Wy could not the big bang also be consistent with a 6 day creation?

[ChristineM]

My understanding is that according to modern claims, dark matter is capable of travelling faster than the speed of light. It can also accelerate time. that suggests surely that the reverse is also true.

Really?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I see this thread as no more than another attempt by a creationist trying to shoehorn a literal interpretation of Genesis into the explanation that science has already provided for the origins of our world.

 

[exchemist]

i should think the name provides the answer to such a question...Theistic Evolution, Biologos...Im not a TEist so its not up to me to defend or describe "whats its supposed to be". I can tell you what it does not do...and that is as i stated before, it is not consistent with biblical themes or theology (again, despite what the Pope may claim)

I would challenge the view that TEism can even claim to be Christian because if they truly break down their blending of evolution and creation, they cannot reconcile the idea that death and suffering came into this world at the time of the fall of Adam and Eve.

Prior to this the bible is very specific in that the entire plan of Salvation, and therefore the physical death of Christ on the cross, was specifically to make atonement for Romans 6:23 (for the wages of sin is death).

In doing that, Christ provides the only pathway of restoration back to God and the former "very good" state of this world after creation (which I believe according to the original language means it was a perfect creation). This is evidenced by Revelation 21

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth,a for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.​

4‘He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,’c and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away.”​

​

We know that its plainly inconsistent with the Bible to make the claim that death and suffering were in this world before Adam and Eve.

They could not possibly have evolved if one is to follow Bible themes and theology across its pages.

There are far too many passages of scripture that paint an in depth picture of exactly when, how, and why sin corrupted this world and none of this was before Adam and Eve sinned. We also have extensive biblical references that show how the corruption of sin is unnatural according to Gods laws, and how it was/is to be fixed according to the Christian model (if you like), and what the final outcome will be.

I believe that one of the most significant discreditors of TEism is the PHYSICAL death of Christ on the cross.

If Genesis 1-11 are allegory, then there is absolutely zero support for the Physical death of Christ on the cross. As a Creator who did all of this via evolution from afar, physical death as atonement is untenable!

It gets worse...because of the above issue, there are at least some TEists that i know (from Biologos community), who it seems do not believe in salvation! That is just plain heresy...those individuals are technically not Christian...so they are kidding themselves. They have become so blind to the infallibility of their science, they are willing to completely throw out the entire reason for Christ dying on the Cross ("to save His people from their sins").

The point is, TEism in its current form is not aligned with biblical themes or theology...particularly when it comes to the Atoning Physical death of Christ on the cross in order to provide a pathway to Salvation and Restoration.

So it would be nice if an avenue promoting acceptance of the bible theme of literal creation could be found that is both consistent with self revealing biblical theology and their scientific views. Perhaps this could be an avenue for that.

What makes you so sure the pope is wrong? Is it just because he is Catholic?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

yes sure...the following isnt the original place where i got the idea...i was actually reading a different research paper that was focused on highlighting potential problems that the Microwave Background Radiation discovery may have for cosmology and the big bang.

Anyway...in answer to your question...

While it's true that nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, 186,282 miles per second (299,792 km/s), dark energy demonstrates that the fabric space itself is not bound by such speed limits. What is dark energy?

First you claimed that dark matter can travel faster then speed of light.
When asked for citation, you completely change your claim by stating that the expansion of space-time goes faster then the speed of light.
Nothing is traveling faster then the speed of light here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

that is not a point of contention...the reference article talks about "the fabric of space" being outside the bounds of the speed of light. My interpretation when reading is that its refering to dark matter as the fabric of space.

Your interpretation is hopelessly incorrect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My understanding is that according to modern claims, dark matter is capable of travelling faster than the speed of light. It can also accelerate time. that suggests surely that the reverse is also true.

given the above, why couldnt we use the above as a mechanism for explaining an evolutionary creation that fits inside the literal 6 day creation period of Genesis Chapter 1?

