I'm not sure of what point you're making here?
I Want A More Definitive Understanding Of Scientific Beliefs
- Thread starter God_be_with_you
- Start date
I'm not sure of what point you're making here?
It might just be me but that is the most incomprehensible statement I have ever read.
Presumably the 'lights in the firmament' are stars? Stars are visible in the daytime if you have a good enough telescope and know where to look.
Of course there are vast quantities of water in the Universe, there is much more than '140 trillion times over' as well. The quote you make refers to a distant quasar approximately 12 billion light years distant so presumably that sits well with you?
I have all respect for everyones opinion believe me, but you can't just pick and choose a NASA discovery to back up your bible claims for 'above THAT is more water' and then dispute the accepted distance because you disagree on the speed of light (and age of the Universe). That is just not on in my opinion.
I'm not sure what ancient people were thinking of when they read those verses either, hopefully they made more sense to them than they do to me. Perhaps they were even sat around their open air forums disagreeing on what they meant just as you seem to be doing even now?
Interesting topic.
Let me pose a point or three here. Radioactive dating is "very complex" that equates to Mother answering little Johny's question "Why?" behave a certain way with because ...." I said so"
I want to suggest that radioactive dating is a 'stab in the dark at best.......why? (not because I said so) but because we simply do not and can not know enough about conditions that existed even just 1000 years ago, let alone an alleged 4.5 or so billion years ago.
The half life of unstable elements is what is used in radiometric dating, but............................
If we could start out with a sample of 100% pure uranium, the half life of that would be less that the probable life span of a single atom of uranium. (talking about the same unstable isotope)
So to put this in simple terms, the radioactive decay rate of unstable isotopes would not be linear but logarithmic in nature and without a definite known starting point, extrapolation is a fanciful guess at best.
So we/they assume a given isotope concentration at day dot, and assume a linear decay rate and bingo...we have a highly authoritative guess (sarcasm intended) at the age of something.
"older" rocks on top of "younger " rocks????? How can this in actual reality be? If the Earth was formed all at the same time (as surly it was) then this rock is just as old....or as young as that rock.
Something to ponder here:::
Pet 3:5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,(not materially, but by process)
2Pet 3:6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.
I would like to suggest that here Peter is not talking about the world in the context of people, but rather the ball of rock we and they call home.
Though not detailed as a science paper, the flood account does suggest massive geologic upheaval (the fountains of the deep)* and so Peter's comment ..."the world that then was" could well embody an understanding that the ball of rock we call home now, is very different from the ball of rock preflood-ites called home.
* Recent surveys of offshore regions have discovered vast quantities of sub-ocean floor deposits of relatively fresh water. These might be/probably are what the Bible (written long ago) was referring to as the 'fountains of the deep'
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
So the flood was not only as a result of forty days of rain from above, but also from the welling up of waters contained below.
Gen 8:2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,
Just a few things to ponder and digest.
I will read this carefully and reply later.
I have a theory, and as far as the beginning of the universe it's about as scientific, or as speculative, as one can possibly get.
1) __ Comparison dating is almost (if not) impossible. Man has not been around long enough to be an eyewitness and make any timely comparison with any accuracy;
2) __ All dating is done through basically the same material: gaseous, liquids, and solids;
3) __ The universe could have been around for millions of years (and this is where it gets interesting), but there was no measure of time.
4) __ Time finally began in the Fourth Day of Creation;
5) __ Man was formed from the "...dust of the ground...": the same material used when trying to measure time;
6) __ The reading of man's time on earth will probably be a false reading.
1) __ Comparison dating is almost (if not) impossible. Man has not been around long enough to be an eyewitness and make any timely comparison with any accuracy;
2) __ All dating is done through basically the same material: gaseous, liquids, and solids;
3) __ The universe could have been around for millions of years (and this is where it gets interesting), but there was no measure of time.
4) __ Time finally began in the Fourth Day of Creation;
5) __ Man was formed from the "...dust of the ground...": the same material used when trying to measure time;
6) __ The reading of man's time on earth will probably be a false reading.
I admire your imaginative thinking but this does not qualify as a theory, calling it such does a huge injustice to established theories. This is an 'idea' if you like. It may as scientific as you can possibly get but certainly nowhere near as scientific as others may do.
