102 thoughts on “Questions + Comments”

1. I Already read a post about you and says that you were atheist. is that true?

2. Yes, that’s true. My full testimony of my conversion from atheism to Christianity is here.

3. Dios ilumine siempre su vida.

4. 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!

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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?

9. 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.”

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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?

13. 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!

14. 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.

15. Fair enough.

16. Thanks, Sara.

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

17. Sorry…SaraH

18. Scientific or scriptural problems? Either way, needless to say, I wholeheartedly disagree with that.

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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?

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. Andrew, I’ve responded to your question here.

28. 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,

29. 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?

30. 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.

31. It’s expanding more or less uniformly in all directions.

32. So that would put us, generally speaking, in the center of the universe?

33. 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.

34. 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?”

35. Or is the universe theoretically spherical, with the “center” being inside the balloon?

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. 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….

39. (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.

40. 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!

41. 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!

42. 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?”

43. 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

44. [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.]

45. 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.

46. 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!

47. 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.

48. 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).

49. 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.

50. 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.

51. Dr Salviander check this out. Christianity Today is holding a science writing contest. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/january-february/announcing-ct-science-writing-contest.html

52. Hi. Can you email me your speaking itinerary for your SixDay presentation? I have a son that is really intrigued by high-level mathematics, time travel, light waves, and faith in Christ. Therefore, I would like for him to hear this presentation. I heard it over a year ago. My brain wasn’t able to grasp a lot but I think he would really be fascinated by it. My son is a Christian and loves to ponder deep thoughts about science and math. Thank you.

53. Erin, I’m not slated to give this particular talk for a while. However, your son can view my presentation by clicking on the “Six Days” tab up at the top of the website.

54. Hello Mrs. Salviander,

    I came across your testimony through CARM. I was going to ask if you ever thought about the concept of God’s perspective from Genesis 1:2 when it says that the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. I saw in your powerpoint that you talk about God being the only perspective prior to Adam, which I would agree with. Is it possible to read the days of Genesis 1 from the perspective of a viewer on the surface of the earth, rather than out in space, since all the changes occurring in the subsequent verses have to do with the earth and making it habitable for man? From how I’ve read it, the sun, moon, and stars were made in the beginning and like in Job 38:9 the clouds were too thick to allow any light until Gen 1:3 and any sight of them until day 4. This would allow the photosynthesis and warmth to exist for plants previously and a liquid water cycle as well as allow God to ’let there be’ the sun on the fourth day, as opposed to actually creating it then. What are your thoughts on this?

    Thank you for your time,
    Bryce

55. Hi Kenneth,

    Thank you for your input. Please note that I was asking a question to Mrs. Salviander and while I understand that my post is open to anyone answering it, I was hoping to get her perspective as an astrophysicist who I believe may be knowledgeable in areas of the earths past formation to help me understand the creation of the universe, as she has a very thorough and thought-provoking powerpoint presentation that I read through. At no time did I mention that I didn’t take the bible seriously or literally. And I thank you for pointing out the larger picture of Job 38 in that it is a discussion between God and Job where God challenges Job about the wisdom and knowledge he doesn’t have. I didn’t think it warranted mentioning, but extra insight for those reading it is always good. The point was the concept of the dark cloud canopy that wouldn’t allow light to break through. As for Genesis 1:16 I was wondering about the original Hebrew where the verb ’made’ appears in its completed form, meaning that God made the sun, moon and stars at some time in the past, whether that was on the fourth day, the third day, the second day, the first day or in the beginning. It seems like verse 18 echoes verse 3-5 from Day 1 where God separates the light from the darkness. From the perspective of the Spirit of God hovering over the surface of the waters this seems to coincide with the early earth losing its thick cloud layer for a much thinner one. From this question you went hard and fast into original sin, the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus which I am not questioning. From your message I might assume you are a young earth creationist who believes that anything but a 7-24hour day interpretation of Genesis is a salvation issue. But I am probably reading too much into your response (it is late and I shouldn’t jump to conclusions). Still, I was hoping to find out what Mrs. Salviander thought about this idea. So, thank you for your very thorough response. I shall now await Mrs. Salviander to answer if she has time to do so.

    Sincerely,
    Sad Bryce

56. Ken, you’re spammed. If you continue to comment here, I will continue to spam you.

    You’ve made your sentiments known, and you’re not adding to the discourse by continuing with your monomaniacal insistence on your particular interpretation of scripture. I suggest you start your own blog, build your own audience, and make your case there.

