Question for the Young Earth crowd

[Aqualung]

DANG IT!!!! I just wrote the longest reply, and IT GOT LOST!!!! Okay. I guess you won't be getting a reply until I calm down again...

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Well stay calm Aqualung,

I am trying to have a serious debate, not trying to upset anyone or get you riled up. Sorry you lost your long response, and hope you need to calm down from losing the response in cyberspace and are not needing to calm down from the topic.

B.

 

[nutshell]

Hi MdmSzdWhtGuy,

So you dont belive God can create matter from nothing, but you belive that matter can create itself from nothing? Does that mean you dont belive God made dinosaurs? and if he didnt make dinosaurs then does that mean you dont belive he made the other animals? If thats the case does that mean you think God just found earth fully populated with animals and then decided he would make Mankind and then lead them to belive he created the other living things aswell even though he really only found them like that?

I never said matter created itself from nothing. God may or may not have made the dinosaurs, he probably did. God did make the other animals as described in Genesis. It's amazing how you take my one line and run with it to string together a bunch of nonsense that does not represent my beliefs.

So your God isnt supernatural with power over his creation, he cant perform miracles. He didnt really turn water into wine, heal the lame, be born of a virgin, raise from the dead, multiply bread and fish, drive out demons, make the blind see etc. What kind of god do you serve?
Certainly not the one described in the Bible.

Of course God can perform miracles and we consider it to be supernatural, but there is a law of science behind it that we're just not aware of yet. He did turn water into wine, heal the lame, be born of a virgin, raise from the dead, multiply bread and fish, drive out demons, make the blind see, etc. BUT behind each of these miralces is a law of science. It seems supernatural because we don't know how to do it ourselves. I serve the God of the Bible and shame on you for jumping to conclusions.

 

[Aqualung]

Well stay calm Aqualung,

I am trying to have a serious debate, not trying to upset anyone or get you riled up. Sorry you lost your long response, and hope you need to calm down from losing the response in cyberspace and are not needing to calm down from the topic.

B.

Oh, yes. Sorry for the confusion. I was mad because of losing it. It happens a lot to me, so I usually copy it right before I submit a post, but this time it slipped my mind, it got lost, and I got really mad. The topic isn't making me mad at all. You're a very civil debater from what I can see, and I don't get mad at civil debates, just when people step out of that and start bashing me personally. But you haven't done that yet, so don't worry - My anger isn't directed at you.

 

[nutshell]

So your God isnt supernatural with power over his creation, he cant perform miracles. He didnt really turn water into wine, heal the lame, be born of a virgin, raise from the dead, multiply bread and fish, drive out demons, make the blind see etc. What kind of god do you serve?
Certainly not the one described in the Bible.

Steve, I want to take a look again at the miracles you listed.

Turning water into wine: Can't we turn water into other things today? We throw in some powder and POOF we have Kool-Aid.

Heal the lame: Throught current medical technology we can do this in many cases.

Be born of a virgin: Without intercourse, we can combine genetic material and stimulate the growth of an embryo.

Raise from the dead: Current medical technology allows us to revive people often proclaimed to be dead.

Drive our demons: This can be done through the power of Christ by one who believes.

Multiply bread/fish: I've taken cells and multiplied them myself in biology class.

Make the blind to see: Again, current medical technology is making this possible.

I am not writing this to lessen the miracles Christ performed. We are obviously no where near his Godly ability. That said, I wanted to point out through science we can do similar work. The glory of God is intelligence. Christ has perfect knowledge of his creation and so can manipulate it to accomplish the above and much more with perfect efficiency.

 

[apostle_ndr]

This is a good topic. I like the responses you've gotten B.

I believe God has to follow the laws of science. If that's true, then he can't make something out of nothing.

According to science, matter/energy can never be created/destroyed. According to Christianity, it can. According to YOUR Christianity, God cannot create or destroy matter or energy, only convert it, to comply with the laws of science (thus he is not all-powerful). Therefore, God must have been made out of something, by someone.

Because if God has existed in his current state forever. Or if he simply willed himself into being, this does not comply with the laws of science you speak of.

In a later post, you say that what we see now as supernatural is only God using science in ways we can't understand (forgive me for paraphrasing). Afterwards, you go through a list of what we used to believe to be miracles which are now "explained" by science (turning water into Koolaid, duplicating bread cells, etc). So, admittedly, what we couldn't understand yesterday we understand today. And what we don't understand today we'll understand tomorrow.

Then what distinguishes the Christian God from ordinary man? Both can create life, perform "miracles", turn water into something else, restore vision, etc.. wherein does the power of that kind of god lie?

