The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

Question: I know it's been covered before but not for a while so I'm wondering how creationists deal with the fact that we can see light from stars that are millions of light years away

I think I heard something before about the speed of light changing. Does that mean that creationists believe Einstein's theory of special relativity to be wrong? And if so, does that mean that creationists think relativity is also a part of the theory of evolution, since it seems everything that creationists deny must go under that label?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by monosharp
I especially like his inference that photosynthesis relies on green skin, I must have missed that day in biology class

Originally Posted by J C
...that must have been the day that your Biology teacher told the class that Chlorophyll is green!!!

doctoremma
Gee, you must have been absent for the next lesson when the rest of us learned that chlorophyll isn't the only photosynthetic pigment in the world...

...and where was Emma, when the teacher confirmed that by far the most common photoynthetic pigment is green chlorophyll? ...

For the 'nit pickers' amongst you ... blue-green Chlorophyll a and yellow-green Chlorophyll b !!!:):D

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Question: I know it's been covered before but not for a while so I'm wondering how creationists deal with the fact that we can see light from stars that are millions of light years away

I think I heard something before about the speed of light changing. Does that mean that creationists believe Einstein's theory of special relativity to be wrong? And if so, does that mean that creationists think relativity is also a part of the theory of evolution, since it seems everything that creationists deny must go under that label?

...as Father Jack would say ... that would be an Eucuminical Question !!!:eek::):D

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Not really. At least English and pidgin English might be recognisable as linked categories. That's not something that can be said about science and creationism.

...all of the 'founding fathers' of modern science were Creationists ... and most of the foundational scientific principles were established in Creationist Institutions ... the fact that a few campaigning Atheists want to elimainate Creation Science off the face of the Earth doesn't re-write historical REALITY ... however much they might wish to do so!!!!:eek::D

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Question: I know it's been covered before but not for a while so I'm wondering how creationists deal with the fact that we can see light from stars that are millions of light years away

I think I heard something before about the speed of light changing. Does that mean that creationists believe Einstein's theory of special relativity to be wrong? And if so, does that mean that creationists think relativity is also a part of the theory of evolution, since it seems everything that creationists deny must go under that label?

I think most of the arguments are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlight_problem

According to some creationists, one explanation used for seeing galaxies that are billions of light-years away is that God created the light "in-transit".

LOL

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Fail. You have once again demonstrated your lack of knowledge and consistency. Let's go basic here and start with: Plants make sugar via photosynthesis. Animals eat sugar which is quicker, more available and more efficient mechanism of getting sugar into a respiration cycle.

(Now, remember: this example is a model to explain a general principle, heterotrophs didn't evolve overnight)

Say a photosynthetic organism (we can say it's got green skin if you like) finds a better sugar source i.e. by ingestion of some kind. Being stronger/bigger/quicker is obviously a survival advantage so we assume such a trait would rapidly spread through a population. Now we have an organism that can both photosynthesise but can also ingest sugar. Now imagine that a member of this population undergoes a mutation event in one of its photosynthetic genes? What outcome can we predict? Will the organism die? No, of course not, it will simply become reliant on its ingested sugar source. It doesn't matter that it has lost the ability to photosynthesise.

(You will obviously be realising that this type of mutation would be devastating for an organism which relied on photosynthesis as its sole sugar source and such an individual would rapidly die and the population would go on unaffected by the "bad" gene.)

So, we now have an organism with a lot of unecessary photosynthetic genes in its genome. It doesn't now matter if they accumulate mutations because it's not relying on the protein products for survival. And pretty soon (in evolutionary terms), the genes may become almost unrecognisable from their "original" form. And furthermore, in this new scenario, we may find that the first organism to stop displaying green skin has a survival advantage because predators cannot find the individual as easily. So the mutation which stops chlorophyll production in the skin will be advantageous and spread thorough a population....

.. are you getting it yet?

Now, is the loss of chlorophyll pigment in the skin an advantage or a disadvantage for survival? Or is it entirely context-dependent? For one population, it's a sure fire way to rapid death of the individual; for another population, it is at the very least neutral and could also be an advantage.

...Emma, none of this explains WHY there is just ONE miserable slug which is supposed to have retained/obtained the ability to photosynthesise!!!!

However, an over-worked and under-paid Molecular Biologist ... with a 'weakness' for transgenic green snails ... just MIGHT!!!!:D:eek:

J C

Malty_T wrote:

*Sigh*

JC, without knowledge of any sort, atheism is still atheism.

