Gen 1 Defies Physics Laws

[gogobuffalo]

You still have millions of years where plants are around and the sun is hidden by a transluscent cloud. You think this would make lots of effects, like photosynthesis, almost impossible. And the Bible never says anything about a translucent cloud. I think all of the stuff compiling Christianity and science is great, but sometimes you just have to have "faith like a child." A child wouldn't questions such things, although I also think it's good to speculate. But you won't ever be able to solve some problems. Try and scientifically explain the virgin birth. Or are their hidden words lost in translation or secret meanings?

[Seraph]

I think all of the stuff compiling Christianity and science is great, but sometimes you just have to have "faith like a child."

You raise some interesting points, but I think we should have a good knowledge of science in relation to the Bible because then we know what to say when posed with issues like the one this thread is about. I think the Bible is clear that Jesus' birth was a purely supernatural event, so trying to explain it with natural events would be futile. Genesis however is faced with opposition that can be damaging to Christianity so its important to recognize how its compatable with science.

[zoegirl]

You still have millions of years where plants are around and the sun is hidden by a transluscent cloud. You think this would make lots of effects, like photosynthesis, almost impossible. And the Bible never says anything about a translucent cloud. I think all of the stuff compiling Christianity and science is great, but sometimes you just have to have "faith like a child." A child wouldn't questions such things, although I also think it's good to speculate. But you won't ever be able to solve some problems. Try and scientifically explain the virgin birth. Or are their hidden words lost in translation or secret meanings?

Two points....light was created, even if the sun wasn't...but I favor the explanation Seraph provided.

Doesn;t obscure the light needed for photosynthesis (let me ask you this....on a cloudy day, when the sun is not visible, can the plants not photosynthesize? certainly not as much, but they certainly can)

On another point....even the most basic of time scales, tree rings, ppoints to an earth older than 6000years. At least 10,000 years old. Bristlecone pine trees offers us the most reliable aging and tree rings acuratley represent the ecological patterns over their years, so we can use multiple trees to map out the age of the earth.

[dad]

Okay, I've finally read through everything now, and there's a few comments I'd like to make. Currently I am in a high level statistics and probability course. Now, mathematics is the most accurate thing mankind has ever came up with - more accurate than scientific calculations in labs. When you run scientific experiments and such, there is always experimental error, and even though it is very small at times, it is always there. IF you keep all the decimal places in mathematics, and the calculations are done correctly, there is no error (unless of course the numbers that were used for the calculations had error, but that is not what I'm talking about). Well, in my statistics course, they have pushed very hard that you NEVER extrapolate beyond your data. What does this mean? This means that you shouldn't apply the rules, rates, or whatever for your current time span, and apply it before or after your time span to predict data. It is extremely inaccurate most of the time, and there is no way to prove that it will be accurate. For example, on a test I had earlier this year, you had to explain why extrapolation beyond your data is dangerous, and we had a problem that was a graph of men's records time in the 400. IF you extrapolate beyond your data, in a few years beyond what the data was the record would be like 30 seconds, which is humanly impossible, and further on it would be 10 seconds. And if you extrapolate into the past, you would say that the record a hundred years beyond the data would be like an hour, obviously humans have always been able to run a 400 faster than that. Now I know this is one example, but it is true most of the time with extrapolation. Well, if we cannot extrapolate beyond our data in mathematics, the most accurate concept man has developed, why can we do this with science?

Good point. They can't, not unless they really could prove that this state was what we had. They can't. they have simply assumed that, and proceeded from there. That is their Achilles heel.

By looking at it this way, I think dad and IRQConflict bring up very good points. Science and math are almost always related without conflicting eachother, and if this is the case here, then we cannot use our current data to predict things millions or billions of years in the past or future. I mean come on we've seen scientists do it hundreds of times! I've seen a movie made by a group of reputable scientists in the 1970's that said humans would start to die out like crazy by year 2000 because of overpopulation.

Right, predictions made from a little slice of time, based on IF things were still the same. Like they predict the sun will burn out. The bible says a new heavens are coming, and that the sun will never ever burn out. It is forever. Same idea, they predict, based on the current state, as if it will always be so.

Also, I have another point to bring up. Dad has brought this up several times, and he has been IGNORED everytime, unless I skipped what somebody typed. But if you read Genesis 1:9-19, it makes it very clear that plants on Earth were created before the sun. Plants on the third day, sun on the fourth day. Now, if these days are all millions of years old, we have a huge problem OEC.

Bingo. An utter impossibility.