Furthermore, regarding dinosaurs. B didn't mean for that to be the specific topic, as he stated. Just an example of one of the countless things that this Young Earth theory can't account for. 1) Dinosaurs coexisting with man, we have that today I believe, depending on your view of a dinosaur. Some creatures have existed in their current form over millions of years without needing to evolve (I can only think of sharks and alligators at the moment). And of course, the theory that dinosaurs evolved into birds (ie. the large dinosaurs died during the meteor apocalypse, the smaller dinosaurs survived and evolved into today's birds..), so, it depends on what your definition by dinosaur is.

I'm sure the Bible can't account for a bunch of Hebrew men hunting down a Tyrannosaurus, or hiding in their mud huts from a flock of Velociraptors (I of course use Jurassic Park imagery ).

What better spits in the face of a 4,500 year old universe (I say universe and not earth because the Bible cleary states that stars and light and EVERYTHING was created concurrently with the earth) is the speed of light. Light travels amazingly fast, spare me having to look up it's speed. Heat emits light, and for a source of light to reach a distant point can take millions and millions of years. There are some stars in our universe that we STILL have never seen, because the light from them has yet to reach our planet (Space is mindblowingly big)...

This is where a derivation of time travel comes in, which I happen to enjoy. By looking into space, we're looking into the past. If we look at a star, we're not looking at that star in its current state. We're probably looking at it as it was millions of years ago. It could have completely burned out and turned into a black hole millions of years ago, and we wouldn't know it for another million years!

Space, nature, ourselves, this is all so fascinating and mysterious that I really don't see the point of solving one mystery by introducing another. If you need to stand in awe of something great and majestic, let it be the universe.

Stand in awe of science!

It doesn't have to be a vision of a grey-beared man sitting in His office signing death warrants. (That's meant to be sarcastic).

:jam:

 

[ChrisP]

Space, nature, ourselves, this is all so fascinating and mysterious that I really don't see the point of solving one mystery by introducing another. If you need to stand in awe of something great and majestic, let it be the universe.

The Universe (or what we've seen of it) is truly a magnificent structure.

Stand in awe of science!

You raise good points. Science explains the physical but I have trouble explaining my emotions and spirit with a study of Chemistry, Biology and Mathematics.

 

[JerryL]

Because if God has existed in his current state forever. Or if he simply willed himself into being, this does not comply with the laws of science you speak of.

I don't follow how eternal existance defies Thermodynamics 1.

 

[ChrisP]

I don't follow how eternal existance defies Thermodynamics 1.

Everything that has a beginning has an end? I guess it depends on whether God had a beginning.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Apostle,

I am glad you enjoy the subject and thank you for the well thought out reply. You have added yet another arrow to my quiver with the introduction of space/time/speed of light, which I, of coure should have considered already.

Frankly, in my own meager defense, the vast amount of physical, mathematical, etc. . . evidence against a young earth theory, makes it entirely possible to overlook numerous viable factors (arrows as I refer in paragraph 1).

Ahh, fun stuff, here we go. For those who argue a 4500 to 6000 year old earth/universe, account for these obvious, and MEASURABLE facts.

1. The speed of light is roughly 180,000 miles per second.
2. A light year is 5.86 trillion miles long. ( I will spare you the numerous zeros)
3. Light from the edges of the known universe which are just now reaching us left those areas about 13.7 billion years ago.

If light travels at a constant speed, and we know that it does; And if a light year is a constant, and we know that it is; Then how can light be reaching us, which began over 13 billion years ago, if the earth is 6,000 or so years ago?

Just a bit of an expansion on the original question.

And by "dinosaurs" in my original question to start the thread, I was referring to diplodicus, T-rex and such.

B.

 

[Deut 13:1]

I'm not necessarily part of the Young Earth crowd, but I believe that God created the Earth from matter that already existed (it wasn't made out of thin air). If that's the case, then dinosaurs and much more may be dated far past the 4,500 years or so as they already existed before the creation.

The Hebrew word used to describe creation is "Bara" meaning to create or make out of nothing.

This is the way I look at it: Adam and Eve trangressed at 6000bc. Who knows how long they were in the Garden of Eden before that, or what all the other animals were doing outside of the garden. The could have been in there for millions of years, while animals were changing etc, for how much is really matters.

I believe they were in the garden for about 100 days, give or take.

In short, why are there different races if the earth is only 4500 to 6000 years old when geneticists agree it takes 20,000 years of environmental factors to turn one race to another?

Genesis Chapter 11

Of course God can perform miracles and we consider it to be supernatural, but there is a law of science behind it that we're just not aware of yet. He did turn water into wine, heal the lame, be born of a virgin, raise from the dead, multiply bread and fish, drive out demons, make the blind see, etc. BUT behind each of these miralces is a law of science. It seems supernatural because we don't know how to do it ourselves. I serve the God of the Bible and shame on you for jumping to conclusions.

Where does it prophesize that the Messiah will be born of a virgin? I've read through the Tanach plenty of times, and I don't remember seeing this...

