One answer to the dilemma of a seven day Creation vs Scientific views of creation.

a reply to: chr0naut

Please provide proof of anything to me?

I might be slower than usual tonight but can you elaborate/paraphrase?

we might see that at least one argument against the Genesis account (the issue of time-frames), may be resolvable though reason.

My arguments are not contingent on time per se. Rather the order in which Genesis states things occurred. Say each Day represents thousands or millions of years. Despite that leniency we are still left with the scriptural understanding that all stars were made after Earth. That's not congruent with our scientific findings at all. Are we to take Genesis as allegorical? If no then this needs to be addressed. I mean you did just evoke reason.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

Have you ever watched fireworks, a television show, great art? Did you find enough content there to watch for an extended time?

I doubt that any firework display, TV show or great work of art could hold my undivided energy (or anyone else's) for eternity. But you are missing my point, which is that 'all time' is effectively equivalent to 'no time'.

By the way, I shall bring up this thread every time you claim not to be a religious creationist in discussions about evolution.

In that piece of poetry that you quoted, there was no mention of eternity (however, perhaps unquoted sections do so?).

Feel free to reference this thread, in fact this very post to explain my faith:

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
I believe in one holy unified and apostolic Christian church.
I affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come.

There you go.

a reply to: chr0naut

It's a hymn, not a piece of poetry, and as a matter of fact it begins with the word 'eternal'.

I, too, can recite the Nicene Creed. But 'essence'? 'Essence' and not 'substance'? Are you sure?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I might be slower than usual tonight but can you elaborate/paraphrase?

He's going Popperite on you and pointing out that no hypothesis can actually be proven, only falsified.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I might be slower than usual tonight but can you elaborate/paraphrase?

He's going Popperite on you and pointing out that no hypothesis can actually be proven, only falsified.

Astyanax is quite correct, but I was also suggesting that the limitations imposed by this being a web forum, the additional abstraction, add to the difficulty of providing proof of anything.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

It's a hymn, not a piece of poetry, and as a matter of fact it begins with the word 'eternal'.

I, too, can recite the Nicene Creed. But 'essence'? 'Essence' and not 'substance'? Are you sure?

"Substance" is, today, most commonly understood to mean some type of matter, i.e: a chemical.

In the time of the Councils of Nicea and later during the reign of King James of England, Chemistry was not yet established as a science and so the common meaning of the English word "substance" has changed over time.

In the light of the ductility of meaning of the English language; "essence" is an appropriate substitution word for "substance" and retains the original sense of the text of the creed.

a reply to: chr0naut

I'm disappointed, Chr0naut.

I thought your propensity for expressing opinions on a subject you know little or nothing about was confined strictly to the theory of evolution. Engaging with you on this thread has shown me that you do the same with other subjects, too.

You tell us your academic field is astrophysics, yet your knowledge of relativity and black hole theory, two important subjects in that field, appears curiously wanting. You mix up singularities and event horizons and you fail to see, until it is pointed out to you, that timelessness and 'all time' are in effect indistinguishable.

Now, in a single post, you reveal a distressing ignorance of both metaphysics and Church history.

"Substance" is, today, most commonly understood to mean some type of matter, i.e: a chemical.

In the time of the Councils of Nicea and later during the reign of King James of England, Chemistry was not yet established as a science and so the common meaning of the English word "substance" has changed over time.

In the light of the ductility of meaning of the English language; "essence" is an appropriate substitution word for "substance" and retains the original sense of the text of the creed.

Nonsense. Pure, extra virgin eyewash.

The words 'substance' and 'essence' are technical terms in metaphysics.

General discussion of substance and essence

Substance and essence: Aristotle's Metaphysics

The distinction between substance and essence was a vital one to the Church Fathers. It was one over which blood was shed, and the Council of Nicaea was particularly concerned with it. The question of whether Jesus was of the same essence, or merely of the same substance, is the difference between Christianity and 'heresy'.

Arianism

Arians vs. Athanasians

The distinction of substance and essence bears on the old theological question of precisely what relationship Jesus bears to God the Father.

Next time, old fellow, just try saying 'I don't know'.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

I'm disappointed, Chr0naut.

I thought your propensity for expressing opinions on a subject you know little or nothing about was confined strictly to the theory of evolution. Engaging with you on this thread has shown me that you do the same with other subjects, too.

You tell us your academic field is astrophysics, yet your knowledge of relativity and black hole theory, two important subjects in that field, appears curiously wanting. You mix up singularities and event horizons and you fail to see, until it is pointed out to you, that timelessness and 'all time' are in effect indistinguishable.

Now, in a single post, you reveal a distressing ignorance of both metaphysics and Church history.

