Creation and the Big Bang

Gman · Post by **Gman** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:16 pm

Mac,

I just wanted to add... You are among other Christians here so we will treat you respectively. You will be in good hands as God is our witness... We are NOT atheists but are hard core Bible believing science guys. Many of us come from different denominations so you may get different flavors of the Gospel here...

If it helps any for you to know I use to be a member of "Answers in Genesis" or YEC, but made the switch to OEC after comparing doctrine and watching debates..

Hope that helps...

God Bless,

macguy · Post by **macguy** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:17 pm

Gman wrote:No problem... That would be Rich Deem. http://www.godandscience.org/contact.html

I never met him, but he use to work with RTB.. So I guess you know where he may get some of his stuff now...

Take care Mac..

Interesting, i am glad he decided to create such a great website though. Very helpful in my discussions with atheists. I thought you were him since you posted articles from him. Hehe

Thanks for everything

macguy · Post by **macguy** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:22 pm

Gman wrote:Mac,
I just wanted to add... You are among other Christians here so we will treat you respectively. You will be in good hands as God is our witness... We are NOT atheists but are hard core Bible believing science guys. Many of us come from different denominations so you may get different flavors of the Gospel here...

I never thought that this is a atheist forum but so far there isn't many of them on here. It's always a productive to hear other flavors of believers here but we all basically believe the same thing except for those who promote false teaching.

If it helps any for you to know I use to be a member of "Answers in Genesis" or YEC, but made the switch to OEC after comparing doctrine and watching debates..

Really?! OEC do have a some convincing points but i can see some problems that you would probably be able to answer. May i ask how long you've been there and what was your position there?

Gman · Post by **Gman** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:42 pm

I see your up late too. You must live on the west coast also then...

macguy wrote:I never thought that this is a atheist forum but so far there isn't many of them on here. It's always a productive to hear other flavors of believers here but we all basically believe the same thing except for those who promote false teaching.

Yes, totally I agree there. I'm a Presbyterian by trade, but now belong to a local Bible Church. I was coached under Chip Ingram from Dallas Theological Seminary if that helps.. But that isn't where I became an OEC..

macguy wrote:Really?! OEC do have a some convincing points but i can see some problems that you would probably be able to answer. May i ask how long you've been there and what was your position there?

I've been an OEC probably for a couple of years now. My position lines up mostly with this website, although there maybe a few areas where I disagree.. Sure you can pose questions here anytime... Bart or Canuckster is also a certified minister and is also good at answering questions as well..

macguy · Post by **macguy** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:53 pm

Gman wrote:I see your up late too. You must live on the west coast also then...

I sure am.

Yes, totally I agree there. I'm a Presbyterian by trade, but now belong to a local Bible Church. I was coached under Chip Ingram from Dallas Theological Seminary if that helps.. But that isn't where I became an OEC..

I'm basically independent (church-wise) but i live five miles away from Grace Community Church (John Macarthur) so i visit there. The teachings are pretty good but they have problems such as using Jesus to support their rich lifestyle and just basically changing some things to support what they do. They should be more willing to hear other explanations because many say that this is the best teaching. This can lead to arrogance, in my opinion.

I've been an OEC probably for a couple of years now. My position lines up mostly with this website, although there maybe a few areas where I disagree.. Sure you can pose questions here anytime... Bart or Canuckster is also a certified minister and is also good at answering questions as well..

Are you part of any website such as Answers in Creation or Reasons.org? I'll be sure to hear advice from all the thinking christians here

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 5:10 am

Hey MacGuy,

Rich Deem is the founder and maintainer of the main website. He does not participate on the discussion board as he chooses to invest his time in articles and responds to many who e-mail him. He's also active in his own career as a research scientist and in his own local Church and other ministry activities as well as maintaining a family, so he's a busy guy.

It would be up to Rich, as to any articles being put up on the main board. As it's up to him, I can't say. I would say that it is rare. You're welcome to post or link to any material here on the discussion board that is in keeping with the Discussion Guidleines and Board Purpose so feel free to do so as you believe it applies to the threads here, or start a new one if you wish.

There are some older threads that may address issues too, and it's fine to jump in or revive them as you see fit.

To clear up a little on my good friend G-man's introduction, I am a former minister and have served in the past as a pastor, denomination worker and Church Administrator for a lot of my career. Currently, I'm a government contractor and in a Master of Science Degree program for Organization Leadership (a field of Psychology.)

