Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

msjones

Theory of Evolution -- do you avoid teaching it?

Recommended Posts

Why would I have a religious attachment to evolution? I'm not religiously attached to the theory of gravity, or to the theory of relativity, or to germ theory. I don't follow a strict interpretation of a book written by thousands of years ago about one tribe's god, and if some other theory had a better explanation about the origins of the earth, it wouldn't change my faith one way or another.
I don't know your beliefs, so I cannot speak for you. However, many people who believe that there is no God reject creationism out-of-hand, since it is opposed to their worldview. Several well-known atheists/naturalists have stated as much, so this is not just my supposition.
And frankly, I don't understand why Bible believers are so attached to young earth creationism anyway.
Because the bible is a credible source of historical information to many Christians.
The bible also said the earth was flat,
Please provide a reference for that. Isaiah 40:22 states "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" (Interestingly, this passage has been quoted by Dr. Russell Humphreys in support of his biblical cosmology that purports that the Earth was within the even horizon of the universe during most of the history of the universe. As such, TIME STOOD STILL from an Earth reference point until sometime very early in Genesis. This is based on the assumption that the earth is near the center of the universe. There is some scientific evidence to support this idea of being near the center. (The big bang theory is based on the a conflicting assumption that there is no center to the universe.)
that there was some physical object called the firmament that held the stars in place, that you could make the sun stand still without destroying the earth. Nobody believes this stuff anymore and it hasn't destroyed their faith.
I do. I didn't used to, but I do now.
Why not accept the scientific consensus about the age of the earth and the origin of life?
Perhaps you've noticed from my other posts on this forum that I am not impressed by consensus? :D
You can still tell yourselves stories about who is guiding those developments. Really, why is evolution and the ancient age of the universe the hill upon which some Christians are willing to make their last stand?
It's what I believe to be truth. Nothing else.

 

Look, my point here is that we are talking about historical (forensic) science, not observational science. Simply put is IMPOSSIBLE to prove what happened in the past. Different people tend to look at the exact same evidence and come to different conclusions based on their worldview. Neither creation nor evolution can be PROVEN, so each of us need to make the best judgement based on what we believe.

 

I understand that you do not see things as I do, and I respect that. I do encourage you to have a look at the link I provided. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the scientific evidence found there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I ran a university biology department, I would not hire a creationist and I would suggest the termination of anyone who taught creationist "science," for the same reasons that I would oppose a math teacher who taught that 2 + 2 = 5.

 

except that's NOT what Creation science --or questioning evolution-- is about. Your reasons above show your own ignorance of the questions scientists are asking about evolution's flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isaiah 40:22 states "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"

 

I hate to make the obvious point, but the earth is not a "circle", it is a sphere (or roughly spheroid). A big difference!

 

A circle exists in only one plane, i.e. it is flat.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LaurieNE, I would think a 6th grader would understand. My daughter watched a few episodes, and she is only 4. :) It was a bit over her head, but I simply had her in the room with me while I watched, and she enjoyed it.

 

The genetic trait of sex though, you might want to leave out, there's a few parts in there you might not be ready to explain. :)

 

My kids have seen this numerous times. I absolutely think a tot can be intersted. Maybe not fully, but certainly a 6th grader will find it interesting. My kids have seen it a couple of times. We own it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not accept the scientific consensus about the age of the earth and the origin of life? You can still tell yourselves stories about who is guiding those developments.

 

Because scientific truth is not about consensus. In fact, consensus is the antithesis of true science. When scientists decide to stifle debate and deem anyone who disagrees as automatically NOT credible, that is anything but "scientific" consensus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes! This is exactly what I'm talking about! I must watch this series.

 

 

It's wonderful. There is no point where God is tossed in favor of evolution.