57. Hello Bryce,

    Thanks for your questions.

    Is it possible to read the days of Genesis 1 from the perspective of a viewer on the surface of the earth, rather than out in space…

    Yes, it is. Hugh Ross takes the perspective that Genesis is told solely from the perspective of the surface of the Earth. I agree with Gerald Schroeder that Genesis is told partially from a general perspective of the universe and then it switches to the surface of the Earth on Day 3.

    From how I’ve read it, the sun, moon, and stars were made in the beginning and like in Job 38:9 the clouds were too thick to allow any light until Gen 1:3 and any sight of them until day 4.

    Again, I agree with Gerald Schroeder, who says the Sun, Moon, and stars were made along with the firmament. A thick atmosphere would indeed obscure them from the surface of the Earth until Day 4, but still allow the appearance of plant life exactly when Genesis says it appears.

58. I love that you are scientists who understand that we can believe in creationism AND that the universe is 14.5 billions years old and that they are not contradictory. I will say the term “sixdayscience” misrepresents you if one just happens to find your site and doesn’t look into it. I almost wrote you off as young earth people, which would have been sad. So glad I read the FAQs. Just my two cents. That being said, keep up the good work. Knowing you exist makes me happy!!!

59. Hi Gabriel,

    Thanks for your comments. We’ve received a lot of similar feedback about the name, and are considering alternatives.

    It’s kind of a shame, because the basis of our message is that the confluence of Christian belief and modern science hinges on a proper understanding of the six days of Genesis — hence our name. But it’s leading many people to assume we’re young earth creationists, which is obviously a problem.

60. Why is there a dipole or axis of evil, confirmed by the Planck satellite?

61. All: I would appreciate your opinion on a short book I just wrote, it is available on Amazon, but my intent is to communicate ideas, not sell books, so if you send me your e-mail, I will send the manuscript.
    I have presented a biblical argument for evolution and Genesis being compatible (Genesis and Evolution (Larkin)) as I believe the accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential. Throughout the book of Genesis, the “generations” of the line not leading to Jesus are always given first (Cain before Seth, the generations of Japheth and of Ham are given before the generations of Shem, and so on.
    I believe that the creation described in Chapter 1 is consistent with this approach, describes the line not leading to Jesus (and the “daughters of men” in Chapter 6), and the creation describe from Chapter 2 on describes the generations leading to Christ (the “sons of God” in Chapter 6, consistent with the rest of Genesis (more detail in the book).

62. I just noticed that I made a serious comment error in my past comment on Creatio ex Logos. At the very end I did a P.S. and used the word “Pantheism” instead of “Panentheism”. I just wanted to correct this as the comment section is closed now. I do not believe in pantheism, but I do entertain panentheism as a possible biblical model. I will post again an excellent apologetic by “Inspiring Philosophy” for it based on existing theology in the Eastern Orthodox church.
    see
    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=panentheism+inspiring+philosophy&&view=detail&mid=0B4213D25E31618A32800B4213D25E31618A3280&FORM=VRDGAR

63. Dave, I’m going to open comments back up on old posts if you want to go back and correct yourself.

64. Dear Dr. Salviander,

    My name is Elizabeth, and I am a 28-year-old high school teacher, special education director and counselor. I am also a Christian.

    When my mother died three years ago, my family had an inexplicable encounter with angels and Jesus. As you can imagine, it changed my life. Now, I am trying to pass this faith along to my students (I work at a private Lutheran high school). However, so many of them argue against faith with science and many fall away from the faith because we teachers and pastors in the evangelical church have very few compelling responses to their claims of science having wholly debunked Christianity.

    I could not give anymore of these non-answers to my students any longer, though, and, so, for the past three years, I have obsessively studied the link between science and Christianity. I’m only an English teacher, so I had so much to learn. This desire to find the truth was exploited by my obsessive compulsive and anxiety disorders, and I spent so many sleepless nights researching and reading, seemingly endlessly. I finally found Dr. Schroeder’s books, and everything fell into place. Slowly all of the other information I’d read began to find its home in the context of Schroeder’s work. I finally had something to tell my students. And, I did tell them. I also found your website, and cried tears of joy when I saw that you perfectly explained so many things! One of the students I counseled even decided to major in physics to explore the link between God and science.

