Questions + Comments

Contacting Us

If you wish to contact us, you can either leave a comment on a post or you can email us at sixdayscience – [at] – gmail – [dot] – com. Unless you specifically request otherwise, emails sent to this address (or to any of the contributors’ personal/work email addresses) may be shared or published on this blog for educational/illustrative purposes. We typically keep senders’ email addresses and identities anonymous.

If you have a question you’d like us to address, we recommend following these guidelines:

  • Read the FAQs to see if your question has already been addressed.
  • Read through the archived posts to see if your question has already been addressed.
  • Keep your message brief and restrict your commentary to just one or two main points you’d like to have us address. Epic-length messages with long lists of detailed criticisms are unlikely to get a response.
  • If you are a young earth creationist, please keep in mind that we have encountered all of the arguments in favor of your view, and remain unconvinced. It is unlikely you will be able to offer any information that will change our minds.

—–

Rules for Commenting on the Blog

You are welcome to join in the discussion as long as you follow these rules:

  • Read the FAQs first.
  • Be civil.
  • Some of our readers are kids, so keep it PG-rated.
  • Stay on topic.
  • Support your assertions.
  • Answer direct questions when you are asked by a blog host or by one of the other commenters.

If you do not follow these rules, we may delete your comments and/or prevent you from commenting here again. These rules are subject to change at any time and are implemented solely at our discretion.

Please keep in mind that while we do read all comments and emails, it’s not always possible to respond to each one.

51 thoughts on “Questions + Comments

  1. I REALLY enjoyed your slide show. It shows how brilliant you truly are and introduces concepts I’d never heard before. But I don’t understand the need to make naturalistic compromises to the clear meaning of the Bible so it will agree with “science” (1 Tim 6:20), when, for a Christian, the reverse should always be true. Who says the sun was actually created along with light on Day 1? Not the Bible. Why must “you” (from here on, when I say “you” I mean the general “you” of the scientific community, not you personally) assume an infinite God “needed” the sun to make light, thus moving the creation of the Sun from Day 4 to Day 1—rewriting God-breathed scripture? I enjoyed your explanation of gravity and time stretching, when it comes the the expanding universe (also mentioned in Isaiah (40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 51:13), Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Zechariah 12:1, Jeremiah 10:12 and 51:15) but when it comes to pre-human hominids before Adam I’m afraid you are really going off the rails. In Matt 19 Jesus said Adam was created “at the beginning,” not billions of years after the beginning. Billions of years of death and disease BEFORE Adam’s Fall creates enormous theological problems with the very need for any Savior whatsoever. (Rom. 5:12) Unless I misunderstand, you also seem to accept the truth of evolution without ANY evidence of any kind ANYWHERE of it having occurred while mountains of genetic, paleontological, mathematic, and biological evidence—and even logic itself (Existence of Self-regulatory systems in the human body, etc.)—shows the impossibility of it ever occurring. And on the Big Bang: wouldn’t God’s speaking the physical universe into existence in an instant leave the same evidence as the uncaused explosion of some self-existent primordial atom assumed by the Big Bang? Thanks!

  2. Who says the sun was actually created along with light on Day 1? Not the Bible. Why must “you” (from here on, when I say “you” I mean the general “you” of the scientific community, not you personally) assume an infinite God “needed” the sun to make light, thus moving the creation of the Sun from Day 4 to Day 1—rewriting God-breathed scripture?

    I’m glad you liked the slideshow, Ken, but you are confused on this point. I did not claim the Sun was made on Day 1, but on Day 4. The light that was made on Day 1 is the divine light of the creation event, the light that was created from nothing, and that still pervades the universe.

    In Matt 19 Jesus said Adam was created “at the beginning,” not billions of years after the beginning. Billions of years of death and disease BEFORE Adam’s Fall creates enormous theological problems with the very need for any Savior whatsoever.

    It doesn’t create problems. As Hugh Ross reminds us, the first fall was Satan’s, not mankind’s. God knew when Satan rebelled that there would be need for man’s redemption. The gradual winding down of the universe — what is commonly described by the second law of thermodynamics — was mercifully built into creation so that a fallen world would not last forever. Thus, disease and physical death is necessary. Gerald Schroeder carefully explains that Genesis refers to the spiritual death, not physical death, that is brought about by Adam’s fall.

    Unless I misunderstand, you also seem to accept the truth of evolution…

    Darwinian evolution? No, I don’t. See the FAQs for this website.

    And on the Big Bang: wouldn’t God’s speaking the physical universe into existence in an instant leave the same evidence as the uncaused explosion of some self-existent primordial atom assumed by the Big Bang?

    Yes. However, I have to point out that regardless of what someone believes about who or what created the universe, the universe cannot be uncaused — anything that begins to exist requires a transcendent cause.

