Science and Creation

[Katabole]

I have posted this video before but I'll put it up again for those who haven't seen it and for those who quickly forget.

Professor John Lennox at Harvard University

Is Belief in the Supernatural Irrational?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Kz4OgXsN1w

Enjoy.

[Indurkar]

General Comments:-
It is the scientific proposition that a Singularity exploded in a Big- Bang. This singularity was supposed to
Be a point with zero volume, infinite mass and infinite density. Such a view does not seem to be scientifically consistent ( irrational ?).
The alternative scenario will be that working backwards from Hubble’s Expanding universe model contraction reached only to a certain point when the negative and positive forces ( gravity and dark energy) were in near equilibrium . This state would have perpetuated unless some external trigger was
Applied. Was this external trigger – The God’s will – (WORD )?
In this scenario Nothingness is not meaningful . But certainly God’s Will Is.
Indurkar

[fdstallworth]

I wish to respond to Dr. Indarkar’s (called Dr. I for brevity) article not in support but to give a counter perspective on some of his comments. For of all, I have enormous respect for Dr. I and all those responding to his article that are believers. Believers should be able to converse but still let the love of Jesus prevail.
I shall list his comment in italics and respond below the comment. I have no comment on the physics he states in the beginning part. It is the application of this that I think are at issue.

So working backwards the inference was that it all started with extremely dense , compressed matter /Energy called “The Singularity” Which exploded , giving the expanding Universe. This was the Big Bang. It was also possible by back-calculations to learn when this Big Bang occurred. These figures are 12 to 15 Billion years. So the universe is 12 to 15 billion years old.
It should be interesting to note that in order to perform these calculations, two assumptions must be made- one is that the universe has no center and the other is that the universe has no edge. However, we now know that the universe has a center (we are close to it) and an edge. What is more intriguing is that when these assumptions are not used, then we get a phenomenon that looks like a white hole- a black hole in reverse.


The idea of what world is at that time was mainly guided by Aristotle “ 4000 B.C. It was an Earth-Centric world with celestial bodies moon, Sun and planets revolving round it. This was the prevalent concept in those times, and this was taken to describe the event of Creation - 4000 B.C.
The idea that Moses was guided by Aristotle is a bit absurd as Dr. I earlier had said that the Bible was inspired by God. Aristotle lived from 384-322 BC. Moses lived from 1391–1271 BC. So Moses could not have been influenced by Aristotle.

Hence , with much expanded horizon of knowledge now The Earth in Gen Ch.1:2 - actually refers to the Universe .
This is an invalid assumption. What is described in Genesis is in fact what we see now. He has no basis for this.


Ch1:5 – and were the first day
The Day mentioned here is definitely not what we presume it to be ; a 24 Hrs period of time OR Earths one rotation around its axis. Because the Planet Earth and the Solar system were not Created till that time.
Dr. I makes a conclusion here without benefit of supporting facts or his reason stated is weak at best. Just because the sun had not been created does not mean that a day could not have passed. Dr. I confuses the sun and time measurement. A day is a measure of time and Dr. I already stated that time was created in the beginning moment of creation. So if time already existed, then a method to account for it can work even if the sun had not yet been created. Anyway it was only a couple of days between the two events. The amount of “time” in Day 1 could be the equivalent of one calendar earth day.

Ch 1:10-13 - God Created the Earth, inclusive in Suns -Solar system on the Fourth Day.
So what the Day means in this context ?
This is a literal translation of the Hebrew word Yom, which can mean a long, indefinite period of time, season OR epoch. Ref . 2Peter 3:8--------that one day is with the Lord as a one thousand years and thousand years as one day
God created the Universe in six days but each day mentioned therein may actually be an Epoch or a very long period of time. The Day mentioned here is a very long time (Epoch/Era), because the Earth was not created till that time.
Here Dr. I makes a serious mistake. The discussion centers around the meaning of the word day “Yom” in Hebrew. He then makes a statement that Yom can also mean a long time period. This is true. Yom can have several meanings. So we have to understand the context in which it is used and any adjectives that accompany it in a verse. We also need confer with other scripture that mentions this and the other 6 days of Creation to let the Bible explain itself. In Chapter 1, Yom is also accompanied with some other words: And the evening and the morning was the first day, or second day or the third day, etc. With this in mind, consider the following facts about Yom:
1. When Day and a number are together, it always means a single 24 day in the Bible- occurring 410 times.
2. Evening and morning together without day always means an ordinary day- 38 times in the Bible
3. Evening or morning with day means an ordinary day- 23 times in the Bible.
4. Night with day always means an ordinary day in the Bible- 52 times in the Bible.
5. Exodus 20, the 10 Commandments written by God’s finger says: Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Dr. Robert Cole, PHD in Semitic Languages, in his book “A PHD looks at Genesis Days” says this: “There is nothing in the Bible to obviate the idea that the days in Genesis were 24 hour type days”.

