Faça download dos Aplicativos de Leitura Kindle Gratuitos e comece a ler eBooks Kindle nos mais populares smartphones, tablets e computadores pessoais. Para enviar o link de download para seu smartphone por SMS, use o formato internacional sem espaços (Código Internacional+DDD+Número. Exemplo: +551199999999)

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

Para receber o link de download digite seu celular:

Preço Kindle: R$ 24,99
Leia à vontade. Mais de 1 milhão de eBooks Saiba mais
Leia de graça
OU
OU

Essas promoções serão aplicadas a este item:

Algumas promoções podem ser combinadas; outras não são elegíveis. Para detalhes, por favor, acesse os Termos e Condições dessas promoções.

Entregar no seu Kindle ou em outro dispositivo

Entregar no seu Kindle ou em outro dispositivo

Anúncio do aplicativo do Kindle

A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy (English Edition) eBook Kindle


Ver todos os formatos e edições Ocultar outros formatos e edições
Preço
Novo a partir de Usado a partir de
eBook Kindle
"Tente novamente"
R$ 24,99

Número de páginas: 385 páginas Dicas de vocabulário: Habilitado Idioma: Inglês

Novidades da Loja Kindle
Novidades da Loja Kindle
eBooks novos para sua biblioteca digital. Veja aqui

Descrições do Produto

Descrição do produto

How long were the creation days of Genesis—hours or epochs? Does belief in an old earth equate to believe in evolution? Was there any kind of death before the fall?
The length of the creation days in Genesis sparks a storm of controversy. At the core of this dissension lie key questions, the answers to which provide hope for resolution. Hugh Ross addresses these questions as he explores how the creation-day controversy developed.

Updated edition with over 50 pages of new content!

Detalhes do produto

  • Formato: eBook Kindle
  • Tamanho do arquivo: 9220 KB
  • Número de páginas: 385 páginas
  • Editora: RTB Press; Edição: 2nd expanded edition (2 de março de 2015)
  • Vendido por: Amazon Servicos de Varejo do Brasil Ltda
  • Idioma: Inglês
  • ASIN: B00U77Z0NI
  • Leitura de texto: Habilitado
  • X-Ray:
  • Dicas de vocabulário: Habilitado
  • Configuração de fonte: Não habilitado
  • Avaliação média: Seja o primeiro a avaliar este item
  • Lista de mais vendidos da Amazon: #138,296 entre os mais vendidos na Loja Kindle (Conheça os 100 mais vendidos na Loja Kindle)

Avaliação de clientes

Ainda não há avaliações de clientes para este título na Amazon.com.br
5 estrelas
4 estrelas
3 estrelas
2 estrelas
1 estrela

Avaliações mais úteis de consumidores na Amazon.com (beta) (Pode incluir avaliações do Programa de Recompensas para Primeiros Avaliadores)

Amazon.com: 4.7 de 5 estrelas 54 avaliações
Esta avaliação foi considerada útil por 42 de 45 pessoa(s):
5.0 de 5 estrelas I Am Very Thankful For This Book! 3 de abril de 2015
Por T.C. - Publicada na Amazon.com
Formato: eBook Kindle Compra verificada
Christians tend to make mountains out of molehills. I say that as a devout Christian myself (and I suppose many these days would call me one of those "crazy Christian fundies"). Whether or not it's the details of the creation account, the rapture, or the 144,000 in Revelation; everyone has theories about them, and people will passionately defend their theories. The problem is they're some of the most vague subjects in the Bible! There are things clearly said in scripture: Jesus being the Son Of God, the attributes of God, and established Christian doctrine for example. Established principles are clear, and not negotiable if you call yourself a true Christian. Topics such as the rapture, the 144,000, and the argument over whether or not a 'day' in Genesis is a 24-hour period of time are NOT established clearly. Theories about them can never be doctrine, but there is room for debate and belief on the matter. The problem is people often try to make their agendas a doctrine.
There's nothing wrong with zeal by itself. However, for a believer, zeal for God must be at the top of their priorities. Too often, even with good intentions, priorities get shifted...and it always ends up being destructive. Shifting priorities over the past few centuries is exactly what Hugh Ross tackles in the book, and I'm so thankful he's doing so.
I've long maintained the belief that Genesis is accurate, but the exact details of how God did it is up for discussion. After all, there are very few specific details in the Genesis account. God could have created the universe and Earth instantly. He could have also done it in 7 seconds, 7 24-hour days, or 14 billion years. Time is not constraining to Him, and His glory is not diminished by any of the above!
Ross does an excellent job showing how this 24-hour day demand is (relatively) recent in Christiandom. Using church history, and church father's own words, he lays one of the most important pieces of a vast puzzle: the early church didn't really care all that much about how long a day in Genesis was...and it wasn't evident at all that 24-hour days were the prevalent belief. Ultimately, from there, this book journeys throughout many different aspects of the creation account and the current scientific evidence. I won't lie, it's fairly obvious to me that Hugh Ross has been hurt by the ' young earth creationist' crowd. That's not hard to believe, as I have had some similar experiences. He goes to some good lengths to prove his point, and many young-earth theories are subsequently demolished in his wake. This book may not be the olive branch to reconcile the two groups, but it does raise important issues that should be addressed: we put too much personal stock in our flawed interpretations of the scripturally vague, nature and natural records are a valuable tool for revealing the glory of God, and we should approach non-heretical differences in the body of Christ with understanding while bearing fruit of the spirit (that last one is mine but it counts!)
Esta avaliação foi considerada útil por 8 de 9 pessoa(s):
4.0 de 5 estrelas Progressive Creationism Well-Presented 7 de setembro de 2015
Por Mike Volker - Publicada na Amazon.com
Formato: eBook Kindle Compra verificada
"A Matter of Days" by Hugh Ross