Oh, and dad, I get a kick out of your name. I laugh everytime I type the word "dad." Calling someone I don't know dad .. . ha

I chose it long ago on another forum. I wanted a short name, so I didn't have to type a lot every time I wanted to post.

[dad]

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

Did you read the day age interpretation page on the site? According to it, the sun was not created on the fourth "day", but rather the sun was not visible from the earth until the fourth day (when the translucent cloud was removed). We OEC's do not believe that plants (or even the earth) were created before the sun. We believe that the sun was already created along with the rest of the universe in the verse "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth".

That is nonsense. You can't support that, it is pure imagination.

[dad]

I think all of the stuff compiling Christianity and science is great, but sometimes you just have to have "faith like a child."

You raise some interesting points, but I think we should have a good knowledge of science in relation to the Bible because then we know what to say when posed with issues like the one this thread is about. I think the Bible is clear that Jesus' birth was a purely supernatural event, so trying to explain it with natural events would be futile. Genesis however is faced with opposition that can be damaging to Christianity so its important to recognize how its compatable with science.

I disagree. I think it is more important to realize it must be incompatible with present, temporary universe science. Then, it makes a lot of real sense.

[dad]

Doesn;t obscure the light needed for photosynthesis (let me ask you this....on a cloudy day, when the sun is not visible, can the plants not photosynthesize? certainly not as much, but they certainly can)

So, if it is cloudy for 10 million years, with no sun created, plants are OK? Don't think so.

On another point....even the most basic of time scales, tree rings, ppoints to an earth older than 6000years.

Ah, NO!!! I see plants, like trees created only days before we ate them!!! That means the trees grew real fast. That means a ring did not in any way represent a year as it now does!! Neither do trees in heaven take long to grow. Look at the tree of life, every month, we get fruit!!! Look at Noah, even! He sent out a bird, and, sadly, no trees. What, about a WEEK later, he sent out another one, and an olive branch, from a tree! That is fast! No wonder they could feed an ark ful of animals with growth rates like that.

Trees cannot give ages from when the universe state was different.

[JoshG_]

There are many questions as to the validity of the bible but to turn the discussion from what is actually contained in the text, what about taking a look at the origins of the work itself. Like many other cultures worldwide the bible is simply a sort of sacred myth or metaphor if you will, of one specific culture, containing numerous astrological references and theology that is taken directly from ancient pagan sun worship. All one has to do is examine the correlations between Jesus and the Egyptian sun god Horus, present in Egyptian mythology as early as 3000 B.C. Horus was born of the virgin Isis, (immaculate conception) known as a great teacher even at a young age, performed many confounding mysteries, (miracles) was betrayed and killed, buried for three days and then resurrected this is just to name a few of the parallels. These two deities are only two examples of over thirty such deities that have similar characteristics and stories behind them. No one can say they are completely certain of any doctrine or any belief but you have to admit that religion is a powerful tool that has millions of everyday human beings living exactly how the government wants them to, following proper moral conduct and not questioning the actions of those in power in our corrupt society. Before I stray too far off topic here is a link for some more information..

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

[IRQ Conflict]

Gosh Josh, we have other threads to discuss the validity of our Wonderful and Majestic Savior Lord Jesus Christ. Please use them.

[zoegirl]

Doesn;t obscure the light needed for photosynthesis (let me ask you this....on a cloudy day, when the sun is not visible, can the plants not photosynthesize? certainly not as much, but they certainly can)

So, if it is cloudy for 10 million years, with no sun created, plants are OK? Don't think so.

On another point....even the most basic of time scales, tree rings, ppoints to an earth older than 6000years.

Ah, NO!!! I see plants, like trees created only days before we ate them!!! That means the trees grew real fast. That means a ring did not in any way represent a year as it now does!! Neither do trees in heaven take long to grow. Look at the tree of life, every month, we get fruit!!! Look at Noah, even! He sent out a bird, and, sadly, no trees. What, about a WEEK later, he sent out another one, and an olive branch, from a tree! That is fast! No wonder they could feed an ark ful of animals with growth rates like that.

Trees cannot give ages from when the universe state was different.

Now, see, I find this just plain silly. You are saying that basic plant physiology was radically different than it is today. Would GOd have done this? He certainly COULD have, but would HE? Again, either we trust HIS creation as being a valid testimony or we don't.

Plants established different rings because the establish differently sized xylem pipes. The pipes in wet springs are very large and and pipes in the fall and winter and very small, thus creating different densities and thus the rings. So unless you are saying that the YEARs were different time scales, then you have a silly hypothesis.

