Young Earth Creationism

[buffalo]

No i think they want to believe that the light from the supernova is created by god in its transit from that place to here, and its only done in the last 10000 years, now why god would do that is beyond me and them, perhaps he is doing it just to make them feel happy

Asumptions have been made based on the speed of light being constant. There is some new research that show it may be slowing down. If so, is it slowing down linearly? If not many many things regarding ages may have to be recalculated.

 

[USMC]

In the book The Mystical City of God, by Mary of Agreda, in which God and the Blessed Virgin Mary revealed to her the events of the life of Mary and Jesus, she gives dates for various events.

The book, which should be read by all, has been praised and recommended by many Popes. The introduction to the book provides many quotes from the Popes who recommended it. When you read the book, you can unuderstand why it was so highly recommended by so many Popes.

In the book, she reveals that Jesus was indeed born on December 25, and that he was crucified on March 25, when he was 33 years and 3 months old. She also revealed that March 25 corresponds with the day the world was created, which took place in the year 5199BC.

If that is true, and I tend to believe it for several reasons, then the world is now about 7,205 years old.

I believe this figure exactly corresponds with the Roman Calender, which has the creation of the world taking place in 5199BC.

The Easter Orthodox calender places the year of the creation of the world around 5510BC.

It has been argued by scientists that the exponential decay of the Earth’s magnetic field proves that the Earth cannot be more than about 10,000 years old, which confirms that what man has generally believed since the days of the Old Testament (that the earth is indeed young) is correct.

 

[buffalo]

Iambic Pen,

I’ve done a little investigation into the slowing of the speed of light. It appears that the measured velocities have steadily decayed through the decades and centuries; there are articles in the journal Nature asking whether the speed of light was constant, decaying continuously, or sinusoidal.

The apparent decrease in the speed of light stopped in the 1950’s when measurement techniques got so good that the value became known to eight or nine significant figures. Since then it has remained constant. That by itself is sufficient to explain to me why any changes in the speed of light will explain the apparent age of the universe.

• Liberian

 

[steveandersen]

…It has been argued by scientists that the exponential decay of the Earth’s magnetic field proves that the Earth cannot be more than about 10,000 years old, which confirms that what man has generally believed since the days of the Old Testament (that the earth is indeed young) is correct.

you have to provide a citation for that one

I have serious doubts that any real sceintist would make such a claim

Blessed Steno laid down the tdeoretical foundations for the age of the Earth (i.e. much much more than a few thousands years) in the 17th century

AFAIK it is a settled question

 

[buffalo]

I

The apparent decrease in the speed of light stopped in the 1950’s when measurement techniques got so good that the value became known to eight or nine significant figures. Since then it has remained constant. That by itself is sufficient to explain to me why any changes in the speed of light will explain the apparent age of the universe.

• Liberian

Speed of light slowing down?

…
Setterfield teamed with statistician Dr. Trevor Norman and demonstrated that, even allowing for the clumsiness of early experiments, and correcting for the multiple lenses of early telescopes and other factors related to technology, the speed of light was discernibly higher 100 years ago, and as much as 7 percent higher in the 1700s. Dr. Norman confirmed that the measurements were statistically significant with a confidence of more than 99 percent.
Setterfield and Norman published their results at SRI in July 1987 after extensive peer review.

It would be easy to dismiss two relatively unknown researchers if theirs were the only voices in this wilderness and the historic data was the only anomaly. They are not.
Since the SRI publication in 1987, forefront researchers from Russia, Australia, Great Britain and the United States have published papers in prestigious journals questioning the constancy of the speed of light.
Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was much higher – as much as 10 to the 10th power faster – in the early stages of the “Big Bang” than it is today. (It’s important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a predetermined answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical worldview.)
Dr. Magueijo believes that light speed was faster only in the instants following the beginning of time. Dr. Barrow, Barry Setterfield and others believe that light speed has been declining from the beginning of time to the historic near past.

