Vinnie

"""""On "white hole cosmology", I think Rufus is referring to Humphrey's attempt to cram 4.5 billion years into 6000 by claiming that the earth was shielded (or words to that effect) behind the event horizon of a white hole. This would be the explanation for why the rest of the universe was "old", whereas the Earth was "young". As near as I can understand it, he was trying to get around the omphalos problem by saying that the universe was old, but that the Earth's relativistic time was much newer. Or at least that's all I've been able to grasp."""""""

Hugh Ross critiques Humphrey's cosmology so I have heard of it and read about it then. I just forgot about. He is a yound earth creationsit who tries to answer the "starlight" queastion. I think he argues that "distant ''clocks" run at different rates."

Hugh Ross critiques his view here:
<a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.html" target="_blank">http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.html</a>

""""""The simplest way to counter it is to show the creationist examples of complex parasite lifecycles and ‘navigation’ (eg Trichinella spiralis) and adaptations, and to pin the buggers down on a definition of kinds, and then hit them with some taxonomic difficulties and fossil series.""""""""""

Or you could simply point out death and suffering long ago before the alleged fall. To put it simply:

Big rock kill dinosaur many moons ago.

"""""""Devolution" can be either YEC or OEC. It's an attempt to squeeze the "Fall" story into the equation by saying that all extant organisms are corrupted from an originally perfect creation. This allows the creationists to include mutation, etc and limited speciation into the "created kinds" argument. The reality is it's an attempt to explain the weird anomalies that are so abundant in nature - as well as vestigial structures, etc. """""""""

Well, that reminded me of a group I think RufusAtticus forgot to mention. He forgot the Gap theory. They feel creation was ruined. Not sure if they support "devolution" though.

Vinnie

Vinnie

""""""Tricia,
What books are you considering on reading over this summer?

~~RvFvS~~ """"""""

Tricia, I suggest reading 'Finding Darwin's God' by Kenneth Miller. I'd suggest reading some Polkinghorne but I am virtually certain something like "Belief in God in an Age of Science" would go over your head.

Vinnie

Oolon Colluphid

Tricia, though I've not read it myself, I have heard more good recommendations for Miller's book than for almost any other. So I'll second that recommendation of Vinnie's!

It needn't set you back too much either. A search at the wonderful <a href="http://www.abebooks.com" target="_blank">www.abebooks.com</a> shows that there's several second-hand copies around in the US for about $10.

Best wishes, Oolon

Synaesthesia

Frankly I don't see how science could ever support belief in an omnipotent creator. Since he is a creature of infinite complexity, explanatory surplus would always be in an infinite degree of debt, however much is explained.

wildernesse

Interestingly enough, Hebrews 11:3 says “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” If faith is non-provable, why do so many Christians/theists keep trying to prove that God created?

This is quoted from one of my previous posts. Tricia, what do you think of this statement? Why do you need to prove creation?


--tiba

KeithHarwood

Tricia, think very carefully before you accept this challenge. It's going to be a lot of hard work. If you think you can do it be re-cycling stuff from Morris or Gish or Hovind you are mistaken. Everything they have said has been thoroughly debunked ages ago, and posters round here sometimes get very irate when some old chestnut is presented as if it were new. To go by this route you would have to read all of the talk.origins and noanswersingenesis sites (at least) and find some argument that isn't already debunked there.

So where could you go from here?

You could go back to believing creationism uncritically, as you used to. You seem to have moved away from that, which we applaud. Or you could switch over and believe in evolution just as uncritically. You have ruled that one out, more applause. You could become a Creation Scientist, one of the, to use your own words, `nimrods who can't back up their beliefs with facts'. This isn't science, it is lies, deceit, cheap debating tricks, in short, you would become a politician. (Boos from this audience.)

Or you could try to overthrow evolution completely. For example, finding mammalian fossils in precambrian rocks would do it. To do this you would have to become a professional palaeontologist. You would have to be very careful with your discovery, recording everything in very great detail, covering all the bases, making sure that all other palaeontologists confirmed everything you saw. This gets rid of the fact of evolution, the theory of evolution goes too, it is only there to explain the fact. No fact, no need for a theory. The catch with that is that all it does is get rid of evolution. That doesn't automatically make creation true. (The Morrises, Gishes and Hovinds try to crack on that it does, but that's just more of their deceit.)