  3. Thank you for your response. As brilliant as you are and as much as I enjoyed your explanations, I find it hard that I find that I must disagree with you. Very sad to hear you referring to Hugh Ross as an authority whom you trust in these matters. Hugh Ross believes in a local flood—which is in total disagreement with the Bible—and which would mean that God lied when he said ALL flesh died (Gen. 7:21-22.) God also lied when he said he would never send another similar flood (Gen 9:11) since thousands of cataclysmic local floods have occurred since then. Dr. Ross believes in millions of years of death before Adam which implies that death is natural and not the penalty for sin and that there was no effect on the natural world from man’s sin either. However the Bible CLEARLY disagrees with Dr. Ross on those points. Rom 5: 12-15 says: Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— 13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! And Rom 8: 20-22 show that the fall DID effect the earth as well. Hugh Ross does believe the sun was created long before and only “became visible” on the 4th day…which is what I thought you wrote as well. I apologize if I misread that part. Dr. Ross has concocted a variety of “creative” explanations and inventions trying to fit the Bible into the conventional scientific “wisdom” of today when observational science already fits nicely into what the Bible says. In other words Dr. Ross makes Science the authority, rather than the Bible. That is is exactly what the Catholic church did when opposing Galileo’s discoveries concerning geocentrism (which is nowhere taught in the Bible.) The church defended the conventional scientific viewpoint in spite of Galileo’s observational science. Dr. Ross’ views are neither scriptural, nor observational. My scientific knowledge is infinitesimally small compared to yours however when it comes to the Bible, I am not so uninformed. Dr. Ross is not someone you should follow. He is misleading you into error. (1 Tim 6:20 “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.” I will read more of the remarkable information on your site about Time and try to understand it. Thanks, and blessings to you.

  4. Ken,

    I agree with Ross that the flood in Noah was worldwide, but not global. The language in scripture strongly implies that, and it makes sense in terms of the reason for the flood. Why would God kill penguins in Antarctica for the sins of people in Mesopotamia? It makes no sense.

    I agree with both Ross’ and Schroeder’s interpretation that only spiritual death was brought about by the fall of Adam. This is strongly implied in scripture, and it also makes more sense than physical death.

    I don’t agree with everything Ross says. I believe he is right about the flood, especially as it is the same position Schroeder takes. Schroeder is a very trustworthy source.

  5. Hello,

    I am a Christian, my Brother is a Humanist Atheist scientist. I posted your slide show on facebook and this was his comment.

    “But sadly wrong sis. I got to about slide 50 or so when I saw the flaw in the argument. In order for a god to experience relativistic effects such as time dilation, the god would need to be inside the universe. Therefore the universe must already have existed, and no need for a god to have created it. If a god could observe from outside the universe, then everything would look the same relative to the god, so no relativistic effects, so 6 day creation not possible.

    Science is exploring the big bang. Only this week there’s tantalising clues that multiple universes may be real and observable, which if true means ours is just one of an infinite number. That’s the really amazing fact, if it turns out to be true, and science will be able to categorically explain the big bang from purely natural, innevitable causes. That’s the real miracle…”

    I was just wondering your thoughts on his comment?

  6. Thank you for your thoughtful and patient responses to a laymen. I enjoy such discussions. How could a flood be global, but not worldwide? Sounds like “local.” Don’t geologists tell us that the world’s land masses were once all connected? The Biblical model doesn’t negate that view. The Bible describes a situation that would have been more temperate everywhere. After the flood the climate was changed, so Antarctica as we know it was quite possibly not even there until after the Flood. I have to disagree with Dr. Ross’ description of the Flood because the Bible describes a global flood. Geologic evidence supports a global flood since there are layers of the same sedimentary rock containing the same fossils that can be traced from continent to continent. There are even sedimentary rocks at the top of Everest. And why would Noah need to take 120 years to build a gigantic ark to save animal species that would survive anyway just a few hundred miles away? In fact in 120 years Noah and his family could have just walked to the opposite side of the planet. Can you tell me where in scripture does it “strongly imply” that “only spiritual death” was the result of Adam’s fall? In the pertinent verse Genesis 2:17 I find the Hebrew word for die is “muwth” (Strong’s H4191) and it is used 424 times to mean dying a physical death, 130 times to be physically dead, 100 times be be slain, etc. nowhere does it imply a “spiritual death.” So I am wondering where (and why) they came up with that “implication.”

  7. Teresa,

    Your brother has not understood the argument. God does not experience the time dilation, we do.

    As for the multiverse “evidence,” it’s so silly I hardly know what to say. It makes me very sad that this is the direction physical science is taking. There is no way to distinguish between a multiverse or any other speculative notion about how the universe began on the basis of the evidence presented. “If it turns out to be true…” ? How would we ever know? We won’t. It’s impossible to observe anything that exists beyond the universe, which is why we will NEVER be able to “categorically explain the big bang from purely natural, innevitable causes” or any other causes for that matter. Scientists have no more advantage than theologians in this regard.

    I recommend that your brother reads this interview with eminent physicist George F.R. Ellis, who is dismissive of the multiverse hypothesis for very sound reasons.

  8. Ken,

    You ask good questions that are entirely reasonable. I’ll do my best to address them.

    How could a flood be global, but not worldwide? Sounds like “local.”

