I need help

[unguided]

I agree entirely. Your friends are most likely not well versed in Scriptures or their underlying meaning. It's too bad they don't believe, and even more so a shame that they have attempted to sway you.

As for your take on Church, I think it's safe to say that religions/denominations are an institution. And who wants to be in an institution?

But seriously, although the Church has good intentions, the idea is to simply develop a relationship with the Lord. How you go about doing so is up to you. That's not to say you can disregard His teachings because you think that's not how your relationship rolls, but to each their own on affairs of spirituality and the heart.

If I may, I highly suggest reading a book known as The Shack. It definitely helped me reaffirm some things and got me out of a major stupor about a year ago; you could go so far as to say it was the catalyst for me being saved.

". . .because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)

Best regards!

Thanks for your reply. The friends of whom I speak are not deliberately trying to sway me from God or the bible. They just want me to question these things myself. I believe they have the best of intentions because I trust them very much. And I might add I am not a gullible person. Some of these people are very familiar with scripture. Not just the bible either, they have read the koran and the torah. What they interpret it as is how people of those days explained the universe around them and the way they believed things back then when they were written.

I completely agree on what you say about religion and denominations. I think if you are a believer you shouldnt have to choose a denomination. Just read the bible for yourself and let you and God be the institution.

I just have a very hard time going along with the things in the bible when people say the bible is the word of god yet science contradicts much of it, or some parts of the bible contradict itself or how the universe actually works. Example: The bible says the earth is flat but we know the earth to be spherical. And also, why would god create the earth just for us to live on and also makes trillions and trillions of stars and galaxies with other planets that have nothing to do with us. Wouldnt he just create the earth and the sun alone. We don't need the aesthetics of the universe, yet they are they. And the universe is actually growing. Scientists have shown the earth to actually be growing faster than it has before. This discovery shows the universe used to be smaller. It gives one more bit of evidence for the big bang. That is not to say the god perhaps started the big bang. I do not know. This is what I wish to find out one day on my journey to truth.

Thank your again for your reply and please keep posting anything you think may help. I will try to find the book at a local bookstore.

 

[violakat]

You mention micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution is something completely different from macro evolution. Micro is dealing with two animal that are of the same species, that makes something that is a hybrid, such as a Lion or Tiger creating Liger. Or a horse and donkey creating a mule. The lion and tiger are of the same family, felines, and therefore can breed together. The same with the horse or donkey. They are of the same family. In other words adaptions based upon survival of the fittest. This is why we have so many different types of cat and dog breeds.

Macro evolution is talking about taking one species and creating a whole new species that is not even in the same family. However, no matter how hard you try, you can not make a kangaroo turn into a rabbit. Yes the both hop, but they are not of the same family. Macro evolution is simply stating that a kangaroo will turn into a rabbit. The thing I'm curious to find out is, if evolutionist has the answer to the following question. Let's say, the kangaroo had a baby that was a link between it and the rabbit, and that was the only baby it had like it. And another one did not exist for another hundred years. So, when would the rabbit become into existence, if the link baby could not partner back with the kangaroo, otherwise, this would be back to micro evolution, because then it would be of the same family.

On another note that is related:
There is a theory, and a really good one, that the cavemen, were simply homo sapiens that had rickets, due to a vitamin D deficiency. One of the major body parts that rickets effects are the bones. The symptoms are delayed growth, bowed legs, curved spine, thicker wrist and ankles, soft skull and breastbone projection.
Rickets: Symptoms - MayoClinic.com
Rickets - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is the typical image of the cave man, most scientists claim: Occipital bun (bulging skull), mastoid crest (pointed skull), robust (thick and heavy) bones.
A Science Odyssey: You Try It: Human Evolution: Text Version
Homo neanderthalensis - H. neanderthalensis is a widely known but poorly understood hominid ancestor.

In short something similar to the following images:

And while modern day evolutionist are saying that the Caveman probably did not live in caves, but in leaves, there is a good chance he did, which I'll get into in a few minutes.

Many evolution scientist deny a world wide flood. However, if you look back on the different cultures you will find probably over 100 flood stories, from the Ancient Greeks, with Zeus destroying the world and only a few people survived, to the Cree Indians of Canada which mention ravens and wood pigeon.
Flood Stories from Around the World

According to the Bible, It rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and flooded the whole earth. That flood would have pretty much change the whole climate of the of the Earth, eventually cooling it down to the point of the accepted Ice age, by both Creation and Evolution scientists. According to some Creation Scientists, it is entirely possible that the plates of the earth moved, and volcanoes formed, and exploded, sending massive amounts of ash into the air, that covered much of the earth, thus bringing in the ice age.
Where Does the Ice Age Fit? - Answers in Genesis

Now, back to the cavemen. Where will man live, if most of the earth is covered in ice. Under plants and leaves, with very little protection? If that were the case, then most likely humans would not be in existence, simply because hypothermia would have set in and within hours, people would have died. No, the most likely place would have been caves, as shelter from the storms. Because the earth was covered with ash from volcanoes, ice covered up all the area, making it hard to locate food, most likely, within 1 generation, majority of the people developed rickets, because of Vitamin D. You see vitamin D deficiency is caused by two major things, lack of sunlight exposure and poor nutrition, such as fish. If the are not exposed to the sun, caused by the ashes in the sky, and are unable to eat properly, it is no wonder, that early man looked vastly different from today's society. As the skies cleared up, the earth warmed, and man moved out from each other and their health improved.

