Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Simon, how old to you believe the Earth is?
From reading you, I know you're into apologetics, but I'm trying to figure out what flavor.
I am brushing up on my Physics these days and I am re-confirmed on a young universe/earth. Although, I do believe that the time continuum as we know it was not established until the third day of creation, so therefore that needs to be taken into account when studying the historical development of the cosmos.
How about you? are you into a specific branch of philosophy and/or do you have a certain influence as far as physics goes?
I don't subscribe to any particular philosophy outside of humanism, but even then I'm not academic about it. As for physics, too many names to list.
Having said, my question was "how old do you believe the Earth is?"
Well, we have to get into the physics a bit here, as I do believe, after day 3 in the the Genesis creation account anyways, that the earth is under 100,000 years old. But, I do think that the theory of General Relativity has to be taken into consideration, especially in the first three days of the Gen. account. It is then that 'time dilation' needs to be factored in to explain certain characteristics of the cosmos.
Another question, though. As a humanist, are you also a materialist? That is, do you believe that everything that has existence in the cosmos is comprised solely of matter?
1. It doesn't really take a a lot of physics to understand that if the earth were under 100,000 years old, we wouldn't be able to see objects in space that are millions(+) light years away from us. The light wouldn't have made it here yet. Hell, that's simply basic astronomy, that's not even considering other scientific disciplines like geology and archaeology, among others.
2. Humanism is a personal philosophy... as far as a being a materialist, I tend to lean towards all observable things being based on particles directly (like matter), or fields (like gravity, as the existence of gravitons {a proposed particle responsible for gravity} still has yet to graduate into a full on scientific theory). Also, if we're talking about *everything* in the cosmos, the issue of dark matter and dark energy (which really needs a new label) come into play... we can observe the effects of both. I tend to lean towards dark matter being particle based, and dark energy being similar, though the particles may not have mass, but to that, it's strictly conjecture.
I wouldn't classify my understanding as "materialist" so much as I would better identify as a naturalist.
Fair enough, but you missed my points on General Relativity and time dilation. There are two ways that the travel of starlight can be explained according to Genesis. One is that they are simply age dating factors, that is, put in place with the appearance of age (much like how Adam and Eve were created as grown humans, trees were created as fully matured rather than seeds, etc.).
Nevertheless, I don't think creationists are necessarily locked into this box at all. According to General Relativity and in further accordance with the attending time dilation, before day 3 in Genesis 1, the heavens were being 'stretched out' by God, and, just as we see different gravitational pulls in the Universe today, these pulls would have a direct effect on how time was being meaded out in the earliest stages of the universe.
In short, 100,000 years or less passed here on earth during the Genesis creation week, but the time out in the early Universe as it was being stretched out and formed was (and still is) relative to the local gravitational pulls of the cosmos and came forth in much longer stretches of time based on Relativity.
There is obviously a lot more to explain here (and I can spell out my further understanding of the model, if you are interested).
But, what is problematic is the Big Bang model of origins (especially outside of the context of Genesis as a guide). The two problems that come to mind are the impossibility of a valid naturalistic explanation for a cosmic singularity that would bring all time, matter, and space into existence out of nothing. And how, since there is much inhomogeneous clumping of galaxies together this counters the uniformity of distribution that would be present if the Big Bang were true. That is, if the Big Bang model were correct, the galaxies would not be in clumps but would rather have homogenous distribution throughout the universe. This Galaxy clustering (and many other factors) are evidence against the purported uniformed 'cosmological principle' that the Big Bang model relies on. If these cannot be answered, then folks are simply assuming the Big Bang model to be true without supporting its claims.
I am open to hear any explanations you may have for these (and other problems) with Big Bang cosmology. And, conversely, I am hoping that you would be willing to look further into the Relativity/Time-dilation Genesis model put forth by noted particle physicists, D. Russel Humphries:
Here is the briefest summarization of this cosmology that i am aware of:
The bottom line (in my understanding)m is that the Bible is true as far as origins are concerned, and Humphries' model not only coincides with Einstein's' theories of Relativity, but also coincides and affirms the Bible that says:
"He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea." Job 9:8
(PS: Thank you for cracking the door open further on this aspect of discussion, I would love to continue as time permits. Have a good weekend, BTW)