 

I am often reminded of the Church of Rome realizing that Gallileo was right. In 1992 (was it? ) the church apologized, and, in fact, accepted that the earth revolved around the sun. Some Protestants to this day might not consider Catholics Christians, but still, a major faith finally admitted they were as wrong as wrong could be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate to make the obvious point, but the earth is not a "circle", it is a sphere (or roughly spheroid). A big difference!

 

A circle exists in only one plane, i.e. it is flat.

 

Bill

 

see post #27 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate to make the obvious point, but the earth is not a "circle", it is a sphere (or roughly spheroid). A big difference!

 

A circle exists in only one plane, i.e. it is flat.

 

Bill

Yes, it is an obvious point. However, I should note that I once saw a picture of the Earth taken from Apollo 8. Interestingly, it looked just like a circle in that picture! In fact, most spheres look like circles when viewed from afar. I wonder what author of the bible viewed the Earth from afar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
except that's NOT what Creation science --or questioning evolution-- is about.

 

I'm not claiming it's about 2+2 = 5, I'm claiming that biologists are trying to answer certain questions and evolution is the answer that they have almost universally accepted.

 

Your reasons above show your own ignorance of the questions scientists are asking about evolution's flaws.
What scientists? Where? Can you name a single non-religious university in the developed world where evolution is not taught as fact in the biology department. Just one.

 

Forget universities. Maybe even a non-religious community college somewhere? There are hundreds of these institutions. If there really were scientists asking questions, surely there would be a biology department somewhere that didn't believe in the theory of evolution.

 

Can you name a single science magazine or peer reviewed journal that is not associated with a religious or quasi-religious group that publishes these scientists who are supposedly asking questions about evolution's flaws?

 

I could be wrong, but I doubt that such a thing exists, because there really isn't any controversy and hasn't been for generations now. Only religious groups--religious apologists--are asking these questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interestingly, it looked just like a circle in that picture! In fact, most spheres look like circles when viewed from afar. I wonder what author of the bible viewed the Earth from afar?

 

I thought the author was God. If it was just some guy, then why couldn't he have simply made a mistake and thought the earth was flat, when it's not.

 

And did I really read you correctly before that you believe in the firmament? That there really used to be a water canopy of some kind up above the atmosphere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is online! Thank you. How exciting to dig in. I have many questions about how the flood would line up with archeological evidence and other sources of the history timeline. Is this included? If not, do you have a source for that?

 

We had Dr. Emil Silvestru (geologist) speak here and I would recommend his DVDs. They're available at Answers in Genesis. It was very interesting to hear a geologist (who was also an atheist for many years ) talk about the age of the earth and various rock formations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I thought the author was God.
My point exactly.
If it was just some guy, then why couldn't he have simply made a mistake and thought the earth was flat, when it's not.
He could have, but I don't believe that's what happened in this case.
And did I really read you correctly before that you believe in the firmament?
Yes.
That there really used to be a water canopy of some kind up above the atmosphere?
I don't really know what it was. I've read theories that it might have been water, but I don't quite understand what would hold it up if that were the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
see post #27 :)

 

Post #27 is in error according to Strong's. It lists:

 

1. circle, circuit, compass

2. (BDB) vault (of the heavens)

 

But no sphere. It would be quite a blunder to have that wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by KingM viewpost.gif

That there really used to be a water canopy of some kind up above the atmosphere?

 

I've read theories that it might have been water, but I don't quite understand what would hold it up if that were the case.

 

Uhm, the theory comes from the Bible:

 

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."

(Genesis 1:6-8 KJV)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, it is an obvious point. However, I should note that I once saw a picture of the Earth taken from Apollo 8. Interestingly, it looked just like a circle in that picture! In fact, most spheres look like circles when viewed from afar. I wonder what author of the bible viewed the Earth from afar?

 

So are you arguing for some sort of "creationist math" were one receives full credit for mistaking a circle for a sphere because one is looking "from afar"?

 

Really???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Post #27 is in error according to Strong's. It lists:

 

1. circle, circuit, compass

2. (BDB) vault (of the heavens)

 

But no sphere. It would be quite a blunder to have that wrong.

