> If Genesis starts out creating the universe, then the reference you are
> refering to is when the universe actually cooled down enough for light to
> exist. At that point, were photons seperated from the rest of
> matter (which is dark).
So, darkness = matter. But, Big Bang = light before darkness. Bible =
darkness before light.
Photons and electromagnetic radiation existed before any matter had yet
formed, according to the Big Bang model. The Bible reports darkness before
God created light.
> > You're trying to waterdown (make worthless) the text of the
> Bible to the
> > point that it no longer conflicts with secular myth.
>
> Why does acceptance of scientific data make the text of the Bible
worthless?
First, NO one has ever reached your interpretation by reading the Bible,
rather they take their non-Biblical beliefs and "make worthless" the Bible
as much as necessary until their beliefs are no longer in conflict with the
Bible. You're not finding meaning in the Bible, you're rejecting what it
ostensibly says and imposing your non-Biblical beliefs on it.
Secondly, the scientific data does not support the Big Bang. Just about
everything about the Big Bang model is in contradiction with known
scientific facts. Explosions in an isolated system don't organize (2nd law
thermo), gravity would have prevented expansion, etc. And the few pieces of
circumstantial evidence that the Big Bang is based can be explained by other
means (e.g. background radiation is just diffused energy from stars). And,
there's a mountain of circumstantial evidence which contradicts the Big Bang
(e.g. lack of anti-matter in the universe).
> What would you say, if I propose that the very age of the
> universe increases the scope of God's great Work?
That's a mighty subjective line of argument.
> How does this diminish God compared to the requirement by YE
> creation that he physically needed to create every little aspect of the
> universe. (And what is more, give it an appearance of age, which is
> basically lying)
God did not create the appearance of age, your false assumptions is the
source of what you would consider a false appearance of age. If you assume
naturalistic precursors to what God did, then it's going to look older to
you than it really is. You need to recognize the difference between what is
necessary for a fully functional universe (full grown trees in the garden of
Eden) vs. what appearance of age isn't necessary for a fully functional
universe (tree rings in the trees in the garden of Eden). Besides, about
how often have I disregarded real scientific evidence by arguing that God
just make it look that way to test us? About never.
> The order of creation is hopelessly different from the secular myth.
>
> I have considered this, and right now, don't have a good answer.
That's fair, there's a few things I don't yet have a good answer to. :)
> Was the Bible meant to be an historical account, or a spiritual
> account? If
> it be erroneous in some small details concerning history, does that
> invalidate the spiritual message it contains?
The creation account (through to the Flood) is not a small detail,
especially considering that it is referred to numerous times throughout the
Bible. And, if we can't trust it in the measurable things, how can we trust
it in the spiritual things?
> I am not ripping out pages. I am gaining a deeper understanding of
> scripture and of God's creation.
Once upon a time there was a guy named Darwin. He wrote a book about how
creatures changed and became other creatures through the generations. He
recognized that to be scientific that he needed to provide ways to test this
idea. Thus, he proposed a number of tests. Today, Evolution has failed
just about all of his tests. Instead of dumping Evolution as the
non-science that is was demonstrated to be, Evolutionists just made new
theories to patch Darwin's idea so that the test failures are no longer
relevant. And, if someone should show that the new Evolution fails new
tests, Evolutionists will just patch Evolution with new theories so that the
test results are no longer relevant.
The Evolutionists think they're gaining a greater understanding, that
they're merely refining the theory. But, all they're doing is creating an
origins model that is independent of the evidence.
Their greater understanding is a greater fiction.
The best example if Punctuated Equilibrium. Darwin predicted that there
should be innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record. When these
weren't found, PE was used to patch the theory. So, now, if you find what
you think is a transitional, theory supported. If you don't, the theory is
supported again. At least Darwin provided a plausible-sounding mechanism
for gradualism, modern Evolutionists are still grasping for anything that
sounds even partially plausible for PE. BTW, how are we to test PE? That's
my point.
-Andrew