Obviously, i do not thiink it may be used to explain the creation of Adam...the bible is far too specific in that is uses the potters manipulation of clay theme in describing how God formed Adam out of the dust of the ground and [then came down close] breathing the breath of life into his nostrils.

But can YEC Christians (and even TEists) find common ground in the above idea?

Your understanding is incorrect.

If the universe was less than ten thousand years old we could not even see all of our own galaxy. We could not see any others.

 

[PureX]

My understanding is that according to modern claims, dark matter is capable of travelling faster than the speed of light. It can also accelerate time. that suggests surely that the reverse is also true.

given the above, why couldnt we use the above as a mechanism for explaining an evolutionary creation that fits inside the literal 6 day creation period of Genesis Chapter 1?

Obviously, i do not thiink it may be used to explain the creation of Adam...the bible is far too specific in that is uses the potters manipulation of clay theme in describing how God formed Adam out of the dust of the ground and [then came down close] breathing the breath of life into his nostrils.

But can YEC Christians (and even TEists) find common ground in the above idea?

I see no logical reason why there would or should be "common ground" between. Scientific theory and a religious myth. Neither of them were created or are being presented to us as history, but rather as ways of helping us understand the present (the cosmos, and ourselves). They are different stories about different sets of fundamental questions.

 

[Audie]

And so Christianity is not for you...you are only interested in a corrupted interpretation...that's not how this works.

Again, the bible specifically claims Christ died physically on the cross to pay the wages of sin. Spiritual death of Adam and Eve (as claimed by TEists in order to try to make the bible fit the science) is inconsistent with the physical model of Atonement given via the Old Testament Sanctuary service.

There is also Christs physical incarnation, physical ministry, physical death on the cross, physical ressurection, physical ascention into heaven, and finally, the physical second coming where those who are saved are physically taken to heaven.

Therefore it is not possible to be a Christian and believe Genesis 1-11 is an allegory and that is because Theistic Evolution cannot accept that death and suffering only enterred this world after the fall of Adam and Eve.

Teism hits a blockade at the very first chapter of the bible...that completely stuffs the consistency of that entire wor,d view....its not biblical and certainly lying noting harmony with Christ as a Saviour...who came specifically to save His people from their sins.

In your first sentence just out of
your own head made up a ridiculous
falsehood about me.
So I read no more.
I'd already said you've discrecited yourself.
You dont need to keep doing it.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

When asked for citation, you completely change your claim by stating that the expansion of space-time goes faster then the speed of light.

My original question contained the following

"My understanding is that according to modern claims, dark matter is capable of travelling faster than the speed of light"


The paper I quoted says "the fabric of space" (which appears in the article to be talking about dark matter , not dark energy) is not bound by the speed of light.

It is one of two sources I have read that talk about this.

This is a question better suited to those who understand and appreciate the irreconcilable theological dilemma TEism faces.

It's a question for those who have an in depth knowledge of the theological dilemmas and who are also capable of inputting useful answers. Simply blurting out stuff like "religious myth" is of no interest or value to the topic.

If the religious is of no interest and you must contribute, then at least focus only on "the dark matter" part of the question with referenced responses.

Your response should consider whether or not we have scientific evidence that suggests there is something (I have interpreted my reference as this being dark matter), that can travel faster than the speed of light.

If the background microwave radiation was everywhere all at once...and even it is linked with time and distance in a number of articles I have read about it . These two (BMR and Dark matter) suggest to me that God created and he did so very rapidly thus providing an avenue for instantaneous, or at least within 6 x 24 hour days, evolution. This idea might be a place of reconciling the dilemma TEism faces due to an old age scientific view. The dilemma is that Christ died physically on the cross for sin so Genesis creation narrative cannot be an allegory if their theology is to remain biblical!

 

[Subduction Zone]

My original question contained the following

"My understanding is that according to modern claims, dark matter is capable of travelling faster than the speed of light"


The paper I quoted says "the fabric of space" (which appears in the article to be talking about dark matter , not dark energy) is not bound by the speed of light.

It is one of two sources I have read that talk about this.

This is a question better suited to those who understand and appreciate the irreconcilable theological dilemma TEism faces.

