Posted on 10/10/2012 8:32:08 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
uhh there is a rock you seem to be stuck under here.
The big bang theory is now the most widely accepted on origins as universal observations have eliminated all the competitors. Even a multi-verse universe still requires a beginning or beginnings...
uhh again the Bible was inspired and recorded for all who are free, literate, and willing to read it. Creation may not have all the details you’d like but it is still highly applicable, relevant, and informative for mankind.
It is the #1 best seller that is continually being translated into new languages and introduced to new cultures are Jesus instructed.
What about Adam and his appearnce of age?
At the time the steady state model of the universe was all ghe rage in the scientific community, the only people who believed the universe had a beginning were the ignorant Bibile believers.
And who was proved right with Hubble’s red shift observations?
And what about Einstein deliberately fudging the results of his equations on relativity with the cosmological constant? There’s really fine, unbiased science at work for you. Fit the evidence to support the theory instead of adjusting the theory to fit the evidence.
Truly, God alone sees all that there is, all at once. He alone knows objective truth. He alone speaks objective truth.
He is Truth for when He says something, it is. It is because He said, e.g. "Let there be light."
To doubt the words of God is to be spiritually irrational.
That it is.
Still, it really bothers a lot of scientists that they can't pin it down to a known, predictable and repeatable set of laws.
That is, after all, the very essence of science: to be able to test a hypothesis and get predictable results.
No argument there.
It's annoying when an otherwise smart individual denies the existence of something they can see, feel, smell, touch and hear simply because it's a detail that didn't fit onto a few parchment scrolls.
It's as if a patriot denied that there was any debate among the Founding Fathers because the Constitution doesn't mention the arguments and discussions.
Circular reasoning at it's finest.
At the time the steady state model of the universe was all the rage in the scientific community, the only people who believed the universe had a beginning were the ignorant Bible believers.
And any number of pagan and native peoples the world over.
And who was proved right with Hubble’s red shift observations?
Certainly not the Young Earth creationists. Hubble found a VERY, VERY old universe.
And what about Einstein deliberately fudging the results of his equations on relativity with the cosmological constant?
Even Einstein recanted that error. He called it the biggest blunder he ever made.
There’s really fine, unbiased science at work for you. Fit the evidence to support the theory instead of adjusting the theory to fit the evidence.
Einstein put the Cosmological Constant in because he needed a fudge factor for there to be a Perfect Universe, as God created it, whole, complete and static.
Fortunately no Biblical interpretation has ever needed to be updated, and no one has ever used Biblical quotes to justify anything that was wrong.
Wanna trade motes?
Not circular reasoning.
You can dance and evade all you want but you still haven’t answered the qeuestions.
Also, I was not making any claims anout YEC. You dragged that one in and it still does not change the fact that the Bible believers were correct about the universe having a beginning no matter what the age, and that pervailiing scientific wisdon was WRONG.
Einstein did not blunder when he deliberately added the cosmological constant. I was deliberate deceit and manipluation. He added it because he did not like the results he got from his equations. That cosmological constant did not drop out of the sky and fall into his equatons. He put the cosmological cnstant in to make the universe appear to not have a beginning, NOT to prove anything about God or a perfect univere.
And who decides that the “perfect” universe is static anyway?
He recanted only when he had to. Until he was forced to accept the redshift data, he was more than happy to let the lie stand.
Then why did you bother reading this?
Likewise annoying is when self-proclaimed intellectual elite deny the existance of something simply because they cannot see, feel, touch, or hear it and it does not fit into the peer review process.
There is reality we operate in every day which cannot be quantified or reduced to formulas and it is completely ignored by those who tout themelves to be objective, open minded seekers of truth.
So tell me, how old was Adam on the day he was created as a fully mature adult male?
Perhaps you need to look up the definition of circular reasoning.
And who decides that the “perfect” universe is static anyway?
If it is perfect and it is changing, then how can both today's universe and yesterday's universe both be perfect?
Tomorrow is different, is it going to be perfect too?
Maybe perfect would be another good word to look up.