We do have some interaction with non-Christians/Agnostics Atheists on this site and some regular posters in that realm. As we're a Christian site we welcome seekers and those who want to objectively discuss issues. Those who have made up their minds however and just want to debate or promote their own views which conflict with the Board Purposes and Discussion Guidelines are directed elsewhere.

Rich Deem used to work with Hugh Ross and so we have a lot on common with the Reasons board. Answers in Creation is a solid OEC board as well.

I've not met many people who believe, as you indicate, that there's some middle ground in terms of the age of the earth.

There are some forms of OEC that appeal to the relativity of time and suggest that perhaps 7 literal days are possible through some anomoly with regard to time being relative. I've always thought it was a tenuous argument. But, perhaps there is something in that area.

To me, where the Bible is silent, science is a legitimate area to seek understanding. The more important issue to me for the Christian is what the impact is on our hermeneutics. OEC offers a legitimate rendering of the the Genesis and related passages that remains rooted in the text. It's not about compromise with science, as is often asserted by YEC apologists. The OEC position has been around historically since the earliest records of the Church. Certainly it was framed a little differently in terms of time spans and modern science has introduced elements that were not seen or argued then, but the basic issues are not all that new.

I'd be interested in why you attempt to take a more middle ground?

Do you believe there are scriptural issues that require it?

As to your question, I am not an evolutionist and this site does not promote evolution. I am a progressive creationist and in agreement with much (not all) of what it on our main site.

Old Earth creationism does include theistic evolution under its broader umbrella. I'm not threatened by evolution in that regard or anti-evolution as a science. Where I part paths is with the more agressive form of evolutionary philisophy that builds upon the science of evolution as an argument for the rejection of God. This is often referred to as Methodological Naturalism.

As such, we work as moderators (and I am one of the moderators here along with Judah, Byblos, Felgar, Bizzt and Kurioeu) to allow for discussion of evolutionary science and allow for the recognition that evolution is a legitimate science, and point out where science diminishes and philosophy increases.

Probably more than you asked, but there you go.

Bart

Gman · Post by **Gman** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:36 pm

macguy wrote:I sure am.

Hi Marc... All right, another Californian. I don't feel so all alone now...

macguy wrote: I'm basically independent (church-wise) but i live five miles away from Grace Community Church (John Macarthur) so i visit there. The teachings are pretty good but they have problems such as using Jesus to support their rich lifestyle and just basically changing some things to support what they do. They should be more willing to hear other explanations because many say that this is the best teaching. This can lead to arrogance, in my opinion.

I have many books by John Macarthur. I think my favorite book of his is called "The Love of God". He does an excellent job on it. I hear you about that rich lifestyle stuff. It is very evident in my Chruch too. Sadly, people tend to forget about the poor here living in rich California.

I'm also with you about that arrogance stuff... I think being too dogmatic stops debates and leads to bitterness..

Are you part of any website such as Answers in Creation or Reasons.org? I'll be sure to hear advice from all the thinking christians here

I'm not directly connected with Reasons (meaning a staff member), but I have registered my membership at their website. Like Bart, I also consider myself a progressive creationist.

More about that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_creationists

Take care Mac.. All the best from your northern neighbor..

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:33 pm

I visited the wikipedia link and it is very misleading as to what Progressive Creationism (PC) represents. It writes:

Progressive creationism is the most common form of Old Earth creationism today. It accepts that species have changed or evolved and also believes that the process has been continuously guided by God, with various ideas as to how the process operates. It incorporates most of modern physical science, even viewing the Big Bang as evidence of the creative power of God. It accepts much of modern biology as scientifically correct, but sees God as the agent of the evolutionary changes.

This seems very misleading. It should made clear that PC is not Theistic Evolution, and does not accept any kind of biological evolution of the macroevolutionary kind. It rejects Darwinian evolution which accepts universal common descent, that is, that all organisms are related by common ancestry from a single living organism.

I have noticed that while in general wikipedia may be a good resource, it seems very coloured with a certain, perhaps Atheistic, perspective on many issues. This is especially evident to me in its definition of Intelligent Design. That said, it is better to go directly to advocates of PC for a better understanding. One resource I would recommend can be found at http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ssive.html.