It's a question for those who have an in depth knowledge of the theological dilemmas and who are also capable of inputting useful answers. Simply blurting out stuff like "religious myth" is of no interest or value to the topic.

If the religious is of no interest and you must contribute, then at least focus only on "the dark matter" part of the question with referenced responses.

Your response should consider whether or not we have scientific evidence that suggests there is something (I have interpreted my reference as this being dark matter), that can travel faster than the speed of light.

If the background microwave radiation was everywhere all at once...and even it is linked with time and distance in a number of articles I have read about it . These two (BMR and Dark matter) suggest to me that God created and he did so very rapidly thus providing an avenue for instantaneous, or at least within 6 x 24 hour days, evolution. This idea might be a place of reconciling the dilemma TEism faces due to an old age scientific view. The dilemma is that Christ died physically on the cross for sin so Genesis creation narrative cannot be an allegory if their theology is to remain biblical!

No, the "fabric of space" is just referring to the fact that space can expand. It is space that is expanding. It is what is called a metric expansion. That means that the expansion is uniform everywhere. It can be a hard idea to understand. Let's say that someone you know got into a rocket ship and flew a light year away from you and then decelerated just as much as he accelerated. Due to the expansion of space he would still seem to be moving away from you. Not only that. He would be accelerating away from you since every time that the expansion of space doubled the distance it would also double the "speed" that he was receding at. Think of the "fabric of space" as the surface of an inflating balloon. For two ants near each other that continued expansion would be almost unnoticeable. Move them a foot away from each other and it would probably be significant. If you moved the ants far enough away from each other the balloon would now be expanding faster than they could move. That is what appears to be happening with the universe. There are galaxies so far away that the light can never reach us because the velocity of light is lower than the rate of expansion.

I know this is a bit awkwardly explained, but I could probably put some numbers on it if that would help.

 

[ChristineM]

No, the "fabric of space" is just referring to the fact that space can expand. It is space that is expanding. It is what is called a metric expansion. That means that the expansion is uniform everywhere. It can be a hard idea to understand. Let's say that someone you know got into a rocket ship and flew a light year away from you and then decelerated just as much as he accelerated. Due to the expansion of space he would still seem to be moving away from you. Not only that. He would be accelerating away from you since every time that the expansion of space doubled the distance it would also double the "speed" that he was receding at. Think of the "fabric of space" as the surface of an inflating balloon. For two ants near each other that continued expansion would be almost unnoticeable. Move them a foot away from each other and it would probably be significant. If you moved the ants far enough away from each other the balloon would now be expanding faster than they could move. That is what appears to be happening with the universe. There are galaxies so far away that the light can never reach us because the velocity of light is lower than the rate of expansion.

I know this is a bit awkwardly explained, but I could probably put some numbers on it if that would help.

A very difficult subject explained pretty well.

 

[Colt]

My understanding is that according to modern claims, dark matter is capable of travelling faster than the speed of light. It can also accelerate time. that suggests surely that the reverse is also true.

given the above, why couldnt we use the above as a mechanism for explaining an evolutionary creation that fits inside the literal 6 day creation period of Genesis Chapter 1?

Obviously, i do not thiink it may be used to explain the creation of Adam...the bible is far too specific in that is uses the potters manipulation of clay theme in describing how God formed Adam out of the dust of the ground and [then came down close] breathing the breath of life into his nostrils.

But can YEC Christians (and even TEists) find common ground in the above idea?

The authors of the Adam story, which was appropriated from Mesopotamian religious lore, are the one who describe how Adam was made because they didn't understand that Adam and Eve came from another world, 2 full grown, educated adults who spoke a particular language. They arrived on an ancient, evolved earth that had long since "fallen" into rebellion. The Hebrews just assumed that Adam must have been the first human because the creation story they got starts with Adam.

If the earth is only 6000 years old, it was made to look billions of years old!