...it sure is !!!!!:)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah I see the problem here, it's this nonsense that evolution is inextricably linked with atheism. There are millions and millions of religious people who accept evolution, there are atheists who know little to nothing about evolution, there were atheists before the theory of evolution even existed. I don't have to be able to answer all of the questions of the universe to be an atheist, all I have to do is spot that the bible is not very likely to be true, at least no more likely than the qu'ran, the sutras or the Book of Mormon. Contrary to popular creationist opinion, even if you absolutely, unequivocally, 100% disproved evolution, the bible would not win by default. I would remain an atheist because an old story about a guy walking on water and raising from the dead would remain as implausible then as it is today

...you present an interesting (and real) dichotomy... on the one hand you have leading Atheists proclaiming that Evolution (and Abiogenesis) theories allow them to be intellectually fulfilled Atheists ...
... and then you have many Christians loudly proclaiming the supposed 'validity' of Evolution ... while apparently completely unaware that the very ideas they are promoting are invalid hypotheses invented by the Atheists to eliminate God from science in particular ... and society in general!!!!:eek:
...sometimes you just have to laugh!!!!:D

token56

J C wrote: »

...as Father Jack would say ... that would be a Eucuminical Question !!!:eek::):D

Its interesting, although not unusual, that you directly avoid the question being asked.

J C

token56 wrote: »

Its interesting, although not unusual, that you directly avoid the question being asked.

... please 'chill out' ... it was pretty much answered by liamw here :-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64093437&postcount=20166

...why should I waste time answering questions ... when I have excellent 'budding' Creation Scientists like liamw to do the work for me???:D

token56

J C wrote: »

... please 'chill out' ... t was answered by liamw here :-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64093437&postcount=20166

there are 3 different reasons given in that link, which one is it?

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...as Father Jack would say ... that would be a Eucuminical Question !!!:eek::):D

Matter:mad:

Also, you didn't answer the question, but with my amateur knowledge of creation science, I shall do so for you.

Hi Sam,

You see creationists have no problem with Einstein's theory of Revolution. (The evolutionists didn't like that name so they coined it relativity.) Einstein was a great guy. He was influenced to some degree by materialist thinking but luckily it did not distract him fully from the genius of creation science.

Einstein's genius (endowed unto Him by the almighty creator) was that he realised the materialist view of an "eternal" universe could not right. His theory's caused Him to question his very own materialist faith and he realised that the universe had to be constantly changing shape. One of the most esteemed creation scientists, La Maitre, postulated that the world came from a primeval atom. Unfortunately another of our esteemed creation scientists opposed this notion (He later saw the light) and coined the term "Big Bang". Creation scientists are responsible for both figuring out the big bang occurred, coining the term, and, unfortunately, misrepresenting it. All started by the genius of Einstein.

The majority of the misrepresentation though was done by materialists. They corrupted the theory to distort their faith based beliefs of a old earth. Luckily we have Dr Russell Humphreys, a physicist fighting to preserve the truth of Genesis, to enlighten us on what actually occurred. There are two primary phenomenon at play. Achronicity and Reverse Expansion. Allow me to explain.

Achronicity, derives from Einstein's theory of Revolution. Put simply, achronicity is a form of time dilation whereby in a given region time has stopped completely. This occurs when the gravitational potential of a given region has become so negative that the total energy density of space is also negative. Thus stopping all physical processes.

The Reverse Expansion inspired by Genesis tells us the Earth was created after the Galaxies and the Stars. This means that due the rapid expansion or stretching of space. We know this from Psalms 18:9:
He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet.
This verse can also be translated to mean "He stretched the Heavens" suggesting that God stretched out the heavens at a very high speed. This expansion would have cause the objects that God created first to age faster than those that came after. As the Earth was one the last planets to be created it goes without saying that all the stars and galaxies around it appears older. Of course, when one factors in Achronicity into this we see that the galaxies are actually only a few thousand years old.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Matter:mad:

Also, you didn't answer the question, but with my amateur knowledge of creation science, I shall do so for you.

Hi Sam,

You see creationists have no problem with Einstein's theory of Revolution. (The evolutionists didn't like that name so they coined it relativity.) Einstein was a great guy. He was influenced to some degree by materialist thinking but luckily it did not distract him fully from the genius of creation science.

