Creation and Observation harmonized

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I thought to create a thread about this, so I hope I can reference it when people wonder what my views are when it comes to harmonizing science with creation. I'm not talking about "God created evolution" kind of mumbojumbo, I'm tale the Bible very literally but with a scientific background (Geology/Paleontology and a hobby in Planetary Geology) and I see no discrepancy between what is observed and Creationism so I'll attempt to explain why.

First, an analogy to our observations of time, we will substitute for geologic time a watch, a mechanical watch to be precise. The watch is at 2300 hours, and has 1 hour of wind remaining (so that it ends at midnight), and the watch has a potential wind of 24 total hours based on the mainspring's total possible tension.

The question we are all asking when observing Geology, or paleontology, or whatever, is when was the watch started? Was it 23 hours ago at the maximum possible time? Was it 1 hour ago?

We have absolutely no way of telling, so the first condition is we cannot say with any certainty when the Universe was Created. Period. We can rationalize it all day, but all you're doing is arguing perhaps the watch began 3 hours ago, perhaps it was wound to 22 hours of total tension...who knows.

This leaves us with the problem however, why does the potential of 24 hours exist at all? Well for this we need to disregard the watch analogy and actually focus on the Universe as a clock of its own.

It is a mechanism. It has time built into it, we observe time in such a following manner. A mountain measurably rises 3cm a year, another mountain is eroded at 2cm a year. These mountains are changing features, one being 3,000,000 cm tall we can argue it took roughly 1,000,000 years to rise.

This observation is true with the whole Universe, which when we make measurements of various things, we can conclude the Universe began some 15 Billion Years ago...give or take(? from memory I may be off).

But this is assuming a maximum of 24 hours on the tension of the mainspring.

All we know is the Universe was created with a 3,000,000cm tall mountain still rising at a rate of 3cm per year.

It quite literally could have been created 6,000 years ago (I don't mean to say the Bible suggests this, the Bible gives absolutely no time scale on when the Earth was created, people who say it was 6,000 years or 10,000 years are idiots).

So then philosophically what is the big bang? I think there is observable evidence of it but why? Well another layer to this philosophy is the mind of God.

God as an author of the Universe, when he writes our story from the point of Creation, has in mind the entire Universe, not merely the part we are meant to play. This includes the big bang, the foundation of the world etc., without going into too great a length on this philosophy all I want to say about it is that what we ultimately see presented to us through out the entire Universe is what God intended us to observe, but when making stories about our observations however rational they may be we must realize the limits of our reason end at when the clock actually started and the tool of change over time cannot be an accurate measurement because it only observes the present change and has nothing to do with absolute time.

That is to say quite literally time is relative to our perspective, and absolute time may be quite different.




posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Are you talking about last thursdayism?



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 

There are markers for time. Here and "out there". Down here, tree rings tell us the passage of years. So do layers of ice, the sedimentary strata in the Grand Canyon and the entire Hawaiian Island chain. All the way back to the beginning (of it). Thats a lot longer than ten thousand years.


www.cliffshade.com...

In deep space, Pulsars make excellent beacons and time keepers. As for the beginning or end of it, that doesn't exist.

Its always been there.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 12:42 AM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by FreeMason
 

There are markers for time. Here and "out there". Down here, tree rings tell us the passage of years. So do layers of ice, the sedimentary strata in the Grand Canyon and the entire Hawaiian Island chain. All the way back to the beginning (of it). Thats a lot longer than ten thousand years.


www.cliffshade.com...

In deep space, Pulsars make excellent beacons and time keepers. As for the beginning or end of it, that doesn't exist.

Its always been there.


None of those are markers of absolute time, for instance the sun, has a decay rate, so what? Does that mean it was created 5 billion years ago when the observed rate runs out in the opposite direction? No.

Apparently you did not comprehend my watch analogy.

All the things you listed are merely observations of a past that could have been created that way, it provides no evidence of absolute time.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   

alfa1

Are you talking about last thursdayism?

No I didn't want to go into too much depth in the OP but obviously the world was created sometime before our ancestors were born. Humans have recorded their place in the world pretty solidly since we've been here.

However on that note I think the idea it took us 2 million years to discover fire, and clothes, is pretty stupid.

