Shantih.
I understand what happens when they come into contact. The problem for those who believe in a Godless universe is that if the two were created in equal amounts at the moment of the Big Bang than the anti-matter would destroy equal amounts of matter as it was itself destroyed.

Thus leaving nothing

Then I have to ask the question, isn't replication of any kind impossible for anything according the definition that you have provided.

Not if we're still talking about an all powerful God creating the universe it's not. SO many times people get so wrapped around the axle talking about the ins and outs of evolutionary theory vs. the creation theory, but it all comes back to this point.
A) The universe could not have created itself, there is not now, nor will there ever be proof to support this theory, because even in the machine we are discussing, they could not even create a semblance of the conditions supposedly necessary for this to occur (although, speaking of superfluous, how could one know the exact conditions necessary to make this happen when no one was around to actually analyze its occurrance?).
B) Man could not have created the universe, even if we had the capability, which, we dont.
C) God DID create the universe, and He did so because it was impossible any other way. Check that >>> impossible. Thus, regardless of whether or not the scientific community agrees that it is impossible or possible is irrelevant, simply because God performs quite frequently, the impossible.

Your definition of replication almost sounds like a sci-fi scanning machine, in which a body is "scanned" and an exact duplicate (which usually ends up being an evil twin in most cases ) appears on the other side of the lab.

Oh, you caught that did you? Yes, when I'm not stalking Narnia fans, I'm talking about similar subjects with Trekkies. It shows.

What does the big-bang theory have to do with DNA formation. The two are separated (evolutionarily) by billions upon billions of years. Big-Bang-Theorists do not believe (in the least bit) that there was an explosion, and out of that explosion came millions of perfectly formed little things that had the opportunity to evolve over billions of years.

Actually, that's exactly what they believe, save the "out of the explosion came millions of perfectly formed things" part. Although, sure if you want to fine tune it, the Big Bang Theory deals directly and solely with the expansion of the Universe over a point of 13.7 billion years when, upon the exact conditions and with the presence of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and lithium-7, the "Big Bang" occurred, whereas, Evolutionists are primarily concerned about the formation of life on the earth after it "came" into being, focusing on the formation of proteins into single celled organisms, followed by multi-celled organisms, eventually evolving into every living thing that exists. Obviously, the two theories co-exist nicely together, and are therefore usually adopted together by those that believe that sort of nonsense.

Certainly no one is saying that God did not, in fact, create these conditions Himself, causing the so called "Big Bang" to occur, as I don't really fancy God as the fairy dust sort of guy, but the fact remains that man has never been able to even come close to replicating these conditions, and it therefore, remains in the realm of impossibility, or as I like to call it, J-possibility.

It might be semantics, but scientists do take into account the fact that the elements had to be created. It's just that there's a disagreement over how that occurred - whether by the hand of God or by some physical process following the Big Bang (there's actually a great deal of discussion in the scientific literature devoted to this very thing: how did the universe get from the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang to what we see now).

It is sort of symantic-ish, but here the key word is created. Evolutionists take into account that the original elements had to have existed, but creation implies a creator. Creation would be a "how", rather than a "why", so evolutionists struggle continually for a separate explanation. The jury is presumeably still out on that.

One thing that I've noticed in these discussions here on NWeb and elsewhere, the vast majority of those who support Old earth use arguments with a strong basis of 'it could have happened that way' or 'it's how you read the Bible'. The bulk of the arguments start with evolution in mind and attempting to read the Bible. The majority of the young earth supporters list scientific data, historical facts and documents, and the Bible itself. The model itself started with the Bible and looks for evidence to back it up. This is the observation I've seen.

Could God have used the evolutionary process to create the world? Yeah, he could have. Could God use the laws of science he wrote to perform the miracles we see in the Bible? Absolutely. Could God have made 2+2=5? Yes, he could have. But there is more to it than just the scientific approach. Old Earth has enough questions on the scientific side of things. It has more serious questions on the doctrinal side of things.

Genesis 1 says "God said". Many Psalms and Paul's letters say 'Out of the mouth of Christ' the universe came into being. We also know from Genesis 1 that everything that God made was good. This means absolute perfection, no flaws, exactly how God intended it to be. The idea of God using evolution to create the universe is in conflict with this. Evolution is about gradual perfecting, which means it was flawed at the beginning. Now when we are dealing with a perfect God, no matter what you do, what you try, imperfect can never, ever lead to perfect. Only perfect can make perfect.