Radiometric dating is NOT impossible. You may not agree with it but to reject it properly you would need to carry out extensive testing and research to prove that it is not accurate and then publish that research so that the relevant bodies can examine your claims. It would then be accepted or rejected depending on its validity. I would guess however that almost all of the inconsistences in this field have already been accounted for because science does not approve of theories lightly - they are subject to rigourous scrutiny.
Your second comment suggests that we cannot be sure of anything about our past unless we have eyewitness accounts from that time, I disagree. This is what science does, looks at evidence to try and work out what has happened and will happen.
If I was to be accept your claim I could be petty and ask you where the eyewitness accounts of Adam and Eve being created are? Or where the eyewitness accounts of creation are in general? Or if your point 4 was to be true, where are the eyewitness accounts of the first 3 days? I think you should think about this one - it is of little benefit to either of us really.
Yes I agree but I don't see what point you are making here. You've covered every known element in any of there possible 3 states, so basically everything.
It could have been around for billions of years or it could have been around for much longer than we care to imagine. Many ideas about the beginning of the universe suggest that space/time was created together I believe. The big bang theory is modelled back to some tiny fraction of a second after the event but what was before that is up for discussion.[/quote]
I don't conform to creation theory so I'm not really in a position to comment but I would want more detail of this idea if I were to consider it to be honest. I find the concept more difficult to think about than scientific theories.
Same as above, difficult for me to imagine. You are trying to make a link between radiometric dating using dust and man was made from the same dust? You'll need to explain this a bit more for me.
Is this scripture or of your own making? Either way, the statement is simply conjecture to me. At best it's ambiguous simply by saying 'probably' - does that mean that our estimate of the age of the earth is wrong now but may be correct in the future? Does it mean that the estimate of the age of the earth at 6000 years is false or 4.4 billion years is false? It's just too vague a statement to put forward as it can be used to fit any theory you should wish to use.
I don't believe I ever said that stars being "billions of lightyears away" was impossible... more so that it was just hard for me to grasp and that I'm naturally skeptical when crazy huge numbers are involved. Am I to say that I will NEVER believe that stars are that far away? No... but how they got to their conclusions, I am interested in
Matthew 4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Like you said previously, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. You don't have to believe in Genesis, however, it does seem odd that while on a Christian site you would "pick and choose" which verses you wish to believe in... or am I seeing things wrong?
"I'm not sure what ancient people were thinking of when they read those verses either, hopefully they made more sense to them than they do to me. Perhaps they were even sat around their open air forums disagreeing on what they meant just as you seem to be doing even now?"
Is that not WHY we are on sites like this? To discuss scriptures, create fellowships, and talk about ideas? I don't understand why you are adding in heavy sarcasm...
Matthew 4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Like you said previously, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. You don't have to believe in Genesis, however, it does seem odd that while on a Christian site you would "pick and choose" which verses you wish to believe in... or am I seeing things wrong?
"I'm not sure what ancient people were thinking of when they read those verses either, hopefully they made more sense to them than they do to me. Perhaps they were even sat around their open air forums disagreeing on what they meant just as you seem to be doing even now?"
Is that not WHY we are on sites like this? To discuss scriptures, create fellowships, and talk about ideas? I don't understand why you are adding in heavy sarcasm...
I don't believe I ever said that stars being "billions of lightyears away" was impossible... more so that it was just hard for me to grasp and that I'm naturally skeptical when crazy huge numbers are involved. Am I to say that I will NEVER believe that stars are that far away? No... but how they got to their conclusions, I am interested in
Matthew 4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Like you said previously, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. You don't have to believe in Genesis, however, it does seem odd that while on a Christian site you would "pick and choose" which verses you wish to believe in... or am I seeing things wrong?
"I'm not sure what ancient people were thinking of when they read those verses either, hopefully they made more sense to them than they do to me. Perhaps they were even sat around their open air forums disagreeing on what they meant just as you seem to be doing even now?"
Is that not WHY we are on sites like this? To discuss scriptures, create fellowships, and talk about ideas? I don't understand why you are adding in heavy sarcasm...
I don't pick and choose which versus to believe in, I don't believe any of them. Sorry if I gave you the wrong idea.
Its never my intention to be sarcastic but I think I tend to drift that way sometimes unfortunately. And yes, I'm here to discuss ideas with you.
