Page 3 of 4
Re: Quick answers
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:05 am
by neo-x
FL, no comments on the answer you were searching for?
Re: Quick answers
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 5:11 am
by Furstentum Liechtenstein
neo-x wrote:FL, no comments on the answer you were searching for?
I favor a combination of what you and Mazzy answered: an observer at the limits of the universe would see it much as we see it. Perhaps there would be blackness in the direction of the ''edge''. If the observer set out in the direction of that blackness, he could never reach the end of it. I visualize the universe as a baloon expanding outward; the observer, being part of the universe, can never reach the ''edge''. He can never reach the edge for two reasons:
1. there is no edge.
2. the observer is
part of the universe, so the further out he travels, the ''bigger'' the universe gets.
FL
Re: Quick answers
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 6:52 am
by melanie
B. W. wrote:melanie wrote:I have previously not entered into this debate as I quite honestly don't have the scientific background or knowledge to assert my beliefs either way. I know! Nice work Mel, come to a science/christian based forum with the scientific know how of a fifth grader
What I do know is this; I would walk out of science class learning of evolution then walk straight into a religious class and learn of creation and no-one was bridging the gaps. It amused and baffled me. I read my bible and knew what scripture told me but I also could see the scientific evidence for an earth being older than 6000 years. Even though I have always held scientific theories with a grain of salt, it seemed obvious to me that there was indisputable evidence that the earth was infact older then several thousand years.
When I was in my early twenties I questioned God, with questions of why and how, it had zero impact on my belief in The Almighty I had my own indisputable evidence and I never questioned his existence but I wanted to know the answers of the earth and universe. I never got them. I got answers but not definitive. I did not need to know, those answers would one day be answered when I departed from this body and this limited mind. I needed to focus on matters that were definitive, like salvation, and to be 100% honest I was so flawed i had much bigger issues at hand!
So where do I stand, typically me, somewhere in the middle. I am not a YEC I think we have enough evidence to show otherwise, but I am not OEC either. I don't believe and it's not based on anything scientific but my relationship with God that he sat on his hands in anticipation of our creation, with those names written in the book of life that were written before creation of the earth then he orchestrated the Big Bang then waited ohh a small 13 or so billion years for his beautiful creation to come into fruition, to see his plan for us come into existence.
You cannot use scripture as it was never its intention to teach things about the material universe, which I think caused false interpretations and assumptions, likewise as you cannot use science which in its essence it's entirely secular to explain God and his creation.
I don't have a scientific name to attach to it, I think maybe this is where Mazzy is coming from but I could be completely off base, that something existed inbetween. I have heard of gap theory, but I'm not sure this explains what I am trying to say either. I have heard that it's no longer "popular" good thing I don't care for what's popular or mainstream or the majority, I have been shown too many times in life that majority or mainstream means diddly squat to truth. When I read scripture I have always interpreted it to mean that there was was not "nothing" but void to create his canvass for what we know as this current earth and His creation of mankind or modern, intellectual and spiritually discerning man. What occurred within this void over millennia is anyone's guess, and I do not know.
I'm sorry for my complete lack of scientific know how to back my beliefs up, it's just my interpretation and instinct.
Yes Melanie, there is the Gap Theory regarding creation. It basically states that there is a gap between the verses of Genesis 1:1 and Gen 1:2. That a pre-Adamic era existed and God removed, and in verse 2 he remakes the earth. The article quoted below is rom
Wikipedia: Gap Creationism so folks can gain a basic understanding of it.
Gap creationism (also known as ruin-restoration creationism, restoration creationism, or "The Gap Theory") is a form of old Earth creationism that posits that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days (light being "day" and dark "night" as God specified), but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth. It differs from day-age creationism, which posits that the 'days' of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years), and from young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time.
Wikipedia: Gap Creationism
Other variations of the Gap Creationism (GS) states that the pre-Adamic era was destroyed due to the fall of Satan wich ushered in the new. Some of this was based on how one interpreted Eccl 3:15,
Whatever is has already been, and what will be has been before; and God will call the past to account. NIV
Gap theorist notices a pattern of Eccl 3:15 revealed in Revelation 21:1 as well too, which would mean, in layman's terms - Third time is the charm.
