Young Earth Creationism (the Six day theory), meets the big bang and Evolution...

[The Meach]

Ok kids Here is your Mind**** for the day

The Speed of God

Posted on: September 14, 2009 9:43 AM, by Chad Orzel
Over in Twitter-land, Eric Weinstein is visiting the AMNH at the same time as a bunch of Orthodox Jews, and takes the opportunity for a little Q&A:

Me: Excuse me, but how is the phylogenetic tree reconciled with Torah.
Modern Orthodox Man: Lorentzian time dilation. It's a head hurter.
​

This is an interesting attempt to square the six-day creation story with modern science, and raises one obvious question: How fast must God have been moving for the six days of creation to last 13.7 billion years?
This is veering into Built on Facts territory, but the relevant formula is:

For six days (5.18x105 seconds) to seem like 13.7 billion years (4.32x1018 seconds), the Lorentz factor γ would need to be 8.34x1012. Solving this for the relative speed as a fraction of the speed of light tells us that God must be moving at:

vGod = 0.99999999999999999999999999281254 c
​

That's only 2.15x10-16 m/s short of the speed of light. So God would trail a beam of light by only 1.12 million meters at the end of creation.
Starting from rest, this would require a total energy of 7.5x1029 joules per kilogram of God-mass to get up to speed. If you had expended that kind of energy, you'd rest of the seventh day, too.
(You might try to claim that God's mass should be zero, given that He is insubstantial. This can't be true, though, as if His mass were zero, He would necessarily be moving at exactly c, the speed of light. In that case, the Lorentz factor γ would be infinite, and no time would have passed in God's frame since the start of creation. For God to have experienced the creation taking a finite time, He must be moving at a speed below that of light, and this implies that God has a non-zero, albeit very, very small, mass.)
(If you were to suppose that God is subject to the GZK cut-off, lest He scatter inelastically off photons from the cosmic microwave background, this would imply that God has a mass of 10-29 kg.)

Thus the Creation of man could have taken thousands of years but to the speed of God the grand perceptual time was much shorter. Thus Man was created slowly via "evolution" and Adam & Eve were sub-humans that were the first to make the "shift".

Using the "speed of God theory"; the big bang, cosmic condensation, cosmic & Biological evolution all can mesh along with Genesis and its interpretation of the bible.

 

[Dryden]

Im firing up my calculator right now. I'll get back to you on this later.

 

[22lr]

To me its trying to explain something that humans cannot explain. Mathematics cant explain everything.

 

[Lucas156]

Hmm sounds interesting. Now on the creation of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately I dont believe that they were created through evolution which I have heard them being tied into evolution before. It doesn't sit well with me as I do believe that humans have been on the Earth since it was created. Ever heard the theory of Atlantis? Well some would say if weve been around so long how come our technology isn't as far and we dont have documentation of it. Some theories are that we have been far more technologically advanced in the past but that that was all destroyed including records and documentation of it. I think somehow the Great Flood might tie into that. Sorry just blabbin but this thread made me think of all that stuff. There are a couple of books on it.

 

[ATM]

Hmm... how 'bout no.

Never bring a finite math to an infinity fight.

 

[Roadie]

One small detail that the article does not take into account is that God is not subject to the Laws of Physics(at least, in my opinion). I believe that for Him to be God, He would have to exist outside of time, space, physics, dimensions, etc.

I think this is why the Bible says "a thousand years is like a day, and a day a thousand years" to Him. An Omnipresent, Omnipotent being, existing outside of time/space could, in theory, experience all of time and space simultaneously, while being able to reach through into our time/space to act upon it.

I think if God could be quantified, He would cease to BE God.

 

[The Meach]

One small detail that the article does not take into account is that God is not subject to the Laws of Physics(at least, in my opinion). I believe that for Him to be God, He would have to exist outside of time, space, physics, dimensions, etc.

I think this is why the Bible says "a thousand years is like a day, and a day a thousand years" to Him. An Omnipresent, Omnipotent being, existing outside of time/space could, in theory, experience all of time and space simultaneously, while being able to reach through into our time/space to act upon it.

I think if God could be quantified, He would cease to BE God.

Ah, well that is the question. However there is proof that at one time God was full within the realm of of physics and at least at the level of appearance and subject to the laws thereof, in the embodiment of Jesus Christ. There is also proof that God can choose to interact with us within the physical realm as shown in the "burning bush" and him speaking aloud during his baptism as Jesus.

However in this theory there is the assumption that God has chosen to be subject to the "laws of physics" all the time. As was stated God is all powerful, And as Evidenced by the case of Jesus Christ God can choose to limit that power at will.