Of course, you can go back to the appearance of age, but if the Bristlecone pine trees were made 6000years ago, then why would God have felt it necessary to advance the ages to 10,000 years? Such a small time frame....

As for Noah, SEEDS can germinate into SEEDLINGS very quickly and I have no problem with the notion that the branch would have been a part of the seedling that was growing. (Remember, you established that the PRE-FALL world was outside time, not the post-fall world.....Are you saying now that God manipulated time and space AFTER THE FALL? AFTER THE CREATION WAS FINISHED? our notions of time within the post-fall world are invalid now?)

[dad]

There are many questions as to the validity of the bible but to turn the discussion from what is actually contained in the text, what about taking a look at the origins of the work itself. Like many other cultures worldwide the bible is simply a sort of sacred myth or metaphor if you will, of one specific culture, containing numerous astrological references and theology that is taken directly from ancient pagan sun worship.

That is your opinion. It is the opinion of millions it is much much more, and for millions of good reasons.

All one has to do is examine the correlations between Jesus and the Egyptian sun god Horus, present in Egyptian mythology as early as 3000 B.C. Horus was born of the virgin Isis, (immaculate conception) known as a great teacher even at a young age, performed many confounding mysteries, (miracles) was betrayed and killed, buried for three days and then resurrected this is just to name a few of the parallels.

Not at all. First of all, you claim it was 3000 BC. Prove it! I don't believe that for a moment. As for the story itself, it is irrelevant. There may have been many prophetic stories of what was coming. Maybe they heard a few things from some Hebrews, and embellished it? Maybe they had some shred of pre flood Messiah prophesy, they embellished? Etc. In any case, Our Jesus had nothing to do with that. Jesus fulfilled bible prophesies, lots and lots of them! Horus did squat!

These two deities are only two examples of over thirty such deities that have similar characteristics and stories behind them. No one can say they are completely certain of any doctrine or any belief but you have to admit that religion is a powerful tool that has millions of everyday human beings living exactly how the government wants them to, following proper moral conduct and not questioning the actions of those in power in our corrupt society. Before I stray too far off topic here is a link for some more information..

There are many gods and spirits that lived before Christ, true. So??? Spirits have some similarities. So? I mean, it is widely interpreted that Lucifer was one of the morning stars. So? Does that take away anything from THE bright and Morning Star, Jesus? No, of course not. You need to learn to separate the men from the boys, when it comes to ancient stories. The wheat from the chaff, and the good spirits from the bad.

[dad]

Now, see, I find this just plain silly. You are saying that basic plant physiology was radically different than it is today. Would GOd have done this? He certainly COULD have, but would HE? Again, either we trust HIS creation as being a valid testimony or we don't.

Yes, I certainly am! That is what I deduce from the word of God. Take the tree of life for example, it was found in Eden, and is also in the New Jerusalem. The growth rates are fantastic. If light was different, would not that effect photosynthesis, as might a plethora of other things in a different fabric universe? How could Noah release a bird, and, ...no tree. Then, a week later, another bird, and a grown tree?! How could God plant a garden, and we eat the fruit days later, off the trees? Yes, plants and people had radically different growth processes.

Plants established different rings because the establish differently sized xylem pipes. The pipes in wet springs are very large and and pipes in the fall and winter and very small, thus creating different densities and thus the rings. So unless you are saying that the YEARs were different time scales, then you have a silly hypothesis.

Not at all. The cycles we know in the present existed in another form in the past. We don't know all the details, but I think we can get some grasp of the way it was. There were different parts of a day. Likely a windy part(s) that were called the "cool of the day". There were wet parts, as the waters came up and watered the earth, instead of rain. That means also a lot of climate differences, no doubt. So, rings represented patterns in either the week, day, or even hours, I would surmise.

Of course, you can go back to the appearance of age, but if the Bristlecone pine trees were made 6000years ago, then why would God have felt it necessary to advance the ages to 10,000 years? Such a small time frame....

No. The pines already had rings after the flood, likely, when they started to grow. Since we could have hundreds of rings in weeks, depending on the tree, there is ample time for all the rings you could dream of in the 101 years after the flood. We simply deduct the 4400 rings since the present state began, and approximate how many rings were already there! No long ages at all.

As for Noah, SEEDS can germinate into SEEDLINGS very quickly and I have no problem with the notion that the branch would have been a part of the seedling that was growing. (Remember, you established that the PRE-FALL world was outside time, not the post-fall world.....Are you saying now that God manipulated time and space AFTER THE FALL? AFTER THE CREATION WAS FINISHED? our notions of time within the post-fall world are invalid now?)