    Did you mean to ask how it could be worldwide but not global? Hugh Ross has said quite a bit on this topic, so rather than rehash that, I recommend you read his explanation including scriptural references.

    Gerald Schroeder, who is adept at extracting meaning from subtle differences in the ancient Hebrew, notes that the words commonly translated as “earth” in Genesis — aretz and adamah — can also refer to local environs. For example, in Genesis 4:14, Cain is described as having been banished “from the face of the aretz.” Since, as Schroeder points out, Cain didn’t go to sea and wasn’t carried off to Mars, aretz in this context must have referred to a local region.

    Don’t geologists tell us that the world’s land masses were once all connected?

    Yes, in a supercontinent referred to as Pangea.

    I have to admit, that’s a novel approach to reconciling the geological record with scripture. However, Pangea existed hundreds of millions of years ago, long before the flood took place.

    And why would Noah need to take 120 years to build a gigantic ark to save animal species that would survive anyway just a few hundred miles away?

    I’m not convinced scripture says Noah built the ark for 120 years. Also, the flood may well have extended beyond Mesopotamia to include the entire Persian Gulf area and southern Arabia.

    Can you tell me where in scripture does it “strongly imply” that “only spiritual death” was the result of Adam’s fall?

    After being told, “on the day that you eat [the forbidden fruit] you shall surely die,” (emphasis added) and then eating the fruit, Adam lives for another 930 years. So it cannot have been a physical death. As punishment, he and Eve are thrown out of Eden, and God’s face is hidden from them. It’s a spiritual death, which is a far worse punishment than physical death. I’m posting an article on this tomorrow.

  9. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

    It seems, you are being inconsistent in your explanations. In EVERY other instance in the Bible, a day, yom, with a number (like Gen 1) ALWAYS refers to a literal 24-hour day. But in THIS instance in Gen 2:17 yom without a number (which CAN mean a period of time) you say MUST mean a literal 24-hour day.

    I submit that on the day that Adam sinned he was “sentenced” to die, since he was then barred from the Tree of Life (Gen 3:21) and forced to live out his days in a fallen world where people now would eventually die. And (this is only an unformed speculation as it just came into my mind. I will think more on this.) Adam was a sinner—like us—who needed a Savior who would be his descendant -(Gen 3:15) Though a sinner, am not sure we can definitively say Adam was “Spiritually Dead.” Spiritual death is the resulting condition of one not submitted to God, who rejects His offer of Salvation. As a sinner I WAS spiritually dead, but as a believer in Christ I am now alive (Eph.2 4-6) IMHO Adam was still a Believer. I don’t see him rejecting God outright. He had SEEN and walked with God! Obviously Adam taught his sons to worship and obey the True and Living God or his descendants like Abel, Enoch, and Noah would not have known of Him. Adam’s spiritual condition could very likely have been like that of any Old Testament saint, none of whom I would consider “spiritually dead.” I am having lunch with some pastors on Thursday. Maybe I’ll ask them what they think of my “speculation.”

    And again from above: In the pertinent verse Genesis 2:17 I find the Hebrew word for die is “muwth” (Strong’s H4191) and it is used 424 times to mean dying a physical death, 130 times to be physically dead, 100 times be be slain, etc. nowhere does it imply a “spiritual death.” So I am wondering where (and why) they came up with the “implication” that only spiritual death was the result?

    How does Cain’s banishment from a local region equate with the Global flood described? “ALL the high hills EVERYWHERE under the sky were covered Gen 7:19 (and geologic evidence supports this)
    7:23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the land; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.” (Your Penguins were either on the ark, or were not considered land creatures, since they could easily exist without dry land for a year) In addition, God’s Rainbow Covenant would be invalidated by a regional flood since many regional floods have happened since then—which would make God a liar.

    However long it took Noah and his sons to build a gigantic ark, it still took a looooong time—20 years? 30? 50? 75? Long enough that those animals coming from everywhere could have easily escaped any regional flood by simply leaving the area. God could have instructed Noah to build a much smaller ark since a huge ark would be unnecessary.

    You are committed to an Earth that’s 100’s of millions of years old? That is speculation. Have you heard of the Faint Young Sun Paradox? Do you have a solution supported by observational science? If the Earth is only 1,000’s of years old, there is NO problem.

    Whatever the nature of time or light way out in the universe, I see no reason to speculate that the Earth (or creation) itself is millions of years old. There is no fossil evidence that there were hominids before Adam (lots of counterfeit evidence however.) There is worldwide evidence of a global deluge. Everything we observe fits nicely inside what scripture says. It seems to me if one denies what the Bible says is true only then does one need other, ever-more-complicated explanations to try and make things fit. I will defer to scripture before I will defer to the speculations of men.

    I did not intend my response to be this long. Sorry.

    Have a nice week. I will read your latest article.

    I can’t find evidence to know for sure, so I’ll ask: is Gerald Schroeder a Believer?