You set yourself up as a Biblical Literalist, yet get upset when held to literal standards. One of those is creation happening in 6 days, plus a day of rest, plus a relatively low number of generations enumerated since then. Even if every enumerated generation lived ten times as long as Methuselah, it's still a minuscule fraction of the age Hubble and so many other methods give.
Which is it? You are either a de facto YEC, a fraud, or have no concept of long time periods.
I chose to believe you are an honest agent, but literally cannot conceive any meaningful difference between a few hundreds of thousands of years and a few billions of years.
You at least have plenty of company in that. We're really not built to do that.
I think we have succeeded in misunderstanding each other perfectly.
So tell me, how old was Adam on the day he was created as a fully mature adult male?
Using the creation of Adam to prove the creation of Adam because the book you site as proof of everything says so and thereore because the Book is true the Book must be true, because The Book says it's true.
Therefore, it's true!
Why did Adam have dangly bits?
Sidebar: You must be using a different Bible than mine. What exactly is your Biblical reference to Adam being created as an adult?
Mine just says:
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.Babies have nostrils.
I am fascinated by the subjects of these threads and just don't care to spend my time arguing about the age of the earth or my faith or your faith.
What causes the breakdown?
I’ll take “time” for $1,000.00 Alex.
Might be enough DNA in a Woolly Mammoth’s bones to clone one though. One can hope. That would be swell. And after that, the Tasmanian Tiger would be really neat.
Why does being perfect preclude change? Since when does “perfect” = “static”?
Doesn’t the human body change as it matures?
A person can have a perfect body but that body is not identical as an adult compared to infancy. If a person’s body did not change between infancy and adulthood, it would be considered that there was something seriously wrong with it. I can have a perfect body and perfectly healthy one and by that alone, it WILL go through puberty. If it doesn’t, it’s not perfect.
I have not set myself up as a Bible Literalist. That is an imaginary construct that has no basis in reality that you have bought into. It’s nothing more than a label which some have used to force others into a corner which does not exist.
I am not “upset” but I will not accept a label imposed on me which is untrue and does not exist. I do not know of ANYONE who believes Scripture who is a “Bible Literalist” as defined by those who reject God and Scripture and generally self-identify as atheists. They have no business and no right to slap labels on people as if they were fact when they are not. It’s disingenous at the bery least and is only done so to discredit their opponent. It is not an honest debate technique.
Life is not either/or. Contrary to what you are presuming about my position, I do not fit into any of your little pigeon holes. You have no idea of my understanding of time, relativity, or science based on your comments to me.
So are you saying that if the Bible doesn’t say something happened, manyone can just assume anything they want and claim it to be true?
Adam was created as a baby? Really?
And creationists are derided for taking stuff on faith?
Really?
That is almost, but not quite, exactly what I did NOT say.
Once again, I think we have succeeded in misunderstanding each other perfectly.
Did you not say:
What about Adam and his appearnce (sic) of age?
What age do you presume to know he was created as? All the Bible says is:
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
What apparent age do you want to impose on the first human to justify that he was created at a particular age, just so you can justify everything else being created already old, just so you can poo-poo anyone who notices that things are far older than they should be based your opinion of how old things really should be?
Is meaningful conversation between the two of us possible beyond this point?
Science at it’s best can not re-create history, there can be no repeatability. I’ll grant you that the majority consensus view is old ages but then majority viewpoints on science have been proven wrong time after time.
It’s very interesting too that this consensus viewpoint does not like to discuss any of these other natural clocks that completely contradict long ages. If your science was as sure as you think then there would be a reasonable explanation for all or most of these young ages natural clocks...
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Keep in mind I already discussed with you earlier in this thread the recession of the moon and you offered nothing in reply.
Well nothing anyway other than some decades old conjectures in science fiction by Isaac Asimov.
The decay of DNA is clearly in favor of young ages. If you were more open-minded you might even do a little research to notice that there are contradictions and assumptions in the old ages viewpoint for the Earth and Universe.
Try reading ‘Starlight and Time’ by Russell Humphreys. He re-applies Einsteins equations and comes to some very interesting conclusions. Some stuff that NASA had also recently confirmed.
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.