On the other hand, you could try to find a theory to replace the theory of evolution, one which is consistent with creation. The catch with that is that it has to explain at least everything that evolution explains and preferably a lot more. This means that you have to know everything that evolution explains and the only way you can get that knowledge is to become a professional biologist (we are talking PhD here plus many years experience in the field, you can't do this and keep a day job). If you can do it, you will have fame and fortune. But, a word of warning, if your theory says "because God wanted it that way"
just once you can cash in your ticket to Stockholm. You won't be needing it.

(BTW, it's obvious why atheist scientists won't accept any theory with God in it. However, theist scientists won't either, not even the Jesuits, because to do so means that you must know the mind of God and it's pretty well established that no one can do that, although lots of preachers claim they do.)

Tricia

This verse only spurs me on as a Christian that God, not freak occurences, created earth and the cosmos.

~Tricia

faith is nonprovable. But do you not care as a Christian about the fate of nonbelievers?

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Tricia ]</p>

Vinnie

Tricia, I'm not sure if you support young earth creationism or not. I was once an old earth creationist and I wrote a 10 page paper on the days of Genesis. The paper is written under the assumption that one must take Genesis literally and I state that in the opening. The paper addresses: Is a 6 day creation necessary if Genesis is interpreted literally?

I actually critiqued this paper
<a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c002.html" target="_blank">http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c002.html</a>

There, Mark Van Bebber and Paul S. Taylor, who co-authored a book together I think, argued that the bible (assuming Genesis is literal history)is clear about the age of the universe. They posted a bunch of reasons why the days must be 24 hour periods and I think I did a good job of smashing their claims and a few more they didn't mention.

I need to send them a copy of my critique one of these days and see if they can offer any feedback. So far I am yet to see a substantial rebuttal of what I wrote:

Gish, Hovind, Morris, Bebber, Taylor, et al claim to have the traditional view on creation but they are mistaken as I try to show. My article includes a few older quotes from people who did not believe in a 6 day creation:

Augustine, The City of God

"As for these 'days,' it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think--let alone explain in words--what they mean."

Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

"But at least we know that it [Genesis Creation Day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar."

Philo Judaeus: Allegorical Interpretation
It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days in a space of time at all. Why? Because every period of time is a series of days and nights, and these can only be made such by the movement of the sun as it goes over and under the earth; but the sun is part of heaven, so that time is confessedly more recent than the world. It would there be correct to say that the world was not made in time, but that time was formed by means of the world, for it was heaven's movement that was the index of the nature of time. When, then, Moses says, "he finished His work on the sixth day," we must understand him to be adducing not a quantity of days, but a perfect number, namely six.

According to Philo, it is foolish to believe in a literal 6 day creation

Origen, Fist Principles, Book 4

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?

Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews:
Book 1 - Chapter 1
1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But when the earth did not come into sight, but was covered with thick darkness, and a wind moved upon its surface, God commanded that there should be light: and when that was made, he considered the whole mass, and separated the light and the darkness; and the name he gave to one was Night, and the other he called Day: and he named the beginning of light, and the time of rest, The Evening and The Morning, and this was indeed the first day. But Moses said it was one day; the cause of which I am able to give even now; but because I have promised to give such reasons for all things in a treatise by itself, I shall put off its exposition till that time.

There are more quotes that I didn't even mention in the article. Anyways, here is the link to the article: I like to argue with yecs on their own turf

<a href="http://www.angelfire.com/co/JesusFreak/day.html" target="_blank">http://www.angelfire.com/co/JesusFreak/day.html</a>

Vinnie

"""faith is nonprovable. """"

That definition of faith does not mesh with some biblical statements. Not all Christians accept "faith" as blind belief.

""""This verse only spurs me on as a Christian that God, not freak occurences, created earth and the cosmos."""""

Scientists claim the earth was the product of a freak occurence? Is not planetary formation a common process? Is rain drop formation a freak occurence as well? What about stellar evolution? As a Christian I would say God created all that there is. But as a scientist I would explain how the sun and earth came about from a solar nebula. I share Gould's view that they are "non-overlapping magisteria". Science and religion should not be viewed as antithetical. They actually deal with different realities.

Also, here is an article pertaining to chance and "biological evolution" from a theistic perspective:
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance-theistic.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance-theistic.html</a>

Vinnie

The Other Michael

Hi Vinnie,

Um, I see science dealing with reality, but have a lot of difficulty seeing where religion does, except in very general ethical matters that don't require a reference to religion.

Reality # Supernaturalism
cheers,
Michael