  10. Things can be misunderstood in writing, especially amateur writing like mine. I don’t want any misunderstanding. I am enjoying this conversation. Please never assume I am being condescending (like I could be to someone like you) or angry. I am just asking questions and making statements and trying to do so without accusations or assumptions attached. However it might appear, please assume I’m being nice—because I am!

  11. In EVERY other instance in the Bible, a day, yom, with a number (like Gen 1) ALWAYS refers to a literal 24-hour day. But in THIS instance in Gen 2:17 yom without a number (which CAN mean a period of time) you say MUST mean a literal 24-hour day.

    Did you view my slideshow? In it, I explain Schroeder’s model, in which a Genesis day is literally a 24-hour day, but only from God’s perspective.

    You are committed to an Earth that’s 100’s of millions of years old? That is speculation.

    The Earth is estimated to be billions of years old, not millions, and it’s not speculation.

    There are numerous insurmountable problems with young earth models, which is why I reject them.

    Schroeder is an Orthodox Jew and applied theologian who has devoted a lifetime to studying scripture.

  12. Thanks, Sara.

    There are numerous insurmountable problems with an OLD earth perspective which is why I reject them.

  13. Hi Sarah, I hope you had a wonderful Sunday.

    Both scientific and scriptural problems. But we can concentrate on the scientific problems for old Earth theories if you’d like. I mentioned “Faint Young Sun” above but there are many others

  14. Ken, thank you, but I am not interested in this discussion. Since I am committed to my position after many years of study, and I am confident you are not about to change your mind, there is no point in going over any of this.

    The purpose of the work I do is to help people who are genuinely interested in how their faith intersects with modern science.

  15. Very well. Thank you for your time.

    In parting, I just want to point out that I did read some of your posts. They are fascinating. You are a truly brilliant and creative thinker. It’s been a pleasure corresponding with you.

    You shared some of your opinions of problems with the Young Earth position. I’m sorry you were unwilling to also discuss the many scientific difficulties with an Old Earth position. I’m sure you could have made mince-meat out of me (or maybe not…we’ll never know) but it would have been interesting.

    Looking back at our conversations I just want to point something out that I noticed as we wrote: Over-and-over-and-over I defended my position using Scripture. In defending your position, over-and-over-and over again, you did NOT quote scripture, you quoted the opinions of mere men—the unfounded imaginations of Hugh Ross, and the Biblical interpretations of Gerald Schroeder. No doubt Dr. Schroeder is a brilliant man, whose scriptural interpretations you trust. But none-the-less with all his Biblical knowledge he remains, as far as I could see, an UN-believing Jew, who does not understand scripture well enough to recognize his own Jewish Messiah described therein! With THAT glaring omission, it SHOULD make you wonder: “What else is he missing?” Just how accurate could his Biblical interpretations really be if he misses Jesus (who believed in a literal Genesis,) who is the central focus of the entire Bible?

    I found your “mission statement” above very telling. It seems to be making scientific approbation that which gives peoples’ faith its substance. God didn’t need science or scientific laws to create, those were created as part of the Creation itself.

    As for me, I am genuinely interested in revealing how people’s faith is being eroded as it intersects daily with unprovable theories of modern science promoted as proven fact. 1 Tim 6:20-21

    Thanks again for the stimulating and challenging conversation. I learned a lot from you. Hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving and will have a Blessed Christmas. I’ll be praying for you.

    John 12: 42 – 43

    PS: Ask the atheists: Scientific laws are “logical ordered information.” How could such “information” be created by a Big Bang since information is not physical matter?

  16. Ken, I am working under a major deadline, and will address these comments when I’m free. I’ll probably devote a separate blog post to the response.

  17. That’s fine, thanks. No hurry…I wasn’t expecting you’d have time for a response at all after I tied you up for a week or so. I’ll be looking for the blog. Have a great week.

  18. You didn’t tie me up for a week. Most of my responses don’t take very long.

    This is the busy season at my research job, and I’m also involved in numerous other projects, so posting is going to be light for a while.

  19. Sarah,
    This captivated me– the presentation, the FAQ section, all these comments and feedback, as well as some of your thoughtful responses. This is mind-boggling and fascinating.

    The only thing that derailed my attention as I was doing my best to understand and absorb all the scientific details described is once you got to the creation of man in God’s image on slide 117. As I viewed the presentation with a critical perspective comparing it to Scripture, the question arose for me: how is it possible to present this while ignoring the specific details of Genesis Chapter 2:7, 2:18-24?

    Genesis 2 describes a created man formed from dust that God subsequently breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living creature. As I read that, I understand that to say there was a man formed out of dust in order to be created for the specific purpose of making us in His image. I agree that our spiritual identity is truly what defines us as in His image, but I stop at the notion that there were physical human beings identical to Adam beforehand that he simply ‘utilized’. As Genesis 2 documents the account, God didn’t go looking around to select some pre-soul ‘animalized’ version of a man that had already been created and arbitrarily deemed him fit to put a soul (the image of God) into him. That’s where your usage of 1Corinthians appears to misinterpret the creation of man, and I was glad that was brought to your attention and that you mentioned you would go back and study that.