    This student is now going off to college. My husband and I talked to him recently, and he mentioned that upon hearing his desire to harmonize science and faith by learning physics, his new physics professor was standoffish about it at best. Now this is a Catholic university.

    It got me thinking: what sort of opposition to Schroeder’s and your ideas will this young man receive? I tend to think that conclusions presented here are rather indisputable, but suddenly I’m filled with fear. What if a professor leads him astray? What if what I did was not enough? I know it’s the Holy Spirit’s job to save souls and not mine, but could you give me an idea of some of the arguments he might face from atheistic professors regarding your and Dr. Schroeder’s theory and how he can counteract them?

    Thank you, Dr. Salviander, you are a woman blessed by God to do His life-saving work. Your impact is unimaginably far-reaching. You have no idea how much you have done for me and my students.

65. Thank you for making six day science available to the public as I have wondered about this issue for a very long time. Your website provides a great service to Christian community. If I understand correctly, the presentation assumes the universe expansion rate is constant. I have read that around five billion years ago dark energy became dominant and resulted in the acceleration rate to monotonically increase. If this correct and taken into account would the six day time table be significantly different? Thank you .

66. Ralph, you ask a good question. The presentation assumes an overall constant rate of expansion to illustrate the principle of cosmological time dilation. Accelerated expansion does change the numbers, but not significantly. I’ve accounted for this, so the numbers you see in the slideshow should be consistent with an accelerating expansion.

67. Please define the terms and the and their units in the exponential relationship such as A, Ao, k, and t.
    Thank you.

68. I am piggy-backing on this comment section because I could find nowhere to comment on your FAQA post from some time in 2016. I just wanted to let you know that of all the questions you say were asked by atheists, not 1 of them would have come from my lips, nor my typing finger. I happened across your post because it was featured on another post, and of course I wanted to see what other atheists were concerned about. Having been a professed atheist for some 50 yesrs now, I found either I am out of touch with other atheists, or, they are out of touch with me.
    Meanwhile, I don’t really have a question for you yet, we each made our choice, and I am assuming we are both happy with our choices. The fact you are a scientist and I am a philosopher has no bearing on our choices, or what ground we are each standing on. Yet I get the feeling you long to be asked an intelligent, yet respectful question by an atheist, so you can expound on something different from your usual fare. So I am thinking. Please bare with me…
    Being a scientist I presume you did a lot of research on the subject of god and/or religion. What doctrines did you study? Were you able to choose one doctrine above all others? Or did you choose to follow no particular doctrine, but make your own way through the Old and New Testaments, and believe as you chose or thought through your own understanding? If you are following a particular docttine, which one and why? Or, if you are not following a particular doctrine, what are your basic beliefs, and why those?
    I hope these questions pique your interest enough to answer. Thank you. Peace.
    rawgod

69. Great blog and FAQ. Have you read any of Ed Feser’s stuff? I think he actually makes a more compelling case than most of the people you’ve cited, including WLC (who I think is good, but not as solid as Ed on philosophy).

70. I will bet every one, of those who SAY they WERE ONCE Atheists and who now say they no longer are Atheists, were, as babies, children and teens raised (programmed) by those who raised them to believe in the same religion and number of gods those who raised them believed in.

    As they grew older, their gaining in experience, logic, knowledge, and common sense, it caused them to consider themselves to be Atheists.

    Then, when something happened which caused their programming to kick back in, they again decided they “Believed”

    If these supposed “Former Atheists” had been able to fully de-program themselves, from the programming they received as babies, children and teens, *** they would still be Atheists

    **** As multi-millions of the formerly religious, including 850 former Christian ministers, (members of the “Clergy project”) have,

71. Neil, some former atheists are indeed people raised with religion who temporarily walked away from it and then returned. However, this is demonstrably not the case for everyone. My brother and I were raised atheist by atheist parents in a secular country, and yet came to embrace Christianity as adults while finishing our doctorates. My astonished atheist father remarked at the time, “How did I manage to produce two Christian children??”

    There are two further problems with your hypothesis.

    1. Most atheists who’ve abandoned their religions claimed to have done so before the age of 14. This is hardly an age when people have abundant experience, logic, knowledge, and common sense. This is further supported by the findings of sociologist Elaine Ecklund, who interviewed several atheist scientists at elite universities, and found that in most cases their atheism preceded any scientific training.