 

[AdamjEdgar]

No, the "fabric of space" is just referring to the fact that space can expand. It is space that is expanding. It is what is called a metric expansion. That means that the expansion is uniform everywhere. It can be a hard idea to understand. Let's say that someone you know got into a rocket ship and flew a light year away from you and then decelerated just as much as he accelerated. Due to the expansion of space he would still seem to be moving away from you. Not only that. He would be accelerating away from you since every time that the expansion of space doubled the distance it would also double the "speed" that he was receding at. Think of the "fabric of space" as the surface of an inflating balloon. For two ants near each other that continued expansion would be almost unnoticeable. Move them a foot away from each other and it would probably be significant. If you moved the ants far enough away from each other the balloon would now be expanding faster than they could move. That is what appears to be happening with the universe. There are galaxies so far away that the light can never reach us because the velocity of light is lower than the rate of expansion.

I know this is a bit awkwardly explained, but I could probably put some numbers on it if that would help.

I have no difficulty with your description of "inflation" of that nor was it previously unknown to me.
But we are not talking about the restriction of the speed of light and distance. We are talking about dark matter and time.

The point is this...if background microwave radiation tells us that the early stages of inflation were everywhere all at once...then clearly it's not so simply as a singularity in terms of so etching like a grain of sand exploding if you like. The entire universe came into existence and has then continued to inflate both inwards and outwards?


If background microwave radiation is everywhere all at once, and yet talks about cooler spots in terms of time or distance (and ive read both terms being used in trying to explain the cooler spots), then clearly, we have an example of where the speed of light restriction is irrelevant or not a restriction in the creation of something...for example inflation.

We cannot pretend nothing is something, nothing is not restricted by the speed of light but something is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no difficulty with your description of "inflation" of that nor was it previously unknown to me.
But we are not talking about the restriction of the speed of light and distance. We are talking about dark matter and time.

Dark matter appears to have the same restrictions upon it that regular matter does. Though I am far from being an expert so I could be wrong. And what about time?

The point is this...if background microwave radiation tells us that the early stages of inflation were everywhere all at once...then clearly it's not so simply as a singularity in terms of so etching like a grain of sand exploding if you like. The entire universe came into existence and has then continued to inflate both inwards and outwards?

There does not appear to be any "inwards" motion of expansion. It appears that the universe is expanding at the same rate everywhere. And the only direction it can go is "out". It is a weird concept to our limited minds since the universe is not expanding into something. If you take any two points in the universe they will be moving away from each other due to the expansion of the universe. That is like the surface of the balloon example that I gave you, but instead of expanding in two dimensions that universe expands into three.

If background microwave radiation is everywhere all at once, and yet talks about cooler spots in terms of time or distance (and ive read both terms being used in trying to explain the cooler spots), then clearly, we have an example of where the speed of light restriction is irrelevant.

The cooler parts are not much cooler. But they indicate that early on the universe was not exactly uniform. It had hot spots and cool spots almost right from the start.

If you want some more definitive answers about this I would suggest that you talk with @Polymath257 . This is well outside of my area of expertise, but I can identify rather obvious answers at least.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Anyway...the above doesn't matter its not really where I am going with this.

Your statement can be summed up in the following (i think)

An aircraft flying at the speed of sound has another object inside its cabin travelling at the speed of sound in relation to the air inside its cabin.

This means that effectively whilst both object are travelling at the speed of sound, the object in the cabin, if observed from a static location outside of the aircraft (and not attached to the aircraft), would appear to be travelling at twice the speed of sound. If we the extrapolate from that the earth is rotating at about 17,000km/hr... depending on which direction the two air moving, the object inside the plane which is travelling at the speed of sound could in fact be travelling at + 19,000/hr or - 15,000k/hr...or if travelling
Parallel to the earth's axis of rotation...2,000k/hr.

The points, why cannot 6 day creation appear this way if we use that same analogy?

Give me reasons why...not just retorting with religion is false claims which are off topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anyway...the above doesn't matter its not really where I am going with this.

Your statement can be summed up in the following (i think)

An aircraft flying at the speed of sound has another object inside its cabin travelling at the speed of sound in relation to the air inside its cabin.