Hugh Ross, in his book "A Matter Of Days" skillfully presents the position of "Progressive Creationism." "Progressive Creationism" posits that God has continually created new "Orders or Families" of creatures over the past 3 billion or so years, which explains the multiple devastations the Earth has experienced, the geologic layers, and the fact that Man was created late in God's last and final 6th "Yom" or day. After the creation of Eve, God ceased from creating and that explains why so many thousands of species are continually going extinct to this day and not a single instance of a new "Family or Order" of creatures is observed to have been created.

Ross does not define the length of the 6 "Yoms" (Hebrew for "period of time," sometimes translated "day.") His position is strengthened by the fact that on the 6th day, Adam names all of the animals, and Eve is created, and they fall - all on the same day. It would seem that the 6th "Yom" is longer than one day.

Ross pretty much refutes the idea of a global deluge (flood) which covered all of the Earth's land mass. I was really hoping that he would explain how water covered the highest peaks and where that water is today. He simply states that there was a "flood." Ross also takes the view that we can't know how long the genealogy of human creation is - in other words, rather the the human genealogy being 10,000 or so years, it could be 50,000 years, which ties neatly into genetic studies showing a common human male ancestor to all humans and a common human female ancestor to all humans - thus "Adam and Eve."

Some other key elements of his theory and a timeline of those events as he reads them are as follows. Ross states:

The universe is 13.8 billion years old.
Oldest Earth rocks are 4.6 billion years old.
Each of the 6 "Yom's" (Hebrew) is hundreds of millions of years long.
Genesis 1:1 "God Created" means the Big Bang.
The Big Bang created an "ordered" universe, not one of chaos.
Yom/Day 1, the Spirit brooded over the surface of the waters creating plankton and micro-organisms in the oceans. (Millions of years.) Clouds shrouded the visible sun and stars. Death and decay existed right from the beginning of creation, not only after Adam's fall from grace.
Yom/Day 2 - The hydrological cycle of rain begins. (Clouds still shroud the visible sun and stars.)
Yom/Day 3 - Volcanic/tectonic activity produces land, God "creates" plan life on land, each plant according to its "Order" or "Kind." (Plant Orders/Families spontaneously differentiate into "Species" in a process called differentiation or "micro-evolution" - completely separate from macro-evolution or the creation of new genes or new chromosomes with new function. Insects, necessary for pollination , were also created in Yom 3.
Yom/Day 4 - The skies clear and the "Lights" in the sky appear to the Earth. The sun, moon and starts were already created on Yom/Day 1 lasting billions of years; the clear sunlight now shines through the haze or clouds. (See Job 38:8-9)
Yom/Day 5 - Birds are created, but before that God would have created amphibians and reptiles (not mentioned). Millions of years earlier in this Yom, ancient creatures and dinosaurs were created, and extincted, and the "beasts" created refer to four-footed animals closer to Man's age. This Yom lasted hundreds of millions of years."
Yom/Day 6 - "Livestock" are created, modern creatures slightly before Man's creation. Then, late in the 6th Yom, Man is created. Adam may have existed for years before the creation of Eve. Then, when Eve was created, that was God's last creation - God "rested" from creation in the 7th Yom, which is today.
Yom/Day 7 - We are presently in the 7th Yom, where God is no longer creating. Notice, there is no "evening or morning" to the 7th Yom/Day. We are still in the 7th Yom.