    2. It raises doubt on anyone currently claiming to be atheist who was raised with any religion, including several champions of New Atheism like Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer. If all former-atheists are, as you claimed, those raised with religion who failed to break free of their religious programming, then how do we know that Dawkins and Shermer won’t eventually fall into that category? For all anyone knows, they’ll wake up one day and declare that they are now former atheists. Which means they were never really atheists at all. Unless a person has a flawless atheist pedigree like I do*, I have to assume there is a nontrivial chance that he will return to the faith in which he was raised. So, I can’t take Dawkins or Shermer seriously as atheists unless they die having never recanted their atheism.

    * See above

72. In my Genesis classes, I present 6 24-hr days as clearly given in the text, with orthodox interpretations positing various frames of reference for measuring the time (e.g. Augustine posits 6 days as experienced by the angels created as beings of light on day 1). I, of course, include the SixDay interpretation presented here with the CMB as the frame of reference as an orthodox interpretation.

    There is a recurring question from my listeners, which I know how to answer in principle, but not working with astrophysics every day, I haven’t finished the calculation, and finally ask an expert to speed up the process.

    The SixDay theory implies a mapping from the 5 1/2 days of the CMB frame to the earth frame. Interested people want to know, does the last day we are in map to more or less earth time than the first day? More generally, I’d like an approximate graph showing earth-years/cmb-secs as a function of cmb time (or vice versa).

    The popular interest in this question is driven by a desire to know how close we are to the “end” – although prophecy seems to suggest this tainted universe gets shut down long before any end driven by physics.

    I seem to remember a chart somewhere in your materials, but haven’t been able to find it again.

73. Hey Sarah, really great information. I am Executive Director at Ratio Christi and I have been familiar with time dilation before but only due to velocity and gravity but never before from the stretching of space. I am fascinated about this idea but my feeble brain has not yet fully grasped this and so I wanted to ask a question or two.

    The first question, after clicking through your presentation relates to my struggle to understand the frame of reference that is being used for Genesis Days 1 – 5. Hopefully, I can clarify the question properly but I seem to run into a conceptual issue no matter what frame of reference I am using.

    So let me try. What I think I understood from your slide deck is that the frame of reference is from the whole of the space-time continuum at that particular point in time. So 24 hours on day 1 when then considered from the reference of modern day clocks is now approximately 7.1 billion years of time. So as a quick thought experiment, if we take the first day as an example, lets consider that on that day there are two sufficiently luminous and enormous objects that while they are around 13 billion light years away we have the ability to see them nonetheless. Consider too that these two objects are colliding and that the entire process of the collision was only took 24 hours for it to complete according to the clock at that particular point of expansion for the universe. According to your formulas, the 24 hours of Genesis day 1 is now protracted out to 7.1 billion years though. So if we were to now watch this collision occur today here on Earth at the uni, would it take then 7.1 Billion years for us to watch the collision from beginning to end?

    If I am getting that right, then when we look extremely far away toward the edges of the observable universe things would be moving so imperceptibly slow that it would almost seem as though they were frozen in time. Is that what we actually observe?

    Your language though say it must “uniformly encompass the universe in its entirety” but I am thinking then that the reference i have assumed above can therefore not be correct since it doesn’t do that but rather is a time frame dependant on the universe. And too, we would have to then imagine a universe that is expanding so stupendously fast that if we consider day 3 for example, in only 24 hours of time within day 3 the universe would need to expand to twice the size it was by the end of day two while then today we would observe that happening over 1.8 billion years (according to your chart) But then that goes against your idea of an essentially uniform rate of expansion (I know not perfectly because of the dark energy acceleration).

    Anyway, not sure if I am even articulating this question with sufficient clarity. Bottom line is that I am trying to understand what exactly is that frame of reference that uniformly encompasses the universe in it’s entirety.

74. What in h-e-double-hockey-sticks is a flwless atheist pedigree? What a bunch of malarky! Your assumed atheism was obviously not flawless, or you would never have turned your backs on it. And does it really matter what your background is? Can you even be an atheist without a firm understanding of theism? No. If you were never a theist you can never be an atheist!
    Over the years I have heard a lot of bullshit on either side, and you are spouting more than most. Dawkins and Shermer are who they are, but they are not representative of all or even most atheists. They are representatives of themselves, and ONLY themselves.
    As a scientist you really make the profession a questionable profession. You cannot find god in science. But you can make science appear to find god, just like theologians say they can find god in their theology. You can do anything you want, but it only worlks for you, and no one else.
    When you finally turn atheist, when not if, write me and apologize for talking about atheism when you have no idea what atheism is. Belief is not science, and never will be.