    Before Adam, according to 2:18-24, the woman was created from Adam’s physical components as a man of flesh. So in regards to a species of unenlightened men roaming around before Adam, there wasn’t a female created yet to reproduce. In fact, it is not known from what I can tell in Genesis 2 how long of a gap in time before God deemed it necessary to provide Adam with a helpmate. However, once God did create her, Adam was clear:

    “20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[g] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,

    “This at last is bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
    she shall be called Woman,
    because she was taken out of Man.”[i]

    This seems to be the one huge hole in your presentation that I would greatly appreciate some consideration and response to, as I’ve done what you ask to seek out instances where another may have brought this up and had not sen this addressed initially.

    For reference,

    Genesis 2:5-24, ESV

    5 When no bush of the field[a] was yet in the land[b] and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, 6 and a mist[c] was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

    10 A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

    15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[d] of it you shall surely die.”

    18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for[e] him.” 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed[f] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[g] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,

    “This at last is bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
    she shall be called Woman,
    because she was taken out of Man.”[i]
    24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

  20. Looking back at our conversations I just want to point something out that I noticed as we wrote: Over-and-over-and-over I defended my position using Scripture. In defending your position, over-and-over-and over again, you did NOT quote scripture…

    This is neither an exam nor a professional journal in which I’m required to provide a citation for every statement I make. I have replied to you only twice in any substantial way, and neither response required scriptural references beyond what I gave you.

    …you quoted the opinions of mere men—the unfounded imaginations of Hugh Ross, and the Biblical interpretations of Gerald Schroeder.

    This is what I find frustrating about young earthers. You present your case as though it is based on the only legitimate interpretation of scripture. But in reality, what you are presenting is also the opinion of a mere man — namely, you. The Bible makes statements, but they are subject to interpretation based on language and context. Schroeder and Ross make their cases based on many of the same scriptures as you, but come to a different conclusion because they interpret them differently than you. I see no compelling reason for your interpretation to take priority over theirs.

    No doubt Dr. Schroeder is a brilliant man, whose scriptural interpretations you trust. But none-the-less with all his Biblical knowledge he remains, as far as I could see, an UN-believing Jew, who does not understand scripture well enough to recognize his own Jewish Messiah described therein! With THAT glaring omission, it SHOULD make you wonder: “What else is he missing?” Just how accurate could his Biblical interpretations really be if he misses Jesus (who believed in a literal Genesis,) who is the central focus of the entire Bible?

    You’re attempting to disqualify Schroeder’s expertise on the Old Testament on the basis of his Jewish faith, and I reject that. Atheists have made similar attempts to disqualify Schroeder, but on the basis of perceived scientific errors that are only tangentially related to his main argument. It’s telling that his critics rarely if ever attack the substance of his arguments.

    I found your “mission statement” above very telling. It seems to be making scientific approbation that which gives peoples’ faith its substance.

    That is a gross mischaracterization of what I do.

    God didn’t need science or scientific laws to create, those were created as part of the Creation itself.

    How do you know? On what scripture do you base this?

    As for me, I am genuinely interested in revealing how people’s faith is being eroded as it intersects daily with unprovable theories of modern science promoted as proven fact. 1 Tim 6:20-21

    That is exactly what I am attempting to counter with my ministry. From my experience interacting with university and high school students, I can tell you that while exposure to modern science can be a catalyst for crises of faith, it is not the problem.

    PS: Ask the atheists: Scientific laws are “logical ordered information.” How could such “information” be created by a Big Bang since information is not physical matter?

    I have never heard anyone refer to scientific laws as logical ordered information. What do you mean by this?

    Ken, why are you engaging me? You and I disagree so fundamentally, it’s not clear to me what you’re hoping to get out of this exchange.

  21. I did not see your response before I sent the previous note. I apologize if I am frustrating you with my questions.

    I am engaging you because I value and appreciate your intellectual accomplishments. I am engaging you because few intellectuals are willing to converse with the hoi polloi and I enjoy the discussion. Although observational science already fits neatly inside what scripture says without reinterpretation, I am engaging you because I am confused by the desire to make scripture fit into an “scientific mold” that eviscerates the authority of the Gospel message that has its foundation in Genesis.

    My hope is that you will see that scripture—and scientifically accurately—speaks clearly on its own.

    Here is an observation from Dr. Russell Humphreys on Dr. Shroeder’s unique “interpretation” of Gen. 1: “Dr. Schroeder also states that the basic Hebrew root word for “evening” is “chaos” and the basic Hebrew root word for “morning” is “order.” He cites no Hebrew scholar supporting his view, which appears to many scholars to be without foundation. The Hebrew word for “evening” is (‘ereb); it appears to have no relation to the word most scholars would expect for “chaos” (tohu). Similarly, the word for “morning” (boqer) has no discernible connection to the word we would expect for “order” (seder). Since Dr. Schroeder offers no details supporting his alleged Hebrew word relationships, readers should not take him seriously on this point. (In any case, even if there were a root word relationship, there are logical fallacies and dangers involved in using word roots to interpret the Bible, which have led people astray on many issues.)”