Kurieuo

Gman · Post by **Gman** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:59 pm

Hmmm.. I never thought of it (PC) as giving into macro-evolution... I think what wikipedia may be implying here is that God helps species change but not by jumping phylums..

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:45 pm

They cut back at the end of the article to say it is not Theistic evolution, but imho it seems whoever wrote it either is not careful with their words, or they do not really understand what it is themselves to have written what I quoted above. At least they have some worthy links at the bottom of it

macguy · Post by **macguy** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:25 pm

Gman wrote:Hmmm.. I never thought of it (PC) as giving into macro-evolution... I think what wikipedia may be implying here is that God helps species change but not by jumping phylums..

This one describes it correctly but they list problems with it which probably have been answered: http://www.creationwiki.net/Progressive_creationism

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:45 am

Gman wrote:Hmmm.. I never thought of it (PC) as giving into macro-evolution... I think what wikipedia may be implying here is that God helps species change but not by jumping phylums..

Wikipedia, by its nature is a populist encyclopedia where anyone and their brother is free to modify and add material.

I think in terms of Macro Evolution, you could perhaps argue that there is a spectrum of positions along the scale in terms of how much God used the natural processes He Himself created versus what he did instantaneously outside of those processes.

Theistic Evolution would for the most part argue He did it all by this means.

Progressive Creationism would allow for evolutionary processes within species and argue that differentiation beyond this was the result of direct, sudden appearance, creative acts of God for which the Genesis account indicates deliberate patterns and periods of time (ages).

All that to say, it's better to allow movements to define themselves. The wikipedia entries may well be other groups involved with seeking to define us.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:23 am

Nobel Prize Winners in Physics

http://www.newscientistspace.com/articl ... news_rss20

Big bang theorists scoop Nobel prize for physics
12:50 03 October 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Amarendra Swarup and AFP

The 2006 Nobel prize for physics has been awarded to John Mather and George Smoot for their contribution to the big bang theory of the origin of the universe.

The pair were honoured for "their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation", the jury said.

According to the big bang theory, the cosmos was formed from a cataclysmic explosion that happened about 13.7 billion years ago. The timescale and geometry are measurable by shockwaves called cosmic microwave background (CMB) that continues to wash over us.

Dubbed the “afterglow of creation", the CMB is the earliest light in the universe. It is a faint aura of primordial radiation that comes to us directly from the early universe, just 380,000 years after the big bang. While it is spread very uniformly in the sky, scientists have observed tiny variations in the temperature and polarisation of the radiation, which they believe will reveal vital details about the size, matter content, age, geometry and fate of our universe.

These variations are also believed to contain information about the earliest moments of the universe, when it was rapidly expanding faster than light in a dizzying process known as inflation.

Cosmological breakthrough
Mather, 60, is an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, and Smoot, 61, is a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley, both in the US.

The pair worked with the COBE satellite launched by NASA in 1989, and the results of their research added weight to the big bang scenario, since this is the only scenario that predicts the kind of cosmic microwave background radiation measured by COBE.

Smoot's announcement in 1992 that his team had observed the long-sought variations in the CMB — and therefore, in the early universe — shook the scientific community. Called "the discovery of the century, if not of all time", by Stephen Hawking, the discovery of these ripples and wrinkles in the very fabric of space-time are believed to be the primordial seeds of modern-day structures in our universe such as galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and so on.

"These measurements also marked the inception of cosmology as a precise science," the Nobel jury said.

Dark matters
Mather coordinated the entire process and had responsibility for the experiment that revealed the blackbody form of the microwave background radiation measured by COBE. Smoot meanwhile had the main responsibility for measuring the small variations in the temperature of the radiation.

Since then, NASA has launched another probe, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which is examining these minute variations in the CMB in even greater detail and has provided strong evidence for a universe dominated by mysterious dark matter and dark energy.

This is not the first time work in the field has been rewarded by the Nobel committee. The 1978 Nobel prize for physics was awarded to Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson for detecting the CMB, back in 1965.

The 2006 laureates will each receive a gold medal and a diploma and will share a cheque for 10 million Swedish kronor ($1.37 million dollars) at the formal prize ceremony held, as tradition dictates, on December 10. It is the anniversary of the death of the prize's creator Alfred Nobel, in 1896.