before our present earth.
But as always it's only conjecture, a lot like philosophy where you do a lot of talking but go in circles and conclude nothing. But it's fun to discuss it.

--Joe

: al Hartman March 08, 2003, 12:31:23 PM

Just two things:

(1.) If we can believe his word that God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, why do so many of us have such difficulty visualizing a divine workshop in which God produces "antiques," i.e. fossils, geological "evidence," objects that "predate" the traditional creation?
As kids, many of us enjoyed seeing Superman squeeze a piece of coal into a diamond (faceted, yet!)-- why can't we see the Almighty creating things that defy our concepts of time?

(2.) Arthur and Joe: Lay off the coffee! And no more sugar! Are you guys running a First-One-To-Fill-a-Page contest, or what?
Joe, take a lesson from Arthur: PARAGRAPHS! They make the text SO much more readable!

Your lovin' brother,
al

Al,

The reason why I have such a hard time visualizing a workshop where God produces "antiques" is twofold:

1. I see no evidence in scripture to indicate that God has fooled us into thinking the universe is old when it isn't. He is the God who cannot lie, and this line of thinking leads to the conclusion that He has carefully crafted the entire universe down to the very photons that transmit radiomagnetic radiation, including light, in such a way as to fool everyone into thinking the creation is old.

Could God have done that? Perhaps. But I see nothing in scripture to indicate that He did. I know that Adam was created as an adult, and that Jesus turned the water into wine which the folks thought was good wine. But there is nothing in these narratives which tell us or even imply to us that He did this with the universe.

2. On the other hand, I accept the traditional Christian viewpoint that the Universe is real, ie not an illusion, and that our senses give us true information about what has actual existence.

The lake varves I described are really there. Oil geologists have found them all over the world. They have drilled down into the earth and have brought up cores that can be examined in laboratories, and therefore are emperical evidence. The pollen fossils show that each successive varve was laid down in an annual cycle as streams flowed into the lake every spring/summer.

If the "illusion of age" theory is true, it means that God has gone to a whole lot of trouble to fool us. Why would He do that?

Beats me.

Thomas Maddux

i'm sorry. i just have a really hard time believing that we have to understand every iota of God's motives. i realize i'm being lured toward debating these matters, and i really don't want to do that.
It honestly doesn't matter to me how old the universe is, or whether God recently made something that seems to someone to be older than it is. i don't see anything in the bible that indicates the need for me to care about such things. That was the point of my previous post, but once again i was only making myself clear to myself.
Let me try again in simpler terms: i don't think our individual relationships with the Lord depend in any way upon what we believe about such things as the age of the universe. BUT, if in someone's case such a matter is hindering someone's faith, looking to Jesus Christ, not to "science," is the path to take.
There is only ONE matter on which every aspect of our salvation depends, and that is the place that we give Christ in our hearts.
If your idea of a good time is researching the empirical evidence to back theories in the realms of time and space,
i wish you well. Enjoy! But, as i told Tom in a recent email, every scientific discipline has its "experts" on both sides of any question. The realm of science is ruled by minds devoted to the pursuit of prestige, fame, and power, as well as truth. And the very basis of research in any given field of science is subject to change with every new discovery.
Science may be a fun hobby, a terrific career choice, a boon to humanity, or just a great way to show off how smart you are. But it's a poor place to verify your faith.
So when i said:

"If we can believe his word that God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, why do so many of us have such difficulty visualizing a divine workshop in which God produces "antiques," i.e. fossils, geological "evidence," objects that "predate" the traditional creation?
"As kids, many of us enjoyed seeing Superman squeeze a piece of coal into a diamond (faceted, yet!)-- why can't we see the Almighty creating things that defy our concepts of time?" i was not suggesting that we should believe those things...

...what i was trying to get across was, if we believe that God has the power and the right to do whatever he pleases, why can't we just LET him do what he pleases without requiring that it all make sense to us?
Our thoughts on the fossil record, carbon dating, physical evidence of the Flood are not and must never be germane to our daily life in Christ.
Once again, i am not criticizing nor making light of anyone's personal interests. i only ask what the value is of discussing them at length on a site which purports to exist to help Christians in need of spiritual direction?
Beats me.

al Hartman

: Tom Maddux March 08, 2003, 10:46:36 AM

Here is a question for Arthur.

Evidence of an old earth from Varves.

1. Varves are thin layers of sediment that form at the bottom of shallow lakes.

2. Lake varves often show a pattern of one color for summer layers, and another color for winter layers. Each pair of layers form a varve.

3. Summer layers in varves contain fossilized pollen, demonstrating that these are annual variations.

4. Counting the varves indicates the minimum age of the formation.

5. The Green River Shale deposits of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado show several million successive varves.

6. The thickness of the varves shows the effect on rainfall of the 11 1/2 year sunspot cycles and the 12,000 year precession of the equinoxes.

Here is the question. How do you account for these observed layerings, (by core drillings), from a 6000 year old earth perspective?

Thomas Maddux

Good question. The main issue lies in whether or not the layers are indeed annual.

First of all, when you take some dirt and put it into a glass of water, shake it up and let it settle, what do you find? Layers. How long does it take for multiple layers to form in that glass of water? A few minutes.

I believe that the layers that are found in the Green River of Wyoming, Utah were formed after the flood destroyed the world with water and then the dirt settled.

An article at the following address that explains more on this may be found at http://www.icr.org/newsletters/drjohn/drjohnjan03.html (http://www.icr.org/newsletters/drjohn/drjohnjan03.html)

Here are some highlights from that article and responses to your points:

1. In no location do all the varves exist (i.e. there is not on piece of shale that has 6,000,000 layers). The total is derived from combining different areas together.

2. Does each varve equal one year? No.
From the website: "Studies have shown that varve counts vary between individual locations in modern glacial lakes. Sometimes, the number of laminae covering a historically dated level was more than the elapsed years. One study in a modern lake documented that 300-360 laminae had formed in 160 years. In the Green River Shale a 35% variance in number occurred between two "instantaneous" volcanic ash falls. "All" researchers now recognize that sometimes more than one varve can form in a single year. "

3. Is there evidence that shows that the layers formed rapidly? Yes.
Fossilized catfish are found, transversing many layers. These catfish look very much like live catfish--except they're dead :) Obviously, a dead, in-tact, catfish could not lie on the bottom of a lake without being scavenged or rotting for all those years while it waits to be fossilized in layers of dirt.
Even more surprising than these catfish, bird fossils are also found in the same manner. If a bird is even found in a lake at all, they usually float to the top when they are dead because of their low density, not lie dead at the bottom of a lake. Yet there are a large number of birds fossilized through many layers at the bottom of this lake.
The evidence points to a catastrophic flood that buried these birds and fish in a whole lot of dirt in a short amount of time.

4. How is it possible that this lake remained calm enough for millions of years to be able to form the type of layers that it has? No storms? No local floods? Just a calm lake for six million years?

5. Actual catastrophic events (hurricane debris,90 mph mud-flow from Mt. Saint Helens) as well as laboratory experiments have documented rapid formation of varves.

There are other, similar such misunderstandings of natural formations. For example, some evolutionists will say that the Grand Canyon was formed by a river over "millions of years". However the river that enters the canyon is on the same level as the water in the canyon. Water can not flow uphill, so how did the river jump up to cut out the top of the plateau on down to the level where it is today? Rather than a little bit of dirt being cut away each year, a whole lot of dirt was washed out in probably 15 mintues by the flood. That's how the Grand Canyon was formed.

When Mt. Saint Helens blew its top, a mudslide washed out a large section of land in a few minutes, and afterwards, a river was left flowing in at the bottom of the ravine that was created. No doubt 100 years from now evolutionists would come by that area and say, "No you see kids, it took millions of years for this whole ravine to form by that river that you see there." Um..no.

A question I have for you: How is it that there were closed, petrified clams (they had to be buried alive to be petrified in the closed position) found at the top of Mount Everest?

Arthur

Ok Arthur,

Here are a couple of answers.

1. Regarding layers. You are correct in saying that dirt in a glass, (we always use jars at school) will form layers.
The problem is that the heavier stuff precipitates out faster than the lighter stuff. So you don't get layers that look like varves, you get graduated layers. Varves have alternating layers, not graduated layers.

In other words, in our fruitjar experiments we always got rocks, gravel, sand, and a few layers of different kinds of dirt, with the smaller particles on top, in that order.

2. The "One Big Flood" model has a problem in that it can't explain the pollen, twigs, bugs, and plant matter that is found in the varves. Remember some of the layers are only millimeters thick. So you would have the OBF laying down very fine layers of mud, sprinkling them with fresh pollen, (which comes from plants that can't grow in the water), then covering them up with another layer and repeating the process several million times. Where is there an example of a flood doing this?

3. Another problem for the OBF model is that when layers of sedimentary rock are split, land dwelling fossils or their tracks, along with raindrop depressions, are found under hundreds or even thousands of feet of sedimentary rock.
This means that this had to be mud flats, ie on the surface, and then get covered up again. There are lots of these layers, so you need to account for how a single flood could do this.

4. I noticed that the ICR article that you quote states that in one case, 360 layers formed in 160 years. This is a problem? Unusual rainfall patterns can do this, so I don't doubt that it is true. But even you have 500,000 layers, and then claim that they were ALL deposited at a rate of four a year, you still have a formation that took 125,000 years to build up. Doesn't provide much help in establishing a 6000 year old earth.

5. Regarding the Grand Canyon, (how did the river jump up on top of the plateau to dig the canyon), and the clams on Mount Everest. These arguments assume a young earth and then use it to "prove" that this could not happen gradually. However, this commits the fallacy of Begging the Question.

Continental drift accounts for rise and fall of land masses. The Himalyas have been observed to be growing at a rate of about 12" per year, so the land atop Everest could have been at the bottom of a sea only 40,000 years ago or so.
(I'm working from memory, but I'm pretty sure that's what the rate is.)