 

[buffalo]

In the book The Mystical City of God, by Mary of Agreda, in which God and the Blessed Virgin Mary revealed to her the events of the life of Mary and Jesus, she gives dates for various events.

The book, which should be read by all, has been praised and recommended by many Popes. The introduction to the book provides many quotes from the Popes who recommended it. When you read the book, you can unuderstand why it was so highly recommended by so many Popes.

In the book, she reveals that Jesus was indeed born on December 25, and that he was crucified on March 25, when he was 33 years and 3 months old. She also revealed that March 25 corresponds with the day the world was created, which took place in the year 5199BC.

If that is true, and I tend to believe it for several reasons, then the world is now about 7,205 years old.

I believe this figure exactly corresponds with the Roman Calender, which has the creation of the world taking place in 5199BC.

The Easter Orthodox calender places the year of the creation of the world around 5510BC.

It has been argued by scientists that the exponential decay of the Earth’s magnetic field proves that the Earth cannot be more than about 10,000 years old, which confirms that what man has generally believed since the days of the Old Testament (that the earth is indeed young) is correct.

Interpreting the Genealogies of Genesis

Challenged with the idea that Adam’s date is 4004 BC and that the Flood occurred in 2238 BC, Robert Sungenis shows that, according to biblical chronology and archeological findings, these dates would be impossible, for it would leave only 66 years between Noah and Abraham. Read as Robert shows that the genealogies are actually a biblical calendar that takes us back to about the year 10,000 BC, with the Flood occurring around 5,000 BC.

 

[buffalo]

New Evidence of Genesis Genealogies To Be Understood as an Accurate Calendar of History

N****ational Geographic Reveals Evidence of Catastrophic Flood in 5,000 BC
WASHINGTON-A National Geographic expedition led by Explorer-in-Residence Robert Ballard has discovered remnants of human habitation more than 300 feet below the surface of the Black Sea, approximately 12 miles off the Turkish shore. Evidence suggests these people must have thrived in a coastal setting before a catastrophic flood inundated the area many thousands of years ago.

 

[USMC]

Buffalo,

You have a great signature - “A man of conscience, is one who never acquires tolerance, well- being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion, at the expense of truth.” Pope Benedict XVI

SteveAnderson,

It was discussed in the book Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field by Thomas G. Barnes. You can probably find more information on the subject by doing a google search.

 

[steveandersen]

…
SteveAnderson,

It was discussed in the book Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field by Thomas G. Barnes. You can probably find more information on the subject by doing a google search.

His work is… flawed according to some folks more knowledgeable than me.

talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

 

[USMC]

His work is… flawed according to some folks more knowledgeable than me.

talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

I’m not a scientist either, but it shouldn’t surprise us that some disagree with him.

Personally, I give just about no weight to anything a scientists says. Who is less credible then our modern day scientists who continually reverse what they previously taught?

For some strange reason, some people place the authority of scientists above all else - even the teachings of the Church and the Bible. I give them no authority whatsoever. They have proven, by their continuous reversal of themselves, that they are totally untrustworthy.

I think that *vast majority *of them are Athiests with a bias against God.

 

[Orogeny]

I’m not a scientist either, but it shouldn’t surprise us that some disagree with him.

Personally, I give just about no weight to anything a scientists says. Who is less credible then our modern day scientists who continually reverse what they previously taught?

Well, then. I guess that your mind is made up and any further (name removed by moderator)ut by you regarding science should be taken with that in mind.

I hope you never need any medical treatment that is currently under development. I would presume, based on your comment, that you would refuse such treatment.

Oh, and by they way. Why are you using a scientist as a source for your beliefs if you don’t believe what scientists say?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Interpreting the Genealogies of Genesis

Challenged with the idea that Adam’s date is 4004 BC and that the Flood occurred in 2238 BC, Robert Sungenis shows that, according to biblical chronology and archeological findings, these dates would be impossible, for it would leave only 66 years between Noah and Abraham. Read as Robert shows that the genealogies are actually a biblical calendar that takes us back to about the year 10,000 BC, with the Flood occurring around 5,000 BC.

