Who Is Your Creator message forum


Forum: Who Is Your Creator message forum
This forum is locked and posting is not allowed
Problems with the “Genesis Account of Creation - Science or pseudoscience?” Article

God is light, God projects light from Himself, and God created and is the continuing source of the light in the sun, moon, and stars.

The moon is only bright because it reflects light from the sun. The sun is bright because of thermonuclear fusion in it’s core. So unless you’re claiming that god is the process of like-charged nuclei combining to form a heavier nucleus that doesn’t really make much sense.

The process looks something like this:


Essentially four hydrogen nuclei are “burned” into a single helium nucleus, plus two electrons and two neutrinos. Energy is released in the process because the four starting hydrogen nuclei are heavier than the resulting helium. This theory predicts that we should be able to detect the neutrinos released from these interactions and, indeed, the existence of solar neutrinos has been verified by at least five independent experiments.

As confirmed by these observations, the source of the continuing light emitted by the sun (and thus, by extension, the stars and the moon) is the hydrogen “fuel” in its core. That is, of course, unless god imbedded “false neutrinos” in solar light to throw us off. You know, because he’s just that kind of fella.

(Because God exists everywhere, the entire universe was instantly illuminated by God, which negates an old earth premise based of the speed of light.)

Then when did god begin to emit light that we can see? We can see events that occurred more than 6,000 light years from earth. If this is an argument for a young earth/universe it’s not very convincing.

Here’s the essential problem with claiming that the universe was “instantly illuminated” or any other such “created light” claims: they explain the universe with a lying god. If all the light we see was actually created instantaneously 6,000 years ago then the events recorded in that light that we observe did not actually happen. So, in 1987 when scientists observed supernova SN 1987A about 170,000 light years from earth what they observed did not actually occur. Also, since they were able to detect not only light but also the x-rays and gamma rays one would expect from an actual supernova, one would have to conclude that god not only is “light” but is also “radiation”.

So let’s add up what god is – so far we’ve come up with light, radiation, and thermonuclear fusion. . .is it just me or is this god of yours starting to sound rather like the pantheistic concept of the divinity of nature?

The bible seems pretty explicit in Romans 1:20 that we can learn about god from his creation, how is that consistent with a god that created the universe with a false history? And if god did imbed a false history into his creation how can we ever be sure when it really started? Who is to say it didn’t start yesterday with all our collective memories having been artificially created “instantaneously” much like god created the light and radiation of distant astronomical events?

The Genesis Account of Creation has NEVER been falsified; therefore it is still true.

There’s all kinds of problems with this statement. Namely, since when is not being able to falsify something equal truth? Additionally, if you’re going to throw “falsifiable” out there you need to acknowledge that it’s a valid evaluation tool. And since the ability to falsify something is grounded on the ability to explain something using observable phenomena how would you falsify the Genesis account of creation? By employing this technique aren’t you saying that observation will verify revelation? Let’s take a look at your criteria for the scientific method and put that to the test.

1. Make observations.
2. Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.
“By "testable", we mean the predictions must include examples of what is likely be observed if the hypothesis is true and of what is unlikely to be observed if the hypothesis is true. A hypothesis that can explain all possible data equally well is not testable, nor is it scientific. A good scientific hypothesis must rule out some conceivable possibilities, at least in principle.”
3. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis.
4. Search for confirmations of the predictions; if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step (2).

OK, let’s actually put this to the test then.

1. Observations:
a. The speed of light is constant
b. Stars are more than six thousand light years away

2. Hypothesis:
a. The universe is more than six thousand years old

3. Predictions:
a. Events, such as supernova, occurring more than six thousand light years from earth will be detectable as if they actually occurred emitting light and radiation.
b. Light will never be observed moving faster than the speed of light

4. Confirmations of Predictions:
a. In 1987 a supernova at a distance of 170,000 light years was detected emitting light and radiation
b. The speed of light is universally observed to be constant.

5. Conclusion:
a. The universe is more than six thousand years old

Hey! Look at that, I just falsified the biblical account of creation.

Since the phenomena listed above have all been scientifically proven to occur, the Genesis Account of Creation is predictive, testable, dependable, and NOT contradictory by empirical observation.

Since the phenomena listed above have all been scientifically proven to occur, the Lurker account of creation being older than 6000 years is predictive, testable, dependable, and NOT contradictory by empirical observation.

I don’t aim to correct every atrocity of logic broached with this article, but these were the leading offenders that really stuck out. Again, you need to clarify your positions instead of just poking holes in everything you can – Did the big bang occur or not? How old do you think the universe is? Ect. Also, there are other keys on your keyboard other than “delete”, try using them some time.

Thank you for the admission! - by who is your crea... - Sep 20, 2008 10:59pm
Admission? - by Itinerant Lurker - Sep 21, 2008 8:31am
You are confused again - by who is your crea... - Sep 21, 2008 10:03am
Re: You are confused again - by Itinerant Lurker - Sep 21, 2008 1:09pm
questionable - by Itinerant Lurker - Sep 21, 2008 1:14pm
You are clear for take-off. - by who is your crea... - Sep 21, 2008 5:04pm
Pot, meet kettle - by akg41470 - Sep 22, 2008 10:03am
Thank you for the 'material' - by who is your crea... - Sep 22, 2008 2:47pm
Get your own FREE Forum today! 
Report Content ·  · Online Photo Albums   Free Web Tools   Free Web Hosting   Cheap Domains 
powered by Powered by Bravenet bravenet.com