Here is a question for you. Bible says that after the flood the water was blown away by the wind. Where is the pile of water that contains enough to cover Mt. Everest, which is almost 30,000 feet above sea level?

In reality, all the water in all the seas, oceans, lakes, rivers, underground aquifers, and polar ice caps comes to about 1/6 enough to cover the entire earth to a depth of 30,000 feet.

God bless,
Tom Maddux

: Arthur March 12, 2003, 12:54:36 AM

Ok, I'll get to your other questions in a bit, but before we continue, it seems that you are saying that you do not believe that there was a world-wide flood that destroyed the world. Is that true?

I find that a bit confusing because it seems from your other posts that you believe in the Bible. The Bible clearly states that there was a flood that destroyed the world. Do you or do you not believe what the Bible says?

Arthur,

I am an innerantist. I believe in the plenary, verbal inspiration of the original writings. I also believe that we have highly accurate copies of them.

But the case for a world wide flood is not as open and shut as some folks think it is.

For example read Genesis 7 and it sure seems that that is what it says. But then you read Genesis 8 and the plot thickens somewhat.

What I mean is this:
In 8:1- The wind blows and the water subsides. So, where did it go?
In 8:2-The aquifers stop flowing and the rain stops.
In 8:3-the water continues to recede.
In 8:4-the ark hits ground.
In 8:5- the hilltops appear. Land is visible.
Noah apparently doesn't see this, because then he sends out birds to take a look. The raven doesn't come back.

(by the way, there exists an ancient Sumerian record that mariners used ravens/crows to fly up so they could see over the horizon to find the direction of land. The sailors would head in the direction the bird flew. Sumeria dates to about 3500BC)

Then Noah sends out a dove, the dove just flies around for a while and, as verse 9 says:
"but the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, so she returned to him into the ark; FOR THE WATER WAS ON THE SURFACE OF ALL THE EARTH."

Now the text says that the hilltops have already appeared, then it says that water covered all the surface of the earth. So, what do we do? Throw out the Bible because it contradicts itself?

I don't. It seems pretty clear to me that the question is one of perspective. From the dove's altitude, nothing but water could be seen. But we know that the hilltops were already showing, so that gives us some insight into the meaning of the phrase, "...for the water was on the surface of all the earth...."

Now look what Noah does. He sends the dove out again! He waits seven days and sends it out. It comes back with an olive leaf, so Noah "knew that the water was abated from the earth".

If after seven days "the water was abated from the earth" means ALL the earth, why didn't Noah just look out the window? ???

No, he had to send a dove out BECAUSE HE STILL COULDN'T SEE ANY DRY LAND. The water was abated from the earth somewhere over Noah's horizon, otherwise, what need for the dove?

One other thing. Do olive trees spring from seeds and grow leaves in seven days. The dove plucked a leaf from a live tree. The water had been there for many months, so all trees immersed in the water were dead. This one was already sprouting leaves somewhere within a dove's range before Noah could see any dry land.

So yes Arthur, I do believe the Bible. I just don't think it means what some folks say it does.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Tom, read it again.

And read II Pet 3:3-7

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

II Pet 2:4-5
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly

Heb 11:7
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Job 22:15-16
Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden?
Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood

Isa 54:9
For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

Tom, you have a picture of a scholar there for your avatar, and in your posts you try to teach from the Bible, yet you fail to grasp one of the basic truths of the Bible.
When Jesus healed a man born blind from birth by making him to be able to see, the Pharisees were not able to grasp it. Why? Because they weren't smart enough, or didn't study enough? No, rather because they refused to believe what was against their way of thinking. They'd rather hold to their narrow little understanding that excluded God than accept the beauty of what God was doing in their very midst. Jesus said they were blind guides.
I'm not saying you are a Pharisee or like a Pharisee, but I think it's remarkable that you do not understand what any child could tell you by reading the Bible. I think perhaps you are blinded by the evolutionist myth (that which is falsely called "science") or something else, I don't know what.

God destroyed the world once by a flood of water, through which only Noah and seven others were saved. God will destroy the world again by fire.

You believe that Jesus is coming again and that there will be a final judgement, right?

"The B-I-B-L-E, yes that's the book for me. I stand alone on the Word of God, the B-I-B-L-E."

Now, you asked some good questions about where the water came from and how could Mt. Everest be covered. I'll get to those in my next post.

Points to Ponder about the Flood:
-from the www.drdino.com website

2 Pet. 3:3-8 tells us that people who scoff at the Bible are "willingly ignorant" of the Creation and the Flood. In order to understand science and the Bible, we must not be ignorant of those two great events in Earth's history.

1. Over 250 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have similarities to the Genesis account.

2. Noah's ark was built only to float, not to sail anywhere (where would he go? :) Many ark scholars believe that the ark was a "barge" shape, not a pointed "boat" shape. This would greatly increase the cargo capacity. Scoffers have pointed out that the largest sailing ships were less than 300 feet because of the problem of twisting and flexing the boat. These ships had giant masts on them and sails to catch the wind. Noah's ark need neither of those and therefore had far less torsional stress.

3. Even using the small 18-inch cubit (my height is 6-ft. 1-in. and I have a 21-in. cubit) the ark was large enough to hold all the required animals, people, and food with room to spare.

4. The length-to-width ratio of 6 to 1 is what shipbuilders today often use. This is the best ratio for stability in stormy weather. (God thinks of everything!)

5. The ark may have had a "moon-pool" in the center. The larger ships would have a hole in the center of the bottom of the boat with walls extending up into the ship. There are several reasons for this feature:
It allowed water to go up into the hole as the ship crested waves. This would be needed to relieve strain on longer ships.
The rising and lowering water acted as a piston to pump fresh air in and out of the ship. This would prevent the buildup of dangerous gasses from all the animals on board.
The hole was a great place to dump garbage into the ocean without going outside.

6. The ark may have had large drogue (anchor) stones suspended over the sides to keep it more stable in rough weather. Many of these stones have been found in the region where the ark landed.

7. Noah lived 950 years! Many Bible scholars believe the pre-Flood people were much larger than modern man. Skeletons over 11 feet tall have been found! If Noah were taller, his cubit (elbow to fingertip) would have been much larger also. This would make the ark larger by the same ratio.

8. God told Noah to bring two of each kind (seven of some), not of each species or variety. Noah had only two of the dog kind which would include the wolves, coyotes, foxes, mutts, etc. The "kind" grouping is probably closer to our modern family division in taxonomy, and would greatly reduce the number of animals on the ark. Animals have diversified into many varieties in the last 4400 years since the Flood. This diversification is not anything similar to great claims that the evolutionists teach. (They teach that "rocks can turn into people," given enough time!)

9. Noah did not have to get the animals. God brought them to him (Gen. 6:20, "shall come to thee").

10. Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals had to be included on the ark (Gen. 7:15, "in which is the breath of life," 7:22). Noah did not need to bring all the thousands of insects varieties.

11. Many animals sleep, hibernate, or become very inactive during bad weather.

12. All animals (and people) were vegetarians before and during the Flood according to Gen. 1:20-30 with Gen. 9:3.

13. The pre-Flood people were probably much smarter and more advanced than people today. The longer lifespans, Adam's direct contact with God, and the fact that they could glean the wisdom of many generations that were still alive would greatly expand their knowledge base.

14. The Bible says that the highest mountains were covered by 15 cubits of water. This is half the height of the ark. The ark was safe from scraping bottom at all times.

15. The large mountains, as we have them today, did not exist until after the Flood when "the mountains arose and the valleys sank down" (Ps. 104:5-9, Gen. 8:3-8).

16. There is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the earth 8,000 feet deep if the surface of the earth were smooth.

17. Many claim to have seen the ark in recent times in the area in which the Bible says it landed. There are two primary schools of thought about the actual site of the ark. Much energy and time has been expended to prove both views. Some believe the ark is on Mt. Ararat, covered by snow (CBS showed a one-hour special in 1993 about this site). The other group believes the ark is seventeen miles south of Mt. Ararat in a valley called "the valley of eight" (8 souls on the ark). The Bible says the ark landed in the "mountains" of Ararat, not necessarily on the mountain itself.

18. The continents were not separated until 100-300 years after the Flood (Gen. 10:25). The people and animals had time to migrate anywhere on earth by then.

19. The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling beasts.

20. Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.

21. Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.

22. Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.

23. People choose to not believe in the Flood because it speaks of the judgment of God on sin (2 Pet. 3:3-8).

: Karen Sanford March 13, 2003, 08:58:35 PM

This is a great topic, one of my most and least favorite to discuss. I am one of those naughty worldly Christians ;) who believes that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that evolution probably occurred in some form or another. I also believe in what the Bible says, though, to paraphrase Tom, I don't think it necessarily says what some think it does.

One question I have for you. You say that:
1. you believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that evolution probably occurred in some form or another.
2. you believe what the Bible says.

The Bible says in Rom 5:12-14
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

My question for you is:

If there was no death in the world until Adam sinned, how is it that the evolutionary process could have taken place, since that process requires death and mutation?

Some more questions:
Do you believe that mankind is decendant from apes?
If so, does that mean that your grandmother is a little more apelike than you? And your child is a little more evolved than you? What's the next step? homo luminous? homo superior? Oh please!

Also, where did the apes come from? And where did the ancestors of the apes' ancestors come from?

Do you believe that if we go back far enough, mankind orginially came from some protoplasm in a so-called "primordial soup"?

Where did that first single-celled organism come from?

Did life just spontaneously appear from....rocks?

Where did the rocks come from?

Where did the molecules from which rocks are composed come from?

Where did the stars come from?

Sooo...there was this mass of dirt that swirled real fast and then got squished and then exploded and now a few billions years later here we are? OMG! LOL! ROTFL! ;D ;D ;D

Oh wait, but you change that a little bit, since you believe in the Bible, right. And you exchange dirt for God to start it all, but then the rest is the same as what the evolutionists say? Don't you see a problem with that?