However God can still be Omnipresent, Omnipotent being, outside exist outside what we understand as time/space while also being subject to the laws of physics.

1. While the theory above builds its case one one God with a mass of 10 to the -29 Kilogram First you must understand how small that is. an object weighing 10 to the -29th of a kilogram it is equal to 1/200th of the weight of a neutron.

2. This theory has no limiter to size or scope. While God is very very light, God still may be very very large possibly spanning the whole of the universe. And Locically he does thus explaining his percived Omnipotence and Omnipresance. The universe (to our closest estimation) 135 billion light years across (that is 1277178840000 x 10 to the 12th Kilometers wide)
Thus it is reasonable to assume that this is the Size of God.

3. There is not requisite in the theory for the make up of God physically in a "particle" sense. The yet undiscovered particles that comprise God would have to be VERY VERY small. In-fact the particles that make up God would be so small that there would be no way for any other particle (even light) to directly to interact with God Unless God chose arrange Himself in a manner that would facilitate this happening.

So while God would technically "exist" He would be far beyond the bounds of our "physical understanding".

Now the as far as Time. Have you ever heard the expression "time flies when your having fun" or "a watched pot never boils"? Both statements have actually been proven factual. Time is a perception that our human minds use to comprehend a sequence of events. However time has no actual governing force. So it is easily comprehensible that God does not view time in the way we do, and has rather an "expanded" view of time that comprises all of existence simultaneously and without constraint.

The theory above does not require God to operate within human time but instead applies our human comprehension to what would be God's perspective.

Thus the theory is assuming that God has applied the same governing laws of physics to all creation from the moment of the "first day". The equation in the OP is how the current scientific understanding of how existence developed and the events of the Bible could possibly be both correct...


...or it could all be bunk

But it sure is a lot fun

 

[CoyoteCreekGuns]

Three Things:

1. God and Time

The first thing that needs to be done when pondering this question is to define the term time. The interesting thing about defining time, is that we can only do it using our own worldly standards, and since our worldly standards (i.e. the dictionary) lists 26 independent definitions we can quickly conclude that time is not something that is easy to articulate or define. What we can say is that in order to track time, there must be a beginning and an end. In the case of us, God's creation, the bible is very specific that we have, at least until we are reunited with God Himself, a beginning and an end in His creation. So if God created us with a beginning and an end here on earth, he also created our "time". But we still haven't answered the actual question of does God exist within time.

In order to answer the question of if God exists within time or not, we too, like the philosopher Augustine, must ponder the another question: What did God do before He created Heaven and Earth? Augustine quickly, as should we, determined that when this question asked, although we'd like to answer it we can't, because by doing so we'd be trying to place God into the limitations of our world since the word "before" has no meaning and can't apply where time doesn't actually exist.

So where do we go from here? The only way that I can answer this question is to look at what we know from our experience and knowledge, no matter how flawed we've already noted that it is and go back to a definition that I mentioned earlier, to track time there must be a beginning and an end. The bible is very specific in noting that God never had a beginning and He doesn't have an end, so based upon this we should be able to answer the question; Does God Himself exist in time? My answer, No. He can interact with his creation inside of the paradigm which he created for us, but He himself does not exist within these constraints. In fact once we return to him, we too will not exist within the constraint of time for the only reason that we today say that we will be with Him for eternity is because we're stuck in this earthly thinking that time needs to exist outside of our worldly realm.
​

2. Creation and Time

The Term "Day" is used the Bible (New American Standard) 2,047 times, however how it is used in Genesis is, although only slightly, used differently in the original language. For more in-depth information on this difference, feel free to check out this article.

Please note that this article does not prove nor disprove a young earth or old earth creation, it's simply something else to ponder.

​

3. A Waste of Time

Although the group "Answers in Genesis" headed by Ken Ham would flip out by my stating that debating this question my very well be a waste of time, in the life of a follower of Christ, it very well may be.

At the end of the day, whether or not the "days" described in Genesis are actual 24 hour days or not, has no effect on the creation vs evolution debate itself since no matter now long it took the bible clearly states what was created. It doesn't state that God created an amoeba on the first day and that by the sixth day it became man. It clearly states that he created Man, He created the birds of the sky, the fish of the seas and that He made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

The point is He created them, not through evolution but as their own kinds. In other words a dog is a dog is a dog... it always has been and always will be. Dogs have not over the past 2,000 years become something else have they?

In the end, the key is not how much time did God take to create, but that God did create and that what he created was complete in and of itself in it's own kind.

​

Anyway, I appricaite these conversations because it gets people thinking and I was pleasantly surprised to hear so many replies to this particular topic from the Christian perspective.

