Want Some Answers ???Evolutionism
Hi Brian thanks for the reply.
>>I have a difficult time imagining anyone with "numerous doctorates" taking Genesis literally and not seeing any difficulties.<<
If we read Genesis with evolutionary glasses that’s when 'difficulties' arise. Its incompatible with evolution. In fact, experts of OT Hebrew say take it literally. Did you realize many scientists of the past, who founded and developed key scientific disciplines were also creationists (Boyle, Von Braun, Faraday, Kepler, Maxwell, Newton, Pasteur, Mendel, Dalton, Bacon, Joule, Linneaus, Fleming, Kelvin, Steno, Woodward, Ray, Ramsay, Owens, Herschel, etc). And many scientists today don't have a problem with a 'literal Genesis' either.
>>Knowing what we do today about the solar system and how it all works together, it makes little sense to think that god created the earth and let it hang there alone in the universe for four days while he was busy making the sky and dry land and growing trees and grass.<<
A God with all power and wisdom can create the earth any way he wants. But He used a blueprint and designed it for life without taking billions of years. And how did a “bunch of people who still thought the stars were little twinkling lights in the sky” know "God hung the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7)? Note 'trees, grass' [and man] were created mature, not 'growing' as it were.
>>There was light on the first day, but where did it come from? Finally god got around to making the sun and moon (which he thought was a light) and, oh yes, as an afterthought he made the stars also (the entire rest of this massive and amazing universe). How did the earth exist and have days and nights and liquid water and growing vegetation for three days before the sun was even formed?<<
Yes according to naturalistic evolution it's all impossible. But God created light 'before the sun was' created (Gen.1:3-4). Light (and warmth) can exist without the sun. Not the last time God provided such light Ex.14:19-20 Lk.2:9 Mt.17:2. In the heavenly city there will be no need for sun or moon because God's glory will illuminate it and the Lamb will be it's lamp (Rev.21:23).
And 'days' before the sun? Modern geokinetic astronomy should make it easier to understand. All it takes to have a day-night cycle is a rotating earth and light coming from one direction. So the earth was already rotating in space relative to the light created on day one.
>>And at the end of it all god said it was good and the work was complete. However, we know that the universe was not created all together in an instant and it has not finished being created even now. As astronomers gaze around the galaxy they see old stars exploding in supernovas, the light from these fiery stellar deaths travelling from millions of light years away. They also see new baby stars being born, the first weak light emenating from clouds of cosmic dust and gas.<<
The 1st law of thermodynamics - 'energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can be changed from one form into another'. So nothing new is been created (The 2nd law proves why evolution is impossible).
There are regions in space where stars are thought to be forming now. But we don't actually "see new baby stars being born". Modern theories of star formation have problems. No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars or galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies.
But 'exploding supernovas" suggest a young universe – There are only 5 supernovas actually observed in the 1st stage. In 2nd stage only 200 and 3rd stage none.
If the universe existed for billions of years there should be about 5,000 in the 3rd stage and about 2260 in stage two. In total there are about 7000 supernovas missing. Light from 1st stage is between 7 - 300 years. And 2nd stage predicted between 300-120,000 years.
They are now looking at vast galaxies (so far away) light travel is their problem. "There simply hasn't been enough time since the Big Bang for it to form structures this colossal." (Dr P Francis Australian National Univ). But anyone who believes the universe was created in 6 days, not all that long ago, is not surprised to see apparently mature galaxies at any distance.
>>I've barely covered the first half of Genesis Chapter 1 and already it should be obvious to anyone that the bible was written by a bunch of people who still thought the stars were just little twinkling lights up in the sky. No shame to them, they didn't have telescopes.<<
Yes no shame on them. Because Genesis says God created 'lights' in the heavens "for signs and seasons and for days and years" (Gen1.14). Only through telescopes can we now understand a year is the time required for the earth to travel once around the sun. And the seasons are caused by the changing position of the earth in relation to the sun. We can tell exactly the start of a season. We now know that a month is one revolution of the moon around the earth. How could the Genesis author know 3,500 years ago that the 'lights' of sun and moon were actual determining factors of the years length, unless his words were inspired by God?
You know, Galileo and Copernicus didn't disprove the Bible. They would have been shocked at the thought. They accepted biblical authority more faithfully than church leaders today. The four main heroes of heliocentricism – Copernicus Galileo, Kepler, and Newton were all creationists and also the great astronomers Herschel and Maunder.
>> But in this day and age, with the knowledge that we have, it is ridiculous to think that there is any scientific merit to these ancient creation myths.<<
Not at all, but its ridiculous to think "there is any scientific merit" in evolutionary theory with its guesses and speculations. Science means knowledge, knowledge is not contrary the bible. That's why many scientists for scientific reasons reject evolution.
There's a difference between real science and evolutionary 'science'. Real science that invented telescopes is not the theorizing of evolutionists. Real science deals with things observed or measured. By checking and doing it again. Evolution is only stories, how stars may have started. Or how life forms gave rise to others. These stories are not real science.
Why not call evolution a 'myth?
There should be millions of transitional forms between species. Where are they? Since Darwin the history of evolution theory is full of fake discoveries that promised the missing link but never delivered. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than God.
The bible however, is genuine; it's been carefully and critically examined yet dependable. It's proven true prophetically, geographically and historically with an accuracy superior to the records of Egypt, Assyria, and other early nations.
All the arguments for God's existence blend together in harmony. Too many things are inexplicable otherwise. Why gamble your eternity on a half-baked evolution theory that lacks the vital evidence?
"When men live as if there were no God, it becomes expedient for them that there should be none; and then they endeavour to persuade themselves so". --TILLOTSON.