Einstein's genius (endowed unto Him by the almighty creator) was that he realised the materialist view of an "eternal" universe could not right. His theory's caused Him to question his very own materialist faith and he realised that the universe had to be constantly changing shape. One of the most esteemed creation scientists, La Maitre, postulated that the world came from a primeval atom. Unfortunately another of our esteemed creation scientists opposed this notion (He later saw the light) and coined the term "Big Bang". Creation scientists are responsible for both figuring out the big bang occurred, coining the term, and, unfortunately, misrepresenting it. All started by the genius of Einstein.

The majority of the misrepresentation though was done by materialists. They corrupted the theory to distort their faith based beliefs of a old earth. Luckily we have Dr Hugh Ross, a physicist fighting to preserve the truth of Genesis, to enlighten us on what actually occurred. There are two primary phenomenon at play. Achronicity and Reverse Expansion. Allow me to explain.

Achronicity, derives from Einstein's theory of Revolution. Put simply, achronicity is a form of time dilation whereby in a given region time has stopped completely. This occurs when the gravitational potential of a given region has become so negative that the total energy density of space is also negative. Thus stopping all physical processes.

The Reverse Expansion inspired by Genesis tells us the Earth was created after the Galaxies and the Stars. This means that due the rapid expansion or stretching of space. We know this from Psalms 18:9:


He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet.
This verse can also be translated to mean "He stretched the Heavens" suggesting that God stretched out the heavens at a very high speed. This expansion would have cause the objects that God created first to age faster than those that came after. As the Earth was one the last planets to be created it goes without saying that all the stars and galaxies around it appears older.

...thanks Malty ... I almost couldn't have said it better myself!!!:D
...with another 5 years of intensive tuition ... you could become a first-rate Creation Scientist ... at the moment you are just confused!!!:D
...torn between two worldviews ... and (like the song says) feeling like a fool!!!!:D:eek:

...I used to be like that ... but once I stopped fantasising about starting to photosynthesise ... if the local Radiologist would just let me play with her equipment ... I never looked back!!!!:eek::D

...I would also just add, that Einstein also said that he didn't believe that God would not play dice with the Universe ... as the Materialists would have us believe!!!:)

J C

token56 wrote: »

there are 3 different reasons given in that link, which one is it?

...it could be any one of them ... Creation Science hasn't settled on any particular theory yet ...

... like I have already said, this is 'an Eucuminical Question' ... within Creation Science!!!:D:eek:

...we also need to leave some things for enthusiastic post-grads to work on !!!!:D

token56

J C wrote: »

...it could be any one of them ... Creation Science hasn't settled on any particular theory yet ...

... like I have already said, this is 'an Eucuminical Question' ... within Creation Science!!!:D:eek:

so that would be a "we dont know yet".

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...thanks Malty ... I almost couldn't have said it better myself!!!:D
...I would just add, that Einstein also said that he didn't believe that God would play dice with the Universe ... as the Materialists would have us believe!!!:)

Unfortunately no matter how cosmetically you dress something up, bullsh1t is still bullsh1t.

P.s The theory I outlined in my above post kinda rely's in part on Quantum Mechanics being true.;)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...you present an interesting (and real) dichotomy... on the one hand you have leading Atheists proclaiming that Evolution (and Abiogenesis) theories allow them to be intellectually fulfilled Atheists ...
... and then you have many Christians loudly proclaiming the supposed 'validity' of Evolution ... while apparently completely unaware that the very ideas they are promoting are invalid hypotheses invented by the Atheists to eliminate God from science in particular ... and society in general!!!!:eek:
...sometimes you just have to laugh!!!!:D

Yes that does seem odd doesn't it? You and other creationists like to promote the lie that evolution is an atheist conspiracy but you have to contend with the fact that there are millions upon millions of religious people who accept it. Why do you think that is exactly? Could it be that they just see no conflict between evolution and their religion because they have a more sophisticated notion of god, as more than something to fill the gaps in our knowledge?

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Matter:mad:

Also, you didn't answer the question, but with my amateur knowledge of creation science, I shall do so for you.

Hi Sam,

You see creationists have no problem with Einstein's theory of Revolution. (The evolutionists didn't like that name so they coined it relativity.) Einstein was a great guy. He was influenced to some degree by materialist thinking but luckily it did not distract him fully from the genius of creation science.