    “Proceeding with this argument nonetheless, Dr. Schroeder asserts that this shows the universe started with the chaos of the big bang and was later ordered by God. Does this then mean that each “day” started with chaos and ended with order? Did things go through a six “day” cycle of chaos-to-order-to-chaos-to-order?”

    There is more of this scientific critique on Shroeder’s time/expanding universe concept here:

    https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/gerald-schroeders-new-variation-on-the-day-age-theory-1/

    Have a Wonderful Christmas,

  22. If I haven’t offended you too severely, I was planning on asking you this question on another subject: From our point of view on the edge of the Milky Way, in which direction is the universe expanding, or is it expanding at the same rate in every direction?

  23. Ken, you’re not frustrating me with your questions. I just didn’t understand why you persisted with your questions, since I’ve already indicated I am unlikely to change my mind based on anything you’ve said.

    I’m not trying to make scripture fit into a scientific mold. The Belgic Confession says that both the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature reveal the character of God. How could it be otherwise? If God is the sovereign Creator of this universe, then a careful study of nature must reveal his character, and that study must be consistent with the written word of the Bible. By working to reconcile the two, we learn much more about God than we could by study of scripture or nature alone.

    Given what I’ve seen so far, you’re wasting your time if your intent is to convince me to interpret scripture in the manner you have suggested. For one thing, the references you cited are far from credible.

    Humphreys gets so much of the science completely wrong that I can’t take him seriously. I am certainly no expert in Hebrew, but he appears to be wrong about that, as well. Nahmanides, in his commentary on Genesis, says the following about Gen. 1:5:

    The beginning of the night is called erev [which also means “mingling”] because shapes of things appear confused in it, and the beginning of the day is called boker [which also means “examining”] because then a man can distinguish between various forms.

    Schroeder does not make up his claims out of thin air. Everything has a basis in centuries of biblical scholarship, in which he is well versed. Nahmanides’ commentary strongly implies the universe increasingly goes from confusion to order each day, just as Schroeder claims. I understood immediately that this meant each day progresses in the direction of more order. It’s unclear to me whether Humphreys, in his assessment that this implies some kind of cyclical process, is being deliberately obtuse or simply doesn’t understand, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s the latter.

    Ken Ham, on the other hand, I do not give the benefit of the doubt. I have watched him in debates, and I have read some of his material. He is observably intellectually dishonest and a fraud. I have absolutely zero respect for him. If that’s the best you’ve got, you are seriously wasting your time.

  24. No; there is no center to the universe as far as we can tell. The universe appears to be expanding the same way everywhere. An analogous way to think of this is to imagine drawing several dots on the surface of a balloon, each representing a galaxy. Don’t think about what’s inside the balloon, just think about the 2D surface, which represents the entirety of the universe. The first thing you notice is that there is no center to the surface of the balloon. Now imagine inflating the balloon to represent the expansion of the universe. No matter what dot-galaxy you choose as your reference point, all the other dot-galaxies on the surface of the balloon rush away from each other the same way.

  25. So the theory is that there is no “other side” or “other hemisphere” of the balloon? None-the-less if I am looking at the hemisphere of the balloon that is facing me. It is filled with dots expanding away from each other at relatively the same speed…from “my point of view?”

  26. This is why I sometimes hesitate to use the balloon analogy; because, even though I tell people not to consider the center of the balloon, they inevitably do. There are more complicated ways to think about it, but unless you have experience in cosmology, it’s usually more confusing than illuminating.

    The surface of the balloon is just an analogy to help you think about how space could be expanding without there being a center to the expansion. You can do a little experiment using dots drawn on a cut rubber band to see this for yourself. Google it if you’re interested.

  27. I would really love to meet you ! think your ministry is needed and the research you have done is amazing. I love science and Entomology I feel like I need to learn more about the cosmos.
    I would really love to sit in on one of your lectures. I also want to invite some people from my church.
    God Bless you and please let me know how I can support your ministry/ work.

  28. Hi Sarah, Sami and Helena…
    Sarah, I had a few questions I thought you might be able to help me with.

    Is it theoretically possible that the actual balance of matter to antimatter is not within any one universe…. but that the balance is achieved in a multiverse- where each bubble within the greater ocean is either positively or negatively charged so to speak, and that what allows contact without anihilation are the membranes of each “universe-droplet” being electomaticly / skeletally supported from within?

    Second, within the first 13 Planck second the universe is theorized to be expanding faster than the speed of light, still too hot for even atoms to coaless. Could this mean the Higgs field was at the edge of the BB expansion so that when the explosion had traveled far enough from the point of origin, pure-massless-energy could cool and slow within this proximate Higgs field –forming the first mass?

