I am sorry it has taken so long to reply to this. I haven't had time for a
proper discussion. I am going to break it up into two posts: Age of the
universe, and PE, so as not to confuse issues.
> Okay, I'll give you this one. There was no visible light until energy
> decoupled from matter, at which point, the energy expanded at the speed of
> light and didn't hang around
Just because it did not have enough energy to keep the electrons up in a
roar, doesn't mean that it left the vicinity. The photons were still
knocking around into atoms and electrons. How do we see colors? By the
photon's interaction with electrons..
Also, while light is a form of energy, as all matter is, do not equate light
with energy. That is like explaining the behavior of an elephant, and then
applying that knowledge to all mammals. There will be aspects which are
correct, but you will get huge discrepancies and the flaw in logic is
> > Then, that critical threshold was reached and "God divided the light
> > the darkness"
> So, "let there be light" is not a reference to the Big Bang itself, just
> point in time when matter and energy decoupled? Okay, one contradiction
> resolved (except that God apparently created the Earth before energy and
> matter decoupled, "In the beginning God created the... earth.")
In my Bible, where it says "earth", in that first sentence: "God created the
heaven and the earth" there is a reference to look up "nature" I am taking
that to imply all of nature, of which the earth is a part.
> What does Shroeder say caused the Big Bang?
God? If the Big Bang is based
> on assumptions of naturalism, why stop before you get to the cause?
> you can't think of a natural cause? Can you say "God of the gaps."
It is of course, folly to base one's belief on a "God of the gaps".
Schroeder sees the hand of God as the first cause of many things for which
there is a known natural explanation. That natural explanation, and the
idea of a First Cause to it does not, IMO, constitute a "God of the gaps".
I cannot speak for Schroeder, but I believe in a God for which the influence
is all encompassing, and so there that we percieve it naturally, and can
describe it in terms of cause and affect. God's natural influence cannot be
distinguished from no divine influence because it is all God's will.
Certain laws have been put into effect so as to make free will possible.
This makes it impossible to physically ascertain God, because his will is
not a direct manual manipulation of this universe, but is manifested by the
laws and constants which define the action of matter and energy.
I'm aware that there
> has always been people who believed the Bible but had different
> interpretations of Genesis than is now popular among Creationists.
Can you judge which interpretations are true? By what basis do you make
> I consider Evolution and the Big Bang to be non-Biblical. When you read
> Big Bang into the Bible, I see that as imposing a non-Biblical belief on
> Bible. BTW, non-biblical doesn't mean false, it just means you didn't get
> it form the Bible. If I had meant to be even slightly derogatory, I would
> have said "your anti-Biblical beliefs."
Thank you very much. The Nicene Creed is also non-biblical, but is the
basis for most of tradtitional christianity's belief in God.
> The Big Bang provides for the ultimate isolated system. In such a system,
> complexity can only decrease with time.
Which physical law describes that?
In what fashion has there been a
> loss of complexity sense the Big Bang?
Are you talking about the Law of Entropy? Well, seconds after the Big Bang,
the universe was still stunningly tiny, with the same amount of energy as it
has today. Which is more orderly? It used to be a pretty homogeneous mix.
Now it is heterogenous. Which is more orderly? The Law of Entropy, by
stating that in an isolated system, there must be a decrease in order, is
actually predicting an increase in complexity.
> > Okay, gravity is actually a pretty weak force.
> How about when it is backed up by all the mass in the universe in a
> concentrated form? The fastest the universe could have expanded is at the
> speed of light, gravity would have effortlessly put the breaks on before
> expansion got very far. If you propose that it isn't momentum causing the
> universe to expand, then what is?
Okay, you are now equating speed with energy, and then also speed with
momentum. It is, indeed, momentum which is keeping the unvierse expanding.
There is not enough mass to cause enough gravity stop it and pull it all
back by todays best estimates.
What caused the momentum? Energy. Energy which was far more powerful than
the gravity which was holding things together.
I suspect that some guy will eventually demonstrate that a
> source for the 3.5K, and that source won't be the Big Bang.
A statement of faith that your beliefs will be proven.
Okay, the anti-matter thing is an issue which I am mostly ignorant of, so I
cannot address that issue. But give me time :) The nice thing about
ignorance is that it can be cured.
> > > God did not create the appearance of age, your false assumptions is
> > > source of what you would consider a false appearance of age.
> > List the scientific evidence for a young earth.
> There is no such thing as a non-radiometric process that indicates the
> is 4.5 billion years old.
And what exactly is wrong with isochron and related dating methods? Back
your assertions with scientific facts please. Also, please explain the
incredible correlation between those dates achieved through this method on
the moon, the earth, and meteorites.
I could identify numerous processes than indicate
> that the Earth is much younger than 4.5 billion years old and all you (or
> any old-earther) could do is claim that they're not useful for dating the
> Earth, for some reason such as pleading that the process is cyclic.
They have very good reasons for saying they are not useful, and it is not a
plea that such processes are cyclic. Depending on which methods you are
talking about, it is either a fact, or a theory which is extremely well
founded on everything we know. You can't just dismiss them.
We will have to get more specific evidence and examine it to continue
further on this point.
Until I find a good explanation for this new
> Creationist view, I'm inclined to give the point to Evolutionists.
It is not, or it should never be, about "Creationist vs Evolutionists" It
is about searching for the truth. What possible effect will the age of the
earth have on the Gospel?
> The moon's recession is good. At the rate it's recessing, it couldn't be
> billions of years old. I've never seen an Evolutionist demonstrate that
> is recessing faster now than it once was.
I've never heard that it was recessing.
> Another good one is the rate at which the existence of large amounts of
> sedimentary rock on the Earth's surface. Erosion would remove all the
> mass above sea-level in 14 million years. You can appeal to the land
> pushed up, but it's metamorphic rock that would be popping up.
Do you think that the sedimentary rock on top of the metamorphic rock would
disappear? Also, sedimentary rock is the accumulation of already eroded
rock. So, clearly the erosion of land mass does not eliminate it from the
continent...instead, it is merely recycled to become more rock. Also, rocks
older than the "expected lifetime" are themselves protected by this erosion
and sediment cycle...not all rocks erode completely away before they are
layed down in another layer.
As to writing, Glenn's recent posts on symbolism in early human history
shows that the invention of writing was not an instant process, but a slow
one. And that a lot of things had to happen first, all of them hard won.
> The sun's hydrogen/helium ratio is essentially the same as that of a large
> gas planet that has never fused a thing. Is that not a problem for your
> natural scenario of heavy elements being produced before the Earth?
You are mistaking the ratio of elements to eachother in the sun and a large
gas planet to the actual amount of H/He in them. It is not the ratio which
generates fusion, but the heat and pressure, which come about by the
mass.The mass of the sun is far greater than the mass of any gas planet in
thesolar system. Gravity causes the pressure, pressure causes the heat,
then things can start to fuse. The ratio of ingredients is the same in my
chocolate chip cookies whether I make enough to feed my family, or 100
> > The flood is real. I believe it happened. How would the age of the
> > universe or the creation of life on earth conflict with this?
> Was the Flood local?
I don't know, but I see the possibilities for scenarios in which it is world
If so, why didn't Noah just migrate?
Because God commanded him to build a ship. Not everything could migrate.
It was easier to build a ship, and preserve the animals of the area than try
and migrate them all out. And what if God wanted to relocate Noah farther
than simple migration could do anyway?