 

[TheAristocat]

But scientists use a very precise dating scheme to date these fossils. The oldest living fossil is the stromatolite, being over 2.7 billion years old. So the earth is at least that old, and there have been fossils dated back as far as 3.5 billion years old. Heres a quote from wikipedia on the big bang (I know wikipedia isn't the best source ever but I'm sure that this thread is locked and only certain people would have access. "Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the Universe has a calculated age of 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years." I don't see why scientists would lie to make it contradict what creationists are saying since science has said this before creationism even became an issue for them to try and contradict.

No one ever says that light from a star 3 billion light years away means that the universe is 3 billion years old, it just means that light that we see now from that star took 3 billion years to reach earth. It makes sense. It takes about 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach earth.

And I don't see the problem with micro evolution and macro. I think most people can understand micro evolution and see it to be true. Small changes within a species. Like every generation of a family each new child from its descendents carries some same traits and a small bit changes. Very small. But isn't macro evolution just the vast changes of many micro evolutions over a long period of time? These are the things that are confusing. I have seen debates where Christians will accept micro evolution but not macro. When one begets the other, I don't see how that is possible.

I am not making a decision yet on what I believe as far as a higher power goes. I pray many times a day, I am trying so hard to understand, but the universe around me seems to have a different view of things I am trying so hard to believe. I wonder sometimes what if I just can't accept it? What if I never receive a for sure sign? How can I believe with the way my mind is adept to think and accept?

I am grateful for all of your responses and I am hoping for something that will make me question myself. In the mean time I still pray and read the bible looking for an answer. Thank you.

I'm going to preface this with my previous statement of not being a scientist. haha

That said, I think you misunderstand what evolution is. There is another concept that fits in well with natural selection that is observable today and that the layman mistakes for evolution. To oversimplify, the difference between evolution and this concept of adaptation is the difference between a fish becoming a frog or a fish simply adapting to have slightly longer fins. The former is not observable at present while the latter is.

They sound like the same thing, but they are not. Every species has a genetic template which allows for subtle changes to be passed on to its young (e.g. thicker hair, thinner hair, higher muscle density, lower muscle density). But evolution claims that changes occurred within the template itself (e.g. scales instead of hair) that allowed for not just subtle changes to be passed on to one's young (e.g. thicker scales, thinned-out scales) but also a whole new template with its own subtle variants, and that is not observable or, I believe, even genetically possible in today's modern species. If at one time it was then it is no longer. Humans are no longer evolving even if they had once evolved from another species in the past.

And you misunderstand what I mean about starlight and distance. If starlight has reached us from a billion light years away that does not mean that it has taken at least a billion years for the starlight a billion light years away to reach us - even taking into account the speed of light. Why? Because of the possibility of time dilation.

To illustrate, picture the universe as a number of 2-Dimensional points on the surface of a balloon. As you blow the balloon up the distance between the points expands, but the points themselves have not traveled any distance. Or if that doesn't make sense you can think of it as two objects that are shrinking in size and the distance between them becoming greater but their positions remaining constant. Meanwhile photons are moving at the speed of light which may or may not be the speed at which the distance is increasing between the two points. The lesson is that even though the points are fixed light may take longer or shorter a time than is predicted to travel between them depending on the variables.

In the end my analogies are going to fall short of the real deal, but you can at least get an idea of what's going on. It's not a simple matter of: "1 billion light years away? Oh, that's 1 billion years then."

 

[BADDOG]

Hi one of the things you have said is you dont know the bible that well ,,,, so you have no idea first hand just whats in that book unless someone tells you .....

the christian life isnt about spoon feeding others its about feeding yourself ,,,, you will be blown about like a leaf in a storm untill you start to read the bible for your self ,,, you want to find out about God ,,, then do something to help yourself

Your friends will tell you all sorts of things about the bible ,,, but you will never know if there lying or not as you have no idea what it says ,,,,

Few will be able to help you as you have no idea if there lying to you also ,,, Christians are not into spoon feeding others we are to busy feeding our own souls for that ,,,

you want God ,,, then go read about him ,,, as long as you sit on your butt and do nothing thats all your life will be,,, a nothing ,,, soi get off your lazy butt and do something to help yourself .... have fun or not in your case

 

[Snackersmom]

I just have a very hard time going along with the things in the bible when people say the bible is the word of god yet science contradicts much of it, or some parts of the bible contradict itself or how the universe actually works. Example: The bible says the earth is flat but we know the earth to be spherical.

I'm NOT trying to be rude, I'm genuinely curious. Where does the Bible say that the earth is flat? I know that the Catholic church held this belief for many years, and made life unpleasant for Galileo, Copernicus, and others who correctly disagreed, but I have yet to find where the Bible actually says that the earth is flat. Please enlighten me, seriously, I really want to know .

And also, why would god create the earth just for us to live on and also makes trillions and trillions of stars and galaxies with other planets that have nothing to do with us. Wouldnt he just create the earth and the sun alone. We don't need the aesthetics of the universe, yet they are they.

I had to smile when I read this, because you are looking at creation only from a scientific standpoint, because that's the way your mind works (there's nothing wrong with that, it's the way God made you . However, you need to realize that God's an artist, and artists make things simply because they enjoy doing so. A couple of years ago I got it in my head that I just HAD to make a giant bunny-rabbit out of gum-tree pods. So I did. It's really cute, but it serves no useful purpose other than making visitors squeal with wonder. And I'm OK with that, really. Artists like to have their work admired. However, I would be really ticked if someone informed me that my 3-foot bunny-rabbit was only a product of random chance, the result of a hot-glue explosion under our giant gum-tree. No one has implied that, though. Weird, because the universe is SO much more beautiful and complex than my giant bunny.........

And the universe is actually growing. Scientists have shown the earth to actually be growing faster than it has before. This discovery shows the universe used to be smaller. It gives one more bit of evidence for the big bang. That is not to say the god perhaps started the big bang. I do not know. This is what I wish to find out one day on my journey to truth.

