God's Precision in the Universe/Measures of Starlight Time

[Philip]

Hugh: I'm really scratching my head in an attempt to make head or tail of this. You can dismiss the six day creation of the Universe with an airy wave of the hand, but cling doggedly to the moulding of a woman around a dissected bone? Surely not...

You reject the creation of Adam and Eve due to the fossil evidence, no? Well, not only the fossil evidence can be explained through progressive creation but also the text may well indicate that ALL of humanity did not come from Adam and Eve and that the universe AND that the earth are in the billions of years old. If you have a problem that Adam and Eve's creations were just too, well, miraculous, then what can one say. You believe in the Resurrection, that God created a universe from NOTHING, correct? So, which is the bigger miracle? If God can create a universe from nothing, with stupendous functioning of the incredible things that appeared with astonishing power within moments of the Big Bang occurring, He can become human, die in His flesh, and then reanimate three days later, back to life - well, I really don't see the problem you have with the miraculous creations of Adam and Eve. I would imagine, as you are insistent upon a specific understanding of the origins of man through evolutionary processes, from simple, single-celled organism to Einstein, that this is why you scratch your head. But you fail to realize that progressive creationism can account for the very same fossil evidences.

Why do you think God can independently and INSTANTLY create a universe from nothing, but that He can't independently create creatures without some connected, slow processes? Does that make sense? Because you seem to be making light of a miraculous creation of Adam and Eve. And even if greater humanity was created first, and Adam and Eve (with God's line to Christ) much later, the original creation of mankind and the Adam and Eve are both miraculous. And, with so many complications and improbabilities, IF evolution from the simple to the the complexity of today occurred, it is still filled with many miraculous things. With God, instant miracles or extremely slow to develop ones are all the same. They are both incredible and both are impossible without God. So, I don't really see your problem, other than you are fixated on only ONE explanation for the fossil record. The genetics, also, can have varied explanations, as this is a very early science, looking backward via DNA, etc.

[hughfarey]

You have no idea what you're talking about here.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

Really? Try reading the page again, and this time stop now and again and say to yourself: How do they know the galaxies are receding? How do they know how fast they are going? How do they know what the mass of a star is? How do they know what it's made of?
Then apologise.

Philip, the question is not whether God could have done this or that, but whether he actually did, or not. Now that you seem to agree that the sun, moon and stars were not created after trees (in spite of the clear indication in Genesis 1 that they were), entirely upon the scientific evidence provided by astrophysiscists, I find it strange that you still think "he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof", in spite of the clear evidence of biology, geology, DNA studies, and comparative anatomy that that isn't in fact what happened. Of course God could have made the first woman by closing up flesh around a bone, but I don't think he did.

[RickD]

You have no idea what you're talking about here.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

Really? Try reading the page again, and this time stop now and again and say to yourself: How do they know the galaxies are receding? How do they know how fast they are going? How do they know what the mass of a star is? How do they know what it's made of?
Then apologise.

Philip, the question is not whether God could have done this or that, but whether he actually did, or not. Now that you seem to agree that the sun, moon and stars were not created after trees (in spite of the clear indication in Genesis 1 that they were), entirely upon the scientific evidence provided by astrophysiscists, I find it strange that you still think "he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof", in spite of the clear evidence of biology, geology, DNA studies, and comparative anatomy that that isn't in fact what happened. Of course God could have made the first woman by closing up flesh around a bone, but I don't think he did.

Hugh,

Your science is as bad as your theology.

Scripture doesn't say trees were created before the stars and moon. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

And any layman knows there are multiple ways that the age of the universe is measured accurately. And you call yourself a scientist?

Now I know not to take anything you say regarding scripture seriously, if you think the bible says trees were created before stars. That's just ridiculous. The bible says stars were created on or before the first creation day. Vegetation was created on the third creation day.

[Philip]

Hugh, you clearly do not understand how to read what possibilities Scripture will allow and what it does not. And there IS more than one way to parse these passages. There is also more than one way to consider what the Genesis passages are actually referring to. There is more than one way the very same evidences could be arrived at. But the biggest question I would pose to you - as NONE of what either you assert or I assert is PROVABLE AND as we both believe in an ancient universe - is why does it truly matter? If God is the originator and Creator of all that exists, why get hung up upon how long and by what processes He did so? Because those processes came from the Spiritual realm (from GOD/by Christ!), and so the previously non-existing physical realm came instantly into existence per the spiritual one. So the processes, whatever/however, are both God-given and miraculous/impossible without Him. And THAT is what all that TRULY matters.

