Preterism & Creationism

[Guest]

But does'nt Genesis say that the light was created later?
1.1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
1.3 "And God said, Let there be light."

Hey Steve,

I guess that would depend on ones interpretation of “later”, meaning how much later…minutes, years, millennia’s? I’m assuming you believe in the day age theory which if that is the case I would have to ask how you would be able to determine how much later the light came from the creation of the “heavens” since it all occured in the same day/age?

Also the word heaven seems to denote space rather specific matter in a space (i.e. stars etc (matter) in the universe/heavens (space)). If you look up the other times this same Hebrew word occurs it seems to speak in those terms, meaning the “heavens” is viewed as being separate from the things in the heaven’s (see Gen 26:4). Also if the stars and planets were all created in verse 1 than why are they mentioned being created again later in verse 16? Again I personally have no issue if some holds your view but as you can tell I do enjoy having dialogue on the topic.

Erich <><

[Guest]

Speaking as one who majored in Physics (and Computer Science) in college, I wouldn't worry about the mechanics of Creation. The mechanics of it don't really matter. If you want a way to resolve the argument over whether the universe is the product of a Creator or not, the answer is quite simple:

Intelligence begets intelligence.

Intelligence doesn't just happen by random chance. If mankind is intelligent, then whatever brought mankind into being must also be intelligent.

I could get into the gory details, like micro-evolution versus macro-evolution, the expression of alternate genetic traits based on external stimuli, etc., but it all boils down to the same thing. Intelligence has to be the product of intelligence.

Damon

[Guest]

They say that our universe is an expanding universe. They also say that they are able to measure this expansion, therefore they believe they know where to look to find the center.

If the earth is expanding though (like a ripple in a pond) you would think that there would still be a difference in age of stars depending on if we on earth were looking toward the center of the ripple (older) or toward the outer "rings" (being younger).

Erich <><

[Guest]

Speaking as one who majored in Physics (and Computer Science) in college, I wouldn't worry about the mechanics of Creation.

I think the difference that Steve7150 has isn't that we didn't come from God an intelligent being but with the mechanics of how he went about creating. Does that sound right Steve? I didn't want to misrepresent you.

I could get into the gory details...

...please do

[Guest]

Hey Eric, Yes i'm a day-age guy but certainly God created everything and how long he took has nothing to do with his power. But the phrase "in the beginning" could be outside of the first "day of creation" on the earth. The 6 days of creation i think are to prepare the earth for man and the "in the beginning" IMO are apart from that and could have been 15 billion or so years before.
And in verse 1.16 the light is mentioned as being seen from the earth not that the sun,moon and stars were first created IMO.
As for the expansion of the universe , isn't it expanding at the speed of light?

[Guest]

As for the expansion of the universe , isn't it expanding at the speed of light?

Light travels at 186,000 miles/second. I do not think anything we know of can reach that speed. The universe is expanding at a much lessor rate of speed (if it is expanding at all).[/quote]

[Guest]

I think the difference that Steve7150 has isn't that we didn't come from God an intelligent being but with the mechanics of how he went about creating. Does that sound right Steve? I didn't want to misrepresent you.

Well, ugh.

As far as how Creation happened, I don't think we know all the answers yet. There are a few questions that can be answered, however.

1. Were the six days of Creation periods of 24-hour days or something else? IMO, they were six literal 24-hour days. Why? Because they consisted of evening and morning. But that doesn't mean I believe the earth to be only 6000 years old, because I don't. I believe that a long period of time elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. (The reasons why are technical.) That also doesn't mean that the events of those six days don't parallel events which occurred as the universe was forming, either. There may indeed be such parallels.

2. The "light" which shone on that first day was that of the Holy Spirit. (The proof is complicated.) But that doesn't mean that the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day, necessarily. They were definitely revealed on that day, however, for significant, symbolic reasons. The whole of the six days of Creation follow a very intricate, symbolic progression which doesn't necessarily reflect the literal history of Creation. Like I mentioned in another recent post, God does things on certain days because those days have special meanings to Him.

3. Genesis 1:1-2:4 and Genesis 2:5-3:24 don't represent two different Creation stories from two different, separate sources which were brought together without thought to their differing chronologies. Rather, they were structured very carefully. Together, they form what's called an inverted chiasmus. (See the following web site for more information.)