As I said, God makes these things because He likes to. Besides, it's not like it's difficult for Him. If you could create a new galaxy without even lifting a finger, then wouldn't you do it, just for kicks? I honestly think that He makes stuff because He enjoys hearing us oooooh and aaahhhhhh. And, maybe also so that we'll look to him in wonder..........Anyway, I'm glad that you're searching for truth. I hope that your journey someday leads you to the right destination: JESUS! (but I don't expect you to realize that, yet ).

 

[unguided]

You mention micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution is something completely different from macro evolution. Micro is dealing with two animal that are of the same species, that makes something that is a hybrid, such as a Lion or Tiger creating Liger. Or a horse and donkey creating a mule. The lion and tiger are of the same family, felines, and therefore can breed together. The same with the horse or donkey. They are of the same family. In other words adaptions based upon survival of the fittest. This is why we have so many different types of cat and dog breeds.

Macro evolution is talking about taking one species and creating a whole new species that is not even in the same family. However, no matter how hard you try, you can not make a kangaroo turn into a rabbit. Yes the both hop, but they are not of the same family. Macro evolution is simply stating that a kangaroo will turn into a rabbit. The thing I'm curious to find out is, if evolutionist has the answer to the following question. Let's say, the kangaroo had a baby that was a link between it and the rabbit, and that was the only baby it had like it. And another one did not exist for another hundred years. So, when would the rabbit become into existence, if the link baby could not partner back with the kangaroo, otherwise, this would be back to micro evolution, because then it would be of the same family.

On another note that is related:
There is a theory, and a really good one, that the cavemen, were simply homo sapiens that had rickets, due to a vitamin D deficiency. One of the major body parts that rickets effects are the bones. The symptoms are delayed growth, bowed legs, curved spine, thicker wrist and ankles, soft skull and breastbone projection.
Rickets: Symptoms - MayoClinic.com
Rickets - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is the typical image of the cave man, most scientists claim: Occipital bun (bulging skull), mastoid crest (pointed skull), robust (thick and heavy) bones.
A Science Odyssey: You Try It: Human Evolution: Text Version
Homo neanderthalensis - H. neanderthalensis is a widely known but poorly understood hominid ancestor.

In short something similar to the following images:

And while modern day evolutionist are saying that the Caveman probably did not live in caves, but in leaves, there is a good chance he did, which I'll get into in a few minutes.

Many evolution scientist deny a world wide flood. However, if you look back on the different cultures you will find probably over 100 flood stories, from the Ancient Greeks, with Zeus destroying the world and only a few people survived, to the Cree Indians of Canada which mention ravens and wood pigeon.
Flood Stories from Around the World

According to the Bible, It rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and flooded the whole earth. That flood would have pretty much change the whole climate of the of the Earth, eventually cooling it down to the point of the accepted Ice age, by both Creation and Evolution scientists. According to some Creation Scientists, it is entirely possible that the plates of the earth moved, and volcanoes formed, and exploded, sending massive amounts of ash into the air, that covered much of the earth, thus bringing in the ice age.
Where Does the Ice Age Fit? - Answers in Genesis

Now, back to the cavemen. Where will man live, if most of the earth is covered in ice. Under plants and leaves, with very little protection? If that were the case, then most likely humans would not be in existence, simply because hypothermia would have set in and within hours, people would have died. No, the most likely place would have been caves, as shelter from the storms. Because the earth was covered with ash from volcanoes, ice covered up all the area, making it hard to locate food, most likely, within 1 generation, majority of the people developed rickets, because of Vitamin D. You see vitamin D deficiency is caused by two major things, lack of sunlight exposure and poor nutrition, such as fish. If the are not exposed to the sun, caused by the ashes in the sky, and are unable to eat properly, it is no wonder, that early man looked vastly different from today's society. As the skies cleared up, the earth warmed, and man moved out from each other and their health improved.

Actually macro evolution is only possible through micro. Yes, micro evolution deals with changes within a species and macro is a different species. But evolution doesn't say a kangaroo will give birth to a rabbit. It is small changes over a very long period of time. These small changes eventually create a sub species of the former, the changes are not so great that the new species cannot breed within the former species. This is what allows micro evolution to become macro evolution. If you're looking for a kangarabbit or crocoduck you are never going to find it. Thats not how it works. The new species isn't so far from the former species that it cannot breed. That is how new species come to be, eventually the sub species changes so much it cannot breed with the former, but by then so many of the sub species have been born and evolved for each other they do not need to breed with the former. Does that not sound like a perfectly logical argument? To me it seems so rational.

About the flood. Actually many scientists now accept a world wide flood. And dealing with the ice age. It is actually amazing. There is a documentary by the history channel about how life came about only because the conditions of the ice age. The earth was frozen to a point the sun couldn't even melt the ice because it was so cold. And volcanoes below the earths surface built up pressure for so long and eventually erupted all over the world and thus started the melting of the ice. The documentary goes into much greater detail than I would care to write. But it explains everything so well and gives excellent proof for how life evolved from this event.

I am still trying hard to find answers through the bible and prayer. And I thank you for your help on my journey. I will never disregard your comments just because I have a different view of them. That could be my problem, I try to analyze everything to see what seems more logical. I don't know but I am trying.

 

[unguided]

I'm going to preface this with my previous statement of not being a scientist. haha

That said, I think you misunderstand what evolution is. There is another concept that fits in well with natural selection that is observable today and that the layman mistakes for evolution. To oversimplify, the difference between evolution and this concept of adaptation is the difference between a fish becoming a frog or a fish simply adapting to have slightly longer fins. The former is not observable at present while the latter is.