Yeah, and the universe revolves around the earth! Oh, yeah, I forgot you can find that at that site too.

Peace

Tim

ps Buffalo - how’d you get along with all the snow?

 

[USMC]

Well, then. I guess that your mind is made up and any further (name removed by moderator)ut by you regarding science should be taken with that in mind.

I hope you never need any medical treatment that is currently under development. I would presume, based on your comment, that you would refuse such treatment.

Oh, and by they way. Why are you using a scientist as a source for your beliefs if you don’t believe what scientists say?
Peace

Tim

Why did I use a scientist as a source? Because most people seem to think scientists are infallible. Therefore, just as I use the Bible when debating Protestants, I will use quotes from scientists with those, such as yourself, who place what they say above what the Church has always taught.

In fact, I would be willing to bet that you believe a particular scientific theory that has been explicitly condemned by the Church as a heresy.

 

[steveandersen]

I’m not a scientist either, but it shouldn’t surprise us that some disagree with him.

Personally, I give just about no weight to anything a scientists says.

Use electricity,drink pasteurized milk, take any medication, or fly on a plane recently?

Who is less credible then our modern day scientists who continually reverse what they previously taught?

While most of the basics of science (such as the 350 year old theories on stratigraphy by Steno cited above that demonstrate the age of the earth) are pretty much settled, the ability of science to reverse itself based on new data is what gives science its credibility.

Science isn’t a religion. It is all about probability and margin or error.

For some strange reason, some people place the authority of scientists above all else - even the teachings of the Church and the Bible. I give them no authority whatsoever.

Science has no authority to pronounce on theological matters and the Church has no authority to pronounce on geology or physics (we learned that one with that Galileo nonsense)

They have proven, by their continuous reversal of themselves, that they are totally untrustworthy.

A scientist who made up his mind and refused to take new data into account would be very untrustworthy… and not a scientist.

I think that *vast majority *of them are Atheists with a bias against God.

Scientists come in every stripe and color. Unless you can systematically prove that measurements by Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or atheist scientists are somehow different then I’m to sure what the point or bringing up their beliefs is.

 

[mchale]

My first post to this particular forum. I will answer Mojelme1981’s post in a couple of posts since there is alot here.

Please first think logically: God’s power is unlimited, so He could have created the world in as many days as he wanted, therefore I am quite sure that it was in 6 literal 24hour days as it is said in Genesis. In fact, God even didn’t need these 6 days, He could have done it momentary if He wanted to. Every Christian should be able to accept the unlimited Power of God.

No Christian would deny that God could create the World and the Universe in 6 days, the question is, did he in fact create the world in 6 days, or is a literal history of the Earth’s creation not the point of Genesis 1? I accept God’s unlimited power, I also accept the evidence that Universe presents itself that the Universe and the Earth are vastly old compared to the period that human beings have occupied this Earth (Whether the Garden of Eden was on this Earth or from a prefallen Universe).

But what concerns some Christians are the “obvious” scientific “proofs”, which indicate a “billion of years” universe. They are afraid of persecution by their “scientific” friends who claim to know the past, who are more “cool” then their fundamental Christian brothers.

On the contrary, your implication that Christians only belief in the scientific account out of peer pressure is in fact, highly insulting. For your information, some of that scientific evidence of an ancient Earth and an Ancient Universe was in fact introduced by Catholic Religious. Of all people, a priest probably would not worry about looking too religious to his peers. But in fact it was a priest who first proposed the Big Bang Theory, and priests have worked on Human Origins and other aspects of evolutionary theory.

Well Biblical Creation scientists have found many scientific evidence of a young earth universe, and also have shown many counter evidence against billion of years “evidence”. Everyone who earnestly seeks the truth should get familiar with these evidences. If you don’t give the Biblical creationists a chance then obviously you never wanted to allow a young universe. From the beginning on, then you have wished for a billion of years universe, so that you can be acceptable to your “cool” friends who don’t need a God.