 

Strongs, why is this better?

 

I will be unafraid to show my ignorance in this: What does vault of the heavens mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhm, the theory comes from the Bible:

 

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."

(Genesis 1:6-8 KJV)

 

I assumed that the firmament was removed for the flood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you arguing for some sort of "creationist math" were one receives full credit for mistaking a circle for a sphere because one is looking "from afar"?

 

Really???

A circle is the projection of a sphere onto 2 dimensions from any direction. Is that not true in evolutionist math?

 

It does seem that no one is willing to submit a single example of scientific evidence showing one species turning into another. Or even some evidence of new information being added to the genome of ANY species? Third call... Given that no one has that support for evolutionism, I suppose the only rational response is to attack creation science without reading any of the references.

 

Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would depend on where the Sun was when God was floating out in outer space looking down at us. If it was shining head-on, like a "full moon" earth, maybe. Most likely he'd see some kind of crescent earth. Why didn't he call it a crescent? ;)

 

More flat-earthisms taken from the bible:

 

"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it (Job 38:12-13)

A sphere has no edges.

 

"[T]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" (Matthew 4:1-12)

If the earth was flat, you could see it all, as the bible says. But you can't see on the other side of a sphere.

 

"The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. "(Daniel 4:10-11)

Same as above.

 

And so on... There's tons more bible verses about the earth being the center of the world. I am no longer surprised by anyone's beliefs though, for all I know, a few people here still believe the earth is flat and in the center of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being an authority of evolution I don't intend to teach my children to question the validity of evolution anymore than I would teach them to question the validity of A2 + B2= C2. I will, however, teach them that our understanding of science and mathematics are continually evolving.

 

Meanwhile, regardless of what you think about evolution, if you haven't read Gould's essay on his autistic son it's incredibly touching. Here's the link:

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/2008/beingautistic/gould_fiveweeks.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seem that no one is willing to submit a single example of scientific evidence showing one species turning into another.

 

You made that claim yourself! You claimed that Noah took some sort of prototype snake onto the ark and it has speciated in the last few thousands years into cobras, king snakes, ribbon snakes, rat snakes, coral snakes, and ~2,900 other discrete species. You've boiled down 150 million years of evolution within the suborder serpentes into a few thousand years, but I suppose we both agree that this evolution happened.

 

But sure, I'm willing to put out my own. Here's the current understanding of the human phylogenetic tree. My ancestors (and yours) were australopithecenes. We have learned this from the fossil record.

 

bigtree2.GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it's funny reading all these threads. we as humans think we have it all figured out...God must be chuckling because of us...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or even some evidence of new information being added to the genome of ANY species?

 

 

 

Every time there's a mutation new information is added to the genome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You made that claim yourself! You claimed that Noah took some sort of prototype snake onto the ark and it has speciated in the last few thousands years into cobras, king snakes, ribbon snakes, rat snakes, coral snakes, and ~2,900 other discrete species. You've boiled down 150 million years of evolution within the suborder serpentes into a few thousand years, but I suppose we both agree that this evolution happened.

 

But sure, I'm willing to put out my own. Here's the current understanding of the human phylogenetic tree. My ancestors (and yours) were australopithecenes. We have learned this from the fossil record.

 

 

Well if that's not proof then what is? :lol:

 

I am the one who said 2 snakes on the ark. We do not know now what "kinds" meant when it was written in the Bible. I am sure it meant more/something different than species. The Bible also states that all humans came from 2. That all humans would be one "kind".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to say that we've been enjoying Evolving Planet: Four Billion Years of Life in Earth, by Erica Kelly and Richard Kissel. Good for all ages.

 

Meant to add that to an earlier post but couldn't find the book. :001_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A circle is the projection of a sphere onto 2 dimensions from any direction. Is that not true in evolutionist math?

 

 

You mean the Science of Mathematics (henceforth math).