Yes, about the time of Babel, and the days of Peleg, when the earth was divided! Long after the fall. Yes, your dating is absolutely invalid as we approach the universe change a century after the flood. That would be about, as I figure it, the time of Sumer and early Egypt. That is as far as the records go! That is as far as this universe is testable, observable, and in any way part of science.

[IRQ Conflict]

That is as far as the records go! That is as far as this universe is testable, observable, and in any way part of science.

Nail, meet hammer.

[zoegirl]

Oh, please!!

Let me predict what every argument will be from you concerning the 20 or so evidences of old earth....

"GOd can do what He wants" (I certainly support this, but is this WHAT HE did, that is the question)

or "The physical laws of nature were different"

"We can't measure that far back"

I can see that debating these 20 would be ridiculous in the extreme since you view these pieces of data as plastic and flexible and untrustworthy. So, let's skip that because evey time we examine something you will just maintain one of those three statements.

Secondly, to go back to the plants.

The cycles we know in the present existed in another form in the past. We don't know all the details, but I think we can get some grasp of the way it was. There were different parts of a day. Likely a windy part(s) that were called the "cool of the day". There were wet parts, as the waters came up and watered the earth, instead of rain. That means also a lot of climate differences, no doubt. So, rings represented patterns in either the week, day, or even hours, I would surmise.

Ah ha!!!!...the key words here...."I would surmise", in other words...pure guesswork!! YOu don't KNow!!! YOu don't know enough about plants to make this prediction. First of all, there are plenty of places on earth today that have enough changes in weather that IF plants changed in their xylem diameter that quickly we would SEE today. Good grief, good old temperate eastern UNited States plants would go through 2 or 3 rainy periods followed by 2 or 3 windy days. And plants don't simply do this!! Unless you maintain that they are different in the last 10,000 years. They grow fastest in spring and good seasons produce wide rings. Secondly, we COULD certainly test this in the laboratory. DO you have any research to support your hypothesis? If trees WEREN'T dependable and predictable, we would certainly see this in their responses. But we can validate their rings to drought years in the past or fires, or good wet years. They ARE dependable....UNLESS you think that plants were different.

http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land ... estel.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/f ... ow_tr.html


So, either the plant physiology was DRASTICALLY different even after the fall (and yet you maintain that we can measure up to the fall, correct?) or somehow the time was different (and yet the fall marked the beginning of time for us in your theory, correct?) SO the fall happened at least 10,000 years ago!

[zoegirl]

Sorry, Irqconflict

Meant to get back to you on this.

Here is a short list of resources on how YEC's distort science

http://www.answersincreation.org/bookre ... romise.htm
http://www.answersincreation.org/ttmcls.htm
http://www.answersincreation.org/youngministry.htm
http://www.answersincreation.org/ttmcls9.htm
http://www.answersincreation.org/ttmcls2.htm
http://www.answersincreation.org/ttmcls3.htm
http://www.answersincreation.org/ttmcls6.htm

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... #Planetary
http://www.doesgodexist.org/MarApr01/AV ... elens.html
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/ ... ml#preface

(the last two are obviously non-Christian, but I felt I should be a varied in my sources as possible)

A large class of "evidences" presented by young-Earth advocates involve measuring rates of various Earth processes, then attempting to extrapolate them backwards for millions of years. Generally, the purpose is to show that the process in question would build up to absurdity if it were allowed to continue through "evolutionary timescales." The fallacy of most claims of this type is a failure to recognize the importance of equilibrium. Most processes on Earth are in a state of balance, in which one process (such as erosion of the continents) is counteracted by others (such as emplacement of new continental material by volcanoes and tectonic uplift). Generally, processes on Earth do not build up without limit, because there is always another process that opposes the build-up, leading to the establishment of equilibrium. The method for dealing with young-Earth claims of this type is to look for the limiting process that imposes equilibrium. In some cases the balancing process has simply been overlooked, and the young-Earth claim is laid to rest by pointing it out. Other times the balancing process is not well understood or even unknown, which may seem to lend credence to young-Earth claims. However, in these cases we simply revert to the unexplained mystery. Unless we can prove that no balancing process exists (and in most cases that cannot be done), we should adopt the working hypothesis that there is a yet-to-be-discovered process that provides the equilibrium, rather than jumping to the assumption of a supernatural explanation. Examples of the One-Sided Equation Fallacy include Influx of Magma from Mantle to Form Crust, and Erosion of Sediment from Continents, Maximum Life of Comets, and Helium-4 in the Atmosphere