How does Dr. I translate the 4th Commandment written by God himself? Dr. I has arbitrarily picked a definition of Yom to match his pre-conceived idea of long ages. He then tries to justify this by using 2 Peter 3:8. this verse discussed days being the same as years to God. But hear again we need ti understand what context this relates to. If you read the entire chapter 3 you will see that Peter was referring to Gods patience as he waits on Man to respond to him properly. This has nothing to do with Genesis. It is not a formula to calculate time In Genesis and in fact Genesis is not even mentioned here. This is a case of mis-interpreting scripture and improperly using it to support a belief. The meaning of Yom in genesis 1 is clearly meant to be one ordinary day. Mainstream Hebrew scholars would agree as well. And you can see the evidence and scripture support this belief.

Ch1: 6-8 - And God said , Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters and let it divide the waters from the waters.
What is meant by ˜The Firmament’ and ˜The waters’ ?
Genesis was written (compiled) in 4000 B.C ,( describing events 12 to 15 Billion years old ) and
The Force Fields were not conceptualized at that time , and so Symbolism (Analogy) was employed.
The wave nature of force field was symbolized as Water and the matter and energy which spread out at the Big Bang was symbolized as `the Firmament’. The Higgs field bestows mass and inertia to matter; and that matter was symbolized as ‘The Firmament’. { The Hebrew raqia (the “firmament” of the KJV, ASV, RSV, et al.) means an “expanse”.}
The Firmament refers to firmness of matter bestowed by the Higgs field in the expanse .
TO answer Dr. I ‘s first question about what the firmament is- it is the atmosphere. Dr. I is right that Genesis was written around 4000BC +- a few thousand years but his trying to inject physics into the verses is hypothetical at best. Using his logic you could attach almost any meaning to the verse and make it sound impressive. However, it is of no value. I do not think God was speaking to physicists only when he transcribed Genesis to Moses. Romans 1:18-20 “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” This tells me that God made his creation plain which to me means simple. I believe that when I see the rather simple formulas that describe things like E=MC2- so simple yet so complete! So I believe God was speaking to “normal” folks like me when Genesis was written.
However this is an interesting verse and I wonder about the 2 bodies of water that the firmament separated. I don’t have all the answers, so I still study and ask and hope God will answer. The atmosphere had to be created on this day so the next day could establish the land and plants in particular.
God did not create force fields here in these verses by themselves at least. Anyway, forces fields can intermingle in space so his statements are not valid.


Ch 1:9-13 “ The third Day -third Period of time. God created plant-life in this period of time. This means that God created plant-life in extraterrestrial space, perhaps on some galaxies or planet which had sufficiently cooled to support the plant-life, because Planet Earth, was not created at that time. The Planet - Earth was created on the fourth Day.
We now have some evidence to say that plant-life (at least) has an Extra-terrestrial origin.
The Murchison meteorite which fell in Australia in 1969, revealed significant quantities of organic compounds and amino acids (the basis of life ) which originated in outer space.
{ Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite – M.H. Engel and S.A. Macko, Pub. Nature (1997) }
The stable carbon isotope compositions of individual amino acids in Murchison support an extraterrestrial origin of plant-life.
I am not sure where Dr. I gets the notion that plants were extra-terrestrial. Day 3 established land on earth and the plants grew on it. This is confirmed in the final verses when God gives Adam all the plants to eat. He must have missed verse 1 which says God created the heavens and the earth. And then God starts molding it to his preference as each day goes by. So his premise is wrong and there is no evidence whatsoever of any type of life outside the planet. All he offers is pure speculation. So the earth was formed on day I, atmosphere on Day 2 and land and plants on day 3. To me so far so good.

Ch1:16-19 – In the fourth Period of time (Day), God Created The Sun with its Solar-system, including the Earth, and the Moon.
It is now known that the Sun is about 4.5 Billion years old, whereas the Universe is 12-15 Billion years old. Also it is well known now, that Our Sun is a second or third generation star , with presence of heavier elements such as Carbon and Iron on Earth, apart from Hydrogen, Oxygen, water and Air. Sun and Solar system were derived from the Nebular origin . After the Earth was sufficiently cooled life-support system was present, and at least the Plant–life flourished, which has an extraterrestrial origin, and brought on earth by meteorites and asteroids.
It is reckoned that from this period (4th Day) onwards the Earth and water have the normal meaning with Sun and Earth having been created.
Dr. I makes a statement about the age of the sun and universe that is the issue but he assumes it is correct. He also states that our sun was formed from a nebula but that is pure speculation with no evidence as proof. He then states that after the earth had cooled, plant life flourished. He then states that plant life got here in a meteor. Where is the proof? How can life survive in space? He has no evidence of life anywhere except on earth but he states that life came here from space- totally without any support. He then changes his interpretation to say that now plants and water have the normal meaning. What evidence does he have for that switch? This is just speculation and not fact based.


