I read an article today in Newsweek about the discovery of a “living fossil” ancient shark still swimming around, believed to have remained “unevolved” after “at least 80 million years” because of a poor diet…
A BBC reporter “dubbed it a ‘monster of the deep,’ and…the first scientist to study the frilled shark thought its snake-like movements may have inspired sailors’ stories of sea serpents.”
Newsweek: Prehistoric, Dinosaur-era Shark With Insane Teeth Found Swimming Off Coast Of Portugal
.
"]…When I think about our universe running its course for 14 billion years…
Measurements of time are based on suppositions. A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. The Red Shift used in astronomy to support Big Bang supposes a constant rate of expansion, going out from an initial explosion of all matter. But some scientists believe there was an initial rapid expansion in the first seconds at a very accelerated rate, before the steady rate that is now observed began.
Many years ago, in a secular science magazine, I read a physicist arguing that almost the entire distance outward currently reached by the celestial bodies could have been attained in the first milliseconds after an initial explosion, before those bodies decelerated to their current sub-lightspeed steady velocity. And he had math that showed his model to be feasible. Can’t find it now. But I’ve seen this again from others, since then. For example: “The Inflation Theory proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe during its first few moments. It was developed around 1980 to explain several puzzles with the standard Big Bang theory, in which the universe expands relatively gradually throughout its history.” Suddenly we can go from 14 billion to a several thousand years, depending on the model.
Also, Red Shift assumes the speed of light is a constant, it assumes light has always traveled at the same rate, and it assumes that the light has not traveled through anything that may change its speed and/or appearance. But physicists have succeeded in both speeding up, and slowing down the speed of light! (See here, here, and here.)
Einstein hypothesized that at the speed of light, time stops. And that at greater than the speed of light, one could move back and forth in time. (I believe that the book of Revelation shows that the author, John, went forward in time.)
Radiocarbon dating techniques used in geology and archeology assume the atmosphere has had the same Carbon 14 concentration in the past as now. And it assumes a constant decay rate. However, there is evidence that radioactive decay rates and concentrations have not been constant in the past. Again, you can go from billions of years, to thousands, depending on your suppositions.
I think you would agree that it would be impossible for anyone to provide real scientific evidence for the origin of time, space, and matter. To discuss something’s origin, we must go beyond time, space, and matter, which takes us outside the realm of science.
Blessings.
Hermano - since I’m out of my area of expertise on this subject, I asked a good friend and a man of incredible learning, who I know is of some contrary views, to respond.
This is NOTHING personal, ok? It’s only meant to sharpen up one another’s thinking.
From Jim Gentry:
1st paragraph- Hubble’s observation of the redshift of galaxies merely showed that the universe was expanding. It was not suggested that the expansion rate was constant. Quite the opposite in fact…,there was much conjecture as to whether gravity should stop the expansion and further pull everything back into a “big crunch” or whether the velocity would overcome gravity. No constant rate was imagined by anyone I’m aware of. The “inflation” hypothesis is suggested because it has explanatory ability about how an extremely even expansion coalesced into stars & galaxies, not because it has been demonstrated. (Also at 10^-43 seconds, the “event horizon,” when our current laws of physics came into being, no information is available prior to that as to the state of things.) There is no “steady state that is now observed” (see above) as “dark energy” is accelerating the expansion. “Dark energy” is that “space density expansion force” discovered around 1997, where space that is sufficiently distant from a gravity source itself expands, causing, currently, an accelerating universe. Prior to this phenomena becoming extant it is thought that gravity probably was slowing the expansion til this transition point was reached. We are now in an accelerating expansion.
2ond paragraph-is a remembered renditionfrom an article by “a physicist” that “almost the entire distance reached by the celestial bodies could have been attained in the first milliseconds after an initial explosion.” This (as written) has enormous masses traveling at speeds billions of times faster than light, before “decelerating” to their current “light speed steady velocity.” Stars & galaxies did this? They are currently traveling at the speed of light?