I don't believe I ever said that stars being "billions of lightyears away" was impossible... more so that it was just hard for me to grasp and that I'm naturally skeptical when crazy huge numbers are involved. Am I to say that I will NEVER believe that stars are that far away? No... but how they got to their conclusions, I am interested in
Matthew 4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Like you said previously, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. You don't have to believe in Genesis, however, it does seem odd that while on a Christian site you would "pick and choose" which verses you wish to believe in... or am I seeing things wrong?
"I'm not sure what ancient people were thinking of when they read those verses either, hopefully they made more sense to them than they do to me. Perhaps they were even sat around their open air forums disagreeing on what they meant just as you seem to be doing even now?"
Is that not WHY we are on sites like this? To discuss scriptures, create fellowships, and talk about ideas? I don't understand why you are adding in heavy sarcasm...
Beloved, I'm truly sorry...and I know I sounded foolish to those who are a lot more scientifically inclined.
But to answer your question: I do not "pick and choose" verses. I may not understand many of them, maybe not most of them: buy I know the Gospel.
Yes, the primitive Church (I guess you meant them as "ancient people") had a better handle on the scriptures that we do. I believe it's time we went back to basic.
And YES!, that's why we should be here: to discuss scriptures, and fellowship...and I again apologize for my sarcasm. I was just having a little fun.
Mario Villa, I admit I'm a bit confused by your statements. I agree with TubbyTubby in the sense that the "theory" is really more of an idea... but nonetheless, I'm interested in what you're saying here...
1) __ Comparison dating is almost (if not) impossible. Man has not been around long enough to be an eyewitness and make any timely comparison with any accuracy;
Having someone witness to you where they were and what they saw seems more reliable in general. But some dating methods are really quite refined. The main issue I have, when such long time periods are involved, how does one account for all the variables that could occur and thus alter your end results? If for example you are studying the decay of carbon, within in a fossil or other object, can one definitively say how much carbon was in that animal before it stopped absorbing carbon?
2) __ All dating is done through basically the same material: gaseous, liquids, and solids;
I'm not really sure how to respond to this one, here... what are you trying to say?
3) __ The universe could have been around for millions of years (and this is where it gets interesting), but there was no measure of time.
4) __ Time finally began in the Fourth Day of Creation;
Genesis is a pretty big discussion topic. For me it is one big puzzle to be deciphered... and the more I look at it the more complex it seems to get. The phrase "evening and morning" is used three times before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. One might argue what evening and morning really meant. Now I know this doesn't make scientific sense, to the best of our current understanding. But one could say that the 'light' and 'darkness' existed beforehand and that they were later "manifested" into the celestial spheres. Again, I'm not saying this is scientific by any means... simply an interpretation of how I read it. I can see what you're "trying" to get at about the Fourth Day thing, but one wouldn't need the sun for time to exist. Are days simply defined as 24-hour periods, or cycles of "light and darkness" across the Earth?
5) __ Man was formed from the "...dust of the ground...": the same material used when trying to measure time;
This statement is quite ambiguous. What does the dust used to create man have to do with measuring time? The reason man is different from the ground because he has a soul and the breath of life in him. Still trying to comprehend your point here...
6) __ The reading of man's time on earth will probably be a false reading.
I agree with TubbyTubby... this statement could be used to support any theory or idea that you wanted. With statements like these ambiguity is your friend... but it gives no real answer.
1) __ Comparison dating is almost (if not) impossible. Man has not been around long enough to be an eyewitness and make any timely comparison with any accuracy;
Having someone witness to you where they were and what they saw seems more reliable in general. But some dating methods are really quite refined. The main issue I have, when such long time periods are involved, how does one account for all the variables that could occur and thus alter your end results? If for example you are studying the decay of carbon, within in a fossil or other object, can one definitively say how much carbon was in that animal before it stopped absorbing carbon?
2) __ All dating is done through basically the same material: gaseous, liquids, and solids;
I'm not really sure how to respond to this one, here... what are you trying to say?
3) __ The universe could have been around for millions of years (and this is where it gets interesting), but there was no measure of time.