Another VERY big reason I know the dinosaurs, and anything else did not die 65 millions years ago is that Paul makes it very clear that death came to the earth by sin. So the only way anything else could have died would be if Adam and Eve lived over 65 million years ago. If death came before sin, we have a very problematic doctrine. Paul tells us that through one man, Adam, all sin and all death came into the world. And through one man, Jesus Christ, all sin and all death are defeated and all creation is redeemed. If this is not true, and animals died before Adam sinned at the Garden, then's there must be another way to deal with sin and death, which nullifies Christ's death and resurrection.

Now, something else about models that is also important for old earth and young earth. I had to teach on this during a software engineering presentation at the end of this past semester. Models are not perfect. No matter how much you try, no model will ever truly represent what actually happened. A model can only represent certain aspects of the real thing and certain features. So even the young earth model can't truly cover what really happened. I support young earth because for all the reasons I have listed it best fits what the evidence indicates.

I am really curious as to what old-earth supporters have on the doctrinal side of the model. Though I haven't attended Bible school, I am quite familiar with Scripture and the best I can think of that might support old-earth on the doctrinal side of things is interpretation with a theory already in mind. Even though young earth is still not perfect, it doesn't have the problems that the other models do. And this includes scientific, historical, and doctrinal issues. As Dr. Charles Jackson says, "Keep Thinking".

You actually think God used physics to create the world! Why then doesn't the first part of Genesis read: God created physics and then created the world!

I ditto Stargazer's words on this.
I wanted to make a comment though--
One way to look at it is what God did when he created the world is what human beings understand and call "physics/chemistry/physical science." So, we don't know if He created all the laws and then made the world, or made the world with the laws all together but what we do know is that He created the world and every law of the world and it was good. And, apart from what was caused by the Fall and the Flood, it's all pretty much the same. (this coming from a young-earth believing point of view.)
Another way to look at it could be He just said and it was. Frankly, I lean toward this one but I have no difficulty believing the other. It doesn't effect my salvation and faith, so questions like whether or not God used a specific way, or whether or not there was a canopy above earth before the Flood, or whether or not dinosaurs do exist now don't perturb me greatly... but they are interesting to discuss/read about.
Does that mean that if we apply God's methods to make another world since we know some science laws? I don't think so, because God could have done something supernatural because He's not bound by anything.
(I hope this all doesn't sound like jumbled, phrases-contradicting-each-other ramble... I really hope the message I conveyed wasn't that Physics is God and we can control it! :S)
In pretty much everything, whether it's the order of the elements on the Periodic table, or the way water freezes--God's care and masterwork is evident.

Like someone else mentioned, too, could God have used the evolutionary process to make the world? Yes, but the evolution theory that is being heralded is mainly for the purpose of factoring God out, which is ultimately a futile purpose.

Just my two cents.

*continues lurking*

I read a book called Starlight, and Time...that suggests that if God did use a Big Bang ther would, theoretically, be an expansion of time outward. This of course makes the Earth the center of the universe...But it would fit with the statements in the Bible of how God "streached out the heavens", and how light from hundreds of millions of light years are still reaching us.

I've read this book by Russell Humphreys. It's quite interesting, and to my knowledge it's currently the best young-earth answer to the distant-starlight problem (that is, how can stars be billions of light years away if the universe isn't nearly that old). Understandably it's been subjected to some criticism (both from Big Bang cosmologists and simply from peer review. The latter is to be expected; it's how ideas and hypotheses are tested and refined). Check it out, if you like! It's a fascinating read.

Evolutionists take into account that the original elements had to have existed, but creation implies a creator. Creation would be a "how", rather than a "why", so evolutionists struggle continually for a separate explanation.

Agreed, generally. Those adhering to a materialistic philosophy (that is, the physical universe is all there is with no appeal to the supernatural) are also asking 'how' the universe came to be (though it could be argued that they're automatically limiting their choices). At the moment the Big Bang is the leading contender.

Yet while scientists can study "why does the universe look the way it does?" once we go into the 'why' of existence ("why does the universe even exist, or why was it created?") I submit we're entering the realm of philosophy or theology. Hard science doesn't have answers here.

Earlier, I mentioned that the term 'Big Bang' was originally applied to the theory in a derogatory fashion. This is because - somewhat ironically - it necessarily implies a moment of creation, and thus a creator. This didn't sit well with the scientists of the day!

So even the Big Bang points to a creation; it's a matter of whether one believes the universe happened randomly, or by ex nihilo - out of nothing - as a special act of the Deity.

Models are not perfect. No matter how much you try, no model will ever truly represent what actually happened. A model can only represent certain aspects of the real thing and certain features.

This is an excellent point! The idea behind the scientific method is that hypotheses - and models - are imperfect and so they are to be tested and refined, as needed, as more observational results and evidence are gathered. The examples I cited earlier (Newtonian gravity fine-tuned by relativity, or even the Big Bang replacing the steady-state theory) are examples of this at work.