75. All you folks should read, The Devil’s Delusion, by David Berlinski. This scientific analysis of Genesis is over my head, as is the proof for the Big Bang—but at least Berlinski makes me laugh. Sarah, you’re obviously brilliant but probably not a lot of fun at cocktail parties.

76. Tyler,

    The 24 hour / 7.1 billion year stretch is for God’s reference frame only. When we look back into deep cosmic history, we’re comparing two different temporal reference frames from within the universe. We do see distant events unfolding more slowly, due to the stretching of spacetime, but that cosmological slowing is by a factor of less than 10.

77. When you finally turn atheist, when not if, write me and apologize for talking about atheism when you have no idea what atheism is.

    Thanks for the amusing comment, raw, but don’t hold your breath. I would literally have to lose brain capacity to ever go back to atheism.

78. No problem, Sarah, but I respectfully think you would would have to gain capacity. Meanwhile, you have not answered any of the questions I asked back in August, which I thought gave you a golden opportunity to tell myself and your readers what you really think. Christianity is such a wide field these days, a variety of religions that no longer all connect despite using the same book as its bases. But I guess questions from atheists aren’t your bother. So good luck to you.

79. raw, buddy, after claiming that as a scientist I “really make the profession a questionable profession” and demanding I apologize for my beliefs, you’re delusional if you think I’d take you or your questions seriously.

80. I wonder how far you’d have got starting 3,000 (or even 100) years ago with the text of Genesis, trying to work out big bang cosmology, relativity, or quantum mechanics from there? In fact, I already know the answer to that and it’s: nowhere. The fact that you can only read these things into Genesis with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight is a strong indication that you’re simply engaged in confirmation bias. Yes, “stretches out the heavens” does sound *a bit* like universal expansion, but that same line has also been used as evidence for a firmament above a flat Earth.

    You’re also ignoring all the things in Genesis which completely clash with modern science, such as people living to 950 years old, a global Flood, or a literal Adam and Eve (who we know from analysis of DNA never existed), to name a few examples.

    If you want to prove me wrong, I challenge you to tell me what currently unknown scientific discoveries Genesis contains.

81. I wonder how far you’d have got starting 3,000 (or even 100) years ago with the text of Genesis, trying to work out big bang cosmology, relativity, or quantum mechanics from there?

    That’s not even remotely the point.

    You’re also ignoring all the things in Genesis which completely clash with modern science, such as people living to 950 years old, a global Flood, or a literal Adam and Eve (who we know from analysis of DNA never existed), to name a few examples.

    Nobody’s ignoring those things. You think they’re a problem, because you haven’t investigated them sufficiently.

82. “That’s not even remotely the point.”

    It seems to me it’s very much the point. There are Islamic apologists who claim that the Koran contains modern scientific knowledge – do you think they’re right, or only engaged in confirmation bias?

    “Nobody’s ignoring those things. You think they’re a problem, because you haven’t investigated them sufficiently.”

    There isn’t any scientific evidence for a global flood. What further investigation is needed? How to interpret “global flood” so it means “not a global flood”, perhaps?

83. The Quran does contain modern scientific knowledge, much or all of it derivative from biblical sources.

    In any case — and while it’s still not the point — you’re wrong that the biblical creation story would not lead to big bang cosmology. It’s all there in scripture. Arno Penzias, a Nobel laureate physicist, co-discoverer of the cosmic microwave background, and a believing Jew, stated this 14 years after his discovery:

    The best data we have [for the big bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.

    If you doubt him, you ought to read the centuries old commentaries on Genesis by Nahmanides and Maimonides. They inferred from scripture that the entire universe was initially extremely small, that energy preceded matter, and that the matter for the earth was formed out of that energy. This sort of analysis could come straight from a modern cosmology textbook. Penzias is right that you could subsequently infer the general CMB data from that information.

    As for the Flood, the Hebrew is clear that it was a local flood, not global. It’s much more in the interest of an anti-theist to twist scripture to interpret it as global.

84. “rawgod,” you have been spammed. Don’t bother commenting here again.