GC, our current time on earth is viewed as being the second purification process and during this time God's word will purify-refine seven times, Psalms 12:6, and that somehow the seven Churches mentioned in the book of Revelation reveals some of this refinement. Not sure what all this means but GS folks make a case from these points.
For me, it doesn't matter. God created the earth and the heavens and took as long as he so desired to do so. As I understand how the Lord works, he test the human heart as it states in: Proverbs 17:3, Psalms 66:10 and...
Psalms 7:9, Oh, let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end, But establish the just; For the righteous God tests the hearts and minds.
Psalms 11:5, The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.
In this test, human pride is brought to the surface. The most militant YEC's contend that not believing in 6 literal 24 hour days creation is tantamount to blasphemy towards God and Grace is tossed out the door, along with Faith, Hope, and Charity. This exposes something in the human condition and thus - God tests the heart is true indeed. In my view, The Lord is in control and allows us to debate in order to expose something within us that is not right and needs a change - His good fix. The Age of the Earth as per YEC, or OEC, or Gap is not important to me as I can see God's handiwork while I walked last Thursday on
Crosier Mountain Trail noticing the large variety of wild flowers and the big Kitties that live their too (Mountain Lions).
The details in nature are too outstanding and point to our Creator's vast deep wisdom, knowledge, and understanding that in that, I do not doubt he created. I am an OEC and as for me it does not matter how long or short God took creating things that resound His Glory! In the long term, in light of eternity only things matter in Jesus Christ and the reconciliation he brought to us viva the Cross and Resurrection. Age of the earth - well - tests the human heart....
-
-
-
Thanks BW for your info on GC and your post.
I agree with you, I do not doubt that God is our Creator, I see his beauty and handiwork everyday, lucky you, the Crosier Mountain Trail looks like a wonderful place to visit! It is enough to just simply know he is Our Creator, and put our faith in Jesus and trust. Mine is a simple faith based on trust, I have thought momentarily that perhaps I needed a more sophisticated belief surrounding creation as I have not concerned myself too much on it, as I just don't really know for certain but we don't need all the answers and we certainly don't need to be quarrelling (nothing wrong with discussion) and condemning each other for differing interpretations when it is just that interpretations and has no bearing on our salvation or relationship with Our Father.
Think I'm going to stick to RDK viewpoint on creation, Really Don't Know, and I'm fine with that, no disrespect at all intended to those that hold fast to their belief, and I do have an opinion myself but I could be wrong.
Re: Quick answers
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:07 am
by melanie
Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:melanie wrote:I am not a YEC I think we have enough evidence to show otherwise, but I am not OEC either.
You may want to consider Schroeder's Creation Perspective, then. It does a great job of combining YEC and OEC.
Philip wrote:[skeptics] get all wound up in questioning whether Jesus could turn a little wine into water.
Actually, Jesus turned
water into
wine.
(Turning wine into water is easy if you have a large enough volume of water.)
FL
Thanks for that FL, it was interesting reading up on it, I haven't seen that viewpoint before.
Re: Quick answers
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:33 am
by Mazzy
Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:neo-x wrote:FL, no comments on the answer you were searching for?
I favor a combination of what you and Mazzy answered: an observer at the limits of the universe would see it much as we see it. Perhaps there would be blackness in the direction of the ''edge''. If the observer set out in the direction of that blackness, he could never reach the end of it. I visualize the universe as a baloon expanding outward; the observer, being part of the universe, can never reach the ''edge''. He can never reach the edge for two reasons:
1. there is no edge.
2. the observer is
part of the universe, so the further out he travels, the ''bigger'' the universe gets.
FL
I believe there is no edge because the universal void is infinite, there is no end to universal space, no cosmic edge for the observer to bang their head on. If one took off in a certain direction it would be an infinite trip. Perhaps they would move pass the creation into void but this void would never end.