[hughfarey]

Scripture doesn't say trees were created before the stars and moon. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Genesis 1:16, or are you going to try to wriggle out of that too?

And any layman knows there are multiple ways that the age of the universe is measured accurately.

Name just one.

Now I know not to take anything you say regarding scripture seriously, if you think the bible says trees were created before stars. That's just ridiculous. The bible says stars were created on or before the first creation day. Vegetation was created on the third creation day.

The bible specifically mentions that the sun, moon and stars were all created on the fourth day.

Hugh, you clearly do not understand how to read what possibilities Scripture will allow and what it does not. And there IS more than one way to parse these passages. There is also more than one way to consider what the Genesis passages are actually referring to. There is more than one way the very same evidences could be arrived at.

Quite so. There is indeed more than one way of interpreting the bible. So what? Is your way better than mine? Coz i disagree.

But the biggest question I would pose to you - as NONE of what either you assert or I assert is PROVABLE AND as we both believe in an ancient universe - is why does it truly matter? If God is the originator and Creator of all that exists, why get hung up upon how long and by what processes He did so?

Hung up? Moi? I'm not hung up at all. I'm entirely happy with my understanding of the rationality of God, the processes by which the universe unfolds, the evidence God has given us and the way the bible should be interpreted to conform to this. My interpretation is one among many, but it is consistent with the scientific evidence, with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and with simple human reason. That'll do for me.

[Kurieuo]

Scripture doesn't say trees were created before the stars and moon. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Genesis 1:16, or are you going to try to wriggle out of that too?

Hugh, compare Genesis 1:16-18 with Gen 1:4-5.

• 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:16-18)

• 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Genesis 1:4-5)

When accordingly was light ("day") created and separated from from darkness ("night"), on the first or fourth day?

[hughfarey]

• 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. (<a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Gen%201.16-18" data-reference="Gen 1.16-18" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">Genesis 1:16-18</a>)

• 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (<a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Gen%201.16-18" data-reference="Gen 1.16-18" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">Genesis 1:16-18</a>)

When accordingly was light ("day") created and separated from from darkness ("night"), on the first or fourth day?

Although the people who composed Genesis 1 were surprisingly accurate for their age, they did not appreciate that the sun was the source of daylight. They realised that the lightening and darkening of the sky was crucial to the diurnal operation of the earth, and rightly gave it prominence, but only added the sun, moon and stars later.

[Kurieuo]

Incredible Hugh, what nincompoops they must've been back then to not understand the Sun was the source of day light -- particularly when the Gen 1:16-18 passage more specifically says such. Did they not know what they were writing? Complete unscientific idiots they must've been.

Nonetheless, the question is still there as to when light was separated from darkness, on the first day or fourth day? It happens in two locations. So regardless of whatever the writers understood about Sun light, the question of when "light" was separated from "darkness" still needs an answer. Is it in Gen 1:4 or Gen 1:18?

One interpretation (Day-Age) tells us that the author doesn't actually locate God out there somewhere as though God is in some heavenly plain looking down into a "crystal ball" that represents our universe. This is how many (YECs) tend to read Genesis 1. Rather, Day-Agers say God is located just where Genesis 1:2 says the Spirit of God is, brooding over Earth's surface. The setting of the scene is therefore more correctly Earth's surface.

So then, when God said let there be light and there was light... (Gen 1:3-4) the vision or such the author may have had is one of Earth surface being lit up and darkness receding from the light. Where the source of such light came from evidently seems withheld until we reach the latter passage (Gen 1:16-18) which provides greater specifics of the mechanism God used to separate light from darkness.

[abelcainsbrother]

Scripture doesn't say trees were created before the stars and moon. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Genesis 1:16, or are you going to try to wriggle out of that too?

And any layman knows there are multiple ways that the age of the universe is measured accurately.

Name just one.

Now I know not to take anything you say regarding scripture seriously, if you think the bible says trees were created before stars. That's just ridiculous. The bible says stars were created on or before the first creation day. Vegetation was created on the third creation day.

The bible specifically mentions that the sun, moon and stars were all created on the fourth day.

Hugh, you clearly do not understand how to read what possibilities Scripture will allow and what it does not. And there IS more than one way to parse these passages. There is also more than one way to consider what the Genesis passages are actually referring to. There is more than one way the very same evidences could be arrived at.

