by David Wilson
All quotes and images used via the Fair Use Act.
How could God have created all we know in 6 days if all we know of science demands billions of years? It's a now-old question.
The answer resides in quantum physics, and while I am not the first one to posit quantum physics as the answer, I cannot find another answer which is the same as what is being posted here, so for fun, I will call it Wilson's Scientific Law of Biblical 6-Day Creation because I have started having a pretty good time of late naming my own ideas after myself, and these points of debate appear to be shutting down the malicious atheists cold, and that's a good thing, so why not?
Most reference sites that mention quantum physics in relation to Creation either cite the fact that quantum process are often different in reality depending on how they are observed (one of those scientific mind-benders) or they launch into alarmingly over-complicated stream-of-consciousness such as this somewhat unnervingly random explanation by Ken Ham which is off in a seeming million directions (perhaps in trying to describe quantum physics, like a poet he was also trying to write his points in the form of quantum physics, so it was filled with endless subjective paradoxes for the reader which appears to slow time to a crawl..... who knows?)
This will be now be explained quickly and easily so anyone can understand it, because there is no point writing about something if it is only understood by a few. Read it and when the question arises, answer it, and together, change the world.
What science knows: All matter is comprised of energy, and all "objects" in the universe are simply areas of energy vibrating at different frequencies. the edge at which one area of energy is vibrating at one frequency from another is what distinguishes one object from another. Science also knows that mass causes gravity, and the larger the object, the more gravity it produces, and gravity distorts time.
This gets heady, but as you read here in the previous post, any being capable of manipulating in a very nuanced fashion the frequencies of energy vibration literally has control over all creation, and could (or can) mold all energy into whatever form of matter that Being wished, presumably almost instantly. That is God-like power of Creation in the literal sense , scientifically qualified, a fact that the mainstream scientific community seems to have missed for decades(see also, this on CreationDino). There is no magic or superstition about it, and it is impossible to refute, so we must assume that to be a categorical fact.
Here we now get to Wilson's Scientific Law of Biblical 6-Day Creation and I am happy to tell you that Einstein would agree with at least part of it: it isn't over-complicated. It's nice and simple, but not too simple. In a nutshell, it goes like this:
Wilson's Scientific Law of Biblical 6-Day Creation: Energy = Matter, Matter causes Gravity, Gravity distorts Time. Therefore, any being capable of creating matter from energy in any form, via energy frequency manipulation could, by doing so on a vast scale and/or nuanced manner, also manipulate time in exactly the same fashion, presumably almost effortlessly. This cannot be disputed. It is a scientific fact. And there is your 6-Day Creation, qualified scientifically regardless of how anyone decides to measure a 'day".
Nice and clean and simple. None of this, "it depends on how the phenomena is observed", or "were there clocks when God made the universe?" (which is not a scientific question, but really a philosophical one). You now have a totally scientific hypothesis which qualifies the possibility of 6-Day Creation in a way which does not require interpretation via objectivity, subjectivity, philosophy or assumptions of future discoveries as yet unknown by science.
One easily anticipates atheists engaging in non sequitur by asking, supposedly rhetorically, "Why would God choose 6 days?' and that is not a point of science. To question the motivations of God is a point of philosophy, although it is easy to postulate that intending to explain all this in simple terms to His creations, He merely did it all in what would otherwise be measured in 6 24-hours of earth rotation so to keep it simple. You have doubtless of explained things very simply to children in ways that while honest, did not no into detail that the children could not possibly understand, though they would when they grew up. I submit that we see the same general approach by God in the Bible. The communication style makes perfect sense with which anyone can relate.
The point here is not to qualify God's intentions. The point is to prove that a physical 6-Day Creation, measured even in the form of a 24-hour-rotation before the earth even existed (and indeed, quantum paradoxes could have the earth in existence and rotating in a 24-hour cycle before it even existed). The point of Wilson's Scientific Law of Biblical 6-Day Creation is to prove that a physical 6-Day Creation is entirely scientifically possible according to what we already understand about the nature of time and matter.