Some may argue, however, that this ideal world is being run over slipshod by the current dominance of the theory of evolution.

One last observation about physics and the other sciences: creation ex nihilo pretty much violates natural laws - but God, as the Maker of all things, even those laws, is not subject to them (though most of the time He appears to act within them; otherwise, they wouldn't be reliable. Imagine living in a world where gravity is randomly suspended at any instant ). Similarly, miracles involve a temporary suspension of those same laws (as a good definition I once read puts it. I don't recall its source, but it might have even been C.S. Lewis in Miracles).

Fencer makes some fascinating points regarding the theological implications of old-earth models, or theistic evolution. The biggest theological objection to 'billions and billions' in my mind is that God pronounced the creation 'very good' and that Paul is clear that through Adam death came into the world (and death is "the last enemy", I Cor 15:26b, so we know it isn't good).

The universe could not have created itself, there is not now, nor will there ever be proof to support this theory, because even in the machine we are discussing, they could not even create a semblance of the conditions supposedly necessary for this to occur (although, speaking of superfluous, how could one know the exact conditions necessary to make this happen when no one was around to actually analyze its occurrance?).

The way this line of logic sounds to me is "If man can't replicate it, or prove it, then it doesn't exist," which doesn't make a lick of logical sense. Do you know that science has yet to find a formula that proves what magnetism is, or how it works, or why it exists? Mankind has (by your logic) failed in that sense, but nobody on earth would deny that magnets/magnetism exist.

Just because there is a limit to what man can do, does not mean that there is something that can exist outside that limit. The same logic also has to dictate that there is no God, for after all, man will never be able to prove that God exists. . . therefore, by your logic, that is proof that God doesn't.

Actually, that's exactly what they believe, save the "out of the explosion came millions of perfectly formed things" part

As a zoology student, who is currently taking a class that spends the entire term talking about evolution, I can tell you with great certainty that this is not what evolutionists believe. The model that I provided a few posts up is very very similar to what the current model resembles (assuming like Gazer and Fencer said, that all models are flawed to some extent).

but the fact remains that man has never been able to even come close to replicating these conditions, and it therefore, remains in the realm of impossibility

Again, using scientific knowledge to prove that something "cannot" happen is very poor logic. Science can really only prove what does happen, and can only prove what does not happen, by testing every other option available.

Evolutionists are primarily concerned about the formation of life on the earth after it "came" into being, focusing on the formation of proteins into single celled organisms, followed by multi-celled organisms, eventually evolving into every living thing that exists.

Historical evolutionists, or early earth evolutionists, perhaps, but certainly not all evolutionists. One of the things that people need to have pounded into their head is the defintion of what evolution is:

"Evolution: A change in allelic frequency in a given population over time."

Natural Selection (also called microevolution) is a phenomenon that every Christian should believe, as it is a readily observable effect! Macroevolution (the idea that through speciation events, two species arise from a common ancestor) is the part where Christians often get confused.

So many Christians are taught the fallacy (both in church, and in private schools) of linear evolution. That is to say:

Invertebtrates > Fish > Amphibians > Reptiles > Birds > Mammals > People

This is not what evolutionists believe! I can say this firmly and soundly!

So many people think that "Evolutionists believe that I evolved from a chimpanzee," which certainly isn't true. If evolution was as dumb a theory as that, then nobody would believe in it (not even scientists). The scientific view of evolution is much more branched. It starts with a common ancestor that split into two different species through speciation events, which split some more through micro and macro evolution, over billions of generations, until you had the diversity that exists today.

So in their view, humans didn't come from chimps/apes, any more than birds came from reptiles. Evolutionists believe that humans and apes shared a common ancestor several million years back, that was chimplike, and that over time, due to microevolution followed by macroevolution, speciation events took place, and the two species branched off of this common ancestor.

What Christians need to realise is that if evolution were as stupid as pastors and Christian teacher's portray, then nobody would believe in it. Scientists are not stupid people. . . and sadly, a lot of Christians have the idea that they believe in evolution solely to get away from having a God figure in their lives.

The way this line of logic sounds to me is "If man can't replicate it, or prove it, then it doesn't exist,"...

Perhaps that is the way it sounds, but that's not what it means. It means that if constant failure to produce satisfactory results since 1930 proves anything, it proves that people will persist in ignorance. By the way, I never said that man could not replicate DNA, I said DNA can not replicate itself, totally different story my friend. Science also has yet to explain how a bumblebee can fly, yet it does. All I am saying is that logically speaking, beleiving that the earth and all life on it came to be in this manner takes more "faith" than to believe in intelligent construct.