This explains why no new "Orders or Families" of creatures is found being created in our age, but we are losing tens of thousands of species. God has ceased from creating during our Yom/age. This explains why millions of creatures were created during the "Cambrian" era and nothing is being created now.

Ross posits that death and decay have always existed. Romans 8:18-25 never states that death and decay entered the universe after Adam and Eve's fall, but rather it can be read that from the beginning of creation the universe was subject to death and decay, and entropy - or the winding down, decay, of the universe. The Bible and science agree that there was a beginning, that the universe was "spread out" (expanding), that the universe is decaying (slowly burning out) and that the universe will one day burn out. Ross agrees that God will recreate a universe and Earth one day which will be incorruptible. When Adam and Eve sinned, "they" became more limited, not the Earth.

Ross does a relatively weak job of refuting macro-evolution. There are much better books out there demonstrating that "information can only come from information." Simply stated, not new genes or chromosomes have ever been observed as created which possess new function. That point is KEY. It has NEVER been observed. Information and function can only come from information. Ross correctly points out that genetic mutations are more destructive than constructive at a ratio of 10,000 to 1. In other words, all life is devolving rather than evolving. No new organ or function is ever observed as created from random mutation; and if it is - I challenge the scientific community to present even a single example. Under controlled circumstances, scientist were able to reproduce bacteria tens of thousands of times and get it to survive on a different substrate - but that didn't prove anything related to macro-evolution. It was a micro-evolutionary change along existing chromosomes and genes - it was differentiation (micro-evolution), a natural process. Thus, macro-evolution - new genes or new chromosomes with a new organ or new function - is not happening. This agrees with what Hugh Ross writes that all creation ceased tens of thousands of years ago with the creation of Eve. Presently, God is resting from creating.

This also explains why of an estimated 100,000,000 (100 million) species thought to have existed throughout our planet's history, only 10,000,000 (10 million) exist today. No new "Orders or Families" are being created today nor have any been observed in the geologic record for the past 50,000 to 100,000 years.

Thus, hominids were "created" hundreds of thousands of years ago and went extinct. Ross posits that God was placing fear in animals in preparation for humans. Evolutionary scientists speculate that the human gene 2 is a fusion of two ape-like genes, thus explaining why humans posses 23 pairs chromosomes while all primates have 24 pairs of chromosomes. This is impossible since a chromosomal defect would be lethal to the offspring or render it severely impaired - not improved. Similar DNA only proves a similar design, not evolution. Humans and chimps share 95% of their DNA in common. But what does that prove since humans and rats share 60% of their DNA in common? The similar DNA is only showing a similar design by the Divine Creator.

Ross juggles Bible facts around regarding the duration of the genealogies of Adam. By showing some gaps in the genealogy (which do exist), he exptrapolates that the human genealogy may go back 50,000 years or longer since the creation of Adam. Ross than ties in the genetic studies of humans showing a single common male and female ancestor to all humans back some tens of thousands of years. He further ties in the explosion of artistic, tool making, clothing, agricultural and spiritual development of man indicating a conscience, thus making us fully human.

I was hoping that he would scientifically demonstrate that the flood was somehow universal, covering all of the Earth's land mass, but to the contrary, he uses sound science to prove an old earth and old universe and by looking at snow ring layers in Greenland and tying the accuracy of those snow rings in with known volcanic eruptions, he proves that the Greenland ice cap has not melted completely in 800,000 years. He also demonstrates some living plants have been continuously alive for up to 15,000 years. In doing so, he refutes the concept of a global flood. He instead states that there was a flood around 30,000 years ago using his lengthy genealogy of Adam and Eve, but makes no attempt to explain the flood as outlined in Genesis 6. That was disappointing.

Hugh Ross' "A Matter of Days" is a very sound scientific work worthy of reading. He paints the most complete picture of "Progressive Creationism" which I have read. His refutation of macro-evolution is weak, while there is considerable evidence that it is not happening. We may have to wait until heaven to fully understand the flood event, whether local or global.