They believe "In the beginning dirt..."
I believe, "In the beginning God..."

And Creationists are the silly billies? I don't think so.

You see how silly the religion of evolution is. I have stated, and I'll state again:
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION.
And, for clarification, when I say "evolution" I mean:
cosmic evolution (origin of the universe),
chemical evolution (origin of complex molecules),
macroevolution (origin of species),
and any other meaning you want to attribute to that word "evolution" other than microevolution,
because microevolution (variation within kinds) is directly observable.

My bottom line view is this: God gave us two powerful tools to reveal Himself to us: The Bible and the beautiful, magnificent Earth.

I agree with you there.

If we think the two are contradictory, maybe we need to look again at how it's possible that they do agree, after all.

Nope, not contradictory at all. The evidence supports what God has said all along. They fit like hand in glove. It's just some people concocted this fantasy of evolution about 200 years ago and, for some odd reason, people have been trying to hang on to it for dear life rather than believe what God says and what the scientific evidence so clearly points out.

Arthur

Arthur,

First of all let me say that your concern for my "heretical" opionions is largely unfounded. I believe that God judged the entire human race by a great flood, and that only eight souls escaped, in an ark.

My one difference with SOME of my bretheren is that I believe that the flood was local in extent, covering the area of Mesopotamia where the human race lived before the dispersion of Genesis 11.

I also do not believe in the origin of life by natural processes, descent with modification, Darwinian gradualism, or Theistic (or guided) evolution.

Arthur, I will give you a bit of unsolicited advice about Young Earth Creationists...they are not all of the same caliber.
I noticed that you had quoted from "Dr. Dino's website.

This is "Doctor" Kent Hovind. His "Doctorate" is in education, and comes from a diploma mill called Patriot University, currently housed in a split level house in Aurora, Colorado, (not sure about the state, but if you are interested you can find pictures on the web).

I have a videotape where he tried to debate Dr. Hugh Ross, (who has a real Phd. in Astrophysics), on the John Ankerberg show. The poor man revealed his ignorance if science in several ways.

The one that really surprised me was when Dr. Ross mentioned that Neanderthal men had huge nasal cavaties. Hovind asked, "Do you mean they had big noses"?

Another one was when he said, "I think the Big Bang theory is the most ridiculous thing I have ever hear. I mean after all, what exploded?"
This reveals that he doesn't have a clue what the Big Bang theory is. It is definitely not about something exploding.

Another Young Earth Creationist champion is Dr. Dr. Dr. Carl Baugh, who maintains the museum in Texas where the supposed dinosaur and human footprints are found together.

The reason I said Dr. Dr. Dr. is because he claims to have earned Phd's in Archeology, Physics, Anthropology and some others. They were granted to him by a University which seems to be a desk at a Baptist church in Australia. I recently heard him claim the earth was created out of water, and then later God put a sort of rock "shell" over the water.

Incidentally, the best of the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) organizations, the Institute for Creation Research under the Morrises, no longer claims that the footprints are really human.

My personal opinion is that these men are frauds that make money by telling some Christians what they want to hear.

Answers In Genesis is a step up from these guys, and has some real scientists on board. Unorthodox ones, true, but at least they have real degrees.

The best of them is ICR, that has a team of real scientists on its staff, and will occassionally admit they were wrong about some of their claims. This is something that they have had many opportunities to do, what with the moon dust etc..

So, be careful what you quote, you might just be quoting some "fact" that was made up last week.

My dinner is getting cold, more later.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Arthur,

I've been looking at the list you took off of Hovind's website.

It contains some really "interesting" claims.

One real puzzler was number 5. The ark had a hole in the bottom to stabilize it. I wonder how all the naval architects in history missed this one? Imagine if the prow of a ship crests a big wave and the nose begins to dive down the back of the wave, while amidships the water level is higher than the prow, where all the water in that opening would go. My guess is right out the top and all through the ship.

But he also points out a real benefit...it would pump out all the dangerous gasses from the animals. By this I assume that he means methane from animal flatulance. Well, I guess you really wouldn't want to be around very close when an apatasaurus, (they used to call them brontosaurus), had to relieve a little digestive gas.

You also wouldn't want to be around if one of Noah's sons decided to light up a cigarrette soon after the apatasaurus felt better.

You take this guy seriously?

Number 7 says that skeletons 11 feet tall have been found.
Pray tell, which university or museum has these on display?
Notice how he blithely assumes that the Bible's authors measured Noah to establish the length of a cubit. I guess everyone had their personal cubit? But if an 11 footer showed up one day they would measure him and then set the standard on him.

Number 16 says that if the earth were smooth, there is enough water to cover the entire earth with 8000 feet of water. That could be true, (I have never seen any calculations), but so what? A bull frog wouldn't bump his rear end when he jumped if he had wings. The trouble is that frogs don't have wings and the earth isn't smooth.

Hovind tries to use Psalm 104 to support the idea that God essentially re-created the earth after the flood. The problem is that Psalm 104: 1-9 is referring to the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the creation of land on an earth originally covered with water, (Genesis 1:1-10), it is a poetic restatement of the creation story. Genesis 8 just says the waters subsided.

In fact, what the Bible actually says when you compare Genesis 1:9-10 with Psalm 104:6-9 is that when God created the sea he said that the waters "...may not return to cover the earth."

In number 18 he claims that Genesis 10:25 proves that the continents were separated 100-300 years after the flood.
Genesis 10:25 says, "And two sons were born to Eber; the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided...". This, according to Hovind, refers to high speed continental drift. Interesting exegesis.

In number 20 he points out that sedimentary rock is found all over the world, and that this type of rock is formed in water. No news there.

But what he does not seem to know is that when the earth's total sedimentary rock, stated in cubic kilometers, is compared to the total amount of water in cubic K's, the ratio is 2 to 1. If you mix 1 part dirt with 2 parts water, you get a thick creamy mud, not water. This would have killed all aquatic life on earth. No, all the sedimentary rock was not layed down in one flood.

And so on and on, and I have not even addressed the Achillies Heel of YEC thinking.

Arthur this is an example of why I gave up MY belief in a 6000-1000 year old earth back in the 1970's.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Footnotes to a few of Tom's observations:

Tom noted:
The ark had a hole in the bottom to stabilize it. I wonder how all the naval architects in history missed this one?
-------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: This thread has already noted that people were much smarter in those days. Modern engineers aren't capable of this advanced design.
===============================
Tom noted:
But he also points out a real benefit...it would pump out all the dangerous gasses from the animals. By this I assume that he means methane from animal flatulance. Well, I guess you really wouldn't want to be around very close when an apatasaurus, (they used to call them brontosaurus), had to relieve a little digestive gas.
--------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: The two apatasauri were stationed at the back of the boat, with their tails over the rail & in the water. Their flatulence created the first evinrude outboard forward propulsion, resulting in pleasant breezes topside.
================================
Tom noted:
You also wouldn't want to be around if one of Noah's sons decided to light up a cigarrette soon after the apatasaurus felt better.
----------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: The boat was all wood. NO SMOKING!!!
=================================
Tom noted:
Number 7 says that skeletons 11 feet tall have been found.
Pray tell, which university or museum has these on display?
----------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: Have you never heard of the Cardiff Giant? Good grief, man, come out of your cave!
=================================
Tom noted:
Notice how he blithely assumes that the Bible's authors measured Noah to establish the length of a cubit. I guess everyone had their personal cubit?
----------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: Thus it is said, The taller the guy, the longer his cubit.
=================================
Tom noted:
In number 18 he claims that Genesis 10:25 proves that the continents were separated 100-300 years after the flood.
Genesis 10:25 says, "And two sons were born to Eber; the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided...". This, according to Hovind, refers to high speed continental drift. Interesting exegesis.
----------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: This rate of continental drift would have caused wakes that provided some fantastastic surfing!

Just thought you'd want to know!

al

: Tim Souther March 16, 2003, 10:41:37 AM

: Tom Maddux March 15, 2003, 06:40:42 AM

Arthur,
I've been looking at the list you took off of Hovind's website.
It contains some really "interesting" claims.
...
You take this guy seriously?
...
And so on and on, and I have not even addressed the Achillies Heel of YEC thinking.
Arthur this is an example of why I gave up MY belief in a 6000-1000 year old earth back in the 1970's.
God bless,
Thomas Maddux

OK Tom, I should know it but I don't. Please do address that "achilles heel". :)

OK Tim,

The young earth community stigmatizes anyone who disagrees with them by calling them "evolutionists" or something akin to that.
Christian scientists who are OEC's (old earth creationists) are said to have compromised the faith by trying to be accepted in the athiest academic community. In other words an Ad Hominem attack is made on their characters in order to discredit their science. Not valid, but effecive in the YEC audience.

But, they are hiding something they don't like to talk about. Here goes;

The fossil record contains evidence of about 500,000,000 species of land animals. That is a lot...especially if you have to fit them all on the ark, along with enough food for a year. This raises several problems.

One is from Genesis 2:19-20. This is on the sixth day, which, according to their thinking is a 24 hour day. Adam names all the animals. How can you name 500,000,000 different types of animals in 24 hours? This seems a tad fast for most folks. That doesn't even account for the fact that Adam had to work in the garden and get operated on during the sixth day.

Another is the problem of the ark. Even if the cubit was based on an 11 foot man the ark wouldn't have anywhere near enough room for 500,000,000 pairs, as well as 14 of each clean animal. Even after speculatiing about taking only babies and sudden ability to hibernate on the part of almost every species, there is just not enough room.

So, the answer is given that God created each animal according to a "kind" which is understood to be a sort of genetic archetype of a group of animals. The varieties then developed from these "kinds". Lions, tigers, tabby cats, bobcats, and so on were not really created. One "cat kind" was created and the others are descendents of that "kind".