Just because there is a limit to what man can do, does not mean that there is something that can exist outside that limit. The same logic also has to dictate that there is no God, for after all, man will never be able to prove that God exists. . . therefore, by your logic, that is proof that God doesn't.

You seem to be missing the entire point here...I never said that because there is a limit to what man can do than nothing exists outside that limit, in fact, I'm saying exactly the opposite. I'm saying that if there is a limit to what man can prove, than they should accept that there are circumstances of creation outside their own control.

As a zoology student, who is currently taking a class that spends the entire term talking about evolution, I can tell you with great certainty that this is not what evolutionists believe.

Talking about evolution and believing it are two different things. I don't want to start comparing credentials here, because this is starting to sound awfully competitive. I can say that one of my majors was Marine Biology and that I have been graduated for quite a while now, so please don't think you're speaking with a pre-adolescent here. I respect what you've learned, but what is spoken in classrooms is quite different from the actual functioning beliefs of most evolutionists.

Science can really only prove what does happen, and can only prove what does not happen, by testing every other option available.

Exactly, which is why, when they cannot prove that it does happen, then they should accept that.

Historical evolutionists, or early earth evolutionists, perhaps, but certainly not all evolutionists...
Natural Selection (also called microevolution) is a phenomenon that every Christian should believe, as it is a readily observable effect! Macroevolution (the idea that through speciation events, two species arise from a common ancestor) is the part where Christians often get confused.

No confusion, you should read my earlier posts, where I said exactly this. However, it was assumed that we were not discussing the belief system of every evolutionist on the planet, as that would assume we have met every evolutionist on the planet, thus, it was my impression we were primarily focusing on the belief systems of evolutionists who use their beliefs to counter the Creation Theory.

Okay, you said...

So many Christians are taught the fallacy (both in church, and in private schools) of linear evolution. That is to say
Invertebtrates > Fish > Amphibians > Reptiles > Birds > Mammals > People
This is not what evolutionists believe! I can say this firmly and soundly!

And then you said...

...It starts with a common ancestor that split into two different species through speciation events, which split some more through micro and macro evolution, over billions of generations, until you had the diversity that exists today.

And again...

So in their view, humans didn't come from chimps/apes, any more than birds came from reptiles. Evolutionists believe that humans and apes shared a common ancestor several million years back, that was chimplike, and that over time, due to microevolution followed by macroevolution, speciation events took place, and the two species branched off of this common ancestor.

It appears to me that these are all saying the same thing. All life started out the same, which is ludicrous no matter how you split the hair.

What Christians need to realise is that if evolution were as stupid as pastors and Christian teacher's portray, then nobody would believe in it. Scientists are not stupid people. . . and sadly, a lot of Christians have the idea that they believe in evolution solely to get away from having a God figure in their lives.

Being stupid and being mislead are two very different things. Some people believe that vampires exist, that is stupid. Never once in my life have I heard it taught that scientists are stupid people, and a lot of what they believe is correct! However, a large portion of them are most definitely mislead and bound to this false belief. By the way, it should be mentioned that ignorance and stupidity are two very different things, but so is willful ignorance. Most evolutionists would willfully ignore the obvious signs of an intelligent design for one simple reason, they simply do not wish to be eternally responsible for their own actions.

I think that my involvement in the conversation has gone far enough, and that it really won't serve any further actions for debate. I'll just say this; a person's logic says a lot more for what they believe than their words do.

When it comes right down to it, whether or not one believes in evolution, or whether one believes in creation, it comes down to one thing - a belief. Neither can be proven, neither ever will be proven, and that's really all that can be said.

Nice weather outside

Some interesting reading once again there.

FencerforJesus,
I think you are being a little harsh on old earth creationists there. I was dead set on Young Earth Creation for a long time, as I believed as a Christian, it was the only explanation. However when I read the bible I never found any place that contradicts old earth creation, and now I am just keeping an open mind.

And in terms of death you where talking about, I think it was perfectly possible for natural/biological death to have occurred before the sin of Adam, I think the death God was talking about is that spiritually (the death Humans should also be more concerned with).

Anyway I am no mod but I am feeling time for a new conversation to arise

...When it comes right down to it, whether or not one believes in evolution, or whether one believes in creation, it comes down to one thing - a belief...

I can agree with that. I would like to say that I enjoy debating with intelligent people very much, and so far I would have to say that this forum boasts some very intelligent debators, including yourself ! I also would like to say that none of my comments, forceful or not, should be taken as disrespectful or condescending, as I never condone either of those in debates.