    What slows massless (inflation) expanding beyond the speed of light? What is the BigBang expanding into? What existed before space?
    Are the functional forces of “Inflation and dark energy” congruent? They both expand and create space; though not in the same way…

    A multiverse explains so much of the complexities of space-time and yet I t is unclear how it connects with the singular and finality aspects associated with the Crucifiction. Did Jesus die for the sins of just one of our realites, or for the sins of them all?
    Great site / excellent conversation!

    Talk to you soon
    Russ&Bec….

  29. (Argh. Almost finished a comment and something caused the page to “refresh” losing everything :( )

    Sarah, I’ve been working to develop a simplified illustration of this “centerless expansion”. Could the following be valid?

    Draw a tic-tac-toe board.

    The distance from any “node” to the next node is one unit. Distance across two boxes is two units.
    Distance across three is three units.

    Now double the size.
    Distance to the next node is two units
    Distance across two boxes is four units
    Distance across three boxes is six units.
    The distance to the next node grew by one unit.
    The distance across two boxes grew by two units.
    The distance across three boxes grew by three units.

    The further “items” accelerate more quickly away from “me” no matter where I am.

    Scale this up and it becomes clear just why distant places in an expanding spacetime can accelerate away from “me” faster than light.

  30. Hi Mr.Pete
    My name is Russ. I’m a Behavioral Sociologist and Historian from Texas Tech. Theoretical Physics is just fun stuff, do you not agree? I really like your tic-tac-toe grid for calculating dark energy’s displacement of dark matter’s regulation of galactic distancing beyond the speed of light.

    However, If you will indulge me for a moment, it establishes a few assumptions I’m not quite sure we can substantiate just yet… We’ve only recently discovered that dark energy has overwhelmed the gravitational matter that is measurable in the known universe.

    We know the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second but what is the actual calculable speed of dark energy’s current trajectory? Is that speed constant within and between each box and could that speed be affected by the density of dark matter and actual matter present in and between each box?

    Another curiosity is that the balance between dark energy and dark matter’s divergence was never actually predicted. How then can we assume with absolute confidence that the two forces will never regain a convergence by some force as yet unknown to science. I agree, it appears to be a highly unlikely with the creation of space moving at an incalculable speed absent not only the presence of matter but the fabric of dark matter.

    Consider for a moment that the absence of this substance, or dark matter might present a weakness in the barriers between the concept of multiverses. Allowing alternate realities to converge upon and through the thinness of space/time created by the rapid expanse of space due to dark energy’s expansion beyond the speed of light…

    Mr.Pete, your tic-tac-toe boxes not only need a force of calculable and constant expansion but a force of measurable sustainability to maintain the structure of the grid itself.
    What I’m suggesting is that the universe is not simply flying apart, but making room for alternate realities to conjoin with our own…

    Your tic-tac-toe grid will be the ultimate model by which we understand the convergence of these realities… Congratulations!

  31. Hi Mr.Pete
    My name is Russ. I’m a Behavioral Sociologist and Historian from Texas Tech. Theoretical Physics is just fun stuff, do you not agree? I really like your tic-tac-toe grid for calculating dark energy’s displacement of dark matter’s regulation of galactic distancing beyond the speed of light.

    However, If you will indulge me for a moment, it establishes a few assumptions I’m not quite sure we can substantiate just yet… We’ve only recently discovered that dark energy has overwhelmed the gravitational matter that is measurable in the known universe.

    We know the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second but what is the actual calculable speed of dark energy’s current trajectory? Is that speed constant within and between each box and could that speed be affected by the density of dark matter and actual matter present in and between each box?

    Another curiosity is that the balance between dark energy and dark matter’s divergence was never actually predicted. How then can we assume with absolute confidence that the two forces will never regain a convergence by some force as yet unknown to science. I agree, it appears to be a highly unlikely with the creation of space moving at an incalculable speed absent not only the presence of matter but the fabric of dark matter.

    Consider for a moment that the absence of this substance, or dark matter might present a weakness in the barriers between the concept of multiverses. Allowing alternate realities to converge upon and through the thinness of space/time created by the rapid expanse of space due to dark energy’s expansion beyond the speed of light…

    Mr.Pete, your tic-tac-toe boxes not only need a force of calculable and constant expansion but a force of measurable sustainability to maintain the structure of the grid itself.
    What I’m suggesting is that the universe is not simply flying apart, but making room for alternate realities to conjoin with our own…

    Your tic-tac-toe grid will be the ultimate model by which we understand the convergence of these realities… Congratulations!

  32. Hi

    Could you help me please?

    You mention that Hugh Ross points out that we have a tendency to forget the first fall was Satan’s, not man’s.

    Can I get your opinion on “Do Angels have freewill?”

  33. Sarah, in your FAQs there’s the following exchange:

    Q. Do you believe Homo Sapiens existed before the creation of Adam?
    A. Yes. The fossil evidence is conclusive, and contrary to what most opponents of Christianity believe, Genesis and the New Testament are both clear that this was the case.

    Could you please be more specific about the Biblical references? Thanks

  34. [Ken, this is your warning. If you ever come here again to misrepresent our views and what we are claiming, your comments will be permanently spammed and you will not be permitted to comment here again. We welcome disagreement, but we do not tolerate dishonesty. – Ed.]