85. “Arno Penzias, a Nobel laureate physicist, co-discoverer of the cosmic microwave background, and a believing Jew, stated this 14 years after his discovery: The best data we have [for the big bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

    If he’d stated it 14 years *before* his discovery, you might have a point.

    “If you doubt him, you ought to read the centuries old commentaries on Genesis by Nahmanides and Maimonides.”

    It doesn’t matter if 1 or 2 people interpreted some bits of Genesis in a way which, when reinterpreted some more with the benefit of hindsight, sounds a bit like the modern scientific view. There are tens of millions of Christians living today and probably billions more historically who don’t, or didn’t, interpret it this way.

    In any case, why would God’s word be written in such a way that it cannot be interpreted correctly until thousands of years after it is written? It’s bad enough that Jesus didn’t bother to show up until 100,000 to 200,000 years after modern humans first appeared.

    “As for the Flood, the Hebrew is clear that it was a local flood, not global. It’s much more in the interest of an anti-theist to twist scripture to interpret it as global.”

    Most Christians would disagree with you, so as an atheist, I’ll take their word over yours. What was the point of building a huge Ark if it wasn’t needed to save Kangaroos, Elephants, and Polar Bears from a global flood?

    Also, I’d be fascinated to hear how you can twist the story of Adam and Eve into modern scientific terms. Don’t forget the talking snake.

86. swordfish, there are good answers to all of your questions. If you’re genuinely interested in answers, as opposed to using my website as a forum for snarking and showing what a clever boy you are, then I recommend you read Gerald Schroeder’s The Science of God.

87. I’ve read some reviews of Schroeders’s book, and found that it advocates for Intelligent Design pseudoscience, so I won’t be reading it.

88. No, it doesn’t advocate for “Intelligent Design pseudoscience.”

    Read it or don’t, it makes no difference to me whatsoever. But don’t pretend that you want answers to those questions. You and I both know what you’re trying to do, and it won’t work here.

89. “Schroeder rejects evolution because he considers its mechanism to rest solely on pure chance.” – Frank Sonleitner

    “Schroeder claims that the kinds of arguments which he gives provide compelling reasons for thinking that the evolution of life was preprogrammed by an intelligent designer.” – Graham Oppy

    “Schroeder less convincingly rejects the notion of random, mutation-driven evolution, arguing instead that evolution is ‘channeled’ toward an outcome preprogrammed into existing DNA.” – Kirkus Review

90. That’s not Intelligent Design, nor is it pseudoscience. Intelligent Design is a formal research program, which as far as I know Schroeder rejects. As do I.

    That’s not the same thing as proposing that modern science is compatible with the Bible or pointing out the significant extant problems with the neo-darwinian evolutionary model.

    The Kirkus review, written more than 20 years ago, is amusing in light of the discoveries made over that time in evolutionary development (“evo devo”), which have overturned the standard model of evolution and are fully supportive of Schroeder’s thesis.

91. “That’s not Intelligent Design, nor is it pseudoscience. Intelligent Design is a formal research program, which as far as I know Schroeder rejects. As do I.”

    I’m not clear exactly what you’re claiming here. If Schroeder rejects evolution “because he considers its mechanism to rest solely on pure chance” (to quote the review), then what option is there other than non-chance, i.e., design? A “formal research program” could mean anything – I’m currently conducting a formal research program into which cereal bar I like the most.

    “That’s not the same thing as proposing that modern science is compatible with the Bible or pointing out the significant extant problems with the neo-darwinian evolutionary model.”

    It doesn’t make sense to claim that modern science is compatible with the Bible whilst at the same time rejecting one of the cornerstones of the theory of evolution.

    “The Kirkus review, written more than 20 years ago, is amusing in light of the discoveries made over that time in evolutionary development (“evo devo”), which have overturned the standard model of evolution and are fully supportive of Schroeder’s thesis.”

    The reviews I quoted said that Schroeder rejects the basic viability of random mutation. His view isn’t supported by any developments which have happened in evolution since his book was published, nor has the theory of evolution been “overturned” in any way.

    Me no read book. Have a nice day.

92. I think it would be a good idea to define what science is and is not. Science uses the scientific method to compare data from experimentation or observation against a hypothesis. Conclusion are drawn and the results and conclusion are published in peer reviewed journals to ensure the scientific method was properly followed and the data is significantly significant. Supported hypothesis may lead to a theory, which then may lead to a well established theory when it is accepted throughout the scientific community.