4) __ Time finally began in the Fourth Day of Creation;
Genesis is a pretty big discussion topic. For me it is one big puzzle to be deciphered... and the more I look at it the more complex it seems to get. The phrase "evening and morning" is used three times before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. One might argue what evening and morning really meant. Now I know this doesn't make scientific sense, to the best of our current understanding. But one could say that the 'light' and 'darkness' existed beforehand and that they were later "manifested" into the celestial spheres. Again, I'm not saying this is scientific by any means... simply an interpretation of how I read it. I can see what you're "trying" to get at about the Fourth Day thing, but one wouldn't need the sun for time to exist. Are days simply defined as 24-hour periods, or cycles of "light and darkness" across the Earth?
5) __ Man was formed from the "...dust of the ground...": the same material used when trying to measure time;
This statement is quite ambiguous. What does the dust used to create man have to do with measuring time? The reason man is different from the ground because he has a soul and the breath of life in him. Still trying to comprehend your point here...
6) __ The reading of man's time on earth will probably be a false reading.
I agree with TubbyTubby... this statement could be used to support any theory or idea that you wanted. With statements like these ambiguity is your friend... but it gives no real answer.
I don't want to come as offensive or assumptive... but if you don't believe in any of the verses of the Bible then why are you on a Christian site? Is it because you would like to believe in them? That you would like to find some sort of faith? Or because you want to divert people from Christianity? The last question might sound accusatory, but it's an honest question. What is your ultimate goal you are trying to accomplish/explore on this site?
Mario Villa, I am afraid you are mistaken... but my comment was not at all directed towards you, but TubbyTubby. I never claimed that you were sarcastic or that you "pick and chose" verses to believe in...
Where did you get this impression?
Because an atheist view is completely polarised to a christian view and I find that interesting. There is no greater division of opinion on any other topic than ours and I am interested to learn more about it. These discussions make me think more about what I believe in which is my ultimate aim I guess.
I don't think I'm looking for faith if I'm honest and I certainly don't have any motive to try and persuade people from theirs.
HisManySongs
Passed on, February 28, 2022
Here is what happened according to Genesis with some analysis.
In Genesis 1:6 God separated the waters above and below the sky. This created an enormous canopy of water vapor in the upper atmosphere. This canopy was responsible for the uniformly mild climate which scientists agree existed. Water is a much better 'greenhouse' gas than carbon dioxide.
The hydraulic cycle we see today did not exist, it did not rain, there were no temperature differentials to drive the winds.
At the start of the Flood it began to rain for the first time. During this 40 day period, the water vapor in the upper atmosphere condensed and fell as rain.
Now began the changes on the earth's surface. The waters which fell today constitute the oceans. This is a considerable amount of water and the additional weight on the surface was responsible for the mountains and ocean depths as portions of the surface were pushed down and others raised until an equilibrium was reached.
Part of this process was the churning up of the surface and depositions which became the rock formations we see today. The fossils were creatures which were caught up in the soil laden waters and deposited along with the soil. The fossils would have been distributed according to density with the simpler shelled creatures at the bottom and lighter (and more mobile) creatures at the top.
Temperature differentials would appear with the poles dropping to sub-zero temperatures. This would account for the animals which would have required warm climates to exist becoming frozen in the tundra. Also, large ice sheaths would have formed accounting for the ice age (just one).
So the rocks are all of the same age and the mountains were created as a result of the immense forces caused by the sudden precipitation of the 'waters above'. The fossils were deposited as the soils they were in settled out and accumulated.
I don't expect you to accept this, but this is what I believe happened.
In Genesis 1:6 God separated the waters above and below the sky. This created an enormous canopy of water vapor in the upper atmosphere. This canopy was responsible for the uniformly mild climate which scientists agree existed. Water is a much better 'greenhouse' gas than carbon dioxide.
The hydraulic cycle we see today did not exist, it did not rain, there were no temperature differentials to drive the winds.
At the start of the Flood it began to rain for the first time. During this 40 day period, the water vapor in the upper atmosphere condensed and fell as rain.
Now began the changes on the earth's surface. The waters which fell today constitute the oceans. This is a considerable amount of water and the additional weight on the surface was responsible for the mountains and ocean depths as portions of the surface were pushed down and others raised until an equilibrium was reached.
Part of this process was the churning up of the surface and depositions which became the rock formations we see today. The fossils were creatures which were caught up in the soil laden waters and deposited along with the soil. The fossils would have been distributed according to density with the simpler shelled creatures at the bottom and lighter (and more mobile) creatures at the top.