 

And your example is mathematically false. Only light coming directly at a sphere relative to the two dimensional place upon which the shadow is case would be "circular".

 

From all other relative angles and directions the projection of a sphere onto a plane would will not be "circles" . The shape of the projection would be distorted by light of the projection hitting the 2D plane at an oblique angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not claiming it's about 2+2 = 5, I'm claiming that biologists are trying to answer certain questions and evolution is the answer that they have almost universally accepted.

almost

there ya go.

What scientists? Where? Can you name a single non-religious university in the developed world where evolution is not taught as fact in the biology department. Just one.

nope- i sure can't. you just decided to define "scientists" according to your own narrow view. That's an easy way to make sure you win the argument ;)

Forget universities. Maybe even a non-religious community college somewhere? There are hundreds of these institutions. If there really were scientists asking questions, surely there would be a biology department somewhere that didn't believe in the theory of evolution.

Not if they are being blackballed, there won't be. They will stay where

they are allowed to question and seek answers.

 

Can you name a single science magazine or peer reviewed journal that is not associated with a religious or quasi-religious group that publishes these scientists who are supposedly asking questions about evolution's flaws?

 

I could be wrong, but I doubt that such a thing exists, because there really isn't any controversy and hasn't been for generations now. Only religious groups--religious apologists--are asking these questions.

No, you doubt such a thing exists because you obviously haven't looked into the blackballing very much. there's a REASON "only" religious groups/universities/apologists are asking these questions: the "scientific community" has decided by consensus to eliminate the doubters.

 

What questions do you think they are asking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you arguing for some sort of "creationist math" were one receives full credit for mistaking a circle for a sphere because one is looking "from afar"?

 

Really???

 

uh, no....... it's no mistake that a sphere looks like a circle "from afar" --because it does.

 

If you are describing only what you SEE it would be wrong to assume it is a sphere unless you rotated it. the correct visual description of seeing a sphere from one point far away would be a "circle."

 

how is that "creationist math"?

 

are you saying that a sphere DOESN't look like a circle from afar??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But sure, I'm willing to put out my own. Here's the current understanding of the human phylogenetic tree. My ancestors (and yours) were australopithecenes. We have learned this from the fossil record.

 

wow.

So if I draw a neat fancy colorful chart showing my descent from Adam, that would be evidence too?

 

Can I have a paternity test on your "evidence"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uh, no....... it's no mistake that a sphere looks like a circle "from afar" --because it does.

 

If you are describing only what you SEE it would be wrong to assume it is a sphere unless you rotated it. the correct visual description of seeing a sphere from one point far away would be a "circle."

 

how is that "creationist math"?

 

are you saying that a sphere DOESN't look like a circle from afar??

 

Just because a sphere may "look like" a circle from afar does not make a circle. An omnipotent being/book author ought to know this. Basic math science.

 

I don't know what to call this. You can't call it Math. Can't call it science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wow.

So if I draw a neat fancy colorful chart showing my descent from Adam, that would be evidence too?

I am sure that I have one of those somewhere, if it would be considered proof of Creation I could scan it.

 

but I somehow doubt that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wow.

So if I draw a neat fancy colorful chart showing my descent from Adam, that would be evidence too?

 

Can I have a paternity test on your "evidence"?

 

 

Peekaboo, how do you define scientist?

 

I just wanted to add that many of these secular universities that are being criticized were founded by very religious people, virtually all of them Christians (the only exception that comes to mind is Brandeis).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would depend on where the Sun was when God was floating out in outer space looking down at us. If it was shining head-on, like a "full moon" earth, maybe. Most likely he'd see some kind of crescent earth. Why didn't he call it a crescent? ;)

 

cuz circle is easier to spell in Hebrew? ;) :lol:

 

More flat-earthisms taken from the bible:

 

"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it (Job 38:12-13)

A sphere has no edges.

 

...and of course, taken in literary context, the point of the passage is in verse 18 ;)

 

Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?

Tell me, if you know all this.