For a Six-Days creation account, I recommend "Evolution - The Greatest Deception in Modern History: Scientific Evidence for Divine Creation" by Roger G. Gallop Ph.D.
Esta avaliação foi considerada útil por 1 de 1 pessoa(s):
5.0 de 5 estrelas A Book For Non-Believers & Believers 22 de outubro de 2016
Por Scotsman - Publicada na Amazon.com
Formato: eBook Kindle Compra verificada
Mr. Ross does an excellent job in his presentation of his arguments. He has his feet firmly planted in both theology and the sciences. I have studied a few of the sciences for most of my life. I became a born again Christian 18 months ago. I always had difficulty with the 6 day creation. He does an excellent job of presenting his case for an ancient universe and unraveling the puzzle.
Esta avaliação foi considerada útil por 42 de 43 pessoa(s):
5.0 de 5 estrelas The Authoritive Guide on the "Creation-Date" Issue 17 de março de 2015
Por OtherWorlds&Wisdom - Publicada na Amazon.com
Formato: eBook Kindle
For decades, young-earth creationists have claimed their interpretation was the "literal" one. They told us all of science was wrong and to ignore the contradictions and problems of their theory. Many Christians have struggled over this science vs. Bible situation the young-earthers have contributed to with, ironically, skeptics. Skeptics have pointed to young-earthism as a reasons not to trust the Bible and used it to stereotype all Christians. While the young-earth leadership has resorted to emotionalism, name-calling and anything but scholarship, Hugh Ross has been a rational voice. This second edition of A Matter of Days (with grew out of his previous book, Creation and Time), is the most complete and accessible book on this subject. Detailed, well-researched, not hostile and decisive, this book all who wish to really see how the Bible and science agree, or those seeking answers, must read. If you have been told myths like "old-earthism equals evolution" or "old-earthism isn't literal" or "old-earth compromises this or that" you'll find out why those myths couldn't be further from the truth. Hugh Ross has spent decades equipping Christians and answering skeptics on issues of science in a scholarly and readable fashion that should set the example for all such research. See also Peril in Paradise: Theology, Science, and the Age of the Earth, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, Navigating Genesis and A New Look at an Old Earth.
Esta avaliação foi considerada útil por 4 de 5 pessoa(s):
5.0 de 5 estrelas Discussing the War between Young-Universe Creationists and Big Bang Theorists. 12 de abril de 2016
Por Mark Me - Publicada na Amazon.com
Formato: eBook Kindle Compra verificada
Young-Earth Creationists vs. The Big Bang Theory:

The next thing that tends to come to mind whenever I hear the word "Creationist" is the Young-Earth Creationists who choose to believe that God put the universe and our earth together in SIX of our twenty-four hour days. I don't buy it. I have been an amateur astronomer and cosmologist ALL of my life. I have chosen to believe that the Speed of Light is a good and accurate way to measure the age of this universe. I prefer the timing of events as presented to us by Gerald Schroeder in his book, "The Science of God", which is based upon Big Bang Cosmology. That book is genius, actually! It is upon that book that I have nailed my shingle, where the age of this universe is concerned. I have chosen to believe that the Big Bang really happened. I was very impressed by that book. I am not alone.

Genesis 1: 1 says that our universe had a beginning.

Quote:

According to the standard expanding universe model, the universe begins in a state of infinite density and infinite temperature — the big bang singularity.

Ross, Hugh. The Fingerprint of God: Recent Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Unmistakable Identity of the Creator (Kindle 1298-1299).

I have rejected the Young-Earth Creationists, because their theories, ideas, interpretations of the Bible, and teachings don't always match well with Science. I prefer the Science over the sophistry.

Quote:

Darwinism, and virtually all the “isms” emanating from the eighteenth to twentieth century philosophies are built upon the assumption, the incorrect assumption, that the universe is infinite. The singularity has brought us face to face with the cause — or Causer — beyond/behind/before the universe and all that it contains, including life itself.

According to the centuries-old cosmological argument for God’s existence,

1. everything that begins to exist must have a cause of its existence;
2. the universe began to exist (a scientifically verifiable fact); therefore, the universe must have a cause of its existence.

Ross, Hugh. The Fingerprint of God: Recent Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Unmistakable Identity of the Creator (Kindle 603-609).