Temperature differentials would appear with the poles dropping to sub-zero temperatures. This would account for the animals which would have required warm climates to exist becoming frozen in the tundra. Also, large ice sheaths would have formed accounting for the ice age (just one).
So the rocks are all of the same age and the mountains were created as a result of the immense forces caused by the sudden precipitation of the 'waters above'. The fossils were deposited as the soils they were in settled out and accumulated.
I don't expect you to accept this, but this is what I believe happened.
HisManySongs
Passed on, February 28, 2022
Sorry to hear. Prayers for you and the family!
Its an interesting read for sure, I'm curious as to whether this is your personal analysis or is it something shared by your christian friends? It seems you are quite sure of these ideas, but I don't understand how you made the jump from Genesis to this more detailed explanation. I certainly don't agree with much of it but if its what you believe then that's your choice. I have a few questions out of curiosity.
This is sort of comparable to my understanding of earths evolution, at some early point in the earths formation I agree that rain (at least as we know it now) would not be present, mainly because the surface was molten.
However hard I try to picture this, I can't see how water pressure could force solid rock into mountains. How fast did this happen? This supposed state of equilibrium puzzles me also, if mountains are pliable enough to be forced up then being heavier than water I would think that laws of physics would mean that they would just sink back down until they were in equilibrium and with no peaks. In other words, a uniform flat bed of rock with the water sitting on top of them. What keeps the mountains up now?
The common understanding of plate tectonics gives sufficient proof of how mountain ranges form, presumably you don't believe that?
Are you sure this lines up with observations of fossil beds? I thought there were whale fossils found on top of some South American mountains.
How do the temperature differentials come about in your opinion?
I don't know, it just doesn't match up to what we observe today does it? Like I asked earlier, where does this come from? Is it an accepted idea within your faith or do you each have different opinions on what Genesis actually means?
HisManySongs
Passed on, February 28, 2022
It is interesting that some of the most educated and respected of the elite scientist , reject their fellow scientists conclusions on many of these issues that relate to the age of the earth. I find it helpful to always remember that "evolutionist" have an agenda that at its core is a rejection of Christ, as the Maker of all things. The many lies they have been caught up in, prove that any evidence they attempt to present, should be taken with a grain of salt.
It is true... the viewpoints are quite different. In our modern day culture most would think it's Science vs. Religion... but I think that's inaccurate. Why can't religion and science work together, do they absolutely have to be in opposition? Science takes things apart to show you they work, while religion puts them back together and shows you what they mean.
One thing that I feel doesn't get discussed enough is what the scientists say about how fossils occur? Most people have the presupposed idea that fossilization happens willy-nilly, but that isn't true... in order to get fossils, typically the creatures have to die quite suddenly and then get buried. How can one explain how their are so many fish fossils dying and then subsequently getting buried? Animals don't just die and then bury themselves...
You are correct, it is true that scientific theories are rejected, re-examined and scrutinised in every possible detail until you are left with the most plausible explanation. That IS science. Theories that do not stand up to this kind of examination are not accepted by the scientific community. I don't see why you would see that as some sort of flaw?
I completely reject the accusation that science has a 'core' agenda to disprove creationists. Science is a continual development of our understanding of the Universe from the very small to the very big. Science would quite happily carry on its exploration without a second glance to religious scriptures, the two don't really cross paths or at least they shouldn't need to.
Creationists presumably are a bit miffed that science appears to disprove their bible stories but thats only a consequence of the science NOT its ultimate aim. I would like to know where you get the impression that scientists have an agenda to reject christ? It doesn't look like that from where I stand at least. Is there one particular field of science, or individual who makes you feel this way? Or is it just 'scientists' in general? Does that include me?
If I was to take the same stance I could say that creationists have an agenda against me! Why should you have a monopoly on feeling persecuted? I don't take offence when several times a year I am descended on by groups of theists knocking on my door offering pamphlets persuading me to join their 'cult'. I walk past people preaching on the street corners in my city quite often doing the same but it doesn't make me feel persecuted, if anyone has an agenda then THAT is where you should look.
I've yet, in my entire life, opened my door to be greeted by someone stating to be atheist and offering me the latest Stephen Hawking publication. Now that would be refreshing, but I doubt that will ever happen.
I propose that your opinion that science has an agenda against you is purely down to your personal outlook on life and not an accurate picture of what science is.