This means that effectively whilst both object are travelling at the speed of sound, the object in the cabin, if observed from a static location outside of the aircraft (and not attached to the aircraft), would appear to be travelling at twice the speed of sound. If we the extrapolate from that the earth is rotating at about 17,000km/hr... depending on which direction the two air moving, the object inside the plane which is travelling at the speed of sound could in fact be travelling at + 19,000/hr or - 15,000k/hr...or if travelling
Parallel to the earth's axis of rotation...2,000k/hr.

The points, why cannot 6 day creation appear this way if we use that same analogy?

Give me reasons why...not just retorting with religion is false claims which are off topic.

That makes no sense. How old is your universe?

 

[Polymath257]

My understanding is that according to modern claims, dark matter is capable of travelling faster than the speed of light.

No. That is incorrect.

It can also accelerate time. that suggests surely that the reverse is also true.

No, this is also false. You *might* be confusing dark matter and dark energy (they are quite different), but even dark energy doesn't 'accelerate time'. It has a connection to the accelerated expansion of the universe. But that isn't an effect on time.

given the above, why couldnt we use the above as a mechanism for explaining an evolutionary creation that fits inside the literal 6 day creation period of Genesis Chapter 1?

Because it simply doesn't work. To get a time dilation of that effect would require either huge gravitational fields or immense relative velocities. Neither is actually seen in the real world (and they would be obvious).

Obviously, i do not thiink it may be used to explain the creation of Adam...the bible is far too specific in that is uses the potters manipulation of clay theme in describing how God formed Adam out of the dust of the ground and [then came down close] breathing the breath of life into his nostrils.

But can YEC Christians (and even TEists) find common ground in the above idea?

Not if you want to be consistent with the facts.

yes sure...the following isnt the original place where i got the idea...i was actually reading a different research paper that was focused on highlighting potential problems that the Microwave Background Radiation discovery may have for cosmology and the big bang.

Anyway...in answer to your question...

While it's true that nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, 186,282 miles per second (299,792 km/s), dark energy demonstrates that the fabric space itself is not bound by such speed limits. What is dark energy?

Yikes. No, this is a misinterpretation. The local expansion rate can be greater than the speed of light, but this is true even without dark energy. The speed of light is the limit to velocities *through space*.
r

that is not a point of contention...the reference article talks about "the fabric of space" being outside the bounds of the speed of light. My interpretation when reading is that its refering to dark matter as the fabric of space.

And that is incorrect. Dark matter is rather like ordinary matter but doesn't interact with light. Dark energy is *sort of* a density of a vacuum. but it isn't a 'fabric of space'.

mine too...thats why i posted the idea here.

What i think i am able to deduce is that whilst dark energy may not be able to exceed the speed of light, perhaps because it doesnt have to as it counterbalances gravitational forces...which for some reason are then tied into forces that are not within the realm of this mysterious thing we call"dark...", it appears that the "fabric of space" is dark matter and that is not bound by the speed of light.

And that is simply false. Again, are you confusing dark matter and dark energy? And, strictly speaking, dark energy doens't move at all (at least in the usual models): it is an energy density of the vacuum.

This also suggests that it is not bound by time in the same way either. If so, then why could we not extrapolate God using this phenomonim (if i can call it that) for a literal 6 day creation?

Nope. To get a time dilation of that amount is *way* beyond anything we have ever detected. Sorry, but the comoving time for the age of the universe is just under 14 billion years.

 

[Polymath257]

My original question contained the following

"My understanding is that according to modern claims, dark matter is capable of travelling faster than the speed of light"


The paper I quoted says "the fabric of space" (which appears in the article to be talking about dark matter , not dark energy) is not bound by the speed of light.

It is one of two sources I have read that talk about this.

Then your source is wrong. Try learning science from someone that knows the science.

This is a question better suited to those who understand and appreciate the irreconcilable theological dilemma TEism faces.

It's a question for those who have an in depth knowledge of the theological dilemmas and who are also capable of inputting useful answers. Simply blurting out stuff like "religious myth" is of no interest or value to the topic.