Einstein's genius (endowed unto Him by the almighty creator) was that he realised the materialist view of an "eternal" universe could not right. His theory's caused Him to question his very own materialist faith and he realised that the universe had to be constantly changing shape. One of the most esteemed creation scientists, La Maitre, postulated that the world came from a primeval atom. Unfortunately another of our esteemed creation scientists opposed this notion (He later saw the light) and coined the term "Big Bang". Creation scientists are responsible for both figuring out the big bang occurred, coining the term, and, unfortunately, misrepresenting it. All started by the genius of Einstein.

The majority of the misrepresentation though was done by materialists. They corrupted the theory to distort their faith based beliefs of a old earth. Luckily we have Dr Russell Humphreys, a physicist fighting to preserve the truth of Genesis, to enlighten us on what actually occurred. There are two primary phenomenon at play. Achronicity and Reverse Expansion. Allow me to explain.

Achronicity, derives from Einstein's theory of Revolution. Put simply, achronicity is a form of time dilation whereby in a given region time has stopped completely. This occurs when the gravitational potential of a given region has become so negative that the total energy density of space is also negative. Thus stopping all physical processes.

The Reverse Expansion inspired by Genesis tells us the Earth was created after the Galaxies and the Stars. This means that due the rapid expansion or stretching of space. We know this from Psalms 18:9:
He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet.
This verse can also be translated to mean "He stretched the Heavens" suggesting that God stretched out the heavens at a very high speed. This expansion would have cause the objects that God created first to age faster than those that came after. As the Earth was one the last planets to be created it goes without saying that all the stars and galaxies around it appears older. Of course, when one factors in Achronicity into this we see that the galaxies are actually only a few thousand years old.

Wow, that was some grade A BS. I'm going to recommend you for the golden crocoduck, creationisms annual award for nonsense spouting

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes that does seem odd doesn't it? You and other creationists like to promote the lie that evolution is an atheist conspiracy but you have to contend with the fact that there are millions upon millions of religious people who accept it. Why do you think that is exactly? Could it be that they just see no conflict between evolution and their religion because they have a more sophisticated notion of god, as more than something to fill the gaps in our knowledge?

...the fact that these 'religious people' are promoting something that makes Atheists feel intellectually fulfilled is certainly something that they should think about!!!

... I would love to hear their reasons...:)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...the fact that these 'religious people' are promoting something that makes Atheists feel intellectually fulfilled is certainly something that they should think about!!!

... I would love to hear their reasons...:)

What do you think their reasons are? Bear in mind here that creationists are by far the exception even in religious circles so you're talking about the overwhelming majority of religious believers here

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Unfortunately no matter how cosmetically you dress something up, bullsh1t is still bullsh1t.

P.s The theory I outlined in my above post kinda rely's in part on Quantum Mechanics being true.;)

...it all sounded like the typical 'mental meanderings' of an Evolutionist to me!!!

...and Malty you are, after all, an Evolutionst, perhaps thinking about (and even practicing) to become a Creationist ... but nonetheless you are still an Evolutionist at heart!!!!!:D:eek:

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...it all sounded like the typical 'mental meanderings' of an Evolutionist to me!!!

Hang on, are you saying you deny Quantum Mechanics?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What do you think their reasons are? Bear in mind here that creationists are by far the exception even in religious circles so you're talking about the overwhelming majority of religious believers here

...I'm completely at a loss to explain why a Christian would promote the main concept which makes Atheists feel intellectually fulfilled, to their own children.

The inevitable result is what is actually happening ... rapidly emptying pews ... and a mostly 'lost' generation of young people within the mainstream churches!!!

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Hang on, are you saying you deny Quantum Mechanics?

...I think that is a question that Sam should answer ... given the fact that he was much more strenuous in his criticism of your Creation Science 'efforts' ... than I was!!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Wow, that was some grade A BS. I'm going to recommend you for the golden crocoduck, creationisms annual award for nonsense spouting

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean that I haven't answered your questions!!!!:D

No JC, you didn't answer my questions as everyone here will agree.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...all of the 'founding fathers' of modern science were Creationists ...

Science was around a long time before Christianity was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

etc.

monosharp

Just to put this dog to bed, lets see if JC and co can make any kind of answer to this besides mindless dribble and laughable nonsense.