The problem is, if one is a big banger, one has to have faith that when the universe existed as a singularity, God, Jesus and the angels lived there also, there was nothing outside the singularity. Space, nor time existed. Hence God created the universe while residing in the space of tennis ball or smaller. IOW God did not have 'space' for his creation in the beginning, all the angels lived within the singularity, there was no time line for Gods creation of Jesus first, then angels etc.
This sort of BB reasoning is a snippet as to why I believe BB is non plausible and I do not have faith in BB theory.
Re: Quick answers
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:24 am
by Philip
I believe there is no edge because the universal void is infinite, there is no end to universal space, no cosmic edge for the observer to bang their head on. If one took off in a certain direction it would be an infinite trip. Perhaps they would move pass the creation into void but this void would never end.
I would say 1) you have no science to support that and 2) no Scripture. Philosophically, IF God created the universe its void into which it is expanding, then these are defined things with (originally) specific parameters. Now, that's not to say that the void can't flex and expand to accomodate what goes into it.
The problem is, if one is a big banger, one has to have faith that when the universe existed as a singularity, God, Jesus and the angels lived there also
And from where do you get that? One, you don't know WHERE God resided during the period of singularity (Scripture is silent about that). And apparently you aren't considering that 1) God is spirit and 2) that there are likely many other dimensions (both physical and otherwise) besides those we theorize existed before the universe (Big Bang) began.
... there was nothing outside the singularity. Space, nor time existed. Hence God created the universe while residing in the space of tennis ball or smaller. IOW God did not have 'space' for his creation in the beginning, all the angels lived within the singularity, there was no time line for Gods creation of Jesus first, then angels etc.
And where did you get the idea that Jesus is a CREATED Being? And you have no idea of how many previous times and dimensions God created before THIS one. He never had a beginnning! Think He wasn't ALWAYS utilizing His creative abiliites (a key characteristic of God). It is astounding to me that people think God has only been focused on the past 14 billion years, AS IF everything is about US and OUR time. God never changes, which tells me He is always active, creating and guiding - it's just that we don't know and can't see, where, when and what.
Re: Quick answers
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:33 am
by Furstentum Liechtenstein
Mazzy wrote:I believe there is no edge because the universal void is infinite, there is no end to universal space, no cosmic edge for the observer to bang their head on. If one took off in a certain direction it would be an infinite trip. Perhaps they would move pass the creation into void but this void would never end.
That makes sense. Philip doesn't like it but he lives out in the middle of a forest...
Mazzy wrote:The problem is, if one is a big banger, one has to have faith that when the universe existed as a singularity, God, Jesus and the angels lived there also, there was nothing outside the singularity. Space, nor time existed. Hence God created the universe while residing in the space of tennis ball or smaller. IOW God did not have 'space' for his creation in the beginning, all the angels lived within the singularity, there was no time line for Gods creation of Jesus first, then angels etc.
The above goes beyond my original question.
Mazzy wrote:This sort of BB reasoning is a snippet as to why I believe BB is non plausible and I do not have faith in BB theory.
Don't get all worked up about this! Big Bang Theory is ''in style'' at this moment in time; something else will probably come along to replace it, unless Messiah comes first. The only thing Christians know with certainty is what is written in Genesis 1 and 2.
It is time for another question:
If there are woodpeckers in your family tree, does that make you holy?
FL
Re: Quick answers
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 5:59 pm
by Philip
That makes sense. Philip doesn't like it but he lives out in the middle of a forest...
FL is just jealous because I can pee off of my front porch without anyone seeing or caring (a perk of living in the woods
). Just don't tell my wife about it, as she'll get, well, pissed!
Re: Quick answers
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 6:58 pm
by Furstentum Liechtenstein
Philip wrote:FL is just jealous because I can pee off of my front porch without anyone seeing or caring (a perk of living in the woods
). Just don't tell my wife about it, as she'll get, well, pissed!
How on earth did you get a woman to live out in the middle of the woods?! You must be something more than just a pretty face...are you charming? filthy rich? a good listener? do you own a shoe store? a purse factory? maybe both?
melanie wrote:Thanks for that FL, it was interesting reading up on [Scroeder's Creation Perspective (SCP)], I haven't seen that viewpoint before.
