Posted on 03/07/2011 1:44:47 PM PST by wendy1946
I don’t. Other than that, as I mentioned, assuming God created the universe at any finite point in time, thousands or billions of years ago doesn’t even matter, why did the idea never occur to him in the infinite expanse of time prior to that point?
Fine if you abandon the Bible.
Do you believe the Bible?
Issiah 55:8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD.
Psalm 33:11 But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.
2 Peter 3:9 the Lord is not slow in regard to the promise, as certain count slowness, but is long-suffering to us, not counselling any to be lost but all to pass on to reformation,
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
You’ve got some sort of a Bible verse you can cite which talks in terms of billions of years? I mean, you can add up the lifespans starting from Adam and you don’t get more than a few thousand.
You got some verse in the Bible that says there was no beginning and God didn’t create the Heavens?
Contradicted by the VERY FIRST passage, and yet you want to get all literal on counting up lifespans and count the age of the Earth or the Universe by counting generations?
Literal when counting generations, and literal on the “days” (some without a Sun) before man was created “from dust”, but not literal at all when it speaks of a “beginning” or God “creating” the universe?
Like I say, you’re looking at conundrums whatever you do. The thing I’m proposing avoids the conundrums. In general the Bible cannot be taken 100% literally. There are any number of instances, particularly in the OT, where a basic story (e.g. the flood) is believable enough but a reader can take or leave the religious interpretation which travels along with it. Again the idea of God never figuring out that he needed to create a universe until some finite point in time does not pass a basic sniff test for logic from where I’m sitting.
Nevermind in the Bible where it says God “created” that wasn't literal. The universe always existed.
Nevermind in the Bible where it says Gods ways are not our ways, YOU know perfectly well the mind of God and align your acceptance or rejection of scientific theory upon your ‘understanding’.
Your ‘proposal’ raises a “conundrum” right from its DIRECT contradiction of the VERY FIRST LINE of the Bible.
Amusing!
Yeah there was. Of OUR planet, solar system, and local environment and LIVING world, and it was more like the Bible's version of time ago. But not of the entire universe, and not of things like time, and distance. The idea of those things coming about for the first time ever in some sort of a big bang 17B years ago is junk physics.
Not just the Earth and the local environs.
Time did not exist until Space-time and mater existed.
Gods ways are not our ways.
Basing your acceptance and rejection of science based upon a bad reading of the Bible is par for the course I suppose, but your ‘reading’ is just a bit more off the reservation than most!
God the creator apparently didn't create.
In the beginning there was no beginning.
When God separated the dark from the light; that was just local? In the rest of the universe for an infinite time before that light and dark were just mixed up willy nilly?
LOL!!!!
Thermodynamics tells us that systems will seek to equilibrate. Heat flows from high temperature to low temperature. Stars burn out. It has nothing to do with whether there was a big bang, or whether or not the universe if flying apart.
Is there a source of energy being pumped into the universe to keep it from equilibrating eventually to a very cold temperature throughout?
If the universe is going towards a very cold equilibrium, did it not then have a beginning, whether big bang or some other beginning?
You might want to start buy simply looking up the word ‘conundrum’ in a dictionary. Simply trying to pretend that such a thing doesn’t exist isn’t really workable.
That’s a good question and I do not have an answer to it offhand; I’ll try to find one.
How old do you believe our planet is?
We actually do have the one planet (Venus) in our system which actually is ballpark for some sort of a 6000 - 20000 year age like you'd get from Bible chronologies and Venus LOOKS like that: 900 F surface temperatures, major thermal imbalance, major upwards ir flux, 90-bar CO2 atmosphere, statistically random cratering etc. etc. etc. Since Earth and Mars do not look like that in any way, shape, or fashion, you have to assume that they are much older than that, but not billions of years old.
Bob Bass, one of America's best mathematicians over the last century, once redid Lord Kelvin's heat equations for the Earth WITH a maximal possible figure for radioactive elements, and came up with an upper bound of about 200M years which I would take as an absolute upper bound. If I had to put money on such a guess I'd say more like a few hundred thousand to a few million years.
That is of course, viewing our planet as a pile of rocks. Our living world in its present conformation is likely more like five or ten thousand years old as per the Bible. For that matter there are easily recognizable pictures of known dinosaur types in Amerind petroglyphs and other art work and descriptions of dinosaurs both in Midrashim and in Amerind oral traditions so that you assume there were leftover dinosaurs walking around at a time just prior to the flood, but I would assume the real age of dinosaurs would be more like a few tens of thousands of years back.
The problem is that every known measure of the mass of the universe indicates that it is much too low for gravity to arrest the expansion and draw everything back together for another cycle.
I'll grant it's possible for a given sample to have formed with all the necessary daughter elements in the mix to give a false representation of age, but it's irrational to believe that they all did.
If the Earth is, at most, a few million years old, then we shouldn't be finding Uranium ore with more than a few million years worth of accumulation of the daughter elements, but we consistently find it with accumulations indicating a much longer period of decay.
What exactly is that? Is that a biological, tectonic, or some other taxonomy?
Biological.
I'll grant it's possible for a given sample to have formed with all the necessary daughter elements in the mix to give a false representation of age, but it's irrational to believe that they all did.
If the Earth is, at most, a few million years old, then we shouldn't be finding Uranium ore with more than a few million years worth of accumulation of the daughter elements, but we consistently find it with accumulations indicating a much longer period of decay.
If the Earth actually arose from swirling masses of solar material 4B years ago as we read in our public school Earth science books, then why are there any heavy metals anywhere near the surface at all? Shouldn't they be at or near the planet's core??
There are two possibilities: Either heavy metals arrived here via impact events or they were formed here by plasma-physics style events (electrical arc discharges between Earth and other bodies), either way they have not been sitting around here for billions of years.
You might want to start “buy” looking up a word in a dictionary?
LOL!
If that is not both ignorance and arrogance on parade I don’t know what is!
Your universe had no beginning and your god was not a creator, thus I don’t see how that god cold be the God who “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth”.
The God of the Bible is also inscrutable (you might want to look that word up) yet you insist you can interpret HIS motives and interpret scripture accurately thereby?
Ignorance and arrogance on parade!
There's this thing called "vulcanism" that causes molten material from the core to be ejected to the surface.
There are two possibilities: Either heavy metals arrived here via impact events or they were formed here by plasma-physics style events (electrical arc discharges between Earth and other bodies), either way they have not been sitting around here for billions of years.
Which one are you positing actually happened, and on what evidence? If it was plasma-physics, you're talking about nuclear fusion. Did your 200 Million year recalculation of Kelvin's work take that into consideration? If it was impact events, the impacts would have been on the surface, and account for the presence of those elements there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.