If the religious is of no interest and you must contribute, then at least focus only on "the dark matter" part of the question with referenced responses.

Your response should consider whether or not we have scientific evidence that suggests there is something (I have interpreted my reference as this being dark matter), that can travel faster than the speed of light.

No, there is not. Tachyons are purely theoretical and not present in any modern theories. Dark matter moves slower than light. Dark energy is essentially motionless.

If the background microwave radiation was everywhere all at once...and even it is linked with time and distance in a number of articles I have read about it .

Either you are confused or your articles are garbage. The It is background radiation is the leftover glow of the Big Bang. It is in every direction because the BB was in every direction (we are inside).

These two (BMR and Dark matter) suggest to me that God created and he did so very rapidly thus providing an avenue for instantaneous, or at least within 6 x 24 hour days, evolution. This idea might be a place of reconciling the dilemma TEism faces due to an old age scientific view. The dilemma is that Christ died physically on the cross for sin so Genesis creation narrative cannot be an allegory if their theology is to remain biblical!

Sorry, but your understanding of dark matter and dark energy are hopelessly confused.

 

[Polymath257]

I have no difficulty with your description of "inflation" of that nor was it previously unknown to me.

Just a note: the term 'inflation' relates to a very specific period of very rapid expansion. It does NOT refer to the ordinary expansion of the universe after about the first second.

But we are not talking about the restriction of the speed of light and distance. We are talking about dark matter and time.

Yes. And dark matter has no relevance to time past what ordinary matter does.

The point is this...if background microwave radiation tells us that the early stages of inflation were everywhere all at once...then clearly it's not so simply as a singularity in terms of so etching like a grain of sand exploding if you like.

True. it is NOT like a speck of sand exploding. That is a common misunderstanding, but it is not *at all* what was actually going on.

An explosion is about matter moving through space. The expansion in the BB description is the expansion of space itself. That 'speck' was the whole observable universe at that time. If there was anything 'outside' of it, it was *also* expanding, hot, and dense.

The entire universe came into existence and has then continued to inflate both inwards and outwards?

Nope. Just 'outwards'. That, in the sense that it was not contracting (unless there was a previous contraction phase). And, again, the word 'inflation' has a technical meaning that isn't correct here.

If background microwave radiation is everywhere all at once, and yet talks about cooler spots in terms of time or distance (and ive read both terms being used in trying to explain the cooler spots), then clearly, we have an example of where the speed of light restriction is irrelevant or not a restriction in the creation of something...for example inflation.

We cannot pretend nothing is something, nothing is not restricted by the speed of light but something is.

The cooler and hotter regions are due to gravity. Gravity makes slight increases of density grow more dense, which means slight decreases of density get less dense. The more dense regions are read as hotter and the less dense regions are read as colder. Nothing mystical going on here.

 

[Polymath257]

Anyway...the above doesn't matter its not really where I am going with this.

Your statement can be summed up in the following (i think)

An aircraft flying at the speed of sound has another object inside its cabin travelling at the speed of sound in relation to the air inside its cabin.

This means that effectively whilst both object are travelling at the speed of sound, the object in the cabin, if observed from a static location outside of the aircraft (and not attached to the aircraft), would appear to be travelling at twice the speed of sound. If we the extrapolate from that the earth is rotating at about 17,000km/hr... depending on which direction the two air moving, the object inside the plane which is travelling at the speed of sound could in fact be travelling at + 19,000/hr or - 15,000k/hr...or if travelling
Parallel to the earth's axis of rotation...2,000k/hr.

The points, why cannot 6 day creation appear this way if we use that same analogy?

What analogy? You are simply adding velocities. In relativity, that addition is done slightly differently, but there is no connection to a 6 day creation that I can see.

Give me reasons why...not just retorting with religion is false claims which are off topic.

I don't care about the religion. The science you have been stating shows a lot of basic confusion. You jump between ideas that are not related and don't keep track of necessary distinctions.