Although very interesting, your arguments effectively place God inside the box of science. If you derive your understanding of God from the Bible (which I assume you do if you're arguing for a six day creation), then you have no need for these scientific models, as interesting as they are. The omnipotent God described in the Bible is outside of time and is not constrained by it. Although your theory implies that God can control time by manipulating matter and gravity, it also implies that He is constrained by it. In effect, this line of argumentation misses the point altogether. God is perfectly capable of creating all matter, including organized life, in the six, 24 hour days without manipulating time. Its not that He couldn't get it done in six days, and so He modulated time. He simply did it in six days as He described. His power is manifested in His ability to supernaturally create the universe in a minuscule amount of time, not in his ability to extend the deadline. The former displays His preeminence, the later displays the preeminence of the physical world. This sort of kowtowing to science demonstrates a submission to the world and a skepticism about God's nature as defined by His word. We need to approach science from a Biblical perspective, not the Bible from a scientific perspective.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting. I agree with some, disagree with the more salient points. i generally don't have time for this but your post is interesting and deserves a rebuttal.
Delete1. By hypothesizing that God used this or that aspect we know of the physical universe in now way implies any constraint placed upon Him. While I share your respect for God as all-powerful, in my opinion you see over-sensitive on this matter. Citing scientific aspects does not in any way diminish God's capabilities. It actually does the reverse because.....
2. .... by citing scientific concepts which deal with the highest order of theoretical and actual science of which the world is aware, God's works are perceived differently in the media-driven world in which we live. To say "supernatural" not only invokes the mockery of the term "magic" by our popular culture, in my mind the word is moot: if God created all, then nothing God can do is supernatural, because a leaf is as much a miracle as a flood. In the larger sense, what this site strives to do is indeed separate the word "magic" from God's work.
While Christianity is still strong, the youth of the world are turning away in droves. European counties once devout are becoming increasingly secular. Kids can quote more Star wars than they can the Bible. And in my long-standing opinion, this is because our side gives ground to the atheists: when they say magic, we say miracle. When they say old-fashioned, our side says historic. These are losing media propositions. They are PROVEN to be losing. So this site and its works and videos, (see www.creationdino.com, our video page) are trying to reverse that, and in the 2-3 weeks I have returned to the mission, the posts on this blog, immodestly, have already caused many atheists formerly merrily dancing on the supposed grave of the Christian faith go silent, and this includes in their own strongholds in places like the Facebook pages of Richard Hawkins, Bill Nye and the like. So far two atheists have conceded the possible existence of God when previously they fought me on the idea, and as these discussions play out, others watch - and are influenced.
lastly, this site even gives pre-composed rebuttals people can use against atheists. As of this post we are including art and will be doing more, and are gearing up for Volume 2 of Behemoth.
In my opinion people like Ken ham and Kent Hovind are now failing miserably. Ham's debate against Bill Nye was barely a tie when any decent creationist should be able to to wipe up the floor with the guy (I could, easily). Their sites appear, in my opinion, to have grown into big businesses where saying what the paying audience wants to hear, and that includes what you want to hear: miracles instead of science. That experiment has been tried. Young people are turning away in droves while 'cool" personalities kick the teeth out of Christianity and the youth laugh. Well, it;s time to shut up the jerks and the laughing. There is huge awe in to be experienced ion God's works, but we need to connect with the world as it is today, and be realistic about it.
You don;t like science explained to support the understanding that God's works coul;d be genuine to a doubting world. Okay, you don;t have to hang around here. But many others disagree with you and in a few short weeks of returning to this mission, we have seen really extremely significant achievement in winning the war, and that's what it is - a war, a culture war started by atheists who, for whatever unbalanced reasons, IMO like Nazis, want to see all of us and our love of God crushed,. Achievement in a battle of that magnitude has not been won by Hovind or Ham, from what i can see. They seem content to preach to the converted. I have no desire to do anything but convert.
You are entitled to your opinion but I disagree with it. in the strongest possible terms.
Thanks for the comment.