Quite so. There is indeed more than one way of interpreting the bible. So what? Is your way better than mine? Coz i disagree.

But the biggest question I would pose to you - as NONE of what either you assert or I assert is PROVABLE AND as we both believe in an ancient universe - is why does it truly matter? If God is the originator and Creator of all that exists, why get hung up upon how long and by what processes He did so?

Hung up? Moi? I'm not hung up at all. I'm entirely happy with my understanding of the rationality of God, the processes by which the universe unfolds, the evidence God has given us and the way the bible should be interpreted to conform to this. My interpretation is one among many, but it is consistent with the scientific evidence, with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and with simple human reason. That'll do for me.

You put science over what God's word says and when scripture seems to go against science you go with science. But there are limitations with how much scripture you can ignore in order to go with science. And worse is that you do not even know if life evolves and yet you believe it does so much that you believe it over what the bible says. In one of the other discussions me and you had about evolution I showed you why there is no way to look at fossils and claim the life was evolving. They add evolution thinking into the fossils,but I showed you and yet you just ignore it and still look at them like they do. They don't though,as I showed you. Therefore fossils cannot be used for evidence life evolves.

Yet you acknowledge just like I pointed out all fossils show fully formed creatures and then you just imply that I don't know what a transitional fossil looks like and expect me to explain what a transitional fossil would show,when it is your job to know and explain seeing that you believe they are transitional fossils. It is your job to make your case for how they are transitional fossils and yet you just believe they are anyway and dismiss my point and believe evolution over God's word.I have a hard time believing man over God especially when both must be believed by faith,why not you?

[hughfarey]

Incredible Hugh, what nincompoops they must've been back then to not understand the Sun was the source of day light -- particularly when the Gen 1:16-18 passage more specifically says such. Did they not know what they were writing? Complete unscientific idiots they must've been.

That's very unfair. Just because it seems obvious to us is not a reason for assuming it would be obvious to anybody just looking at the sky. However, there may also be a cultural aspect in that the Jews specifically wanted to divert attention from the 'supremacy' of the sun, in order to minimise any vestiges of Sun-God worship, which is why the heavenly bodies come in so much later.

Nonetheless, the question is still there as to when light was separated from darkness, on the first day or fourth day? It happens in two locations.

No. Let there be light - Day 1. Let there be lights - Day 4. The two are quite distinct.

One interpretation (Day-Age) tells us that the author doesn't actually locate God out there somewhere as though God is in some heavenly plain looking down into a "crystal ball" that represents our universe. This is how many (YECs) tend to read Genesis 1. Rather, Day-Agers say God is located just where Genesis 1:2 says the Spirit of God is, brooding over Earth's surface. The setting of the scene is therefore more correctly Earth's surface.

They do say that, don't they, but it's a pretty feeble attempt to reconcile the quite clear creation of the Sun, Moon and Stars three days later than the separation of light from dark. No doubt the 'vision' also didn't notice that the seas were swarming with animals until day five, even though they were actually created before land plants.

[Kurieuo]

Nonetheless, the question is still there as to when light was separated from darkness, on the first day or fourth day? It happens in two locations.

No. Let there be light - Day 1. Let there be lights - Day 4. The two are quite distinct.

Hugh, I'm sure you're not intentionally avoiding my question

Your response doesn't answer my question as to when "darkness was separated from light":

• a) Day 1 (Gen 1:4), or
• b) Day 4 (Gen 1:18)?

[swordfish7]

Here you assume that God created the universe only using natural law. If God supernaturally created the earth using his creative power, then we may never have a scientific explanation. Another possibility is that we have not adequately investigated the possible theories related to a young earth. A theory may exist but we have not found it yet. Given all the billions spent examine

[swordfish7]

examining an old earth cosmology, I don't think YECists have come anywhere close to spending as much. There is a wide open opportunity to propose new theories based on a YEC position which I think we will see in the future.

[RickD]

examining an old earth cosmology, I don't think YECists have come anywhere close to spending as much. There is a wide open opportunity to propose new theories based on a YEC position which I think we will see in the future.

YEC is going the way of a flat earth.

[RickD]

Here you assume that God created the universe only using natural law. If God supernaturally created the earth using his creative power, then we may never have a scientific explanation. Another possibility is that we have not adequately investigated the possible theories related to a young earth. A theory may exist but we have not found it yet. Given all the billions spent examine

The earth exists physically in the natural world. Science is the study of the natural world.