The Kalam Cosmological Argument IS the most-convincing, bullet-proof, unassailable, and incontrovertible philosophical proof of God's existence that the philosophers have ever created, BUT ONLY if the premises and conclusions are solidly backed by the Scientific Evidence associated with the Big Bang event and the starting point of this universe. Once again, it is not the philosophies of men that prove God's existence, but the Scientific Evidence instead.

I am a scientist, not a Creationist!

Radiometric Dating:

Along with the word "Creationist" comes to mind Radiometric Dating and the book "Thousands Not Billions" by Dr. Don DeYoung. As discussed in that book, the RATE team did something that had never been done before -- they decided to do Carbon 14 dating on coal and diamonds. You see, coal and diamonds are supposed to be so old that there should be NO Carbon 14 whatsoever found within them. During their scientific research, coal samples that were sent in for Radiometric Dating using conventional dating methods for coal came back with the expected 55 million year age for Cenozoic coal, 65 million year age for Mesozoic coal, and 311 million year age for Paleozoic coal. The exact same coal samples ALL had some residual Carbon 14 within them! Since Carbon 14 has a half life of 5,730 years, the oldest that those coal samples could be according to Carbon 14 dating is 57,300 years. That's a huge monumental fudge factor or margin of error!

The difference between the 311 million years of conventional Radiometric Dating Methods and the outside 57,300 years from the Carbon 14 Dating Method is 5427 times; and, the Carbon 14 Dating done on those "311 million year old rocks" told them that those rocks were younger than 57,300 years of age, often much younger. Can you picture it? We are NOT talking about a wiggle room of ten times, but a wiggle room of 10,000 times! That's a HUGE fudge factor, because those coal samples from the Paleozoic can't be both 311 million years old and 31,100 years old at the same time! Something is drastically wrong with Radiometric Dating if its margin of error is 10,000 times.

How is that possible? It's because Radiometric Dating is logarithmic in nature. If you happen to get a sample of the rock that has a little less radioactive isotopes in it than is typical, that automatically increases the age of the rock ten-fold. If you guess wrong on one of the assumptions or premises, that automatically multiplies the age of that rock by a factor of 10. Guess wrong on two of the premises, and that increases the age of the rock 100 times. Guess wrong on three of the premises, and that increases the age of the rock 1,000 times. You get the picture! Some of the scientists doing Radiometric Dating are motivated and/or paid to guess wrong or to guess to the extreme when it comes to the premises and assumptions upon which Radiometric Dating is based. Furthermore, different methods of Radiometric Dating typically produce vastly different results for the very same rocks!

There is a ton of wiggle room built into the premises and assumptions upon which Radiometric Dating is based. With conventional Radiometric Dating that is typically done in any science lab, they start with the conclusion that they want a particular rock to be millions or billions of years old, and then they start tweaking the different assumptions or premises upon which Radiometric Dating is based until they start getting the results that they want! They have been told that the coal samples are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old, and then they adjust the premises and methodologies upon which that particular Radiometric Dating method rests until their samples of coal are indeed producing ages which are in fact hundreds of millions of years old! Then they standardize on that particular methodology so that from there on forward, any Radiometric Dating that they do with their standardized method will produce the same exact old ages. There is other cheating and forgery that goes on as well; but, they really don't have to cheat with the samples if they can simply adjust the assumptions and premises so as to produce the old ages that their clients want them to produce.

Moral of the story? Radiometric Dating is an extremely inaccurate science, with lots of wiggle room and huge fudge factors as a matter of course! Each Radiometric Dating method produces completely different results! The very same rock can clock in as 311,000,000 years old and 3,110 years old depending upon which Radiometric Dating Method that you choose to use. Can you see the problem? Both ages can't be right, and the fudge factor is 100,000 times! There are people out there who are willing to stake their lives and bet their salvation on the ancient Radiometric Ages that the Darwinists and Evolutionists feed to them. I am NOT one of them.

The ironic and weird thing is that you have Evolutionary Scientists taking rocks to the people who use Radiometric Methods that produce ages in the millions or billions of years, yet the Young Earth Creationists using Carbon 14 dating are getting ages anywhere from 31,100 years old to 57,300 years old from the very same rocks! However, the Young Earth Creationists are NOT satisfied with those 57,300 year old rocks, so they adjust and tweak the premises in order to make those very same rocks only 5,730 years old or 3,110 years old, so as to fit them into the Biblical time scale. Or, the Young Earth Creationists develop new and different Radiometric Dating Methods that actually produce the 5,000 year old ages for these rocks as a matter of course!