"Substance" is, today, most commonly understood to mean some type of matter, i.e: a chemical.

In the time of the Councils of Nicea and later during the reign of King James of England, Chemistry was not yet established as a science and so the common meaning of the English word "substance" has changed over time.

In the light of the ductility of meaning of the English language; "essence" is an appropriate substitution word for "substance" and retains the original sense of the text of the creed.

Nonsense. Pure, extra virgin eyewash.

The words 'substance' and 'essence' are technical terms in metaphysics.

General discussion of substance and essence

Substance and essence: Aristotle's Metaphysics

The distinction between substance and essence was a vital one to the Church Fathers. It was one over which blood was shed, and the Council of Nicaea was particularly concerned with it. The question of whether Jesus was of the same essence, or merely of the same substance, is the difference between Christianity and 'heresy'.

Arianism

Arians vs. Athanasians

The distinction of substance and essence bears on the old theological question of precisely what relationship Jesus bears to God the Father.

Next time, old fellow, just try saying 'I don't know'.

The original Greek wording of the Nicene creed used the word "homoosian' (ὁμοούσιος). It is a compound word made of "homos" meaning 'the same' and "ousia" meaning 'to be' often translated into English as 'essence or substance'. Here is part of a Wikipedia article on the word and its use in the Nicene creed.

Here is a link to Dictionary.com's definition of "Substance".

Here is a link to Dictionary.com's definition of "Essence".

I was referring to the meanings of the words in modern English. You are disputing my choice of word usage based upon Aristotalean argument and your understanding of the Arian heresy and the subsequent council that determined the Church's stance on it. Aristotle and the Nicean assembly did not speak English, ancient or modern.

I was not merely 'chanting' the Nicene creed, it is a statement of belief and I was careful to ensure that I used wording unambiguous as possible.

In regard to the 'timelessness' being equal to 'all time'. Utter nonsense. Zero does not equal a very large number. If time can be quantified (as it is in modern physics, but perhaps less so in philosophy or metaphysics) then it makes no sense to say nothing of time is equal to a lot of time (you have obviously not spent much time waiting to be attended to by someone in the public service).

I did make the mistake of referring to the area between the event horizon and the singularity at the core of a black hole, as the singularity. But, in my (rather weak) defense, you made the same mistake. We are all human & err.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: chr0naut

Please provide proof of anything to me?

I might be slower than usual tonight but can you elaborate/paraphrase?

we might see that at least one argument against the Genesis account (the issue of time-frames), may be resolvable though reason.

My arguments are not contingent on time per se. Rather the order in which Genesis states things occurred. Say each Day represents thousands or millions of years. Despite that leniency we are still left with the scriptural understanding that all stars were made after Earth. That's not congruent with our scientific findings at all. Are we to take Genesis as allegorical? If no then this needs to be addressed. I mean you did just evoke reason.

Perhaps I could clarify, the implied order of creation according to science for some time had all the heavier elements being created by nucleosynthesis in stellar evolution and distributed in supernovae.

That theory has recently taken a beating because we have been able to observe a star falling into a black hole in the center of our milky way galaxy and has confirmed several theories.

The tidal effect acting upon the in-falling matter is producing energies sufficient to cause nucleosynthesis and so prodigious is this, that it has been suggested that it is perhaps the primary method of creation and distribution of heavy elements.

As the big bang gets its origin from a point of singularity, this puts the start of creation of heavy elements as beginning as early as 3 minutes after the big bang! Which is well before gravitational collapse starts forming stars & planets and well before those stars are 'lit'.

None the less, 'special creation' does not have to follow the scientific timeline (which changes all the time, anyway). I strongly suspect (and this is a belief, not a scientific 'fact') that there is nothing in science which particularly excludes the existence of planet Earth before the existence of stars (as we know them) or other planetary bodies.

a reply to: chr0naut

None the less, 'special creation' does not have to follow the scientific timeline

If you appealed to metaphysical powers of omnipotency then I won't argue. Of course anything is possible in that light [punny?].

So how old do you think the Earth is? If Earth did in fact form prior to all stars, what drastic implications that would have on the age of stars and the age of the Universe itself. Right? I mean I'm the Ted Bundy of Physics [Sam Harris reference] so I am no authoritative voice on the matter... but it seems to me the notion Earth formed prior to all stars would undermine cosmology completely. Isn't the overwhelming consensus in cosmology that many [to put it lightly] stars formed prior to Earth? Actually do you know of one cosmologist that thinks the evidence suggests otherwise?

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: chr0naut

None the less, 'special creation' does not have to follow the scientific timeline

If you appealed to metaphysical powers of omnipotency then I won't argue. Of course anything is possible in that light [punny?].