This has to have happened twice. Once after the original creation, (giving Adam less animals to name), and again after the flood which took place from 2349-2348 BC, according to Archbishop Ussher. The entire earth was populated, then repopulated in just a few hundred years each time.

Now, what is process that drives this incredibly rapid speciation process???

The dirty little secret is EVOLUTION! Yup, that's what I said, EVOLUTION! Young Earth Creationists believe in evolution at a rate FAR EXCEEDING the most radical estimates of the most dedicated evolutionists.

Secular evolutionists believe that the current population of about 5,000,000 species of land animals is descended from millions of species that died off eons ago. YEC's have to have them all alive at once. AND they have to have developed from a few thousand "kinds" in a couple of centuries...TWICE.

YEC's frequently claim that there is another process that takes place to account for this...BUT THEY NEVER SAY EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. They also have no fossil evidence to offer in support of this claim.

But when pressed to defend their case, they try. A Christian biologist once pointed out to me that Answers in Genesis, trying to prove their case, (in an article about Polar Bear's webbed feet), had cited secular articles about genetic mutations in support of their contention.

SOUNDS LIKE EVOLUTION TO ME!

That Tim, is the dirty little (not so) secret.

I think that Progressive Creationism is much more plausible than either the evolutionists belief, or that of the YEC community.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux

: Tom Maddux March 17, 2003, 04:25:31 AM

But, they are hiding something they don't like to talk about. Here goes;

The fossil record contains evidence of about 500,000,000 species of land animals. That is a lot...especially if you have to fit them all on the ark, along with enough food for a year. This raises several problems.

No need to hide from this issue. The explanation is straight-forward. The Bible says that Noah took onto the ark two of every kind of animal (male and female), and seven pair of every clean animal, and seven pair of every bird.

So he took a pair of each kind of animal - a pair of cats, a pair of dogs, a pair of elephants, a pair of each kind of dinosaur, a pair of zebras, a pair of eagles, etc. as well as food for each and had room to spare. The Bible refers to the different types of animals as "kind" or "sort".

The 500,000 species that you are referring to today are variations within kinds, and not kinds themselves. "Kind" in the Bible is probably closer to "Family" (of which there are about 160 known families today) in the Linnean system of taxonomy that is used today.

You see what happened after the flood is that the animals migrated all throughout the earth and adapted to their environments. A dog didn't come from a banana--like some evolutionists claim--rather the creature that was the dog kind that Noah took onto the boat adapted and bred through many generations and now we have pit bulls, St. Bernards, Chihuahuas, Terriers, etc. and wolves, coyote's and fox's probably had the same ancestor on Noah's boat.

This "microevolution" is the only form of "evolution" (if you can call it that) that is directly observable and reproducable today. As a matter of fact, it is done all the time today by breeders. It is a variation within a kind, not producing a whole new kind of animal!!! You can not get a cat out of a dog given "millions of years" like some evolutionists claim ("Origin of Species")!

Also, note that you do not gain genetic information when you do selective breeding, rather genetic information is lost. In other words, you can't breed back to the original dog kind that Noah brought on board. It's genetic information is spread throughout all the variations that we see today.

The thought that all species came from some primordial soup is preposterous and goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing that has been observed in science gives any indication that life spontaneously generates out of non-life (unless God says so, which he did in the beginning, hence Creation --but that is not billions of years of death and mutation that evolutionists claim--only 6 days like he said, and it was good :). Rather, everything that scientists observe clearly shows that things are wearing down, loosing energy, loosing genetic information, etc.

The ordering and naming of plants and animals that is in use today is the Linnean system, arranged by Carl Linnaeus -- the Father of Taxonomy. Interesting to note that he was a creationist who saw the beauty and wonder in God's creation. He wrote in his books: Systema Naturae: Creationis telluris est gloria Dei ex opere Naturae per Hominem solum - The Earth's creation is the glory of God, as seen from the works of Nature by Man alone.

Also, Linnaeus wrote,
Unitas in omni specie ordinem ducit (The invariability of species is the condition for order [in nature]).
You see that he believed, as the Bible says, that God made each creature according to its kind, and that boundary cannot be crossed.

Here are the verses for reference:

Gen 6
17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. 18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. 21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them. 22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

Gen 7
13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. 16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.

Also in, Gen 1, we see that God originally made them according to their kind:
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Tom, Joe, Tim or whoever else wishes to answer, let's get some terms straight, and also clearly state what you believe.

I will state what I believe:
I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and as such is accurate and true.
I believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
I believe that the first day that ever existed was the day that God said "Let there be light..." and that there was no time as we know it before that first day.
I believe that each day in the Genesis 1 account is a literal day, the same as what we consider to be a "day" today, i.e. 24 hours.
I believe that in the first six days of the universe's existence, God created the heavens, the earth, the sea and everything that is in them.
I believe that those first six days were about 6,000 years ago, and I believe that about 4,400 years God destroyed the world that then was with a flood.
I believe that God spared Noah and seven others as well as at least one pair of all living creatures that have the breath of life by preserving them in an ark that was not destroyed by the flood.
I have neither personally seen nor heard that others have discovered conclusive proof that disproves what the Bible says.
Nor have I personally seen or heard that others have discovered conclusive proof that proves the evolution theory for the origin of the universe, origin of galaxies, stars and planets, origin of complex molecules, origin of life, or the origin of species.

Now you, please define "Progressive Creationism".

In particular, do you or do you not believe:

1. The earth is 4+ billion years old (or at least a whole lot older than 6,000) years?

2. The explanation for the origin of the species--species that we see living today and that are in the fossils is that they the came about through the evolutionary process?
And, if this is what you believe, please explain the evolutionary process, including what the starting point is, and where that starting point came from.

Arthur

Ok, Joe, I see what you are saying.
Yes, I agree it is possible.
The question is does the Bible say one way or the other, and if so, what does it say?
If the Bible does say so, then we don't have to make a new explanation up, right?

Ok, so then the question is, what about the billions of years?

I think there are two things at work here, we know them as religion and science.
Let's say that religion is what people believe and science is what people observe.

There are two religious beliefs being discussed -Evolutionsim and Creationism
Science is separate from the beliefs.

What we know to be commonly referred to as "evolution" is a religion. Please note, I'm not saying all the science that is used to support evolution is religion--rather, that is science. I am just addressing the belief itself.
The word "evolution" is harmless. It just means the process of change. But what people understand evolution to mean today is the religious belief that is as follows:
Evolution (or evolutionism) is a religious belief that became prevelant around a couple of hundred years ago. It goes hand-in-hand with humanism and is an attempt to deny the existance of God so that man doesn't have to obey him but rather can do as he pleases.
Evolutionism is the belief that:
1. There is no God, and therefore no Creator and therefore no Law-giver.
2. All life as we know it and everything that we see and live in today came from something other than God.
The most common explanation to replace the Creator was/is the Big Bang (but that is loosing ground since many people who once believed in the Big Bang no longer do so.)
3. Everything, all life that we see today as well as the world we live in, came into existance through an evolutionary process that took billions of years.

Creationism is also a religion. I believe that God does exist. The explanation for everything we see around us today is that God created it just as the Bible says.

So we have Evolutionism and we have Creationism. Two beliefs.

Then there is science.
Science just deals with facts. Someone says, I found this bone in this piece of rock. Ok, after verification, it is added to the annals of science. Someone says, I discovered that mother pigs 100% of the time give birth to baby pigs and 0% of the time give birth to puppy-dogs. Ok, that tidbit is added to the body of science.

Ok, so what about the 4 billions years?
Well, Joe, see that's the thing that I scratch my head over.
You say, "And if scientists are slowly finding that the earth is billions of years old ...", and I think that a whole lot of other people also would agree with you.
But...is it true? THAT is the question!

You see, I think what has happened is that evolutionists -- those who believe in the religion of evolution -- have worked really hard at trying to convince people (including whole societies, such as the former Soviet Union and other communist countries--to their detriment) that their belief is true. Part of their propaganda is to claim that their belief is completely supported by science and that Creationism is anti-science. You see a lot of this in the press-- "Creation vs. Science" headlines. When really what is at issue is one belief verses another.

Ok, so what about the 4 billion years? Well, let me ask you--produce please, if you will, one--I'm only asking for just one--piece of evidence that the earth is that old.
Just one piece please!

From what I've heard and read, the main argument that evolutionists (people who believe in the religion of evolution) use is the geologic column.

Only problem is--it does not exist. Nowhere in the world is there a column that has all the different creatures in all the different layers.
BTW, The geologic column is the Bible of the evolutionists.

Ok, let's say, hypothetically, that such a column does exist. Is that evidence for 4 billion years?

No.
The evolutionist reasoning goes--
I found a 6 million year old creature A in layer X.
Question: How do you know the creature is 6 million years old?
Answer: Because everything in layer X is 6 million years old.
Question: How do you know that everything in layer X is 6 million years old?
Answer: Because we found 6 million year-old creatures such as creature A in that layer.

Um...Hello...numbskulls!!! That's circular reasoning.
That would be like me saying, we found out that George G. is 15 million years old. How do we know that? Because he was found living in a house that is 15 million years old. How do we know that the house is 15 million years old? Well, because we found 15 million year old George living in the house. Duh! I can't believe that people try to pass THAT off as science.
(But did you know that the US government spends millions of dollars teaching that to your kids to this very day.)

So you see what I'm saying, Joe, is that there is no good reason for me to believe that the world is 4 billion years old. So why should I believe anything other than what is plainly and clearly written in the Bible?

Arthur

: Joe Sperling March 20, 2003, 01:02:13 AM

But it does beg the question though--
how did that fossil get into a 6 million year old layer--

Right, that's what I'm saying. How do you know that layer is six million years old? There's no way of measuring that. There is no year-o-meter that you stick a piece of dirt in and it outputs the age on ticker-tape.

it's like taking a section out of the General Sherman
tree---we know how old the tree is by it's rings--this
is a living thing whose age CAN be measured, and it's
about 4000 years old. But if we found the remains of a
fly near the inner rings it would be logical to assume that
that fly is as old as the ring it is found in.