  35. Greg, I’m afraid I’m of no help regarding the free will of angels.

    Dennis, read Chapter 9 of Schroeder’s The Science of God. Schroeder supplies the biblical references from the Torah — e.g. who did Adam and his sons procreate with in Genesis? — but they must be understood in context.

    Schroeder mentions a peculiarity of the wording in Genesis 12:5 that, when put together with 1 Corinthians 15:46, strongly suggests the existence pre-Adam hominids. (The inference from 1 Cor 15:46 is mine, not Schroeder’s.)

    There is a kabbalistic tradition that the soulish nature of human beings (the neshama) is something that, having been given to Adam by God, is then laterally transmitted from one human being to another. This is what Gen 12:5 alludes to, when translated properly from Hebrew. See here. Gen 12:5 says, “Abram took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, and all their belongings, as well as the the souls that they had made, and they left, heading toward Canaan.” Nahmanides says that these souls were “made” by Abraham when he taught soul-less people about God. These soul-less people had thus gained the neshama and became fully human.

    We infer the existence of such soul-less pre-Adam people from Genesis 4:25 when Adam is described as having returned to Eve, and from Genesis 4:17 in which Cain’s wife is mentioned. From whom had Adam returned? Maimonides infers that he had had relations with hominid women, and then returned to Eve. The only alternative to a soul-less hominid for Cain’s wife is that he married and produced children with one of his sisters. To me, it is far more compelling from a scriptural + paleontological point of view that these soul-less hominids pre-dated Adam, and continued to exist even in Abraham’s time.

  36. Sarah this blog is very helpful and I am so glad I found it.
    I just want to give you some feedback though on your commenting style. I just read and/or skimmed through all the comments on your post “How not to argue with an atheist” and noticed that your replies seemed needlessly argumentative. There were a great deal of pointless accusations flying around, including from you, that did not give me, the reader, better understanding of the subject. You seemed kind of defensive and controlling in the way you moderated the thread. I am not accusing you, just telling how it came across.

    If indeed defensiveness as an issue you deal with, I, as your sister in Christ, would encourage you to put your confidence in Christ and not in whether or not commenters agree with you or say truthful things. Such confidence may enable you to engage with commenters in a more constructive manner. I know defensiveness is something I struggle with when discussing controversial subjects.

    God bless you and thanks again for sharing such interesting and valuable information!

  37. Hi Kate,

    Thanks for the comments. I realize my responses to atheists come across as caustic. Please understand that it’s a deliberate choice to respond to them that way, not reflexive defensiveness. You have to realize that most of the atheists who have thus far come here for discussion are not here to discuss honestly, and they are not open to reason and evidence. They are actually quite dishonest, but it takes some experience to be able to discern that.

    Unfortunately, as Aristotle pointed out, the only thing likely to reach such people is harsh rhetoric. I actually very much dislike responding to people that way — I would much rather engage on a friendly, dialectical level, where I am far more comfortable — but many years of experience have unfortunately shown that harsh rhetoric is much more effective with certain types of people than calm reason. What’s truly regrettable is that, as you’ve pointed out, it does come across as needlessly caustic to others who don’t yet understand what’s going on. I haven’t quite figured out what to do about that.

  38. Sarah, I appreciate your ministry and read your testimony. I came to God initially as a searcher and made a leap of faith from what seemed to me logical eclecticism i.e. all religions lead to or at least can lead to God. The only conflict with that belief is the Bible! I accepted Christ by “coming through the gate” of John 10. I since have come through the Cross as a major sinner – yuch, but praise the Lord for His forgiveness. I love Him much more now – through the Cross. So, moving on to my question: Panentheism- what do you know or think about it. I do not believe in “Process Theology ” which Panentheism (not pantheism) is associated with (ex. Whitehead). Why I entertain Panentheism is that I have trouble with “creatio ex nihilo” as being Biblical (and obviously does not fit into the 1st Law of thermodynamics). I would much prefer orthodoxy to state “creatio ex logos”. I do not believe God made creation from absolutely nothing. I believe it is from His Word… His breath… ex logos is substantial not nothing. God created the universe from His own substance – by speaking. Our own words are not “out of thin air” but have a source of energy behind their creation… it is a source of energy that is both “imminent (our breath, sound vibrations and physical shaping of words with our mouths) and “transcendent” (our mind and thoughts). There is obviously much more to this topic, and it is not without it problematic issues, but what do you think – about Panentheism – biblically and scientifically?” P.S. Pantheism also seems to fit nicely into the Kalam cosmological argument and it counter argument (God vs Nothing as the first cause).

  39. Hi Dave, great question and comment. If you don’t mind, I’m going to respond to this in a post next week, since I think the topic will be of interest to my readers.

  40. Thank you so much for this site–especially for the slide show. I’ve been fascinated by Gerald Schroeder’s views for a couple of years. Now I understand them a “little” better.

Want to discuss this article? See 'Questions and Comments' for the rules.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s