    The hypothesis may be modified in the future if more data is produced through experimentation or observation. Evolution is a well established theory.

    Executing research for intelligent design is not necessary science unless it lead to publication in peer review journals. Any evidence that disconfirms evolution should be submitted for publication.

    Movies, books and even some journals (such as Scientific American) are summaries of science and are not necessarily science in and of themselves.

    I have read Schroeder’s book ” Genesis and the Big Bang” which I found fascinating. I think it is incredible and proof that the Bible is the Word of God that the Universe began with the Big Bang which I feel is described in Genesis 1 as for the first 270,000 years, all matter was in the form of sub atomic particles and all energy was in the form of photons. In other words, “Let there be light”

93. After years of studying the Bible with the premise of “don’t let what you do not understand get in the way of what you do understand”, I noticed a clear pattern in the genealogies in Genesis and the Old Testament – the line leading to the Messiah is always given last after the lines not leading to the Messiah. Cain is given before Seth, Ismael is given before Isaac, Esau is given before Jacob and so on. There was only one exception, the genealogy of Adam.

    I noticed in Genesis 2:4, the same Hebrew word, toledoth, was used that was used in many of the genealogies. This word was always translated “generations” in the other passages, but is translated as “account” in many translation of Genesis, and “generations” in others. I am proposing that Genesis 1:1 -2:4 is the first account describing the generations of those not leading to the Messiah, and Genesis 2-5 onward described the line leading to the Messiah. I am proposing that Genesis 1 and 2 should be interpreted as sequential, not a retelling of the same story. This eliminate the conflicts in the creation order and preserves the pattern of the genealogy of the line leading to the Messiah always being given last (in fact, this account sets the pattern).

    In reading the accounts, the second creation is clearly a creation local to the Garden of Eden. I see no indication that this is a retelling fo the same story. I see evolution as the method of creation chosen by God in Genesis 1 and the sequential interpretation eliminates the conflict with evolution altogether.

    This preserves the belief in a historic Adam created ex nihilo. I believe the text in Romans and 1Corinthians makes it clear that “through one man, death reigned and through one man all have life”.

    Last summer, I presented my book, Genesis and Evolution, at the American Scientific Association National Conference.

    I used Genesis 6 as a supporting argument that others existing outside the line of Adam (the “daughters of men”) which is why it had to be stated that Noah “was perfect in his generations” so that the line leading to the Messiah from Adam to Noah was preserved. The feedback I received from the conference is that others thought that Genesis 4 was a better argument for others existing outside the line of Adam. I believe the “others” described in Genesis 4 could easily be dismissed as additional offspring of Adam and Eve over the hundreds of years in which they had children.

    I would welcome the opinions on this theory from the Six Day team.

94. swordfish, I’m not the least bit surprised that you have no understanding of what Intelligent Design is and how it differs from the informal proposition that God created the universe.

    It’s also utterly predictable that you don’t understand how recent developments in biology have crushed the Darwinian dream, since, like most anonymous atheists on the internet, you’re evidently limited to a talking-point level understanding of science.

    Biologist Sean B. Carroll, who is at the forefront of his field and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, describes the findings that kick out the leg of random mutations from the Darwinian stool in his book Endless Forms Most Beautiful:

    The surprising message from Evo Devo is that all of the genes for building large, complex animal bodies long predated the appearance of those bodies in the Cambrian explosion. The genetic potential was in place for at least 50 million years, and probably a fair bit longer, before large, complex forms emerged.

    In other words, random mutations never had a chance to work.

    Popular science writer Carl Zimmer, in his book Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea:

    But [Darwinists] assumed that the genes that built fruit flies would be peculiar to insects and other arthropods. Other animals don’t have the segmented exoskeleton of arthropods, so biologists assumed that their very different bodies must be built by very different genes.

    Joy turned to shock when biologists began to find Hox genes in other animals – in frogs, mice, and humans; in velvet worms, barnacles, and starfish. In every case, parts of their Hox genes were almost identical, regardless of the animal that carried them.

    Carroll, again:

    …the prevailing view of the architects and adherents of Modern Synthesis was that the process of random mutation and selection would so alter DNA and protein sequences that only closely related species would bear homologous genes… Virtually everything I have described…has been discovered in the past twenty years…they have forced biologists to rethink completely their picture of how forms evolve.
     