Good Luck & God Bless!

 

[The Meach]

3. A Waste of Time

Although the group "Answers in Genesis" headed by Ken Ham would flip out by my stating that debating this question my very well be a waste of time, in the life of a follower of Christ, it very well may be.

At the end of the day, whether or not the "days" described in Genesis are actual 24 hour days or not, has no effect on the creation vs evolution debate itself since no matter now long it took the bible clearly states what was created. It doesn't state that God created an amoeba on the first day and that by the sixth day it became man. It clearly states that he created Man, He created the birds of the sky, the fish of the seas and that He made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

The point is He created them, not through evolution but as their own kinds. In other words a dog is a dog is a dog... it always has been and always will be. Dogs have not over the past 2,000 years become something else have they?

In the end, the key is not how much time did God take to create, but that God did create and that what he created was complete in and of itself in it's own kind.​

An argument to your point could be. It said that God created Dogs, but it doesn't specify How. Just as a sculpture's medium is clay and stone, God's Medium may be proteins and DNA. Just as the sculptors tools are his hands and a hammer, Gods tools could be Mutation and Evolution?

eh?

 

[Boilers]

Im firing up my calculator right now. I'll get back to you on this later.

Strike Dryden off the list.


If you were God, you'd get back to us EARLIER!

I have always thought that time as we perceive it is obviously something that varies with us and/or with God at least.

I am not concerned about all those calculations.

The English call it BELIEF.

 

[The Meach]

snip
I am not concerned about all those calculations.
snip

 

[Boilers]

I laugh at speed limits, too. But the opposite way now.

 

[CoyoteCreekGuns]

An argument to your point could be. It said that God created Dogs, but it doesn't specify How. Just as a sculpture's medium is clay and stone, God's Medium may be proteins and DNA. Just as the sculptors tools are his hands and a hammer, Gods tools could be Mutation and Evolution?

eh?

Actually, if you move into the 2nd chapter of Genesis it does describe the how of creation. In verse 7 it says "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Please note the word "formed". Formed by definition means "procedure according to a set order or method" or "a set, prescribed, or customary order or method of doing something".

Formed, as detailed is in direct contradiction to the term evolution which is and as you have earlier defined as mutations or evolution, the idea of things randomly occurring with a result in life as we see it today. You see random events by definition do not have a set order or method, otherwise they wouldn't be random.

This brings me back to a point in my previous post.. Why are dogs still dogs today? Did evolution finally die out at some point?

 

[Bill B]

As an amatuer astronomer that is trying to be a physics major at Purdue Cal, I love these discussions.
My own take is thus (in english):
A black hole compresses matter and slows down time. So much so that if a person could live in a black hole one perceived second for that person would take thousands (millions?) of years in the "real" universe. This is commonly accepted scientific theory.
Now imagine a black hole operating in reverse, a "whitehole" in common parlance.
Time would be distorted the same way, but matter would be moving outward. Add what I call "a little directed intelligence", ie GOD, in the center and suddenly all the problems with time are no longer problems.
I wish I could claim credit for the idea but it isn't mine, I just don't remember the book off the top of my head.

 

[CombatVet]

I take the 7 days literally. In my humble opinion you can't explain away the bible. What I mean by that is if you say "well one day is equal to 1.7 billion years" or whatever, then you assume what the bible meant. Not saying we shouldn't question things. I don't however take things literal from Revelations. I think in that situation they were describing technology beyond their understanding to the best of their ability.

Besides. Time is relevant. If there is no constant, how can time exist?

 

[kludge]

"Day" has many meanings. Even in the Bible.

IOW, "day" does not have to be 24 hours.

I believe the bible, AND I believe the earth is billions of years old AND that dinosaurs lived here millions of years ago AND that it was God's doing.

Genesis in the second verse also says that "the earth was without form and void" ergo the elements existed and were in place when God start his work. If I were to change something it would be the first verse to say: "Here's the story of how God created the earth."

I also don't believe the prevalent dogma of "ex nihlio" creation (creation out of nothing).

Also "create" means "take stuff and put it together the way you want it" not "poof here's an earth; poof, here's a sun; poof here's a moon; poof here's a bunch of animals."

 

[The Meach]

Actually, if you move into the 2nd chapter of Genesis it does describe the how of creation. In verse 7 it says "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Please note the word "formed". Formed by definition means "procedure according to a set order or method" or "a set, prescribed, or customary order or method of doing something".

Formed, as detailed is in direct contradiction to the term evolution which is and as you have earlier defined as mutations or evolution, the idea of things randomly occurring with a result in life as we see it today. You see random events by definition do not have a set order or method, otherwise they wouldn't be random.