 

as an aside, verse 3 is quite handy when dealing w/ children ;)

 

"[T]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" (Matthew 4:1-12)

If the earth was flat, you could see it all, as the bible says. But you can't see on the other side of a sphere.

 

...and people assume the devil showed Him those kingdoms by having Christ turn His head and look at the kingdoms AROUND Him?? I like the "scenes flashed before His eyes" version i saw in a movie better ;)

"The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. "(Daniel 4:10-11)

Same as above.

 

...um, yeah... a VISION. about a tree that is a bazillion miles tall. yeah.....there's proof alright.:lol:

And so on... There's tons more bible verses about the earth being the center of the world. I am no longer surprised by anyone's beliefs though, for all I know, a few people here still believe the earth is flat and in the center of the world.

 

yeah. I'm no longer surprised by how people twist scripture either. or science for that matter. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peekaboo, how do you define scientist?

 

scientist:

1: a person learned in science and especially natural science

 

 

science:

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

 

2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

 

3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science

 

 

unfortunately, "scientist" has come to be defined a lot like "pastor" has. Everyone has their own ideas about what qualifies as a "real pastor" or "real scientist."

I have no qualms w/ secular scientists dismissing creation, just as religious scientists dismiss abiogenesis. Where I find fault is when those creationist scientists present NON theological questions grounded in current scientific knowledge and are dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What scientists? Where? Can you name a single non-religious university in the developed world where evolution is not taught as fact in the biology department. Just one.

 

Forget universities. Maybe even a non-religious community college somewhere? There are hundreds of these institutions. If there really were scientists asking questions, surely there would be a biology department somewhere that didn't believe in the theory of evolution.

 

Can you name a single science magazine or peer reviewed journal that is not associated with a religious or quasi-religious group that publishes these scientists who are supposedly asking questions about evolution's flaws?

 

I could be wrong, but I doubt that such a thing exists, because there really isn't any controversy and hasn't been for generations now. Only religious groups--religious apologists--are asking these questions.

Granted.

 

And you don't take this as evidence that the state-sanctioned religion in the US and many other countries is evolutionism? The movie Expelled contains quite a bit of evidence to support this idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did all the flood-water go?

70.8% of the surface is water, 29.2 % is land.

 

We have polar ice caps and glaciers. I thought this answer would be obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't usually get into these discussions.

 

One thing I've never understood about the Young Earth idea. If the earth is 6,000 years old, then presumably the universe is 6,000 years old. If the universe is 6,000 years old, then we could only see stars that were 6,000 light years away. Since most of the stars are more than 6,000 light years away often millions or billions of light years away, then what.... Astronomers can't do the math and triangulate properly? Can land a man on the moon using slide rules but can't calculate the distance to a star?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhm, the theory comes from the Bible:

 

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."

(Genesis 1:6-8 KJV)

Yes. Yes. But in what form? That's what I'm saying. I tend to believe it is not water vapor, because that would make the Earth seem like London, which doesn't strike me as being very Eden-like. :D

 

Unfortunately, my Bible does not contain a schematic diagram, so I am somewhat at a loss. I've read theories that is was liquid water and others saying ice. The theories I have seen are interesting, it's just that I don't have enough understanding/evidence to make an informed judgment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granted.

 

And you don't take this as evidence that the state-sanctioned religion in the US and many other countries is evolutionism? The movie Expelled contains quite a bit of evidence to support this idea.

 

I wouldn't say that evolution is the state-sanctioned religion in the US at all. My British friends are astounded by how little attention Darwin's 200th birthday has gotten in the US. In Britain and other nations in Europe it's been a very big deal. We have stamps commemorating baseball players, politicians, rock stars, etc. If the state loves evolution so, where's Darwin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I teach both creation science and evolution. My dh was raised young earth & I was raised by an athiest scientist (among others in a mixed divorced family). I watched Nova with him all the time growing up. I teach my kids that Dad believes one way & I believe another and that we don't really know everything yet. It doesn't interfere with our beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeppers. You stated this very well and it describes our (current, lol) beliefs succinctly. :)
I had to switch to threaded view to find out who you were addressing. It was Pamela H in TX. I agree with it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
70.8% of the surface is water, 29.2 % is land.