    The fact that such different forms of animals are shaped by very similar sets of tool kit proteins was entirely unanticipated…the discovery…has forced a complete change in our picture of how complex structures arise. (emphasis added)

    God grants us the dignity of making our own choices; but your choice should at least be informed. Unless you’re willing to educate yourself on the current state of science and theological opinions on it, you need to drop the pretense that you have any actual interest in the questions you asked. Until such time, you may not comment here again.

95. Tom,

    I am proposing that Genesis 1 and 2 should be interpreted as sequential, not a retelling of the same story.

    I’m inclined to agree.

96. How to win arguments the Christian way: ban people.

    [No, swordfish. It’s simple. I refuse to discuss with those who have no interest in a sincere exchange of ideas. You may comment here again once you meet the criterion I listed above. -Ed.]

97. “Any and all claims of gods must be accompanied by evidence to prove those claims.
    Until proven – all claims will be treated as they are – lies!

    All ID/Creationism is based on a god and thus any debates on ID/creationism has no meaning until the god is proven!!”

    For the first 270,000 years after the Big Bang, the energy level was so high that all matter was in the form of subatomic particles and all energy was in the form of photons.

    And God said “Let there be light”.

    This was written thousands of years ago – if there is no God, how do you explain this? The Bible and fulfilled prophecy is proof of the existence of God.

    I believe ID/ AiG is a misinterpretation of scripture, but I don’t see how you can refute the evidence above.

98. Hi Sarah,
    I just discovered your blog yesterday. I’m pretty sure it was an answer to prayer – as an engineer and linear thinker I tend to want answers, and sometimes my faith is definitely tested by constant bombardment from secular thinking and also the continual realization that men (i.e. mankind) do lie and twist truths constantly, making it very hard to find reputable and trustworthy sources of information anymore. Your conviction, page and the slideshow were definitely helpful in this regard.

    My belief tends to be that many people spend way too much time and energy nitpicking debatable points of the bible and theology and not enough working together as Christians (and Jews) and living as God would have us live and better others’ lives. Not that it’s not important, just that people waste a lot of time bolstering their own viewpoints. However, it’s great when a theory works really well and makes a lot of sense, both for believers and for answering unbelievers. Thought provoking, if nothing else. Incidentally, Schroeders’s ideas mirrored one’s I had had for a while as possibilities, particularly that the days, (whether 24 hours or other time constructs) lined up well with the geological record and the typical biological eras to which most ascribe.

    One question I had though was related to Schroeders’s critics. (I looked into this, for the reason I mentioned above, that I have been sadly disappointed when I’ve looked into some writers’ backgrounds and credibility -not necessarily because I found anything particularly worrisome in his conclusions on my own). You mentioned in a previous post that Mark Perakh’s critics were worth you writing a separate post to address them. Have you done that or could you in the future?

    In Christ,

    Sarah

99. *critiques not critics

100. Blessed are the peacemakers. Unfortunately, being a peacemaker sometimes involves standing between warring parties (young earthers and atheists) and being shot at by the excitable on both sides. So I really appreciate your site, and particularly the slideshow.
     I ran into Schroeder with Wendy Wippel’s article, but your slideshow fleshes out a lot of detail for me and is beautifully shareable. I had been looking for an answer to this conundrum for about 20 years.The young earth creationists have always seemed to me to be people too threatened by science to really argue with it. You have to love (or at least appreciate) your ‘enemy’ if you really want to engage their arguments properly.
     Background: I was raised not as a Christian, but in a Christian heresy, and while I had enough logic to reject it at the age of 10, I didn’t have enough logic to conclude that just because that religion was crap didn’t mean all religion was. If your parents kid you (and themselves) who can you trust? Besides, entering the teen years, it was sometimes convenient not to believe. Your tweet “How to design your own personal atheistic philosophy” described my trajectory beautifully, though I was never comfortable with ignoring the meaninglessness and wrestled with it on and off over the years.
     I guess that came in handy wrestling with Genesis later. I never gave up hope for an answer I could really chew on.

     Blessings in Christ. Laurel

101. Your powerpoint on crack. :)

102. Sarah this site is great.

     A couple notes…owph can be winged insects…. the first flyers.

     Alpene in Hebrew means they fly “downward” against the Earth

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

Enter your comment here...

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

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

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

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

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

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