Ch1:24-31 – In the sixth period of time (Day), God created first, the quadruped animals ,
and creeping creatures such as reptiles, snakes and lizards , on Earth.
It is argued by the evolutionists that life-forms on earth Evolved from lower to higher form of life.
But Creation does not exclude evolution. It is inbuilt in Creation. With the Day meaning a very long period of time such as an Era or Epoch, inclusiveness of Evolution within the Creation is built-in.
It is not unlikely that God Created life-forms, and their progress, God implemented through evolutionary process . Thus there is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. ` The Common descent’ in evolution’, only describes the process used by God.
Perhaps this is where Dr. I drifted the farthest away from scripture. I have already shown where his interpretation of day or Yom is incorrect, so I will not recover that. He states that Creation does not exclude evolution but it is built into Creation. He is totally off base here. First, he has not read these verses close enough. 10 times in Chapter 1 God says he made the creatures “after their own kind”. I think he may have done this so much for the time we are in now. “After their own kind” means no evolution but it does mean what the law of Biogenesis says. So evolution would have to violate the law of Biogenesis to happen and it doe NOT. Perhaps this is why Dr. I misinterprets the word day so there could be time for evolution. Both choices are wrong. When he says that evolution is built into Creation, he commits a real error. Fro evolution to occur, there must be death over a long age. Now Genesis says that death did not enter the world until Adam sinned and that is also the reason Jesus came into the world- to remove the curse of death and sin form the world. So for Dr. I’s view to work, death would have to be in the world for a long age prior to Adam. So he clearly violates scripture for the sake of a science theory. Death is an enemy (see New Testament writings of Paul) and only defeated by Jesus. At the end of Genesis 1, God proclaims everything he did as good. So form Dr. I’s point of view, evolution would be good and death would be good. But death is an enemy and not good but evil or caused by evil. So God would never proclaim it to be good. So Dr. I has to re-invent the meaning of what Jesus did on the Cross because dearth was already in the world when Adam sinned. He states that God used evolution but he would never use death as a means to make man. He did not need to do that. Also, for evolution to happen, Mendel’s law would have to be violated. This law basically states that changes can occur in species but those changes have limits which cannot be passed. So much for evolution. Also, the incredible complexity and variety of life gives reason for no evolution as there is not enough time to make all the complex systems that support you and me. So Dr. I does not offer the slightest bit of evidence to support his evolutionary views in Genesis. More could be said but this should be sufficient.

In evolutionary concept mankind’s split from other primates took place around 100,000 yrs. Ago, whereas Lucy the Australopithecus - a genus of extinct earliest bipedal hominids is dated to be 3 million years. The so-called Missing link being the Neanderthal has been clearly refuted. This `missing-link’ has not been found . (godand science.org)
One thing a person can do is to calculate the number of people that would have lived on earth if mankind has been around for 100,000 years. I have done this and the number of bones generated would cover the entire earth several feet deep. So where are all the bones? Where are all the graves?
What is rather ironic is that Dr. I perhaps contradicts his own previous writing when he says the missing link is still missing. It is missing because it does not exist. But tis contradicts his view on evolution in my reading of his article.
Lastly, Dr. I addresses a comment by atheists about who created God. My view is that this is really a non question. Here is why: Everything that has a beginning has a cause. So the universe had a beginning and therefore it needs a cause. And God is big enough to be that cause. Now when that view is applied to God, the error comes in because God did not have a beginning- He has always existed. So he does not need a cause for his beginning or existence. This is an easy way to understand the question and how God needs no cause since he is eternal and everything else is not.
Dr. I makes some good comments but he is off base on others and I hope this gives everyone another view of things to consider. I look forward to discussing this with the good Doctor in more detail later.

[1over137]

However, we now know that the universe has a center (we are close to it) and an edge.

I do not know about this. Can you cite?

[fdstallworth]

Source: Dr. Russell Humphries, PHD in Physics and now with Creation Ministries International. Read his book "Starlight and Time"

[RickD]

Actually, I've heard astrophysicists describe the universe as more like the surface of a balloon. As such, there really is no center, and no edge.

[RickD]

Here's Reasons to Believe's critique on Russell Humphries' "Starlight and Time".
http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-unr ... and-time-2

[1over137]

Here's Reasons to Believe's critique on Russell Humphries' "Starlight and Time".
http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-unr ... and-time-2

Thanks Rick, you saved my time. I had lectures in General Relativity, and to my knowledge there is not centre and edge.