This Forum seems to be divided between uppity, snot-nosed OECs on one hand, and rabid YECs who question the salvation of those who do not share their views, on the other. It surprises me that so few people know about SCP, especially considering that this is a
science board. Here, from Dr Schroeder's website, is a synopsis of SCP:
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx
And, since no one can answer my previous question about woodpeckers, here is another one:
Do you consider SCP an acceptable view of Creation?
FL
Re: Quick answers
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:44 pm
by neo-x
Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:neo-x wrote:FL, no comments on the answer you were searching for?
I favor a combination of what you and Mazzy answered: an observer at the limits of the universe would see it much as we see it. Perhaps there would be blackness in the direction of the ''edge''. If the observer set out in the direction of that blackness, he could never reach the end of it. I visualize the universe as a baloon expanding outward; the observer, being part of the universe, can never reach the ''edge''. He can never reach the edge for two reasons:
1. there is no edge.
2. the observer is
part of the universe, so the further out he travels, the ''bigger'' the universe gets.
FL
Quite right. A few remarks:
Based on calculations the universe is mostly likely flat, however space-time is still curved. Therefore even on a flat surface the traveler is on a curved path. For example, the orbit of the Earth in space is approximately a circle, a three-dimensional (closed) curve in space: the Earth returns every year to the same point in space. However, it arrives there at a different (later) time. The world line of the Earth is helical (a helix) in spacetime (a curve in a four-dimensional space) and does not return to the same point.
In theory you could take a ship and ride along a fixed direction in the west, only to appear back from the east side. The same way you can ride on the equator and travel the earth in a complete circle, and still get back at the starting point. This however does not mean that the space is limited as well. It could be infinite but our curved path would still be there.
For instance if You, Me and Rick go into space, each having our own spaceship and we position ourselves into space in such a way that we form a triangle. You would observe that the sum of angles won't be 180 degrees. That is the result of spacetime being curved. If however we get a complete 180 degrees that means, space is flat and if that had been true, we would not be typing this, since there would be no gravity present.
Re: Quick answers
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:57 pm
by neo-x
It is an acceptable view of creation? I don't think so. The best estimate is 13.7 billion years not, 15 billion years (this figure was incorrectly labeled to be to true back in 2006). And if the former (13.7b) is used then you get 5.005 days form SCP, not six days; and even if you use the 15b the resulting number is again 5.475 days. That is not equal to six, 24 hour set periods as schroeder himself put it.. No six days of creation, not to account for the 7th day.
The initial days time when earth formed was only 6 hours increasing there after, even today as we speak, the time of a day increases every century. Not sure how that squares off with SCP?
A common misconception is that since the universe is 13.7 billion light years old, it is also of the same size across. It is not however and its wrong to hold this view. When you calculate the expansion as well, as defined by the space time curvature, one realizes that the size of the universe is not 13.7 b light years across, only its age is.
In reality, because of the expansion, even past the most distant galaxies, is the plasma and the matter we see in it, is not 13.7 billion years away anymore. It is actually at 46 billion light years away now
(some would call this the edge, that is the observable universe we know of at 46 billion light years). But there is also a difference between observable universe and universe. The best estimate we have till 2013 was that the diameter of the universe is 93 billion light years. This comes from mapping the cosmic microwave background radiation. And even beyond that if space is still expanding, it is expanding faster then the speed of light, trapping light with it therefore its light does not reach to us anymore.
I don't know how SCP incorporates the above into his view. His view already seems falsified. I am quite sure, if he did incorporate it all, it will mess up his calculations even further.
Re: Quick answers
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 9:03 am
by Philip
How on earth did you get a woman to live out in the middle of the woods?! You must be something more than just a pretty face...are you charming? filthy rich? a good listener? do you own a shoe store? a purse factory? maybe both?
Actually, believe it or not, I happen to live in a paved, private road, restricted subdivision, yet one in which everyone owns at least four acres. I have five. My wife liked the idea of living in the woods but didn't want to be isolated. So we have neighbors, but can only see their houses when the leaves are down in winter. But, yes, I do have a pretty face and can be quite charming.