 

We have polar ice caps and glaciers. I thought this answer would be obvious.

 

I know some of you don't believe in the geologic periods (Cambrian, Silurian, Jurassic, etc...), but polar ice caps and glaciers formed only relatively recently. Before then, we still had land with all that water loose. Granted, it might have been called Pangaea back then though. So where did all that water really go? God must have zapped it away. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
70.8% of the surface is water, 29.2 % is land.

 

We have polar ice caps and glaciers. I thought this answer would be obvious.

 

Right.

 

And in the flood story the entire earth is under-water. Now if all the ice caps and glaciers melted it still wouldn't put the entire world under water. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mountains and valleys. Great geological disturbances that distribute water. There are a lot of explanations. Yes, in fact, God could very well zap it away... turn it back into hydrogen and oxygen.... etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know some of you don't believe in the geologic periods (Cambrian, Silurian, Jurassic, etc...), but polar ice caps and glaciers formed only relatively recently. Before then, we still had land with all that water loose. Granted, it might have been called Pangaea back then though. So where did all that water really go? God must have zapped it away. :)
But the flood was recent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't usually get into these discussions.

 

One thing I've never understood about the Young Earth idea. If the earth is 6,000 years old, then presumably the universe is 6,000 years old. If the universe is 6,000 years old, then we could only see stars that were 6,000 light years away. Since most of the stars are more than 6,000 light years away often millions or billions of light years away, then what.... Astronomers can't do the math and triangulate properly? Can land a man on the moon using slide rules but can't calculate the distance to a star?

For a very long time, this was one of the best evidences AGAINST creation that I had ever heard. That said, there are some very interesting theories around regarding this issue. My favorite is by Drs. Russell Humphreys and John Baumgardner and is discussed in the horribly-edited DVD entitled Starlight and Time. The gist of the proposed cosmology is that the Universe has a center and the Earth is near it. There is scientific evidence indicating that distances to other galaxies are somewhat "quantized" indicating that this assumption may be true. The other assumption is that the Universe was originally about 50X smaller than it's current size. At that size, the Earth would have been inside the event horizon, which would mean that no time would pass on Earth as time passed in other parts of the Universe. The Bible says that God "stretched out" the Heavans, at which point, time on Earth would resume, assumedly at the beginning of the Bible. Light would have had ample time under this cosmology to reach the Earth because of the time dilation involved, even though it had travelled a great distance.

 

There are other theories out there as well.

 

By way of comparison, the big bang theory assumes there is NO center to the Universe. This is just an assumption as is the one made by Dr. Humphreys.

 

One interesting point in this discussion is that there are a couple of speed-of-light issue with the big bang theory, as well. For one, recent scientific literature has placed the diameter of the visible Universe at about 150 billion light years. Given that popular big-bang cosmology places the time since the big bang at about 18 billion light year, there is a serious problem with the visible Universe, as well. Unfortunately, Dr. Humphrey's cosmology idea cannot be applied to the big bang, since it must be assumed that there is no center to the Universe for this theory to apply.

 

Another issue for the big bang is that the cosmic background radiation is WAY too smooth for the light to have traversed the Universe only once. It must have made the trip many times for the ripples to be as small as the ones that have been measured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And frankly, I don't understand why Bible believers are so attached to young earth creationism anyway. The bible also said the earth was flat, that there was some physical object called the firmament that held the stars in place, that you could make the sun stand still without destroying the earth. Nobody believes this stuff anymore and it hasn't destroyed their faith.

 

 

 

Well said.

 

Just remember that there are "Bible believers" (lots and lots of us) who do not read the Bible literally or use it as a type of science text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...