So how old do you think the Earth is? If Earth did in fact form prior to all stars, what drastic implications that would have on the age of stars and the age of the Universe itself. Right? I mean I'm the Ted Bundy of Physics [Sam Harris reference] so I am no authoritative voice on the matter... but it seems to me the notion Earth formed prior to all stars would undermine cosmology completely. Isn't the overwhelming consensus in cosmology that many [to put it lightly] stars formed prior to Earth? Actually do you know of one cosmologist that thinks the evidence suggests otherwise?

I think you'd be surprised at some of the wild theories that Cosmologists have considered. I think that they are all just waiting for new data strong enough to commit to.

But there is hope, as this link shows and it is also likely as immanent new big-science projects like the SKA and others will change things up pretty quickly.

As to the age of the Earth, I think that in our frame of reference, the 13.7 billion years is a fair estimate but I might throw the whole estimate aside tomorrow if we find something else that has enough validity.

For a long time, I believed that there was evidence for quantization of red-shift, which would invalidate the Hubble constant from which we calculate the age of the universe. At present, however, the initial results suggesting quantization look like a statistical fluke, so until we get better proof, the Hubble constant stands.

a reply to: chr0naut

As to the age of the Earth, I think that in our frame of reference, the 13.7 billion years is a fair estimate

It is quite widely accepted by geologists and other scientists that the age of our planet is about four and a half billion years.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

As to the age of the Earth, I think that in our frame of reference, the 13.7 billion years is a fair estimate

It is quite widely accepted by geologists and other scientists that the age of our planet is about four and a half billion years.

Yes, but you appear to be actually describing the age of Earth's oldest surface rocks, which would be some time after the heating of the magma.

Prior to that, the Earth was a diffuse cloud. Same mass, same matter, same orbit.

The formation of the Earth was not a short term event but itself took billions of years. Where do you draw the line?

I was suggesting that the matter that makes up the Earth started after the big bang and was not necessarily the byproduct of stellar nucleosynthesis.

a reply to: chr0naut

The formation of the Earth was not a short term event but itself took billions of years. Where do you draw the line?

If the point at which gravity caused it all to congeal into a lump is good enough for geology, it's good enough for me.

I was suggesting that the matter that makes up the Earth started after the big bang and was not necessarily the byproduct of stellar nucleosynthesis.

I know you were.

It took some time (not long, maybe about a billionth of a second to a second) after the Big Bang before what we call matter, or rather the building-blocks of matter, appeared. But from the great baryon/antibaryon annhilation to date, all matter has been made of the same bits, so you are right if we stretch a technicality. However, a physicst should have a clear picture about what qualifies as matter. The elements of the Periodic Table, which are the products of nucleosynthesis, are far, far removed from the origins of the stuff that makes gravity. Baryogenesis.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

The formation of the Earth was not a short term event but itself took billions of years. Where do you draw the line?

If the point at which gravity caused it all to congeal into a lump is good enough for geology, it's good enough for me.

I was suggesting that the matter that makes up the Earth started after the big bang and was not necessarily the byproduct of stellar nucleosynthesis.

I know you were.

It took some time (not long, maybe about a billionth of a second to a second) after the Big Bang before what we call matter, or rather the building-blocks of matter, appeared. But from the great baryon/antibaryon annhilation to date, all matter has been made of the same bits, so you are right if we stretch a technicality. However, a physicst should have a clear picture about what qualifies as matter. The elements of the Periodic Table, which are the products of nucleosynthesis, are far, far removed from the origins of the stuff that makes gravity. Baryogenesis.

Gravitation began sometime before 10^-32 seconds after the Big Bang.

Big Bang nucleosynthesis started about a tenth of a second after the Big Bang and had ended somewhere around the 3 minute mark.

The universe was opaque to light until about 380,000 years after the Big Bang and it was at this time that the CMB was established.

There are 9.3 billion years between the creation of matter (and gravitation) from which the Earth was born, until the surface rocks solidified.