 

[Aqualung]

Okay, here we go again. )(

Re: your first point that Adam and Eve transgressed at 6000 b.c., this seems to indicate that you are a proponent of the Pre-Adamic Man theory. Which as I understand it states that there were various mud-peoples existing from time immemorial on Earth, and that God came along and created Adam and Eve, which are either the first Jews, or the first Caucasians, depending upon who I have heard tell it.

Frankly, Pre-Adamic man theory does a better job of meshing Biblical accounts with scientific reality, than about any other faith based theory I have heard. I have a strong feeling that a non "political-correctness" look at human genetics through DNA research could go a long ways to either bolster or dissipate this theory.

Well, thta's not exactly how I think. It's more like, while Adam and Eve were in the garden of eden, everything else outside of it was evolving, and what not. Sometimes an ape would get fairly close to looking like man (of course not being man, though, because they wouldn't have conciounce, and they wouldn't have a spirit that God created and that had the potential to progress and become like him.) These things, if they got too close, would die out. though I don't think a concience could have ever evolved in the first place. That's why there is no "missing link" between the two things. Of course these are just my beleifs. I actually have no idea what the church thinks about these things.

Re: the mixing up of languages and races during the time of the Tower of Babel, that is also an interesting theory, but, to accept your theory that God changed up the races at that time presents a couple of problems.

First off, you have to accept that there is something around (God) who can break all the known laws of physics and genetics, which is, to put it mildly, a stretch.

Well, first off, by getting this far in the debate, we're agreeing (at least for the sake of argument) that God created the people in the first place. How is it such a stretch, then, to think that he could do a little tweaking with them to make the different races?

Secondly, if God was threatened by the building of the Tower, as it might reach to Heaven, then that would imply that Heaven is "up there" some where. Obviously the people of the time of the Tower of Babel, had no way of climbing any higher than they could build. Their construction materials would have been wood. Wooden structures have never been built that even approach 1,000 feet in height. Even with modern engineering and materials, modern humans cannot build a building that comes even moderately close to a mile high. I find it very hard to imagine God being concerned about a wooden structure, which likely could not have been over a couple hundred feet tall.

Perhaps he wasn't scared of them reaching heaven. He was probably offended that they would try to reach heaven like that, by those means, and he mixed them up in punishment. Also, he probably knew that if he didn't do something, the fact that they had the same language would eventually be detrimental to them.

Third, God establishing different languages, races, etc. . . at the time of the Tower of Babel ignores the genetic problem of Adam and Eve and their offspring running into inbreeding problems. I have presumed in section one of this that you would resort to a Pre-Adamic Man theory to explain this discrepancy, if this is not the case, I am highly interested in how section one and 3 are merged.

What inbreeding problems?

 

[apostle_ndr]

I don't follow how eternal existance defies Thermodynamics 1.

I'll expand on that point.

According to Christian dogma, everything created must have a creator (nutshell, ironically, wishes to revise his religion to conform with current scientific teachings). I've heard that God has (1) existed in his current state for all eternity (defying entropy, Thermodynamics 2) or that (2) willed himself into being (defying Thermodynamics 1).

Matter has existed forever, true. Not in its current state, though. Before the Big Bang was the Big Crunch, but I won't pretend to have a firm understanding of String Theory or the current hot topic of M-Theory. Here's a consumer-rundown of M-Theory at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1270726.stm.

 

[nutshell]

I'll expand on that point.

According to Christian dogma, everything created must have a creator (nutshell, ironically, wishes to revise his religion to conform with current scientific teachings). I've heard that God has (1) existed in his current state for all eternity (defying entropy, Thermodynamics 2) or that (2) willed himself into being (defying Thermodynamics 1).

Matter has existed forever, true. Not in its current state, though. Before the Big Bang was the Big Crunch, but I won't pretend to have a firm understanding of String Theory or the current hot topic of M-Theory. Here's a consumer-rundown of M-Theory at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1270726.stm.

Excuse me, but how have I revised my religion to conform with current scientific teachings? If you think I've done this than you don't know what my religious teachings are.

 

[JerryL]

I don't follow how eternal existance defies thermodynamics 1

Everything that has a beginning has an end?

I don't agree with that, but more importantly I'm not sure how it interacts with my question.

 

[JerryL]

I'll expand on that point.

According to Christian dogma, everything created must have a creator (nutshell, ironically, wishes to revise his religion to conform with current scientific teachings).

Definitionally everything created must have a creator, otherwise it wouldn't be created.

I've heard that God has (1) existed in his current state for all eternity (defying entropy, Thermodynamics 2) or that (2) willed himself into being (defying Thermodynamics 1).

You can't get around problems with Thermodynamics 2... but it's only applicable to matter-energy (notice that no one is asserting that timespace becomes less concentrated). You've not established a hyopthetical God to be made of that stuff.