They sound like the same thing, but they are not. Every species has a genetic template which allows for subtle changes to be passed on to its young (e.g. thicker hair, thinner hair, higher muscle density, lower muscle density). But evolution claims that changes occurred within the template itself (e.g. scales instead of hair) that allowed for not just subtle changes to be passed on to one's young (e.g. thicker scales, thinned-out scales) but also a whole new template with its own subtle variants, and that is not observable or, I believe, even genetically possible in today's modern species. If at one time it was then it is no longer. Humans are no longer evolving even if they had once evolved from another species in the past.

And you misunderstand what I mean about starlight and distance. If starlight has reached us from a billion light years away that does not mean that it has taken at least a billion years for the starlight a billion light years away to reach us - even taking into account the speed of light. Why? Because of the possibility of time dilation.

To illustrate, picture the universe as a number of 2-Dimensional points on the surface of a balloon. As you blow the balloon up the distance between the points expands, but the points themselves have not traveled any distance. Or if that doesn't make sense you can think of it as two objects that are shrinking in size and the distance between them becoming greater but their positions remaining constant. Meanwhile photons are moving at the speed of light which may or may not be the speed at which the distance is increasing between the two points. The lesson is that even though the points are fixed light may take longer or shorter a time than is predicted to travel between them depending on the variables.

In the end my analogies are going to fall short of the real deal, but you can at least get an idea of what's going on. It's not a simple matter of: "1 billion light years away? Oh, that's 1 billion years then."

I tried to explain further micro and macro in the post above me. On the starlight distance, though. I've read a bit about starlight and time dilation, and its actually a big point on the creationist side of things. I will admit I do not know enough about time dilation to really give an answer. But scientists certainly know all about it. I don't see why they would throw out time dilation unless they had a very good reason. Scientists do not have an agenda to turn people away from their beliefs, they are just people who are curious about the universe in which we live and want to learn everything about it. I do know time dilation occurs for an object that is traveling near or at the speed of light, and that time slows down for that object. But if I understand correctly, even though the time for the object is slowing down, time for an observer on earth is constant. So time does not slow down for the observer and his surroundings, only for light. Therefore it would seem logical that the light traveling to a person on earth travels at a finite rate and given the rate and the distance of the star you can calculate how long it would take light to reach earth. I understand what you mean though. For light, traveling to earth from a 1 billion light years away it may only take a few thousand years. But that is the time of the object travleing, not of the observer, which does not slow down. So to an observer on earth it would still take light 1 billion years. Time dilation only occurs to the object traveling, not the person watching. It is a very good argument, and I could still be wrong. But I will read more on it, as am I still reading my bible daily, trying to find the answers. Thank you for your reply.

 

[unguided]

I'm NOT trying to be rude, I'm genuinely curious. Where does the Bible say that the earth is flat? I know that the Catholic church held this belief for many years, and made life unpleasant for Galileo, Copernicus, and others who correctly disagreed, but I have yet to find where the Bible actually says that the earth is flat. Please enlighten me, seriously, I really want to know .



I had to smile when I read this, because you are looking at creation only from a scientific standpoint, because that's the way your mind works (there's nothing wrong with that, it's the way God made you . However, you need to realize that God's an artist, and artists make things simply because they enjoy doing so. A couple of years ago I got it in my head that I just HAD to make a giant bunny-rabbit out of gum-tree pods. So I did. It's really cute, but it serves no useful purpose other than making visitors squeal with wonder. And I'm OK with that, really. Artists like to have their work admired. However, I would be really ticked if someone informed me that my 3-foot bunny-rabbit was only a product of random chance, the result of a hot-glue explosion under our giant gum-tree. No one has implied that, though. Weird, because the universe is SO much more beautiful and complex than my giant bunny.........



As I said, God makes these things because He likes to. Besides, it's not like it's difficult for Him. If you could create a new galaxy without even lifting a finger, then wouldn't you do it, just for kicks? I honestly think that He makes stuff because He enjoys hearing us oooooh and aaahhhhhh. And, maybe also so that we'll look to him in wonder..........Anyway, I'm glad that you're searching for truth. I hope that your journey someday leads you to the right destination: JESUS! (but I don't expect you to realize that, yet ).

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”​

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”​

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”​

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”​

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”​

I understand they do not say the earth is flat. But they state that the earth is fixed and immovable. Which is completely not true. The Earth rotates on an axis and revolves around the sun. Also the Earth moves closer to the sun and farther away from the sun over thousands of miles throughout its orbit.

Not to poke fun at your gum-tree bunny rabbit, which has to be adorable . But of course it could not happen by chance. I am sure when people saw it, they asked if you made it? Did you not tell them, yes? If god made these wondrous galaxies and stars for aesthetics as an artist wouldn't we want to show us that it was he that created them? If I could create a galaxy or universe to show people, if they looked at it and studied it and said that must have happened from dust particles in space over millions of years, I would just tell them I did it and show them. Why would god want to be so secret? Wouldn't it make more sense for him to show himself to be true to everyone so humans could live with each other in peace and love?

indeed the universe may be more complex and beautiful than a gum-drop bunny. But that doesn't mean it could not have happened in a natural way. This might sound a bit trivial of a question. But, I hear people say questions like. if you see a painting, you can conclude that their must have been a painter that painted it. Yes? Then you see the universe and it must have a creator. But there is a key thing about a painter. If there is a painter, then the painter must have had parents who procreated him/her? This supposes the question is there is a creator something must have, in-turn, created him as well.

Yes, I am always searching for something to show me the way. And I'll never turn away from something until I have my answer.