I am aware of the “evidence” against the prevelent scientific views of the age of the Earth and Universe. Frankly I am not convinced. As a rule they fail to meet the standards of good science. The most important important being don’t prejudice the evidence. Essentially “Creation Scientiests” know the results (i.e. that the Earth and Universe are less than 10,000 years old and will essentially reject any evidence that suggests otherwise.

If one is interested in Truth, then one must be prepared that the evidence might overturn one’s preconceived notions of what that Truth would be. Young Earth Creationists generally are not willing to have their conception of the Universe altered by the Evidence.

To be continued…

–
Bill

 

[Orogeny]

Why did I use a scientist as a source?

Thomas Barnes, post no. 41

Because most people seem to think scientists are infallible. Therefore, just as I use the Bible when debating Protestants, I will use quotes from scientists with those, such as yourself, who place what they say above what the Church has always taught.

What have I said that is different than what the Church teaches? Please be VERY specific.

In fact, I would be willing to bet that you believe a particular scientific theory that has been explicitly condemned by the Church as a heresy.

I certainly believe that you think you know me much better than you actually do. But I’ll play along. What is it that I believe that the Church explicitly condemns?

Peace

Tim

 

[mchale]

Note, this is not a philosophical question, it’s logical, and I, having an electrical college degree and doing some serious programming as my job, do know how much 2+2 is. In contrast to the philosophy peoples who easily loose out of sight the unlimited power of God and other logic.

I think it is somewhat disingenuous to try to claim that logic is not philosophy since indeed logic is a specific discipline of philosophy. I also have abackground in math and computer programming, so I am pretty sure I know what 2+2 equals.

The one particular topic, and the hardest as well is the problem of distant light, mentioned here. There are a few acceptable explanations to it. I personally agree with it, that before the Fall, when everything was still “very good”, the speed of light was instantaneous, and therefore no problem for light to come from any galaxy within a blink of an eye. Before the Fall, there also were no suffering and no death. So obviously after the Fall some physical laws must have changed, because after the Fall the possibility of death was introduces to this world. As well, so the speed of light has changed. Why is it for Christian so hard to believe that before the Fall the speed of light was unlimited??? Because someone who does not need a God says that there never was a Fall, and some of you believe them?

It is so hard to believe not because there was no Fall, there was. Whether the Fall was an event that occured in our history (as the term is generally understood) or outside of the time we live in is besides the point. However, you clearly believe that the Fall did occur in the physical history of the Universe and that it had an impact on the Physical laws of the Universe. Changing the speed of light does not simply impact the length of time that it takes for light to reach the Earth, rather it impacts a huge number of physical attributes. If the speed of light changed from being infinite, or even being vastly faster than the current value, one would expect to see very definite evidence of those changes. For example, the speed of light is directly related to how much energy is stored in an atom and therefore how much energy is released by two atoms fusing to form a third heavier atom. Since that is the process by which stars burn, one would expect stars more than 10,000 light years away would be vastly brighter than those closer than those closer than say 6000 light years (allowing for uncertainty in the dating of the fall). We don’t notice any change in the intrinsic brightness of stars. There are alot of other proofs to suggest that the speed of light has remained near constant for most of the history of the Universe but I don’t have space here to review them all… nor do I completely understand them all .

If you anyhow, accept billions of years, then you have got a lot of troubles of what was before the Fall, what God has thought with His words “very good”. In a “billions of years” scenario “Very good” then also includes suffering, pain and death (violent ones also). There are just too many Theological, Scientific and Logical arguments in favour for young earth, that I am always disappointed when I see Christians still arguing in favour for billions of years.