As for all of this age of the universe, it's all based upon key assumptions. I just happen to believe that it IS billions of years old. And either that is the case or God either wanted us to believe that (which begs many questions) or He is unconcerned as to whether or not we are currently capable of deducing that correctly. Again, Scripture could have been created so specific as to prevent any possible false misunderstandings about the time issues so typically debated. And so God well foreknew that this debate would rage. I'm in the camp of those that believe the time issue isn't terribly important, as whatever, whenever and how long it took for God to create before He began interacting with Adam isn't terribly important, in terms of eternity. It is apparently very important to people who want to proof everything through science and that also want to discount all things that science can't prove (a dangerous and wrongful way to discern the truths of the Bible), as it attempts to assert the knowledge and capabilities of man's understandings FAR beyond what they are capable of. God is an eternal being in which what came before this time is likely unfathomably considerable as it is unknowable. And so to intensely and hotly debate over issues revolving around anywhere between thousands of years ago (YEC time) or billions of years ago (OEC time) is laughable when you consider that God is an eternal Being for whom 14 billion years is just an arbitrary and created period amongst who knows how many other such created periods and times. It's NOT just about OUR time, even though most seem to think so.
Re: Quick answers
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:41 pm
by Gman
Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:
This Forum seems to be divided between uppity, snot-nosed OECs on one hand, and rabid YECs who question the salvation of those who do not share their views, on the other. It surprises me that so few people know about SCP, especially considering that this is a
science board. Here, from Dr Schroeder's website, is a synopsis of SCP:
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx
And, since no one can answer my previous question about woodpeckers, here is another one:
Do you consider SCP an acceptable view of Creation?
FL
Interesting.. I just got a few of his books about a month ago. I really like his ideas especially how it pertains to the creation of man. In it he claims that Adam in Eve are the first "spirit filled" beings on earth amongst other creations of man. I think he makes some real valid points..
Re: Quick answers
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:26 am
by Silvertusk
Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Philip wrote:FL is just jealous because I can pee off of my front porch without anyone seeing or caring (a perk of living in the woods
). Just don't tell my wife about it, as she'll get, well, pissed!
How on earth did you get a woman to live out in the middle of the woods?! You must be something more than just a pretty face...are you charming? filthy rich? a good listener? do you own a shoe store? a purse factory? maybe both?
melanie wrote:Thanks for that FL, it was interesting reading up on [Scroeder's Creation Perspective (SCP)], I haven't seen that viewpoint before.
This Forum seems to be divided between uppity, snot-nosed OECs on one hand, and rabid YECs who question the salvation of those who do not share their views, on the other. It surprises me that so few people know about SCP, especially considering that this is a
science board. Here, from Dr Schroeder's website, is a synopsis of SCP:
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx
And, since no one can answer my previous question about woodpeckers, here is another one:
Do you consider SCP an acceptable view of Creation?
FL
Fascinating. Never really looked into this before. Need to do a bit more research on it. Seems perfectly plausible to me.
Re: Quick answers
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 5:20 am
by PaulSacramento
Gman wrote:Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:
This Forum seems to be divided between uppity, snot-nosed OECs on one hand, and rabid YECs who question the salvation of those who do not share their views, on the other. It surprises me that so few people know about SCP, especially considering that this is a
science board. Here, from Dr Schroeder's website, is a synopsis of SCP:
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx
And, since no one can answer my previous question about woodpeckers, here is another one:
Do you consider SCP an acceptable view of Creation?
FL
Interesting.. I just got a few of his books about a month ago. I really like his ideas especially how it pertains to the creation of man. In it he claims that Adam in Eve are the first "spirit filled" beings on earth amongst other creations of man. I think he makes some real valid points..
I have heard that view before, that Adam and Eve are the first humans to have a spirit as opposed to the other humans BUT I tend to disagree.
I think that Adam and Eve were most certainly unique and different from the other humans outside the Garden in Eden.