Using Helium Retention, the RATE team was getting 5,000 year old ages for Zircons that clocked in as being 1.5 billion years old using the conventional dating methods that the Evolutionists and Darwinists typically use. Imagine it! That's a fudge factor of 300,000 times!! YIKES! The same rock can't be both 5,000 years old and 1.5 billion years old, but that's what the Radiometric Dating is telling us, depending upon with Method you choose to use to date that rock! So, which age is the correct age for the Zircons -- 5,000 years or 1.5 billion years? Only God knows! If I were to make a guess, I would say that the true age for the rock is somewhere between the two extremes! Pick anything you want for an age, and you will be able to find someone to testify that it is scientifically accurate. You don't want to bet your life or your salvation on Radiometric Dating, because the Devil really is in the details where this one is concerned!

Now, here's the rub! The Young Earth Creationists are sticking with the 5,000 years as the age of those Zircons; whereas, the Evolutionists will continue to insist that the very same Zircons are in fact 1.5 billion years old! The Young Earth Creationists are highly motivated to produce extremely young ages for the rocks, so they do. The Evolutionists and Darwinists are highly motivated to produce extremely old ages for the very same rocks, so they do! And, here you have the beauties and wonders of Radiometric Dating summed-up into a nice little package! With Radiometric Dating, you can have any age you want, as long as you are willing to pay for the right lab and the right method which will produce the results that you want!

I'm simply NOT that kind of Creationist! I am a scientist, not a Darwinist! Science and Darwinistic Creation are mutually exclusive in my book. Science and Darwinism contradict each other.

I Am Not a Young-Earth Creationist:

I do not believe that God created our earth in SIX of our days as we currently measure a 24-hour time period! I'm NOT that kind of Creationist! Once again, I simply do not buy it! First of all, I know that time is relative and flexible. I have read scriptures that have stated that a thousand years of our time is ONE DAY unto the Lord. If we were to run the creation of this earth according to that timescale or rate of conversion, then it took the Lord at least 6,000 of our years to create our earth. Also, it is clear to me that whenever we are dealing with the six days of creation in Genesis, we are only dealing with the creation of this earth, and NOT the creation of the whole universe. Furthermore, anyone who has really studied Genesis knows that Genesis Chapter One is talking about the spiritual creation of this earth, NOT the physical creation of this earth. Consequently, it could have indeed taken the Gods 6,000 of our years to accomplish the spiritual creation of our earth; but for all we know, the physical creation of this earth could have taken them 4.5 billion years. Therefore, I have no difficulty believing that the Big Bang that brought forth this universe happened 13.7 billion years ago, or 13.8 billion years ago, or 15 billion years ago, or 20 billion years ago -- depending upon which number is currently in vogue! So, I'm really not a Young Earth Creationist either!

I guess I really do believe that the Hubble Space Telescope is looking back 13.8 billion years in time.

Furthermore, many of the Young Earth Creationists believe that the Big Bang never happened and that this universe is eternal and has always existed. I don't buy that one either. Other Young Earth Creationists have chosen to believe that our universe came into existence ONLY 6,000 years ago! I don't buy it!

The idea that the Big Bang never happened and that our universe is eternal is presented in great detail within the book, "Dismantling the Big Bang" by John Hartnett PhD, and within his article "Exposing the Big Bang's Fatal Flaws" which is found in the book, "Evolution's Achilles' Heels". Dr. John Hartnett's article, "Exposing the Big Bang's Fatal Flaws", is the Reader's Digest version of his book "Dismantling the Big Bang". My hard-copy of "Exposing the Big Bang's Fatal Flaws" is painted red with notes in the margins where I am dismantling and debunking his theories and ideas. Clearly, I never bought it -- his idea that the Big Bang never happened and that our universe is of an infinite age!

The annoying bit when it comes to these Young Earth Creationists is that they can't seem to make up their minds whether the age of this universe is infinite or the age of this universe is ONLY 6,000 years. There even seems to be some of that going on within Dr. Hartnett's writings. His only goal is to debunk or dismantle the Big Bang. It doesn't seem to matter to him which method he uses to do so.

I don't buy it!