a reply to: chr0naut

First of all let me say, great thread and kudos to those that have not used their intelligence to belittle others opinions. Religion is a tough subject to debate without making it personal, so praise for that.
Secondly, I believe all the points that stuck out to me have already been addressed, but allow me to "dumb it down" a little for the people like me who are not scientists and don't really understand physics.
I agree with krazysh0t that "day" and "night" are earthly concepts. In space it is essentially always night, is it not? Now chr0naut's estimation that a day refers to 299,792,458 minutes is valid, but here again that refers to a period of time. Day and night (as it talks about in Genesis) is not the same however. The sun rising constitutes day and it setting constitutes night. Since the sun is not relevant to anyone but us earthly humans, you could assume then that since God is not a human living on this planet, that day and night mean more to the writer than they do to God.
The Bible is both historical and allegorical, some of it literal and some symbolic
and we dont know yet which is which. Discoveries are being made all the time in the field of biblical history that prove and disprove accounts of the Bible. Also documented history only goes back so far, some things (such as this topic) cannot and will never be proven either way... Therefore it will always be subject to personal interpretation.
Another factor is the writers perspective according to their place in history. At the time Genesis was written, there was obviously no way to know that the universe took billions of years to become what it is today, so he wrote in the context of understanding at that time.
Context is important, here's an example: I might say "this day in age there is a lot of suspicion concerning the ethics of politicians" this doesn't mean that today, the 28th of August there was suspicion. I meant that in this period in history there is suspicion. Does that make sense?
In that respect, I've heard that the order in which God creates in Genesis is consistent with what we know scientifically about the order of events leading to our existence. I believe this is more important to the story of creation than the timeframe in which it occurred.
I very much agree with servantofTheLamb's logic and common sense. To me it makes sense to assume that God is not restricted to the constraints of his creation.
The only reason time is even important is because we (as human beings) die. If we were eternal as God is then would time even matter? I'm not sure, I haven't really thought that one through... Opinions welcome.
One more thing, this is for krazysh0t. When the Bible says we are created in his image, I believe it refers to the fact that we are sentient, aware, creators in our own right, not so much that we physically look like God.... BUT, maybe we do???? Maybe 2 armed, 2 legged, symmetrical bodies are a command trait for life in our universe. We just don't know.
This is my take on the matter. I'm not a physicist or a theologian... Definitely not a genius, just an ordinary, college educated girl. I don't wish to engage in a debate, but I have an open mind with continually evolving beliefs, so again, opinions very much welcome.
Thank-you for your time!
Sara

a reply to: NaughtyLibrarian

Cheers, I agree with you on nearly everything!

Especially about the nature of Genesis as having allegorical as well as technical content.

On the whole, I will give the technical details of the account the benefit of the doubt as it would be foolish to assume I could know for sure and there is much which seems beyond the ken of a late-bronze age shepherd author.

But the point of the account is one of ethics rather than science, of why rather than how. I believe that to miss that is to misunderstand what the account can tell us and to blind us to how it is relevant.

a reply to: chr0naut

I have enjoyed your thread, thank you Chronaut.

I wish to contribute in regards to these two bits:

Most people are aware that Science shows us a universe about 13.798 ±0.037 billion years old since "The Big Bang". I won't go into the specifics as there are many sites on the Internet that can show how that number is arrived at. It will suffice to say that I believe it to be a fair estimation of the age of the universe since the Big Bang.

&

Generally, though, it is believed that this refers to a period of approximately 86,400 seconds (a second being defined as is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the Cesium 133 atom. This is also dimensionally equivalent to 299,792,458 m along the axis of time).

The time aspect of spacetime is relative to apparent gravity, celerity, and in the case of Cesium transition, temperature and pressure.

None of which are constant outside of earth's surface (and some even within).

Therefore it would make the most sense to me to assume that time definitions as transmitted through Genesis refer to our perception of it at modest relative velocity.

As for the perception of billions of years before earth, well..

That's akin to saying there were fifty-eight seasons of hit TV show "friends" during Darwin's lifetime.

Sure, we could perceive that time as that, but it's just not sensible.

OK at the end of the OP I posed a few questions asking for some calculations.

Here's my very rough answers.

I assumed that God would have been efficient in his use of energy/relative mass and so would use the minimum possible to do the job of 'universe engineering'.

So, I worked backwards, using the two time periods for the age of the universe up to the existence of humans (13.4 billion years for science and six days in the Bible).

I made an ssumption that God's 'view' was from the Schwarzschild radius, but this was a convenience as my calculating equipment doesn't work well with numbers trending towards the infinite, as happens closer to the singularity.

It is very much a 'back of the envelope' calculation, but I get an negative energy value of approximately 44,730 YottaJoules ( = 44,730 x 10^24 Joules) which, assuming it has a singularity's density (I made a lot of assumptions), would have a Schwarzschild radius of about 12,000 meters.

At first the negative energy bit made me think there was an issue with my calculations, then, on reconsideration and with a little more checking, I realised that it may well be the case.

The calculated mass (approx. 497,699,108,039 kg) is much, much, much less than the mass of the universe and so God's creation efficiency is so close to 100% as to be indistinguishable from it (but I assumed efficiency and so it isn't surprising to find it reflected back).

The mass is also less than the approximately three solar masses required to create such a singularity by stellar collapse. It would be a very unique and supernatural singularity.
So, there's my 9.9999999999999 cents worth.