 

[unguided]

Hi one of the things you have said is you dont know the bible that well ,,,, so you have no idea first hand just whats in that book unless someone tells you .....

the christian life isnt about spoon feeding others its about feeding yourself ,,,, you will be blown about like a leaf in a storm untill you start to read the bible for your self ,,, you want to find out about God ,,, then do something to help yourself

Your friends will tell you all sorts of things about the bible ,,, but you will never know if there lying or not as you have no idea what it says ,,,,

Few will be able to help you as you have no idea if there lying to you also ,,, Christians are not into spoon feeding others we are to busy feeding our own souls for that ,,,

you want God ,,, then go read about him ,,, as long as you sit on your butt and do nothing thats all your life will be,,, a nothing ,,, soi get off your lazy butt and do something to help yourself .... have fun or not in your case

I said I do not know the bible that well, that does not mean I do not understand its underlying meaning and the message that it tries to convey upon the reader. I grew up going to church and I have read much of the bible, but when you are young you kind of feel like you're only doing it because your parents do it and they tell you to. So it doesn't really sink in and interest you. I have sat in church and listened to the preacher read and explain many of the scriptures. I am reading the bible though. I know the people I associate with. They have no agenda and no reason to lie to me for a gain on their end. It would appear I am doing something about it which is reading the bible and trying to find evidence or a correlation between what is true of the universe and what the bible says. Regardless if I "sit on my butt and do nothing", my life is more than nothing to me. I am not here for your approval. No matter what path I end up on in the end, I will choose what makes me happy and that will make my life worth living to the fullest and I will be the happiest person in the world in my eyes.

I am having fun though. Learning about the universe gives me so much pleasure, it is actually a bit of a stress reliever.

 

[TheAristocat]

I tried to explain further micro and macro in the post above me. On the starlight distance, though. I've read a bit about starlight and time dilation, and its actually a big point on the creationist side of things. I will admit I do not know enough about time dilation to really give an answer. But scientists certainly know all about it. I don't see why they would throw out time dilation unless they had a very good reason. Scientists do not have an agenda to turn people away from their beliefs, they are just people who are curious about the universe in which we live and want to learn everything about it. I do know time dilation occurs for an object that is traveling near or at the speed of light, and that time slows down for that object. But if I understand correctly, even though the time for the object is slowing down, time for an observer on earth is constant. So time does not slow down for the observer and his surroundings, only for light. Therefore it would seem logical that the light traveling to a person on earth travels at a finite rate and given the rate and the distance of the star you can calculate how long it would take light to reach earth. I understand what you mean though. For light, traveling to earth from a 1 billion light years away it may only take a few thousand years. But that is the time of the object travleing, not of the observer, which does not slow down. So to an observer on earth it would still take light 1 billion years. Time dilation only occurs to the object traveling, not the person watching. It is a very good argument, and I could still be wrong. But I will read more on it, as am I still reading my bible daily, trying to find the answers. Thank you for your reply.

Sounds alright to me. Relative velocity time dilation is only one form of the phenomenon, though, right? Personally, I'm a creationist because I believe God created the universe, but I also think it's cool to study how he did it. We're given a synopsis in Genesis, but that doesn't tell us the nitty-gritty mechanics of the creation process. If I remember right the big issue really deals with gravitational time dilation anyway.

Yeah, micro evolution and macro evolution both operate on the same assumption that is not permitted in the genes of a modern species. At least not that I know of. Gradual adaptations within the genetic template of a species are not a sign of micro evolution. If I understand it an example of micro evolution would consist of a non-existant trait arising in a species that may have a completely different function at first and then slowly changing over time to act as a light receptor, all the while manifesting itself in such a way so as to help propagate the members of the species which acquire this trait and then finally forming into the modern eye.

Macro evolution then would be, say, the light receptor forming all of a sudden with no gradual steps leading up to it and then it forming into an eye... Which is improbable even if it were at once permitted in a species' genes.

You surprise me with the knowledge of these subjects you've attained. But if light were created on the first day, then while light was forming how would it be possible to tell the passage of time? Was it 24 hours? If so then why? It doesn't say 24 hours, and the rotation of the earth has gradually slowed over time to lengthen the day. So even if it were a day in terms of the ancients' days it would not be as long as our day today. Some people like to say that by believing in the Big Bang we are lessening God's glory because it took the universe many billions of years to spawn what otherwise was created by God in 6 days. But I think they may just as equally be lessening God's glory by saying the days were 24 hours, because in the Big Bang it took light not 24 hours to form but a split second.

This wouldn't be the first time Hebrew terminology used of days has been applied to lengths of time longer or shorter than a day. For instance in Daniel there is a term that is literally translated as "seven" which is most often used to mean a "week of 7 days that were each probably around 24 hours in length". But the "sevens" in Daniel are used to refer to periods of seven years. And I think if you do the math right on that prophecy in Daniel you'll come to an interesting conclusion. And that's something else you should study: prophecy.

In Genesis we're not given any notion of a modern year until the genealogies roll around and that's after every inhuman species on earth is formed. Not only this but man is created last. Being a mammal, the predominant view of Evolution is that man was also "evolved" last because it seems to fit within paleontology's chronology.

 

[violakat]

White hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Research the White Hole theory. It's one I became aware of a few years ago. I've never really looked to much into it, but it might help answer some of the time dilation you were mentioning.

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

Just read the bible for yourself and let you and God be the institution.

Well put!

I just have a very hard time going along with the things in the bible when people say the bible is the word of god yet science contradicts much of it, or some parts of the bible contradict itself or how the universe actually works.