...However when I read the bible I never found any place that contradicts old earth creation, and now I am just keeping an open mind.

I agree. It has been theorized that when Jesus said "The first day.."etc., this could have been expressing a time period beyond 24 hours. It says later in 2 Peter that "To the Lord, one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day."
So, we could interpret from this (if we were to take Peter literally here) that each of the seven days was actually a period of seven thousand years. Or Peter could have been expressing the simple idea that God exists outside linear time, which could indicate that the seven days took quite a bit longer.

And in terms of death you where talking about, I think it was perfectly possible for natural/biological death to have occurred before the sin of Adam, I think the death God was talking about is that spiritually (the death Humans should also be more concerned with).

This is possible, but before the fall of Adam and Eve into sin, there would have been no need for decay of any kind, because until that time, the Bible says they were perfect, which would indicate that there were no imperfections in the earth or in biology to cause decay. This also supports the old earth theory, because if there was no decay, and consequently no death, then it is possible that Adam and Eve lived in the garden for hundreds of thousands of years before Eve took the fruit. The Bible is unclear as to how long they were there.

Yes, well how can you have a day when there is no Sun ?

God created time, therefore time is within God, God therefore can be both within and out of time.... if you know what I mean,.

*is horrible at explaining things *

On this whole creationism vs evolution, let me just say that I firmly believe that God created heaven and earth, however (likewise being a zoology major) it is quite obvious that adaptation occurs. Whether speciation occurs or not, I have not decided yet. At the sametime though someone, I believe it was Angelwings_The_Faun (Sorry if it wasn't ), brought up a very good point, in that when God created the world he made everything perfect.

My question (for speculation) is this: Could adaptation have begun to occur after the fall of man, rather than before it? Perhaps God made adaptation after the fall of man to help keep the earth in balance. Or perhaps he did make it before, and it was part of what made the earth perfect.

princeshasta-the-great, I think I know what you mean. We talked about this one unit in my high school's philosophy class. Personally I hold a similar theory to what you said, and I think it's possible that God's idea of a day, and our idea of a day may be different. Therefore, how can we truly know how old the earth is?

I've already posted my take the issues of 'day', time, death, and the like, so at this point to repost that would just go into circle. Even though I do really enjoy this topic, I too am ready to move on.

So, to start something else, here is something God has shown me this week. My Intervarsity Christian Fellowship Chapter at my university is going to kick off the spring semester with a outreach event. We are bringing in a professional pool trick shot artist, Steve Lillis, who uses his skills to teach audiences around the world life lessons and the Gospel message. We brought him last year and it was a hit.

While Steve Lillis would be in El Paso, I sought to work with my church to host him as well. Everything was pointing towards a success. My church was really interested, but was skeptical about the costs, so I suggested having Intervarsity do this 2nd show as an outreach event to the community. This seemed to be a good idea as well. So he booked his flights to his shows in three weeks.

Last week, however, other scheduled events showed up and my church could not do it. I immediately asked around other large churches if they would be interested and so far I have had no luck. But God is still working. During an Intervarsity meeting I had this past Monday, we really did like the idea of a 2nd show so we are exploring pool halls and/or bowling alleys that could host. We already have one willing and I am going to explore another one tomorrow.

What happened here is something that I would see with mission teams in the last 11 years. We know that man makes his plans, yet God directs his steps. God had me make the plans with my church so Steve Lillis would be in El Paso for that day (three weeks today). God used my church as a placeholder for the venue where God really wanted the show to take place. If I hadn't made those plans independently of Intervarsity, this 2nd show would not be happening and we are greatly anticipating God to do something amazing.

So where have you seen God change your steps and do something that would not have happened if you hadn't made those initial steps? Or simply ways God has directed your steps in ways that blew your mind?

Angelswings,
Peter 2 uses similes to convey it's message and Genesis 1 and 2 are vague but they're written as Hebrewaic historical accounts. It's not logical to use Peter 2 to back up an old-earth creation. That's not how things work.

Prince Shasta,
Either God is outside time or within time. He's not part of creaton (the Created), he's outside time (the Creator), watching over and taking part in every aspect of creation. But he can't be both the Creator and the Created.

So many Christians are taught the fallacy (both in church, and in private schools) of linear evolution. That is to say:

Invertebtrates > Fish > Amphibians > Reptiles > Birds > Mammals > People

.

this may not be what you believe, but it is what is taught non-the-less. We have only to open most school text books, or watch a program explaining evolution. Even the entertainment media promotes the linear model. A classic example would be the original Fantasia from Disney, which showed, (in cartoon form), the progression from a single cell to dinosaurs.