Yes, the oldest age of a living thing that has been measured is about 4,400 years--which coincides with the when the flood occurred. Same as the coral reef formation off the coast of Australia.

Yes, I have been enjoying our discussion also :)

The question has arisen as to why it is important. Well many reasons. The religion of evolution is dangerous and detrimental to mankind. It is anti-God. Evolutionism questions the authority of the Bible. Satan is behind it and he is there, just like in the garden, saying "Has God said..." trying to make it seem that the Word of God isn't true.

In Jr. High I remember some Christian teachers telling me that maybe the world is billions of years old. This opened the door for some doubt about what the Bible said. Then when I went to Jr. College, some professors in the G.E. courses were very much evangelizing the evolutionist message. It caused even some more doubts. I still believed that God made everything, but I wasn't sure about the billions of years thing. I mean, after all, the "scientists" should know, right? If you can't trust a "scientist", who can u trust? Ha! (BTW there are plenty of true scientists who do not believe the world is billions of years old).

But when I heard an explanation, FROM THE BIBLE, that answered all those questions I had, and dispelled all the false teachings of the evolutionists, I was very glad. Now I have a firm foundation on which to base the way I think about things. Now I say with conviction--The Bible says...! Of course, this issue is not THE most important one. That issue is who Jesus is and what he has done.
But this issue is so important because it affects your world-view, and how you view God and your fellow man. Also, from II Pet 3 we see that the issue of creation and the flood is tied in with the second coming of Jesus and the final judgement of the world.
If Satan can get you to deny that God created everything by the power of his Word, then what will he get you to deny next?

Public schools in this country began teaching evolution heavily in the sixties. Since then, look at the quality of humanity that has been produced. The rates of violent acts at school, sexual immorality, murder, divorce, etc. has gone through the roof since evolution became the state-mandated religion being taught to children today. It just makes sense. You tell a child that he is nothing more than an animal, came from pond scum that turned into a monkey that turned into him, and you tell him that there is no God, no law-giver, no final judge of the universe, and guess how he's going to act?
But if you tell that child that God hand-made him in his own image and likeness and that God loves him. How is he going to behave twoards his parents and others?

Think about it. Atheism was/is the state religion in communist countries. And they teach evolution in their schools with the intent that people will think that they are nothing more than matter, just like a block of wood. And it has destroyed those poor people.

When one creationist went to Russia to teach creationism to a group of professors, one of them started weeping. He asked why, and the translator told him that it was the first time that professor had heard this. He had never known that something else could be possible besides that he was just matter and that came from animals.

Evolutionism is detrimental to any people. It goes hand-in-hand with communism and humanism.

: Arthur March 20, 2003, 12:07:26 AM

Evolutionism is the belief that:
1. There is no God, and therefore no Creator and therefore no Law-giver.

no, this is atheism. its totally separate.

2. All life as we know it and everything that we see and live in today came from something other than God.

nope, sorry, this isn't a presupposition of evolution either. again, this is atheism.

3. Everything, all life that we see today as well as the world we live in, came into existance through an evolutionary process that took billions of years.

now you're getting warmer. evolution is a scientific theory of which there are many strains, not a religious or philosophical theory. you are trying to make a connection that dosen't exist. if you don't want to worry about whether evolution is a good theory or not, fine, but i think it is inaccurate try to make that a moral decision (ie any good christian would see it my way). now, if someone decides to take a theory and simply believe that theory is true, then that is an act of faith. but it is very possible to entertain the possiblity of the theory without taking that step of faith. and i haven't seen anyone here saying that evolution is true and must be believed by all. those defending parts of it seem to be saying merely that its worth looking into, which i agree with. it is not an issue of faith. trying to make it one is a fallacy.

You see, I think what has happened is that evolutionists -- those who believe in the religion of evolution -- have worked really hard at trying to convince people (including whole societies, such as the former Soviet Union and other communist countries--to their detriment) that their belief is true. Part of their propaganda is to claim that their belief is completely supported by science and that Creationism is anti-science.

this is a major inversion. i have spent a good deal of time living in former communist countries, studying their history, and befriending their people. the rise and fall of communism had nothing to do with how much they taught evolution. communism was about control, and when someone is controlling how much food and shelter you and your family are allowed, you aren't really concerned about his theorys of the origins of the universe. you just want him to like you. to be blantantly honest, your attempts to equate evolution with communism really smack of creationist propoganda.

Ok, so what about the 4 billion years? Well, let me ask you--produce please, if you will, one--I'm only asking for just one--piece of evidence that the earth is that old.
Just one piece please!

any college course in physics will teach the basics of radioactive decay. but for your own education, go to google.com (or your favorite search engine) and type in "how old is the universe?". here is one thing i found in less than a minute:
http://www.sciencenews.org/20010210/fob3.asp
the bible dosen't talk about the universe being that old. anywhere. so there are things that are true about the universe that the bible dosen't talk about. thats not news. the bible is not designed as a scientific textbook. if you don't care to know more, fine, but i think its unfair to claim moral high ground over those who are interested in speculating about these findings.

The evolutionist reasoning goes--
I found a 6 million year old creature A in layer X.
Question: How do you know the creature is 6 million years old?
Answer: Because everything in layer X is 6 million years old.
Question: How do you know that everything in layer X is 6 million years old?
Answer: Because we found 6 million year-old creatures such as creature A in that layer.

Um...Hello...numbskulls!!! That's circular reasoning.

name one scientist who has proposed the above theory. what you have done here is the classic strawman fallacy. you set up an incredibly weak version of an opponent's argument (the strawman), then knock it down, which is quite easy at that point. the problem is, absolutely noone adheres to the argument you propose, so you have proved nothing. as you so eloquently put it, only a numbskull would find the argument you spelled out convincing. so lets assume for a moment that there is a non-numbskull somewhere who thinks some parts of the theory of evolution carry some weight. then there must be better arguments for you to defeat. when you find the very strongest arguments of your opponent, and defeat them, than you are really getting somewhere.

i am not passionate about evolution. i haven't been around that long, and i really don't know precisely how this very large and mysterious universe came to be. but i hate to see people making wild connections and claims, when there are really good arguments for both sides that we could be exploring.

on a lighter note: i stayed at work late tonight to help a guy on campus with some computer troubles he was having. in the process of doing so, i locked myself out of my office. as it turned out, the guy i was helping works with the campus police, opening offices that people lock themselves out of! and he had his keys with him. fortuitous indeed! so we helped each other out. it was a nice moment.

and to all a good night,

brian

Brian, you make some good arguements. I respect that.
In response:
What I gave to be the representation of evolutionist arguement and belief may indeed be incorrect, as you pointed out. I am going off of what I have heard so far from people who believe in evolution. If you have a better, more accurate definition, please do share.
However, what I stated is being taught in public schools today. If someone wants to believe that, that's their perogative, but it should not be taught as doctorine in public schools using taxpayer money.
Also, I could show you many articles and other such documentation that does show that many scientists who have the evolutionistic religious beliefs that I stated do reason in the "numb-skullish" way of circular-logic that I summarized. In other words it is not a straw man argument, but a real-life scientists-do-believe-this-way-today statement of fact.
However, if there is a stronger arguement out there, please do tell so that we may see it and understand what the best support for this theory is.

As far as dating by radioactive decay, there are many flaws to this method, as well as many counter-examples that prove that it is not a valid measure of the age of rocks. Same problems for radiocarbon dating for living things. e.g. Living animals have been testing by radiocarbon dating methods and found to be thousands of years old - an obvious error. Some parts of one dead animal will test to be thousands of years different in age than other parts of the same animal.

Here is one quote from the American Journal of Science regarding radiometric dating and the geologic column:

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first."
--O'Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54

The geologic column is to evolutionists similar to what the Bible is to creationists.

My take on it is that both the notion that God created the universe in 6 days and that the universe came about via the Big Bang are religions. The scientific evidence is not conclusive either way, though I suggest it strongly shows the former.

The fact that most scientists hold to the latter does not make it fact, but only shows that they have been indoctrinated to first believe in the Big Bang and then do their scientific work.
However, there are many scientists who do not beleive in the Big Bang and also do their scientific work.

I find it also interesting that many seminaries are teaching their students to hold to the theory of evolution, in one form or another, and very few are teaching the litteral six-day creation view.

Hi there,

Arthur, here is my reply to your post of March 17 regarding God having created "kinds" which then developed, (evolved) into all the species.

I Thess. 5:21 says, "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good."

So Arthur, let's do a little testing of this interpretation.

First, biblical tests.
1. Does the word translated "kind" or "kinds" mean the same as "family" in modern schemes of classification?

Not according to Strong's Concordance! In Genesis, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy it is Strong's reference #4327, which says that it means SPECIES. It says, "a sort, ie, species-kind.

2. Is this idea ever explicitly taught in scripture? I mean, does it ever say this about kinds evolving into various species anywhere in the Bible? No.

The entire thing is nothing but speculation, based on an erroneous definition.

What about scientific tests? Has anyone ever found one of these "kinds" in the fossil record? Has any genetic mapping ever been done to substantiate this idea? None that I ever heard of...and I pay attention to Bible/Science issues.

In addition the statement that you cannot breed back to the original animal because of loss of genetic information is not correct.

The European Aurox went extinct in the 16th century. Geneticists decided to breed back from existing cattle types descended from the aurox to see if it could be possible. It worked. These animals are found in Europe today.

Wherever dogs of various breed are allowed to breed indiscriminately the same result is always obtained. A medium sized dog with pointed ears and snout, short hair, reddish brown color, with the tail curling up over the back.