This is natural and commonplace, especially today. The fact that you seek answers is an indication that you fall into the "doubtful" category, and not the "denial" category. Even many Christians come across doubt at some point. Just be careful about how much stock you put into science. One thing I will say - despite what people think of it - is that science is no more consistent than interpretations of Scripture.

Science - in my opinion - has a funny way of seeking to disprove what's essentially impossible to prove or disprove - and yet in turn, consistently discredits itself in the process. The Big Bang is a good example: It was thought that the universe "exploded", reached it's zenith, retraced, exploded, lather rinse repeat. That was disproved when it was suggested that the universe in fact has been expanding, and at an increasing rate.

"God creates dinosaurs, God destroys dinosaurs, God creates Man. Man destroys God, Man creates dinosaurs" - Jeff Goldbloom in Jurassic Park

 

[unguided]

Sounds alright to me. Relative velocity time dilation is only one form of the phenomenon, though, right? Personally, I'm a creationist because I believe God created the universe, but I also think it's cool to study how he did it. We're given a synopsis in Genesis, but that doesn't tell us the nitty-gritty mechanics of the creation process. If I remember right the big issue really deals with gravitational time dilation anyway.

Yeah, micro evolution and macro evolution both operate on the same assumption that is not permitted in the genes of a modern species. At least not that I know of. Gradual adaptations within the genetic template of a species are not a sign of micro evolution. If I understand it an example of micro evolution would consist of a non-existant trait arising in a species that may have a completely different function at first and then slowly changing over time to act as a light receptor, all the while manifesting itself in such a way so as to help propagate the members of the species which acquire this trait and then finally forming into the modern eye.

Macro evolution then would be, say, the light receptor forming all of a sudden with no gradual steps leading up to it and then it forming into an eye... Which is improbable even if it were at once permitted in a species' genes.

You surprise me with the knowledge of these subjects you've attained. But if light were created on the first day, then while light was forming how would it be possible to tell the passage of time? Was it 24 hours? If so then why? It doesn't say 24 hours, and the rotation of the earth has gradually slowed over time to lengthen the day. So even if it were a day in terms of the ancients' days it would not be as long as our day today. Some people like to say that by believing in the Big Bang we are lessening God's glory because it took the universe many billions of years to spawn what otherwise was created by God in 6 days. But I think they may just as equally be lessening God's glory by saying the days were 24 hours, because in the Big Bang it took light not 24 hours to form but a split second.

This wouldn't be the first time Hebrew terminology used of days has been applied to lengths of time longer or shorter than a day. For instance in Daniel there is a term that is literally translated as "seven" which is most often used to mean a "week of 7 days that were each probably around 24 hours in length". But the "sevens" in Daniel are used to refer to periods of seven years. And I think if you do the math right on that prophecy in Daniel you'll come to an interesting conclusion. And that's something else you should study: prophecy.

In Genesis we're not given any notion of a modern year until the genealogies roll around and that's after every inhuman species on earth is formed. Not only this but man is created last. Being a mammal, the predominant view of Evolution is that man was also "evolved" last because it seems to fit within paleontology's chronology.

You're right about my having misunderstood micro evolution. It is not different traits that change gradually. It is mutations. But everything should still work just the same, these being mutations and not traits. Eventually these mutations change to where a species changes just that tiny bit too much where it cannot breed with the former anymore, but the mutations within its species allow it to breed with its own generation.

Regarding the light that was created on the first day, we should know the passage of time because light travels at a constant speed. Regardless of how long it took earth to rotate on its axis or complete a full orbit around the sun. I have heard people say a day to god could be like a thousand years to us. Suppose this is true. That would only be in the realm that god is in, because the physics of our universe does not allow that kind of time dilation.

To the eyes now though. The eye is actually not very complex at all. It is very easy to explain in a few steps to get from light sensitive cells on a patch of skin to a more cupped eye that can see sharp images. There are many videos on youtube that explain it very well just by searching for "evolution of the eye." Actually a bit of a proof that eyes have evolved is the fact that many animals have just the light sensitive cells. Some animals do not need a more complex eye so they did not evolve, but supposing survival of the fittest, animals that had to search for food would be better suited for survival with better optics helping it out.

 

[unguided]

Well put!



This is natural and commonplace, especially today. The fact that you seek answers is an indication that you fall into the "doubtful" category, and not the "denial" category. Even many Christians come across doubt at some point. Just be careful about how much stock you put into science. One thing I will say - despite what people think of it - is that science is no more consistent than interpretations of Scripture.

Science - in my opinion - has a funny way of seeking to disprove what's essentially impossible to prove or disprove - and yet in turn, consistently discredits itself in the process. The Big Bang is a good example: It was thought that the universe "exploded", reached it's zenith, retraced, exploded, lather rinse repeat. That was disproved when it was suggested that the universe in fact has been expanding, and at an increasing rate.

"God creates dinosaurs, God destroys dinosaurs, God creates Man. Man destroys God, Man creates dinosaurs" - Jeff Goldbloom in Jurassic Park

But science is actually so consistent. Fact: theories are subject to change. Many people think this is a fault on science. But it is actually what science is. Finding out the truth. If something is wrong, then a new idea must be presented. Scriptures are not subject to change, just subject to interpretation. But since science can change we can learn from these changes.

I'm just curious what things that science is trying to prove or disprove that is impossible. As far as I know something can only be tested in science if it is falsifiable, that is to say it can be proven wrong. You cannot prove a negative. Scientists will never be able to conduct a test of whether or not God exists. Nor are they trying to.