Agreed, Random mutation and evolution would indeed be a contradiction. However its all about point point perspective. Changes in species Man sees as random could be very much planed in the eye's of God. Thus Evolution could very much be God's tool for "Forming" from the dust and fit his set, prescribed, and customary order or method of doing things.

The second chapter of Genesis is very much different from the first, as it focuses solely on the creation of man. Lets break down the verse.

-Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground
There is no qualifier in this as to How or how long it took God to do this. It could either mean the entire process of forming from the Original protein burting from dust to, single cell, multi cell, fish, mammal, neanderthal to the moment of "Adam" aka Man -OR- God took dust and formed man instantly. Either could be infered from this sentence.

-and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life
as I'm Assuming the former from above, This would be the moment of the first biological man's conception.

-and man became a living being.
Upon the birth of the first man, "Adam". Man formally becomes a living being on the earth.

This brings me back to a point in my previous post.. Why are dogs still dogs today? Did evolution finally die out at some point?

The Process of evolution if correct takes millions of years in the typical case. However there have been a handful of accounts involving certain species developing traits that adapt them to their environment

While still being debated, Dogs are the subject of the evolutionary question. Seeing as during the time of man we have seen the development of Wolves (Canis lupus) into domesticated dogs (Canis familiaris) . This is fact.

Darwin was wrong about dogs. He thought their remarkable diversity must reflect interbreeding with several types of wild dogs. But the DNA findings say differently. All modern dogs are descendants of wolves, though this domestication may have happened twice, producing groups of dogs descended from two unique common ancestors.

How and when this domestication happened has been a matter of speculation. It was thought until very recently that dogs were wild until about 12,000 years ago. But DNA analysis published in 1997 suggests a date of about 130,000 years ago for the transformation of wolves to dogs. This means that wolves began to adapt to human society long before humans settled down and began practicing agriculture.

This earlier timing casts doubt on the long-held myth that humans domesticated dogs to serve as guards or companions to assist them. Rather, say some experts, dogs may have exploited a niche they discovered in early human society and got humans to take them in out of the cold.

But as i said, still being the subject of extreme debate its hard to use Dogs as the basis for an argument on Evolution.

SO I'll fully answer your question on whether or not Evolution stopped with a rather interesting article about Finches:

Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes | LiveScience

 

[RCB]

When you study time theory, you realize that the only reason we perceive time as a line is because we have a beginning of consciousness and perceive others removal from it.

However, if you were ever lasting, time would be perceived utterly different. More like a layer surrounding things (and that stretches around mass).

I would look at it as if trying to explain it to a child. At our best, we can barely understand time and space. Much like explaining where babies come from. The basics to get by.

Amazingly accurate for a piece that is millenias old.

 

[CoyoteCreekGuns]

The Process of evolution if correct takes millions of years in the typical case. However there have been a handful of accounts involving certain species developing traits that adapt them to their environment

Traits and Adaptations based on environment are very different from evolution/mutation. The former suggests that based upon a particular environment over a period of time one gains intelligence and abilities to better survive in that environment while still being the same core being. The latter is a theory that suggests that based upon a particular environment over a period of time one mutates (either adding or subtracting chromosomes and other atomic and sub atomic structures, although to date science has only seen mutation by the subtracting of not the adding to) to better survive in that environment not by staying the same core being but in-fact changing into another being unique unto itself.

While still being debated, Dogs are the subject of the evolutionary question. Seeing as during the time of man we have seen the development of Wolves (Canis lupus) into domesticated dogs (Canis familiaris) . This is fact.

We don't have to speak of dogs, we can choose whatever animal you would like? Frogs perhaps. They go from a tadpole to a frog, always have, always will, some will adapt to their environment differently (i.e. tree frogs with color change capabilities and sticky pads on their feet, etc) but at the end of the day they are still frogs.

Butterflies? Yep they go through a transformation like frogs do, oh and us to when we're developing in the womb (oops, did I just spawn a debate on when life begins...) but at the end of the day they are all butterflies.

At minimum with evolution we should see some animal(s) half-way through mutation right? Oh and don't go to the duck billed platypus because it's the same way, it always has been and always will be.

But as i said, still being the subject of extreme debate its hard to use Dogs as the basis for an argument on Evolution.

SO I'll fully answer your question on whether or not Evolution stopped with a rather interesting article about Finches:

Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes | LiveScience

You're kidding right?

The title itself is contradictory to the argument... They're still birds and for that matter the same species of bird, finches..


Thanks again for the debate however, it is fun and please know that it's not personal..

 

[ATM]

The English call it BELIEF.

I think the Amish do too.