Pain, death and voilence really, are relevant theologically from the perspective of Man. And by Man, I don’t mean Man as a biolgical being, rather as a being with an immortal Soul. If we assume that evolution explains the biological reality of man (i.e. the physical mechanisim that explains the morphogical development of humans). Its entirely possible and plausible, that God choose the biological species homo-sapiens (that were created by God through evolution) some tens of thousands of years ago and endowed certain members of the species (Adam and Eve) with an immortal Soul. If that is possible, then pain and suffering are only issues once Adam and Eve rebeled against God… because being that they were the only beings with a Soul, they were the only ones who could truely suffer, and truely die because they were the only ones who had been truely alive in God.

My personal opinion is that God intentionally has created the world so that the “billons of years” theory has its points. That way He left the people full freedom in choosing their believe system, as well as He gives them full freedom in every other aspect.

See my opinion is that I have a fundemental problem with a God that would deceive me by creating a Universe that suggests that it is much older than it actually is. God is truth, and so what God tells us must be truth. God speaks to us in the Bible, but also in his creation. Of the two, the story of Genesis allows more latitude in interpretation than the physical record of the Earth. I choose to place my trust in God, not in someone’s narrow interpretation of Scripture.

–
Bill

 

[Liberian]

Buffalo,

If the speed of light were still slowing down in recent historical times, why did it stop changing right at the time that our measurements got good enough to measure such a change unambiguously? Your argument would have been tenable in the 1960’s and perhaps even into the 1970’s, but now we have had a half a century of constant speed of light.

• Liberian

 

[CarlosG]

It has been argued by scientists that the exponential decay of the Earth’s magnetic field proves that the Earth cannot be more than about 10,000 years old, which confirms that what man has generally believed since the days of the Old Testament (that the earth is indeed young) is correct.

What I understand is that this is a bogus claim, well partially bogus at least. While the magnetic field certainly does decrease as shown in the the rocks in our geology, it also goes up. It fluctuates and has been for quite a long time. Heres a realaudio file that says a bit about it.
pnm://broadcast.reasons.org/rtbradio/cu20030422.rm?start=01:42:28.0

While I certainly dont think God lacks the power to actually accomplish all work in 6 days, I personally find most Young-Earth arguements a little too ad-hoc’ish for my taste.

 

[MojeIme1981]

Hi Bill, from all what you’ve said, I’ll reply to this:

…Changing the speed of light does not simply impact the length of time that it takes for light to reach the Earth, rather it impacts a huge number of physical attributes.

When said that physical laws have changed, this means that speed of light is only miny tiny part of the whole package of physical attributes, which were changed. It is irrational to observe merely the implication of speed of light change while keeping all other physical attributes constant. this has no sense, so this is:

…We don’t notice any change in the intrinsic brightness of stars…

no argument at all. :yawn:

…Pain, death and voilence really, are relevant theologically from the perspective of Man. And by Man, I don’t mean Man as a biolgical being, rather as a being with an immortal Soul. If we assume that evolution explains the biological reality of man (i.e. the physical mechanisim that explains the morphogical development of humans). Its entirely possible and plausible, that God choose the biological species homo-sapiens…

from this, one can see what kind of stories the “billon of years” believer must invent, in order to justify his believe in an old universe. Indeed it is hard to worship two masters, the godless science on one side, and Christian believe on other. :bowdown2:

…See my opinion is that I have a fundemental problem with a God that would deceive me by creating a Universe that suggests that it is much older than it actually is…

It is not about deceiving. It’s about free will. If it were obvious that God created the universe then there wouldn’t be any room for free will regarding the question of Believing into God or not, everyone then would have a proof for believing.

The scientists can predict, based on their teachings the outcome of an experiment or production process,… but this does not automatically mean they can tell something absolute about the past. They cannot know what happened from the past to today, what has changed from then. Either way, the Holy Scripture certainly suggests that something has changed in past.

But even approximating today’s physical attributes to the past, one can get many proofs of young earth universe, as the young earth creationists show, but of course these question are the ones which godless scientist would like to avoid and ignore.
In order to be self sustainable the universe of course had to be created “looking old”, so also first man Adam had to be created as an adult, rather then a helpless infant.