It has actually been proven that the universe is expanding right now. Three astronomers actually won the Nobel Prize this year for proving this. Heres a link to a video explaining it all - Physics Nobel Prize 2011 - Sixty Symbols - YouTube

Science has actually only been able to go back to the singularity of the Big Bang, or almost to the singularity. The laws of physics essentially break down at the Planck Epoch. It is described as the earliest time of the universe and is from zero to approx. 10^-43 seconds. Which is a number so small its pretty much incomprehensible. At that time 10^-43 seconds is when the quantum effects of the universe were brought into play. How can scientists calculate that with such precision if it weren't at least somewhat true? It would've been thrown out a long time ago, and there have been numerous studies.

 

[unguided]

Macro evolution then would be, say, the light receptor forming all of a sudden with no gradual steps leading up to it and then it forming into an eye... Which is improbable even if it were at once permitted in a species' genes.

I think I missed this line. But the way it is explained, as I understand it. First, you have cells that evolve into light sensitive cells. Then the skin is cupped with no change to the light sensitive cells. The cup that is formed allows the cells to detect what direction light is coming from. More evolution makes more light sensitive cells and cups the eye a bit more, more like a pinhole. This further allows light to be detected better, by there being more cells and the cupping which allows you to distinguish light direction and objects. Things would still be pretty blurry right now as you can pretty much only tell movement of objects and darkness and light differences. Next a primitive lens is formed that allows you to better focus the light entering into a more distinguishable image. Just small gradual changes over periods of time will add better characteristics so we can see the world we live in much better.

I do not explain it near as well as someone who has actually studied the eye. Please look for yourself by searching evolution of the eye, it is very interesting.

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

But science is actually so consistent. Fact: theories are subject to change. Many people think this is a fault on science. But it is actually what science is. Finding out the truth. If something is wrong, then a new idea must be presented. Scriptures are not subject to change, just subject to interpretation. But since science can change we can learn from these changes.

My point exactly, for the most part. Scriptures are subject to interpretation, but nailed down. Theories are the antithesis, and subject to fallacy and err. I prefer to think of it as "we learn from our mistakes".

I'm just curious what things that science is trying to prove or disprove that is impossible. As far as I know something can only be tested in science if it is falsifiable, that is to say it can be proven wrong. You cannot prove a negative. Scientists will never be able to conduct a test of whether or not God exists. Nor are they trying to.

Stephen Hawking publicly stated that based on scientific fundamentals of what we know about the Universe, it is safe to say there is no Divine Creator. Science has been at war with whether or not any higher form of existence is plausible, whether directly or indirectly so. I guess I slipped up when saying science was out to disprove Him; I'm just accustomed to seeing people present scientific data in refute to there being a God, or lack thereof, so I jumped the gun there.

It has actually been proven that the universe is expanding right now. Three astronomers actually won the Nobel Prize this year for proving this. Heres a link to a video explaining it all - Physics Nobel Prize 2011 - Sixty Symbols - YouTube

No argument there. I think you may have misinterpreted my previous comment. The theory previously was that the universe would collapse back in on itself at some point, expand, collapse, and so on. But the conclusion was reached that the universe was simply expanding. I pointed that out to show that scientific theories and principles are inconsistent on account of people being people and consequently making mistakes.

Science has actually only been able to go back to the singularity of the Big Bang, or almost to the singularity. The laws of physics essentially break down at the Planck Epoch. It is described as the earliest time of the universe and is from zero to approx. 10^-43 seconds. Which is a number so small its pretty much incomprehensible. At that time 10^-43 seconds is when the quantum effects of the universe were brought into play. How can scientists calculate that with such precision if it weren't at least somewhat true? It would've been thrown out a long time ago, and there have been numerous studies.

Sorry, but I am befoozled by the question here, given the statements I put in bold. Seems contradictory, and as such, self explanatory.

I hope you don't think I'm dissecting your statements in an overly defensive manner. It just seemed like the most practical way to get my message across. I still respect your opinions!

 

[TheAristocat]

You're right about my having misunderstood micro evolution. It is not different traits that change gradually. It is mutations. But everything should still work just the same, these being mutations and not traits. Eventually these mutations change to where a species changes just that tiny bit too much where it cannot breed with the former anymore, but the mutations within its species allow it to breed with its own generation.

Regarding the light that was created on the first day, we should know the passage of time because light travels at a constant speed. Regardless of how long it took earth to rotate on its axis or complete a full orbit around the sun. I have heard people say a day to god could be like a thousand years to us. Suppose this is true. That would only be in the realm that god is in, because the physics of our universe does not allow that kind of time dilation.

To the eyes now though. The eye is actually not very complex at all. It is very easy to explain in a few steps to get from light sensitive cells on a patch of skin to a more cupped eye that can see sharp images. There are many videos on youtube that explain it very well just by searching for "evolution of the eye." Actually a bit of a proof that eyes have evolved is the fact that many animals have just the light sensitive cells. Some animals do not need a more complex eye so they did not evolve, but supposing survival of the fittest, animals that had to search for food would be better suited for survival with better optics helping it out.

Ah, maybe I wasn't quite clear enough on what I meant about the first Day in Genesis. The ancients regarded a day more in terms of sunrises and sunsets than in 24-hour increments. And who wrote the Bible? The ancients. Forgive the Stargate: Atlantis reference.

Also, in Genesis light is created before the sun or the moon. So if the ancients regarded a day as being from sunrise to sunset and there was no sun to rise or set on the world at this time then what was this first "Day"?

Your definition of complex is dissimilar to mine.

The best way to explain the difference between evolution and adaptation through natural selection is the difference between mutation and genetic recombination. What evolution requires is added genetic information that is beneficially mutated - not a recombination of the current genetic information.

Genetic information can be copied and thus added, but its efficiency is also lessened. Increased genetic information may, as a whole, provide an added bonus to a previously performed task but at a lesser level of efficiency, and I don't think it's been observed to provide an organism with a wholly new beneficial trait which is probably why Evolution is still a theory. Theories are never complete until they become laws and will never become laws until their inherent problems are resolved.