Fire is so easy even a cave man can do it.

So I think there is an obvious oldest limit, somewhere were mankind invented civilization. There's just no way people are too stupid to have taken so long to tame fire.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 


All the things you listed are merely observations of a past that could have been created that way...


Why would the Creator fake us out like that? Wouldn't that be lying?



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   

FreeMason


However on that note I think the idea it took us 2 million years to discover fire, and clothes, is pretty stupid.

Fire is so easy even a cave man can do it.

So I think there is an obvious oldest limit, somewhere were mankind invented civilization. There's just no way people are too stupid to have taken so long to tame fire.


A few questions on these points.

If it's so easy that even a caveman can do it, why hasn't another species done it yet? Chimps, Bonobos, Gibbons, Orangutangs maybe. All these animals have shown a decent level of latent intelligence and have been around for a long time yet none have figured out how to tame fire. Other mammals have moderate levels of latent intelligence yet we still are the only species to have managed the feat.

As for clothes, when the majority of our ancestors lived in tropical climates for long periods of our history, what need is there for clothes? Look at many tribes in tropical climes today, especially the ones that aren't in contact with the wider world. Many wear little or no clothes, as they have no need for them. This is the same across the tropics world wide. Borneo, The Amazon, Micronesia, etc...

Oh and welcome back. I was glad to see SO unban your original account.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 




lol watch this. What if forest fires are caused by sasquatch out in the bush lol
edit on 11-10-2013 by AnuTyr because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   

GAOTU789

FreeMason


However on that note I think the idea it took us 2 million years to discover fire, and clothes, is pretty stupid.

Fire is so easy even a cave man can do it.

So I think there is an obvious oldest limit, somewhere were mankind invented civilization. There's just no way people are too stupid to have taken so long to tame fire.


A few questions on these points.

If it's so easy that even a caveman can do it, why hasn't another species done it yet? Chimps, Bonobos, Gibbons, Orangutangs maybe. All these animals have shown a decent level of latent intelligence and have been around for a long time yet none have figured out how to tame fire. Other mammals have moderate levels of latent intelligence yet we still are the only species to have managed the feat.

As for clothes, when the majority of our ancestors lived in tropical climates for long periods of our history, what need is there for clothes? Look at many tribes in tropical climes today, especially the ones that aren't in contact with the wider world. Many wear little or no clothes, as they have no need for them. This is the same across the tropics world wide. Borneo, The Amazon, Micronesia, etc...

Oh and welcome back. I was glad to see SO unban your original account.


Why haven't animals done it? Because they are animals.

Just think for a second, we can't really understand how stupid/intelligent an animal is because in some ways they seem smart, in other ways they seem like robots.

But, as for humans? Well we know how we think.

Do you honestly think it'd take you any time at all to figure out how to start a fire?

Here's another one...were we born with clothes? Because there are few environments in which mankind can literally sit in naked....they have to be pretty dry and you have to have a fire.

So jungles, forests, pretty much everywhere on earth was off limits until fire and clothes were made, one or both for some environments.

There is just no way you could survive in the wild without at least one.

Think about that.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by FreeMason
 


All the things you listed are merely observations of a past that could have been created that way...


Why would the Creator fake us out like that? Wouldn't that be lying?


Not at all he's not faking us out.

Ancients observed the world and created myths.

We added logic to these mythic stories of the world and called it science. That's all really. A lot of what science purports to claim is only true in so much as it is useful in creating technology or predictions. But other than that usefulness there is little means to test the validity (truth) of our science.

All it is really is more logical myths.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   

AnuTyr
reply to post by GAOTU789
 




lol watch this. What if forest fires are caused by sasquatch out in the bush lol
edit on 11-10-2013 by AnuTyr because: (no reason given)

So we would have to be as dumb as a bonobo monkey and still be showed by essentially a god how to make fire?

Either we were as smart back then as we are now (arguably our brains were even larger before agriculture) or not? Which is it? Did mankind literally raise its IQ in the last 100,000 years or something?



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 


How did the clock start?

Personaly i dont think its that hard to figure this out. If you take Your mechanical clock. There must be at least to stages to make it function.