Matter has existed forever, true. Not in its current state, though.

We don't know that one way or another.

Before the Big Bang was the Big Crunch, but I won't pretend to have a firm understanding of String Theory or the current hot topic of M-Theory. Here's a consumer-rundown of M-Theory at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1270726.stm.

I do have a good understanding (at a 10k foot level) of string theroy. There is no "before the big bang) in a conventional sense, as it's the beginning of time (see Hawkings "No Boundry" proposal for real and imaginary time). Nothing about the nature of the universe is know prior to the big bang, and nothing about the nature of "not universe" (or even if it can be thought to exist) can be known.

 

[apostle_ndr]

Definitionally everything created must have a creator, otherwise it wouldn't be created.

Why do we have to assume that matter was created? And if everything created must have a creator, what created God? And if it's so easy to assume that God has always existed and didn't require a creator, why is it so hard to imagine that matter is likewise?

I do have a good understanding (at a 10k foot level) of string theroy. There is no "before the big bang) in a conventional sense, as it's the beginning of time (see Hawkings "No Boundry" proposal for real and imaginary time). Nothing about the nature of the universe is know prior to the big bang, and nothing about the nature of "not universe" (or even if it can be thought to exist) can be known.

I'm assuming you're a physicist or something near, so correct me if I'm wrong. The nature of the known universe is theoretically explained by M-theory, right? If M-theory is even remotely sound (and I'm sure it will just be a theory for as long as life lasts), then we at least have an idea of the nature of the universe prior to big bang. Just a theory, of course, but not to be dismissed yet.

There are two possibilities for the future of our universe (I read this awhile ago so I'm hazy..). 1) The universe will continue to expand until all the potential energy is burned out, and it will simply freeze over. 2) The universe wil continue to expand until it becomes too massive and collapses in on itself (like a black hole).

If the second is true, the universe will just keep expanding and collapsing over and over again ad infinitum.

Excuse me, but how have I revised my religion to conform with current scientific teachings? If you think I've done this than you don't know what my religious teachings are.

I'm sorry, nutshell. I jumped to conclusions. I assumed that your religious teachings were the same as mine when I was Christian. (I was taught that the Bible was final and everything that went against it was a lie). Now that I'm out in the world, I see there are a number of schools. Some Christians believe that science doesn't destroy their faith, it strengthens it. Others believe that the Bible is metaphorical, not to be taken literally. Still others follow it to the word and believe that the earth is flat and that the universe revolves around it.

As far as I was taught about the Christian God, he is beyond natural laws. He created matter out of nothing (according to the Bible). We know today that this is impossible because matter can never be created or destroyed. So, instead of disbelieving the scientific aspect, you incorporated it into your religion, thus revising what was commonly accepted.

Why are you offended? I think it's good to revise philosophies and theories in light of new data, but not creation myths which have no data to support them in the first place.

 

[JerryL]

Why do we have to assume that matter was created?

We don't. I never said matter-energy was created. I said creations must have a creator, or they wouldn't be creations.

And if everything created must have a creator, what created God?

Your question relies on a fale premise (that everything must have a creator). Though hypotetically speaking, there's nothing I'm aware of that rules out self-created creations.

And if it's so easy to assume that God has always existed and didn't require a creator, why is it so hard to imagine that matter is likewise?

It's not, it's very wasy to imagine. What's hard to imagine is what "always" is, considering the apparent nature of spacetime.

I'm assuming you're a physicist or something near, so correct me if I'm wrong. The nature of the known universe is theoretically explained by M-theory, right?

It's an attempt. M-theory keeps failing in its predictions (or seems to). There was recently a measurement that gravity moved at the speed of light. This was inconsistant with M-theory which thought that gravity moved in 10 dimentions rather than 4. Mind you, there's some dispute over the reading.

I don't think anyone expect M-theory to survive in its current form. But without some base to work from, it's very hard to refine and test to find what actually is right.

And no, I'm an engineer.

If M-theory is even remotely sound (and I'm sure it will just be a theory for as long as life lasts), then we at least have an idea of the nature of the universe prior to big bang.

Really? What do you think the nature of the universe was just prior to the big bang? Considering that "universe" encompases everything in spacetime, where did the universe exist?

Physics, at its most basic level, breaks down when only one point exists in spacetime.

As far as I was taught about the Christian God, he is beyond natural laws.

This seems neccessairily true. A god which conformed to natural laws would have to not exist.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Uhh, anyone want to take a stab at the dinosaur question that I started the thread with?

B.

 

[Quiddity]

Uhh, anyone want to take a stab at the dinosaur question that I started the thread with?

B.

As a note MdmSzdWhtGuy, has dating methods always been consistant? From my understanding that is not the case. Im not a young earth advocate but I think old earth advocates also need to keep that in mind.

~Victor