As far as the "gory details," ugh again. I've gotten rather tired of going through this, but here goes anyway.

Micro-evolution is the process of change whereby a single expressed genetic trait (such as the color of a moth's wings) is altered through mutation. I believe that this does indeed happen.

Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is the theoretical process of change whereby a single expressed genetic trait or group of traits (such as the traits which describe sight) are created where they did not exist before, through mutation. I believe that this is impossible. Random chance cannot create order in this fashion.

I recently read a book which described how our modern culture seems to give rise to a lot more children with ADD or ADHD (Attention Deficit Disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder) than even fifty years ago. How is this possible? Is it because we simply didn't notice it as much? Is it because we were misdiagnosing it before?

This book posited that external stimuli may cause the genetic traits for ADD or ADHD to manifest after birth. The DNA would literally alter itself on the fly and express a different inherent set of traits. The same might also be true for some allergies, where a person isn't allergic to a certain type of food or a certain substance when they are born, but later develop the allergy.

However, this shifting in the DNA to express a different inherent set of traits is predicated on the fact that the DNA must encode both sets of traits to begin with!

As an example which might be more pertinent to the topic of evolution, the moths which altered their wing color because of the "external stimuli" of smog on the tree bark where they tried to disguise themselves to avoid being eaten, may have done so in this very fashion. So, this might not be an example of evolution, but of DNA shifting, as above. The DNA would have had to encode both traits to begin with.

To generalize, some things that scientists might see as proof of evolution may in fact be only DNA shifting. Therefore, this would be evidence in favor of, rather than against, a Creator. After all, why should the DNA encode two different sets of genetic traits if only one was used up until external stimuli dictated otherwise, if mutation could do the job? That would be a case of predetermined, orderly change as opposed to random chance, which is the hallmark of Creation as opposed to evolution.

Damon

[Guest]

Hey Eric, Yes i'm a day-age guy but certainly God created everything and how long he took has nothing to do with his power. But the phrase "in the beginning" could be outside of the first "day of creation" on the earth.

Wouldn’t “beginning” denote a specific time something began though? So that the fact something “began” means that time is involved and time it’s self only came into existence as God began to create. So IMO “in the beginning” states the beginning of time which would have to coincide with the first creation “day” (no matter what you interrupt that “day” to mean).

The 6 days of creation i think are to prepare the earth for man and the "in the beginning" IMO are apart from that and could have been 15 billion or so years before.

It sounds like you also hold to the Gap theory too?
Also it sounds like that you believe that the first five “days” could be millions of years but than the sixth “day” would seem to be seen as taking place over a considerable less amount of time (maybe not an actual day but not millions of years) than the first five, right? Looking at the genealogy of man starting with Adam though (even factoring in gaps) you would have to agree that from the time Adam was created to now that it has only been thousands of years and not millions. So my question is then where in Chapter 1 do we see evidence that the first five “days” should be considered to have taken place over a longer period of time than the sixth “day” (when man was created) if all were called “days”?

And in verse 1.16 the light is mentioned as being seen from the earth not that the sun,moon and stars were first created IMO.

It would seem though that the wording in verse 16 and 17 would point to something being created and not just something that was previously created to take on a new dynamic in this case receiving the ability to give off or reflect light. And verse 17 would appear to divide what is meant by “heavens” and what is placed in these “heavens” as I mentioned in my last post. Also science doesn’t suggest that the sun existed for millions of years (fourth “days”) before it was able to gave off light seeing that it’s light proves it’s very existence. Also how could the plants of survived for millions of years (“day” 3) if they never received light until “day” 4? Also along those lines if evolution did occur and the Bible in Chapter 1 supports that then how could flying creatures (“day” 5) have existed before land animals (“day” 6) when science says it would have happened the other way around? Not to mention the fact that everything supposedly evolved together (coming from one common source); you couldn’t have plants at one point then millions of years later have the first sign of animal life according to science.

As for the expansion of the universe , isn't it expanding at the speed of light?