So lets start with creation in-transit;

The scientific argument;

wiki wrote:

According to some creationists, one explanation used for seeing galaxies that are billions of light-years away is that God created the light "in-transit"

The central problem with the "in-transit" idea is that, if it is true, then events that astronomers are now observing and interpreting as having happened at vast distances away from us never actually happened. For example, in 1987 astronomers observed a supernova (an exploding star) approximately 170,000 light-years away from the earth (SN 1987A). As well as the visible light from this explosion, they also observed gamma and x-rays as predicted by theory, all strongly indicative that they were observing an actual event.
However, if the universe is only 6,000–12,000 years old, what the astronomers observed did not actually happen as the data suggested. Instead, it would imply that all of the radiation from this "event" was carefully arranged in space approximately 10,000 light-years away from the Earth, such that when the Earth reached 1987, this radiation would reach it and give the impression of a supernova event which never actually happened.

The religious argument;

Consequently, the in-transit theory is often rejected for theological reasons, as it suggests that God has created a "false history" of events that never took place.

The speed of light has changed.

This idea is independent of the variable speed of light found in present models of the earliest moments of the Big Bang, though various creationists, including Setterfield, have exploited the explanation as a confirmation of their own ideas[6] (despite the fact that the speed of light has remained constant to at least one part in 1010 over the last 13 billion years according to observations of distant quasars). Other creationists have warned against reading too much into such claims.[7]

Most creationists don't even claim this bullsh1te anymore.

Humphreys Model

This model is criticized by scientists and some creationists. This includes a long rebuttal by Old Earth creationists Hugh Ross, an astronomer, and Samuel R. Conner, the authors of The Unraveling of Starlight and Time.[9] Humphreys has since written New Vistas of Spacetime Rebut the Critics to answer some of his critics.

In other words all three are complete bullsh1te with no evidence whatsoever to support any part of them.

We are waiting for your nonsense JC.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...all of the 'founding fathers' of modern science were Creationists ...

monosharp
Science was around a long time before Christianity was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

etc.

...I was talking about the 'founding fathers' of the modern scientific method ... which dates from the 'scientific revolution' which started in the sixteenth century.

According to an article in Wikipedia "The scientific revolution was a period when new ideas in physics, astronomy, biology, human anatomy, chemistry, and other sciences led to a rejection of doctrines that had prevailed from Ancient Greece through the Middle Ages, and laid the foundation of modern science.
According to the majority of scholars, the scientific revolution began with the publication of two works that changed the course of science in 1543 and continued through the late 17th century: Nicolaus Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) and Andreas Vesalius's De humani corporis fabrica (On the Fabric of the Human body)."...and you can read all about it here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Revolution

BTW, amongst the doctrines which had prevailed from Ancient Greece, which were initially eclipsed and invalidated by the scientific revolution, was the spontaneous generation of life amongst 'lower' lifeforms ... and their gradual development over time into 'higher' lifeforms.
These invalid ideas were resurrected in the late 19th century as 'abiogenesis' and 'evolution' in order to 'prop-up' the emerging Atheistic Worldview that was finding its economic expression in Karl Marx's writings and its philosophical expression in the nihilism of Nietzsche!!!

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Just to put this dog to bed, lets see if JC and co can make any kind of answer to this besides mindless dribble and laughable nonsense.

So lets start with creation in-transit;

The scientific argument;



The religious argument;



The speed of light has changed.



Most creationists don't even claim this bullsh1te anymore.

Humphreys Model



In other words all three are complete bullsh1te with no evidence whatsoever to support any part of them.

We are waiting for your nonsense JC.

...like I have already said ... this is an 'Eucuminical Question' ... within Creation Science ... with a number of different hypotheses currently under active investigation.
Whenever a definitive conclusion is reached ... you will be the first to know.:)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...I'm completely at a loss to explain why a Christian would promote the main concept which makes Atheists feel intellectually fulfilled, to their own children.

The inevitable result is what is actually happening ... rapidly emptying pews ... and a mostly 'lost' generation of young people within the mainstream churches!!!

That trend is relatively recent in comparison to the 150 years since the theory was formulated so I don't think one has anything to do with the other, I think the idea that accepting evolution requires atheism is a creationist myth but of course this is the problem isn't it? You think that evolution conflicts with your religious beliefs and therefore it's wrong. At that point the amount of evidence there is to support it becomes irrelevant; anything that is presented will be denied because retaining belief in god is more important than acknowledging reality

You say that you're "completely at a loss to explain why a Christian would promote the main concept which makes Atheists feel intellectually fulfilled, to their own children" but the reason is that unlike creationists, they're not prepared to lie to their children because of the mistaken idea that the lie is necessary to maintain belief (it's called pious fraud). Instead they take a more sophisticated interpretation of the bible that allows both evolution and belief to coexist and this is what the overwhelming majority of believers do