Answers in Genesis, a major YEC organization, has tried to promote this idea. However, when challenged to account for polar bear's webbed feet, they fell back on mutation and natural selection, citing a secular article in a pro-evolution science mag. When taken to task by an OEC biologist, they would not reply.

Another problem. We are talking about speciation here. Speciation is definitely NOT microevolution, such as slight changes in finch beaks.

Finally, this idea even fails the test of internal consistancy.
If Adam only named the "kinds" and then all the other animals developed from those kinds, there is a wee little problem. The flood, according to Usher came around 4300 bc. So there was nearly 2000 years of speciation befoe flood, (according to this hypothesis). Then when Noah needs to stock up the ark, suddenly the "kinds" are back!!!

Where had they been? Did God keep a supply hidden?
Was Genesis only kidding when it said God ceased from all His works?

Arthur, this idea is neither good science nor good Bible interpretation. It is nothing more than a "Just So" story made up out of almost nothing.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux

Arthur me lad,

I will now begin to answer your questions about my views on creation. But first a few observations on the way you and many other YEC's use the Bible.

Quite frankly, you don't seem to understand the difference between revelation and theology.

Revelation, for Christians, is the text of the original manuscripts.
Theology is our way of organizing, systematizing, and interpreting revelation. Because of this two people can both believe that God has spoken through the authors of scripture, but have very different understandings of what it means.

Here is an example:

Psalm 19:1-6. "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their utterances to the end of the world.
In them He has placed a tent for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; It rejoices as a strong man to run his course. Its rising is from one end of the heavens,k and its circuit to the other end of them; there is nothing hid from its heat."

In verse 4 of this psalm we encounter a startling statement; God keeps the sun in a tent! Then it goes on to say the sun has attributes of personhood! It rejoices! Then it goes on to say that it makes a circuit around the heavens, and that it shines on EVERYTHING.

Arthur, one way to INTERPRET this verse is to say, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" If anyone says that the sun doesn't go around the earth, or that God doesn't keep it in a tent at night, well he just doesn't believe the
B-I-B-L-E!

However, most people, and if I'm right you as well, don't say this. Instead they say something like, "This passage speaks poetically and phenomenologically." The sun is being described in poetic language from a phenomenological viewpoint...based on what it APPEARS to be doing to the observer. This does not mean that they don't believe the B-I-B-L-E.

Look how a couple of pretty highly thought of folks have committed blunders of this nature in the past.

1. Augustin-"But as to the fable that there are antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, THAT IS ON NO GROUND CREDIBLE...for scripture, which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information; and it is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended fromn that one first man"..., (Adam).

Here you have Augustine denying the world-wide spread of mankind because the Bible doesn't mention these people or continents. If the Bible doesn't say it, it can't be true...that is his position. Bad theology producing bad science.

2. Martin Luther-"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon...This fool Copernicus wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tellss us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth."

What an incredible idea! The sun goes around the earth. Doesn't the Bible say, "O sun, stand thou still over Gibeon, O moon over the valley of Aijalon. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies"?

Do you believe the sun goes around the earth, Arthur? If you don't, I know why.

It is because there is overwhelming evidence of a heliocentric solar system. Virtually no one doubts that Copernicus was right.

What Luther was doing was using bad theology to criticize good science. Most, if not all, modern readers of the Bible use good science to achieve good theology, when appropriate. This is just one example among many of phenomenological speech in the Bible. It is modern science that has shown us this!

I have never met a YEC that agreed with Luther. They believe that the earth goes around the sun, just as the "evolutionists" do. There are several ways God could have worked this miracle, but the sun can't stop going around the earth simply because it DOESN'T revolve around the earth.

It is inconsistent to criticize others for doing what you yourself allow.

Now, remember that I pointed out that in Genesis 8:5 it says that the tops of the mountians were visible. Then in 8:9 it says that the dove came back because there was no place to land, because "the water was on the surface of all the earth".

First it says the mountain tops were visible, then it says they were covered with water! Contradiction? I don't believe so Arthur. It is just another example of phenomenological language in the Bible. The dove couldn't see the distant hilltops.

Now on to other things in a later post.

Thomas Maddux

I am going to paste this here on this string from "Egyptian Mythology".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur,

You posted, "Every day the sun gives light to the earth".

So you believe the sun gives light to the earth! Well, I guess that means that you have bought into the Devil's lie too.

You see Arthur, the sun is burning by nuclear fusion. There is a region at the very core of the sun where the hydrogen of the sun, under tremendous pressure and heat, is being converted into helium. As this happens energy is released as electro-magnetic radiation, some of which we percieve as light.

In the sun's interior, because of the tremendous pressure and density, it takes a photon 50,000 years to reach the surface.

So, when you "see the light" of the morning sun, you are experiencing something at least 50,000 years and 9 minutes old! (it takes the light 9 minutes to get here from the sun). It doesn't quite fit the 6,000 years.

Arthur, this is just physics, not demonic deception.

Oh yes, let me warn you against two of the silly things about the sun and light you will read on the YEC websites.

1. The sun burns by gravitational contraction, proved by the "fact" that 2/3 of the nutrinos are missing from the fusion radiation. The "missing" nutrinos were detected last year, they just had to adjust the sensors to a slightly different setting.

2. The speed of light has slowed down.

Remember, Arthur, that E=MC2. E is energy released, M is mass, C is the speed of light IN A VACUUM, that is in space, not in a denser medium where it can be slowed in laboratory experiments.

If you think this is more demonic deception, just take a look at a film of a hydrogen bomb exploding. These work by fusion.

If you increase the value of C to infinity, a la Slusher's speculations, the energy release would undergo a corresponding increase, SQUARED!

Adam, Eve, and all the trees, "kinds" and even the dirt would be disentigrated. Burnt toast X infinity.

Arthur, you keep saying that only you believe the Bible.

I do not question that the Bible is God's inerrant word. I just question the interpretive system that YEC's use to try to understand it.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

: Tom Maddux March 30, 2003, 09:22:15 AM

I will now begin to answer your questions about my views on creation. But first a few observations on the way you and many other YEC's use the Bible.

Quite frankly, you don't seem to understand the difference between revelation and theology.

I think that you do not understand me or where I'm coming from, and I think that is improper to make such an accusation or summarization until you do. I apologized for making similar accusations in the Egyptian Mythology thread. I see you responded in kind. I'm sorry for starting with such comments. Please forgive me. I hope that we can end that type of talk and continue on with our mutual endeavor to find the truth.

As I've written in some posts in this thread and in the Egyptian
Mythology thread, I understand that the Bible contains both literal and symbolic information. God uses similies, metaphors, puns, analogies, poetry, etc. throughout the Bible. Sometimes what is written is to be taken as literal, sometimes not. When we read to understand what is being said, taking into account the context of the passage, we'll know how the words were intended to be taken. Though there may be some passages that one may read one way, whereas another person may be convinced that it is to be taken another way. That is just part of being human--we do not all see it the same way, it is the weakness of being finite and limited. However, I believe the truth is firm and not dependant upon anyone's view of it.
It would be arrogant and foolish of me to claim that I know the truth completely and fully and that everyone else is wrong. I hope that I have not given that impression. What I mean to say, and I hope I'll say it now as clearly as possible, is that I believe that the Bible states the truth. And I want to understand what it is saying because I want to know the truth.

As far as the Gen 1 account, I do not believe that it is poetry or a metaphor or any other such thing. I believe it is literal. I know that you and I had a similar discussion regarding the geneology in Matt, versus the accounts given in Genesis and I Chron. As I pointed out then, the account in Matt. does not include years, whereas the account in Genesis does. The accounts of Genesis and I Chron. agree. In Matt, the point is made about fourteen generations--skipping some and including others. I think that this shows that the author is giving the geneology to document to the Jews the perfection of Jesus' earthly, royal lineage. Given all these facts, I conclude that God is being literal when he gives the account in Genesis, and not literal in the geneology in Matt.
Is that not a logical way of looking at it, perhaps I am missing something? You did not respond to that post, perhaps you could now as to whether or not my take on it is accurate.

Look how a couple of pretty highly thought of folks have committed blunders of this nature in the past.

1. Augustin-"But as to the fable that there are antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, THAT IS ON NO GROUND CREDIBLE...for scripture, which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information; and it is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended fromn that one first man"..., (Adam).

Here you have Augustine denying the world-wide spread of mankind because the Bible doesn't mention these people or continents. If the Bible doesn't say it, it can't be true...that is his position. Bad theology producing bad science.

2. Martin Luther-"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon...This fool Copernicus wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tellss us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth."

What an incredible idea! The sun goes around the earth. Doesn't the Bible say, "O sun, stand thou still over Gibeon, O moon over the valley of Aijalon. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies"?

Do you believe the sun goes around the earth, Arthur? If you don't, I know why.

It is because there is overwhelming evidence of a heliocentric solar system. Virtually no one doubts that Copernicus was right.

What Luther was doing was using bad theology to criticize good science. Most, if not all, modern readers of the Bible use good science to achieve good theology, when appropriate. This is just one example among many of phenomenological speech in the Bible. It is modern science that has shown us this!

I have never met a YEC that agreed with Luther. They believe that the earth goes around the sun, just as the "evolutionists" do. There are several ways God could have worked this miracle, but the sun can't stop going around the earth simply because it DOESN'T revolve around the earth.

It is inconsistent to criticize others for doing what you yourself allow.