I guess another question I would raise is, are we all expanding with the universe relative to the center of where the Big bang occurred? Meaning is there new universe being created as it grows/expands or is the universe finite and expanding more like a rubber band (in which case we are all moving relative to the center). If the universe is growing while it expands would what ever is forming/expanding eventually slow down and behave more like what we see in our solar system? There by allowing us to be able to see (eventually) the newer universe as well as the old? If the latter example I gave is true I guess it would be harder to see the newer universe as opposed to the older (as we are all moving relative) but it would seem that since scientists can see this “older” universe that they would conversely be able to see a “younger” universe as well (or maybe they already have and I need to pay better attention to NOVA). I, as you can tell, don’t have much scholastic learning in this area of the universe and how it’s age is determined by science so I would be grateful for anyone who can help enlighten me in this area so I could create a more sound theory in this regards.

Erich <><

[Guest]

Erich, Sure "beginning" means the clock started ticking but for the universe not the creation process on earth IMO.
If you look at my recent posts here you'll see i said that i believe each day of creation on earth is 7,000 years and the 7th day is still open and that after the 49,000th year period is over a great jubilee will occur and everything goes back to God. Just a theory but i think the OT jubilees were a "type."
Like Damon said i too believe the period between 1.1 and 1.2 to be a very long period but outside of the 6 creation days of earth.
I did'nt say that the sun existed for millions of years before it gave off light only that "let there be light" was later then the big bang.
In my previous posts i explained why on day 4 it was the light being seen and not the creation of the sun,moon and stars. Mainly because the waters in the atmosphere blocked light before God divided the waters above from the waters below the atmosphere and allowed light to come in and RULE the day and RULE the night.
As far as i know scientists believe the universe to be about 15 billion years old based on the time it takes light from the most distant star to reach us. How this is measured i don't have a clue. Again as far as i know light continues to travel and expands the outer edge of the universe by light speed but that would still mean it would take at least 15 billion years to double the size of the universe.
Just my thoughts, i could be wrong.

[Guest]

I have read some information about the big bang, that I think would be useful to mention here. The main source for this information is from a book called "Starlight and Time" by Dr. Russel Humphreys. I must say that my knowledge is at best rudimentary, and I have a lot to learn. I'll mention some common misconceptions about the big bang model and also another model that is consistent with observed data and the biblical text. Corrects from anyone are certainly welcome.

First, it seems that the development of a cosmological model cannot be arrived at from observational data alone. There are some significant philisophical assumptions that must be made to arrive at a particular model (such as the big bang). Two key assumptions are: (1) whether or not the universe has a boundary; In other words, does the universe have a center and/or an edge? (2) whether or not the earth is placed in any special location; In other words, could God have placed the earth be more or less at the center (if there is one)?

If one assumes that the universe has no edge and no center, and that the earth has no special postion, then applying Einstien's equations will lead to the big bang model. A very common misconception of the big bang is that space is infinite and the matter was initially concentrated at a point from which it expanded. The correct view, however, is that matter has always been more or less evenly distributed throughout all of space. The space itself, however, has been expanding and taking the matter along with it.

The problem I have with this ridiculous theory is that somehow this little and insignificant planet we all call home has somehow arrived at where we are far ahead of the light we are now claiming to see for the first time.

Given that the Big Bang model has no centerpoint, I expect that one who believes in the big bang would answer Allyn's question this way: The matter has not traveled, but rather light/radiation travels in both directions between the earth and the horizion. In other words, light/radiation has been traveling at some rate across the universe from everywhere to everywhere. Therefore, the light/radiation emitted at the beginning from objects near the earth would be reaching the distant horizon at the same time that light from the distant horizion would be reaching earth. Consequently, there is no older or younger part of the universe.


On the other hand, if one assumes that the universe has a center and that the earth is located near the center then the application of Einstien's theory of relativity leads to a very interesting effect. In such a situation time would pass slowly near the center of the universe, but on the edge of the universe time would pass by quickly. If this theory is true, then when God spoke of six days in Genesis 1 what clock might we use to interpret this passage? I think it is reasonable to presume that God is speaking in terms of time on the earth. This would make sense because he is communicating to people who live on the earth, speaking mostly of events that happened on the earth, and uses the phrase "evening and morning" which most logically apply to the light/darkness cycle of a planet. If this is true, then the 24 hour days are more or less consistent with what can be observed in the universe. Namely, the main astronomical observations are explained with this model:
(1) That distant starlight can reach the earth in a few thousand earth years
(2) The presence of an even cosmic background radiation
(3) Redshift of starlight.
This cosmology has been named "white hole cosmology".

Regards,
Peter