Even if Evolution holds true the Bible is silent on the issue of what processes created the stars or life itself, so Evolution in itself does not falsify or verify the Bible. It does seem, though, that the Bible upholds Paleontology's chronology as well as the Big Bang. If you want to tackle more falsifiable issues to strengthen your faith then we can study contradictions in the Bible as well as fulfilled prophecy.

As a side note I don't buy into the belief that scientists are without preconceptions or prejudices. All humans have influences that shape their world-view and how they interpret data, especially someone who doesn't want to die or - on the opposite side of the fence - someone who lacks funding for research or who doesn't want to be held eternally accountable to a higher power they disagree with.

 

[serpentslayer]

The answers you seek are in the Word of God (Holy Bible), but you must read, study,
and rightly-divide it diligently in order to fully understand. Let me set you straight to
start off. First, Adam is the devil, which makes all humans his children except Jesus
because God is Jesus' daddy (Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus). For this reason,
because the world is a world full of little devils (from birth), we all need a Savior.

don't believe it? Can you tell me who told Eve the untruth she spoke to the serpent (not
a snake) in Gen 3, which is that they could not touch the forbidden fruit. God never told
this to Adam, so someone else told this to Eve: and this is the first lie ever told, and it
was told by the devil (Jn8:44). Was not Adam given the Garden and the
Commandment. And was he not suppose to tell it to Eve?

I tell you this is the fulfilling of that prophesy concerning the revelation of 'that Wicked',
who is the devil (1Thes).

 

[Snackersmom]

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”​

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”​

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”​

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”​

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”​

I understand they do not say the earth is flat. But they state that the earth is fixed and immovable. Which is completely not true. The Earth rotates on an axis and revolves around the sun. Also the Earth moves closer to the sun and farther away from the sun over thousands of miles throughout its orbit.

I think that you already know that these verses are referring to the fact that the earth feels solid under our feet, and it's just being used as an analogy to explain a point. The Bible was meant to be understood by the people of the day. Technically, it's incorrect to refer to "moonlight", because the moon doesn't produce any light, it only reflects the sun's light. And, technically, it's incorrect for me to say my hair is brown, because technically it's absorbing all of the colors and reflecting brown, so that's what we see. If God revealed everything He knows about the universe to us at once, we'd probably explode. He works with our level understanding.

Not to poke fun at your gum-tree bunny rabbit, which has to be adorable . But of course it could not happen by chance. I am sure when people saw it, they asked if you made it? Did you not tell them, yes? If god made these wondrous galaxies and stars for aesthetics as an artist wouldn't we want to show us that it was he that created them? If I could create a galaxy or universe to show people, if they looked at it and studied it and said that must have happened from dust particles in space over millions of years, I would just tell them I did it and show them. Why would god want to be so secret? Wouldn't it make more sense for him to show himself to be true to everyone so humans could live with each other in peace and love? .

Of course the bunny couldn't happen by chance, I don't expect people to think it did . However, I don't hang a sign on it saying "Nicole made this!", because that would be tacky. When people see it, the inevitable question is "Did YOU make that?", and I tell them I did. Note: they ask, and then I tell them. Otherwise it's swagger, and God's not big on swagger . Ask with an open heart, and He will tell you. The key is to have an open heart. If someone asked me where the bunny came from and I knew that they wouldn't believe my answer, then I'd probably tell them I bought it at Wal-mart .

indeed the universe may be more complex and beautiful than a gum-drop bunny. But that doesn't mean it could not have happened in a natural way. This might sound a bit trivial of a question. But, I hear people say questions like. if you see a painting, you can conclude that their must have been a painter that painted it. Yes? Then you see the universe and it must have a creator. But there is a key thing about a painter. If there is a painter, then the painter must have had parents who procreated him/her? This supposes the question is there is a creator something must have, in-turn, created him as well.

Understandable, but you should also wonder about where the paint came from. All of the matter in the universe had to come from somewhere, right? Why can you accept that it was just "there", without being able to accept that God was just "there"? It goes both ways, y'know

Yes, I am always searching for something to show me the way. And I'll never turn away from something until I have my answer.

Yes, find the answer. But don't decide based on what will make you happy, as you told Baddog (who was out of line). If you search for happiness you will never find it. Search for truth, and when you find it, then happiness will follow.

And, just so you'll know, accepting Christ doesn't mean you have to forsake science. I'm a total botany nerd, and studying plant science in college only made my faith stronger. Nature is SO complex........mind-blowing, actually. I embrace natural selection because it makes sense to me, not because some professor told me to accept it. You don't lose your ability to reason when you become a Christian, I promise . -Nicole

 

[TheAristocat]

I understand they do not say the earth is flat. But they state that the earth is fixed and immovable. Which is completely not true. The Earth rotates on an axis and revolves around the sun. Also the Earth moves closer to the sun and farther away from the sun over thousands of miles throughout its orbit.

As much as I would caution against debating the scientific validity of a mortal human's words from a poetic work thousands of years ago I'd like to add Job 26:7 to the pot: He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing.

If you're one to readily draw conclusions your best bet would be to say this accurately represents space from an ancient's perspective. Of course even a philosopher could deduce the same since we find many ancient theories as to how the earth reacted to the same gravity we ourselves are subject to. Some believed the earth was held on Atlas' back. But that begs the question, "Who then held Atlas up?" I guess the easiest answer - whether understandable or not at the time - was that nothing held the earth up and that it was hung on nothing. And this is proven in our day and makes sense to a greater degree even if it sounded like nonsense back then.