Ok, I see your point here, Tom, and it is a good one. I don't think that I have turned my back on science in believing what I do. I think science is fun, and I've had a few physics classes, a chemistry class, some calculus, differential equations and linear algebra at the university. I wouldn't say that I'm a science-illiterate, but not a pro either. I did notice when I was at college that many professors were caught up in how they saw things and thought they were all-that-and-a-bucket-of-chicken, and if you had a good question that might show what they said to be false, they'd make it seem like you were the stupid one and they were the smart one. Reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes, except they listened to the boy in that story. And then there were the Liberal Arts professors. Man were they loony. They had us read books by people who committed suicide after they died, so that we might be "enlightened" by their great thinking.
I guess what I'm saying is that so-called "higher" education can mess a person up and/or make him proud if they don't have a solid foundation in the Lord.
But I digress.
Science is a good tool if used properly.
All of the major branches of science were founded by creationists. I'm just saying that:
-scientists don't have all the answers
-what they say should not be taken as the gospel truth
-they'll probably find out their wrong about many things in just another few years just like the last few years
-scientists are not objective.
Rather all approach their studies with pre-conceived ideas and as such as prone to
1. neglecting important data because it didn't fit with their understanding
2. skewed data
3. incorrect conclusions based on their data.

Now, please, I'm not saying that all scientists are evil or that they intentionally produce bad findings to confound Bible-believers. I'm just saying, how can we trust everything that is published? My stance is that I believe th Bible first, and then measure everything else that is written by the Bible. The question then is what does the Bible say and how to take it--as literal or not.
Ok, now your arguement is that there are things that are common knowledge in the science community that I seem to be brazenly disregarding. Very well, let's go through them point by point. I am not a scientist (i.e. I do not do research for a living), and I doubt you are either (what do you do for a living, btw? I'm a computer guy). But we'll look at each one and hope to find the truth about each.

You would agree, would you not, that there have been as many if not far more scientists than theologians who have believed something and then found out they were wrong. A practical example. MD's opinions over the past 50 years or so have changed from "lay your baby on its back", then "no, lay your baby on its stomach" then "no, lay your baby on its back" again. Also, "breast-feeding is good", then "no breast-feeding is bad", then "no, breast-feeding is good" again.

In your generation, evolution and the Big Bang were all the rage. Most kids started being heavily taught evolution, with the curriculum actively rejecting creationism, in the early 60's. Today, some secular scientists are saying that no, the Big Bang couldn't have happened, nor evolution as is taught in schools, esp. the origin of the species. Some consider these theories as laughable now, as laughable as thinking the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth.

Now, remember that I pointed out that in Genesis 8:5 it says that the tops of the mountians were visible. Then in 8:9 it says that the dove came back because there was no place to land, because "the water was on the surface of all the earth".

First it says the mountain tops were visible, then it says they were covered with water! Contradiction? I don't believe so Arthur. It is just another example of phenomenological language in the Bible. The dove couldn't see the distant hilltops.

Now on to other things in a later post.

Thomas Maddux

Well, Tom, reading the flood passage, I don't see how you think that it was a local flood (that is what you are saying, right). And I wrote a post that included many other verses in the Bible that support the fact that it was a world-wide flood that is being described in Genesis.

Arthur

This thread has the same issue as the Egyptian Mythology thread, namely, how people regard the Bible and how it is interpreted.

:) Arthur, I am not chasing you onto another thread, but am encouraged by what you have said,

It would be arrogant and foolish of me to claim that I know the truth completely and fully and that everyone else is wrong.... I believe that the Bible states the truth. And I want to understand what it is saying because I want to know the truth.

Nobody is arguing over the fact that the Bible states the truth, but if every word in the Bible is THE TRUTH as God wanted it written. The Bible never claims to be inerrant in matters of science as some Christians today claim. If you drop this idea of inerrancy in matters of science then there is no problem. Science and faith will not be in conflict. :D

We tend to read and interpret things from our modern perspective and that can cause misunderstanding when reading the Bible. As Joseph Campbell pointed out, people of the past spoke in a different language than we did: they spoke in the language of mythology and we speak in the language of science and rationalism that was started by the Greeks. We have to take this into consideration when we, as moderns, read what the ancients wrote about the universe. Science, though fallible and biased, is based on observation and experimentation. Ancient people who wrote the Bible did not have the same possibility to examine the universe as we do today via telescopes, etc. It was Galileo who used this new invention and the problems started. Modern findings conflict with the primitive way the ancients viewed and wrote about the universe--end of story. That issue cannot be skirted around because other works written at the time that scholars have studied demonstrate that ancient peoples believed in an incorrect cosmological reality that the Bible describes--the dome of heaven, heaven held up with pillars, windows of heaven opening, etc. In other words, it is not just poetic language; it is a type of pre-scientific language that is off the mark by today's observations. Yes there are passages in the Bible that hint at the world being round, etc. that are often quoted by apologists, but there are plenty of others that are ignored that betray an incorrect cosmological understanding.

As far as the Gen 1 account, I do not believe that it is poetry or a metaphor or any other such thing. I believe it is literal.

If you, Arthur, believe it is literal, you encounter a problem with scientists and the fact that it simply does not make sense according to our modern understanding, e.g., light being created before the sun, etc. Besides, scholars have demonstrated quite clearly that there are two creation stories in Genesis. Genesis 1 was based on the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation story, to show that God alone made the universe, not a group of gods. Here is the best contrast I have seen on the internet thus far: Comparison of 1st Creation Story with Babylonian Creation Story
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_bibl.htm

If a person accepts this relatively recent finding, there is no conflict to speak of whatsoever between science and faith.

Biblical scholarship has suggested some alternative readings for the Genesis account of creation:

(1) The Genesis account should be read as an allegory for the power of God.

(2) The Genesis account is a monotheistic updating of Mesopotamian creation myths.

(3) The Genesis account represents the early cosmogony of a primitive nomadic desert tribe, and, as such, should not be taken seriously today. There is a marked difference between the anthropomorphic God of Genesis and the later more sophisticated concepts of a transcendent, immaterial, unknowable God.

(4) The Genesis account became contaminated by error in transmission or by pagan mythology during the many centuries that elapsed between the original conception and the time that the book was committed to writing. The Bible has many accounts of intrusion of polytheistic beliefs into the early worship of Yahweh (Exodus 32:1-5, Numbers 25:1-5, Judges 3:7-8).

(5) The writers of the Genesis narratives could not have known either the age of the earth or the order of appearance of plants and animals; they wrote the best account they could with the knowledge available to them.

Taken from http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/summary.html

Also of great interest from the same site:

Biblical inerrancy is not a major concern for the majority of Roman Catholics, and Pope John Paul II has affirmed that evolution is a proper field of study for Catholics. Most Jews do not consider factual accuracy of the Genesis account to be an important point. Of course, inerrancy is not accepted at all by atheists, agnostics, and adherents of other faiths. The majority of Christians believe that the Bible, although inspired, is the work of human authors, and that it could have been influenced by the popular beliefs at the time of writing, and are not deeply troubled by evidence of inconsistency in some parts. However, those whose faith rests almost entirely on a firm belief in total, literal infallibility of every word naturally feel extreme dissonance when parts of the Bible are contradicted by scientific facts.

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy arose in the 19th century in opposition to scholarly study of the Bible and to the growth of science. The question did not seriously trouble believers prior to the work of Hutton and Lyell; until the age of the earth was known, most Christians could accept the Genesis account. The belief in total inerrancy has grown especially since the 1920s, and is hence of relatively recent vintage. The doctrine is most strongly held in the rural South and border States. There is also a significant presence of Fundamentalism in California, possibly as a legacy of the large influx of poor, dispossessed farmers from Oklahoma and Arkansas during the depression years.

Even the earliest commentaries asserted that the Bible was the product of human authors. The earliest Jewish and Christian scholars were principally concerned with resolving discrepancies and contradictions. The concept of "allegorism" (the literal interpretation of a passage is subsidiary to a deeper meaning) was espoused by the Jewish scholar Philo Judaeus at the beginning of the Christian era and was also accepted by early Christian scholars like Origen, for example. Saint Augustine of Hippo warned that a literal reading of Genesis could obscure the deeper meaning. He also warned that palpably illogical readings of Scripture could bring Christianity into disrepute among intelligent unbelievers.

Augustine's concern, "illogical readings of Scripture could bring Christianity into disrepute among intelligent unbelievers," was my whole point in bringing up the potential dangers in trying to sell the Bible as inerrant in matters of science.

No Biblical inerrancy, no problem. Science and faith do not have to be in conflict. ;D

For a long time I had dismissed the idea of anything resembling evolution because of the extraordinary improbabilities involved. Even given 4 billion years, the age of the earth as estimated by scientists, there is no way evolution could have happened in such an extremely short period of time. This argument is the strongest one that creationists have. But my perspective changed somewhat after reading about the quantum theory. There is something unusual about the way subatomic particles behave that scientists still haven't been able to explain.

One form of explanation that scientists don't like to talk about has to do with the teleological nature of the equations. The quantum equations are used to calculate probabilities. The probability of a given state is calculated by multiplying the amplitude of the wave function by its conjugate. The interesting thing is that conjugation is the time-reversal operator, so the probability is calculated by multiplying the wave function by the time-reversed wave function. Intuitively, the probability is proportional to the product of the number of possible pasts of a given state multiplied by the number of possible futures of a given state. This gives the number of possible time lines that pass through a given state. According to the quantum principle called the democracy of histories, all possible time lines are considered equally probable. But of course there are selection rules that determine which time lines are considered possible. So all God has to do is specify, as one of the selection rules, what the outcome should be, and the quantum equations say that the universe will behave in a goal oriented manner to produce the desired outcome.

Of course, the question still remains as to how the universe could do such a thing. Years ago, I remember seeing seeming reversal of causality while debugging circuit boards for closed-loop motion control systems. In normal debugging, if you see good signals going into a part and bad signals coming out, the part is probably bad. When debugging a closed loop control system, the reverse rule seems to work: if you see bad signals going into a part and good signals coming out, then the part is probably bad. This analogy would seem to suggest that the universe is part of a larger complex system which, in order to cope with the complexity of the control system, would need to possess a very high intrinsic intelligence. Perhaps when God said, "Let there be light," he was speaking to this highly intelligent entity that he had created, which understood and then carried out the command, using its intelligence to figure out how to do it.