If this universe really were of an infinite age already, we would all be sitting at heat death right now with maximum entropy! We wouldn't exist! Someone had to remove ALL of that entropy 13.8 billion years ago and set everything in motion, or we would not exist here and now! It would take quite a scientist to do so, possibly the ULTIMATE SCIENTIST! It really doesn't matter to me if the Big Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago or not; but, I think it did. What does matter to me is that someone with God-like powers was able to remove all of the entropy from this universe 13.8 billion years ago! The entropy had to be removed and this universe reborn, or we would not exist here and now. The age of our universe may be 13.8 billion years old, or it may be of an infinite age; but either way, someone had to remove all of the entropy 13.8 billion years ago and set everything in motion in order for us to exist. I vote for the Biblical God, because He says that He is the one who did it!

In contrast, the idea that our universe is only 6,000 years old brings a lot of really weird ideas into existencel. For example, if you were to travel 6,000 light years from our earth, you would hit the edge of our universe and discover that it is a picture screen or a planetarium with stars and galaxies painted onto it so as to make our universe look as if it is really 13.8 billion years old -- all perfectly focused so that everything looks just right through the Hubble Space Telescope only 6,000 light years away. Also, if our universe is only 6,000 years old, you run into major conceptual problems when astronomical measurements start telling you that our Milky Way Galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy appear to be 100,000 to 220,000 light years in diameter, respectively. Let your mind work on that for a while!

A 6,000 year old universe? I don't buy it! I'm simply NOT that kind of Creationist!

Quote:

While general relativity implies an age for the universe vastly beyond 6,000 years, it also implies that there is, indeed, a creation date. Expansion, coupled with deceleration, indicates a universe that is exploding outward from a point. In fact, through the equations of general relativity, we can trace that “explosion” backward to its origin, an instant when the entire physical universe burst forth from a single point of infinite density. That instant when the universe originated from a point of no size at all is called the singularity. No scientific model, no application of the laws of physics, can describe what happens before it. Somehow, from beyond itself the universe came to be. It began. It began a limited time ago. It is finite, not infinite.

Ross, Hugh. The Fingerprint of God: Recent Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Unmistakable Identity of the Creator (Kindle 597-603).

On the one hand, Dr. John Hartnett classifies himself as a Young Earth Creationist, and he is telling me that the Big Bang never happened and/or our universe is only 6,000 years old. On the other hand, I have at least half a dozen books from Dr. Hugh Ross with a PhD in astronomy, in which he successfully and impressively reconciles the Big Bang Theory and the ancient age of this universe with the Bible itself.

I have rejected the Young-Earth Creationists, because their theories, ideas, interpretations of the Bible, and teachings don't always match well with Science. I prefer the Science over the sophistry.

Quote:
The implications can only be described as monumental. Atheism, Darwinism, and virtually all the “isms” emanating from the eighteenth to twentieth century philosophies are built upon the assumption, the incorrect assumption, that the universe is infinite. The singularity has brought us face to face with the cause — or Causer — beyond/behind/before the universe and all that it contains, including life itself.

According to the centuries-old cosmological argument for God’s existence,
1. everything that begins to exist must have a cause of its existence;
2. the universe began to exist (a scientifically verifiable fact); therefore, the universe must have a cause of its existence.

Ross, Hugh. The Fingerprint of God: Recent Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Unmistakable Identity of the Creator (Kindle 603-609).

The Kalam Cosmological Argument IS the most-convincing, bullet-proof, unassailable, and incontrovertible philosophical proof of God's existence that the philosophers have ever created, BUT ONLY if the premises and conclusions are solidly backed by the Scientific Evidence associated with the Big Bang event and the starting point of this universe. Once again, it is not the philosophies of men that prove God's existence, but the Scientific Evidence instead.

I am a scientist, not a Creationist! I am a scientist, not a Darwinist! Science and Darwinistic Creation are mutually exclusive in my book. Science and Darwinism contradict each other. I am not an Evolutionary Creationist. Young-Earth Creationism also contradicts Science, so I am not that type of Creationist, either.

If the war between the Young-Earth (or Young-Universe) Creationists and the Big Bang Theorists interests you, the book "A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy" by Hugh Ross is the best book on the subject that I have found so far. This book goes into the history of the controversy and also presents the Scientific point of view.
click to open popover

Onde está meu pedido?

Frete e devoluções

Precisa de ajuda?