The first stage to make time, is to build the clock. The second stage is to let the clock run its cource.

You mention wound up spirngs!!! Winding up (compresseing the springs) is the first stage of time. Time have to stages.

1. A compression time.

2. A expansion time.

The compression time it took to build and Wind up the clock is not Equal to the expansion time.

The expansion time will have different time stages as well, As the clock is being wound up (compressed). This time frame is what sets the correct time for when the spring in the main clock is fully set to run its cource.

So the compression time frame will start out fast, and as the spring is being compressed the compression time frame will slow Down until the clock is set to run its cource. "Here you have to think about pressure differentials" Between the compression pressure that is building the clock, and the emitted energies from what is being compressed.

The emitted energy from the compression process will determin when the clock is properly tuned and set to run.

The emitted energy can be look upon as resistance or torque against the force that is compressing the springs.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 


No I didn't want to go into too much depth in the OP but obviously the world was created sometime before our ancestors were born. Humans have recorded their place in the world pretty solidly since we've been here.

You trying to distance yourself from "Last Thursdayism" or, as it's less parodically known, the omphalos hypothesis, is as ridiculous as someone claiming that they're not a Young Earth Creationist because they believe that the Earth is 12,000 years old instead of only 6,000.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   

FreeMason
I thought to create a thread about this, so I hope I can reference it when people wonder what my views are when it comes to harmonizing science with creation. I'm not talking about "God created evolution" kind of mumbojumbo, I'm tale the Bible very literally but with a scientific background (Geology/Paleontology and a hobby in Planetary Geology) and I see no discrepancy between what is observed and Creationism so I'll attempt to explain why.


You can't just pick and choose which parts of science you want to be true so that it fits your ancient storybook. You can't just say, "well this science fits nicely with my faith so it must be true, but this other science contradicts it so it is false." Evolution, whether you want to admit it or not, is just as scientifically sound as the Geology and Paleontology that you are talking about in your OP. That "God created evolution kind of mumbojumbo" is actually more reasonable than your mumbo jumbo that you talk about following this paragraph.

After this first paragraph I realized that the rest of your OP was complete bunk and only kind of skimmed it because it relies on a false premise.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 


We added logic to these mythic stories of the world and called it science. That's all really.

I'm sorry, there is a lot more to science than myth.

Do planes fly on "Myth"?

Science is the ability to repeat an experiment over and over and always get the same results.

Myth is the ability to repeat something over and over without any proof but belief.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by FreeMason
 


We added logic to these mythic stories of the world and called it science. That's all really.

I'm sorry, there is a lot more to science than myth.

Do planes fly on "Myth"?

Science is the ability to repeat an experiment over and over and always get the same results.

Myth is the ability to repeat something over and over without any proof but belief.


In other Words there is no way science ever will be able to disprove creation. Because science will never be able to repeat the creation of Our universe over and over and get the same result.

Science dont know what tok Place before Plank Time. They have never managed to do one Experiment that is even Close to the event that actually happened.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


In other Words there is no way science ever will be able to disprove creation.

When Science finally figures it out it will be both... creation science (imo). I already see it.

Its right in front of us all the time.

An egg, a seed, the womb, DNA...



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 04:36 AM
link   

spy66
In other Words there is no way science ever will be able to disprove creation.

Science can never disprove that the Universe was farted into existence by a pink unicorn either. There's this thing called common sense. Ever wondered why they're called collectively creation myths..



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 04:52 AM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by spy66
 


In other Words there is no way science ever will be able to disprove creation.

When Science finally figures it out it will be both... creation science (imo). I already see it.

Its right in front of us all the time.

An egg, a seed, the womb, DNA...


Personally i don't think the proper Scientific community is the real cause of this everlasting debate.

It is us, the Readers who do not understand the Scientific data that scientists present.

Nor do christians know if they have properly interpreted the Bible. All this is very well verified in all the discussions that they have between themselves.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   

rhinoceros

spy66
In other Words there is no way science ever will be able to disprove creation.

Science can never disprove that the Universe was farted into existence by a pink unicorn either. There's this thing called common sense. Ever wondered why they're called collectively creation myths..


Common sence!!

I agree, With some common sense; this ever lasting argument would actually get somewhere.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join