The problem with conventional directed evolution (and the similar ideas of Hugh Ross) is that it consists of an arbitary mixture of laws of physics and exceptions which are thrown in to make the result come out right. It's like cheating when you are playing a game. If you cheat enough times, then why have rules in the first place. You aren't really playing the game if you aren't following the rules. The quantum form of directed evolution overcomes this objection because the rules are never broken.

: Stephen M. Fortescue May 13, 2003, 06:15:07 AM

This is a non-issue, isn't it? 1. Life doesn't just spontaneously generate out of rocks--no matter how much time elapses and 2. Pond scum doesn't turn into a dog--no matter how much time elapses. The whole idea is preposterous.
The Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth--plants, birds, cats, dogs, people--'nuff said.

One form of explanation that scientists don't like to talk about has to do with the teleological nature of the equations. The quantum equations are used to calculate probabilities. The probability of a given state is calculated by multiplying the amplitude of the wave function by its conjugate.

You said that there are equations to calculate probabilities. A probability is "the likelihood that a given event will occur". Is there a particular event that you are referring to or all the possible events in a non-existent 4 billion years?

The interesting thing is that conjugation is the time-reversal operator, so the probability is calculated by multiplying the wave function by the time-reversed wave function. Intuitively, the probability is proportional to the product of the number of possible pasts of a given state multiplied by the number of possible futures of a given state. This gives the number of possible time lines that pass through a given state.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the number of possible pasts or futures infinite?

Interesting, and what are the selection rules and who determines them?

So all God has to do is specify, as one of the selection rules, what the outcome should be, and the quantum equations say that the universe will behave in a goal oriented manner to produce the desired outcome.

All God had to do was say "Let there be light". Heheh, much more simple. He doesn't have to fiddle with equations or our bumbling attempts at understanding his divine order.

Of course, the question still remains as to how the universe could do such a thing.

Answer: 'cause God said so.
Any other questions? :)

Years ago, I remember seeing seeming reversal of causality while debugging circuit boards for closed-loop motion control systems. In normal debugging, if you see good signals going into a part and bad signals coming out, the part is probably bad. When debugging a closed loop control system, the reverse rule seems to work: if you see bad signals going into a part and good signals coming out, then the part is probably bad. This analogy would seem to suggest that the universe is part of a larger complex system which, in order to cope with the complexity of the control system, would need to possess a very high intrinsic intelligence.

God doesn't need to cope with anything. He's the designer, he's perfect, and he has infinite knowledge--this is his universe.

Perhaps when God said, "Let there be light," he was speaking to this highly intelligent entity that he had created, which understood and then carried out the command, using its intelligence to figure out how to do it.

Oh my, that sounds like the Jehovah's Witnesses. I hope you don't actually believe that.

The problem with conventional directed evolution (and the similar ideas of Hugh Ross) is that it consists of an arbitary mixture of laws of physics and exceptions which are thrown in to make the result come out right. It's like cheating when you are playing a game. If you cheat enough times, then why have rules in the first place. You aren't really playing the game if you aren't following the rules. The quantum form of directed evolution overcomes this objection because the rules are never broken.

Yep. It would seem to me that it is the height of hubris for man to think he is able to deduce how it (the universe/creation) all happened (came into being, is maintained, etc.) with observations and calculations. Man has created a fantasy world of half-truths (and some just plain wacko ideas) and then thinks that by abiding by its rules he has arrived at "the truth". Guess again, Hugh, et al!

Interesting post, Stephen. Thank you for sharing.
Teleological indeed! It is all in God's hands. There is order in chaos ("for God is not the author of confusion but of peace"). Man thinks he's smart in that he can predict the weather fairly accurately up to three days.
But God holds all possibilities in the palm of his hand. He wields all possible time-lines with surety and sovereignty.
God has infinite knowledge; he knows the end from the beginning. For example, God knew from the foundations of the earth what Abraham would be like and what actions he would perform, and he chose him. He had the whole plan of redemption planned out from the beginning. "The foolishness of God is wiser than men."

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."

: Arthur May 15, 2003, 11:28:22 PM

The word "state" as used in quantum theory refers to a slice through the universe at a given instant of time, and involves specifying the position of every sub-atomic particle in the universe. The wave function is a function of the positions of all those particles.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the number of possible pasts or futures infinite?

Only if the universe is of infinite size or the time extent toward the past or future is infinite. But admittedly it is a very, very large number. And this is an understatement.

Interesting, and what are the selection rules and who determines them?

Some of the selection rules have to do with defining the laws of physics in the classical sense, while others have to do with boundary conditions, such as the beginning and end. For example, if you hold a string taut, the positions of two ends of the string in your hands are the positions of your hands, while the positions of the parts of the string in between are determined by the rule of the shortest distance between two points.

God doesn't need to cope with anything. He's the designer, he's perfect, and he has infinite knowledge--this is his universe.

An example of such a complex control system is the ear. The cochlea is spiral in shape, like a snail. Along the inside of the tube of it is the tectorial membrane, along which are three rows of outer hair cells and one row of inner har cells. The inner hair cells are sensors, while the outer hair cells are actuators. The brain analyzes the signals from the inner hair cells and produces signals to feed back to the outer hair cells to counteract and cancel the sound waves being received by the inner hair cells. The advantage of this scheme is that it makes it much easier for the inner hair cells to pick up faint sounds out of much louder background sounds. In order for the brain to do this cancellation, it is necessary for it to do a complete harmonic analysis of the sound being received. This accounts for our sense of harmony in music. Some people lack functioning outer hair cells and are therefore tone deaf and also have a hard time with noisy environments. I remember one person in the assembly in Fullerton with that problem.

Oh my, that sounds like the Jehovah's Witnesses. I hope you don't actually believe that.

I have no idea what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe. The thing that I have thought it might resemble was the "Christian Science" belief, except that in their view, the thing I call a highly intelligent entity created by God, they call God. I tend to see this highly intelligent entity as being something like a computer into which God types in commands.

Interesting post, Stephen. Thank you for sharing.
Teleological indeed! It is all in God's hands. There is order in chaos ("for God is not the author of confusion but of peace"). Man thinks he's smart in that he can predict the weather fairly accurately up to three days. But God holds all possibilities in the palm of his hand. He wields all possible time-lines with surety and sovereignty. God has infinite knowledge; he knows the end from the beginning. For example, God knew from the foundations of the earth what Abraham would be like and what actions he would perform, and he chose him. He had the whole plan of redemption planned out from the beginning. "The foolishness of God is wiser than men."

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."

By the way, the word "teleological" is the physicist's term for predestination. The Bible talks about predestination, and it is interesting that the physicists have found evidence for it.

Stephen, I re-read what you wrote and find this topic fascinating. Please let's continue this conversation.

: Stephen M. Fortescue May 13, 2003, 06:15:07 AM

Why is it, would you say, that scientists do not like to talk about this?

The quantum equations are used to calculate probabilities. The probability of a given state is calculated by multiplying the amplitude of the wave function by its conjugate. The interesting thing is that conjugation is the time-reversal operator, so the probability is calculated by multiplying the wave function by the time-reversed wave function. Intuitively, the probability is proportional to the product of the number of possible pasts of a given state multiplied by the number of possible futures of a given state.

: Stephen M. Fortescue May 16, 2003, 05:19:51 AM

Let me see if I can get this straight. What you're saying is that, every sub-atomic particle in the universe has a three-dimensional position in the universe. This position can change with time (the 4th dimension). If I wanted to know the probability of the state of the universe(i.e. the position of all the sub-atomic particles) at a given time, then I would multiply the number of past probabilities by the number of future probabilities for that state. Correct? And this would give me a wave function by which I could pinpoint a particular instant in time and say, "OK, I want the probability for the given state at that point"?

Let's take a baseball game for an example (I saw this on the Star Trek:DS9 pilot :)
Before the game begins, anything can happen. Or can it? Actually, according to what you are saying, there is a fixed number of probabilities that can take place (albeit, a very large number, so large that we as limited humans would see it as infinite or "anything can happen"). What you're saying is that the probability that the state of the baseball game will be such that there will be runners on first and third with one out in the top of the second inning, and that John Smith will hit a 2-2 pitch down the third base line can be calculated by multiplying the number of past probabilities by the number of future probabilities for that state. Correct?

This gives the number of possible time lines that pass through a given state.

I'm trying to envision a wave function that has multiple (time) lines running through points. What does it look like--a Lorenz attractor?

According to the quantum principle called the democracy of histories, all possible time lines are considered equally probable. But of course there are selection rules that determine which time lines are considered possible. So all God has to do is specify, as one of the selection rules, what the outcome should be, and the quantum equations say that the universe will behave in a goal oriented manner to produce the desired outcome.

the selection rules could be like the rules of baseball...or chess?

Of course, the question still remains as to how the universe could do such a thing. Years ago, I remember seeing seeming reversal of causality while debugging circuit boards for closed-loop motion control systems. In normal debugging, if you see good signals going into a part and bad signals coming out, the part is probably bad. When debugging a closed loop control system, the reverse rule seems to work: if you see bad signals going into a part and good signals coming out, then the part is probably bad.

In a closed loop, yes.

This analogy would seem to suggest that the universe is part of a larger complex system which, in order to cope with the complexity of the control system, would need to possess a very high intrinsic intelligence. Perhaps when God said, "Let there be light," he was speaking to this highly intelligent entity that he had created, which understood and then carried out the command, using its intelligence to figure out how to do it.

Why would God need to speak this to anyone. He could do it himself. Indeed, the Bible says he did create all things, and he is the one who keeps them. The Bible says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." And, "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."
I mentioned the Jehovah's Witness because they believe that God created Jesus first, and through him the rest was created.

AssemblyBoard

General Discussion => Any and All Topics => : Andrea Denner March 07, 2003, 01:24:51 AM