“Suddenly we can go from 14 billion to several thousand years” Let’s see…, what happened to the centrifugal forces of the masses coalescing into galaxies during these fantastic speeds? This paragraph makes no sense whatsoever!
3rd paragraph-Physicists have indeed caused light to slow…, by providing interventions not extant naturally. The 1987 supernova provided observed proof that light is not slowing down in the universe. Triangulation from the nova to Earth and from the nova to a distant reflective cloud, and from there to earth provided the observable phenomena that light traveled without slowing down over the different distances.
4th paragraph- What happened to the masses in paragraph one traveling at billions of times the speed of light? Where in time did they land? Our time dimension has been shown to be relative to matter/energy…, part & parcel of it.
I’m not aware that Einstein suggested that at above light speeds we could move forward & back in “time.” I think he said that nothing (with mass) could travel faster than light…, rather.
5th paragraph-Radio carbondating is useless for anything older than 5-20 thousand years, or for something that was never alive. Other elemental half-lives must be used, such as uranium to lead, for estimations in geologic time.
He is right that original contents cannot be confirmed, but neither are the laws of physics chaotic. The burden of proof would seem to be on him. I suggest the measurements are reasonable estimates, most of the time.
Closing paragraph- I don’t agree…, time, space and matter did originate. 
When it did so can be reasonably estimated at 13.7 billion years ±300 million. Expansion rate (YES!) and other factors. Causes are anther matter, which is what he means, I’m sure.
“The earth is young because some have posited questions? And because my favorite interpretation of my favorite translation is not to be questioned?
Interesting Dave. Today I found an interesting article at bit.ly/2DoEKwy entitled Why Adding Milk To Your Scrambled Eggs Is a Mistake. The article suggested using butter. But I’ll bet the majority of professional cooks - still use milk. Along will the professional cooking schools and fancy restaurants, still, continue to use milk. Because milk is in our collective mentality. And it’s NOT going away - anytime soon.
Same goes for scientific ideas - disproving or proving something. When our collective scientific consensus - buys into an idea… If something is “earth-shattering” (like Einstien’s equation of E=MC**2), then the professionals of the world - would react swiftly and violently. We will either see the scientific community praising it, denouncing it - or some combination thereof. And we will see brilliant scientists with Ph.D. degrees…perhaps from Ivy League schools…coming up with reproducible experiments - to either prove or disprove it.
And I (as a layman), will see these discussions filtered down, to places like quora.com. Where questions would be raised and ideas shared - usually by folks with Ph.D. degrees.
This is more a critic of Hermano’s presentation - then Dave’s.
So in the meantime, I’ll continue to make my scrambled eggs - with milk. 
Among several other things I am not completely on top of, are the naturalistic mechanisms treated in the Big Bang Theory (Ahem. 
). But I am certain we are talking about measurements which are built on assumptions, by definition.
Suppose we were asked to guess the age of Adam on the seventh day—a day after he was created. If we incorrectly assumed that Adam was not supernaturally created, but that instead he came about naturally, then we would derive an age that was far too old.
I offer you this relevant 4 minute video, “Does distant starlight prove the universe is old?” with Jason Lisle (Ph.D. astrophysics, the University of Colorado Boulder):
(or found at, youtube.com/watch?v=83brK_yohRA )
People interpret information through the filter of their worldview, scientists included.
Blessings.
I sent that to my friend JIm for assessment, and to give another point of view. He pulls these things off the top of his head, amazing.
In any case, for your consideration:
Jim says:
Dr. Jason Lyle’s arguments in that video are a collection of “possibilities” that seem to serve to allow him to support his preferred interpretations/translations.
I would ask him about psalm 19 for one thing. “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech: night after night they display knowledge.” What is it about stellar “time zones” or Einsteinian relativity that is “displayed knowledge?” How would a few thousand years of believers read psalm 19? "Maybe there are time zones in space?” Are 21st century (and therefore “exotic”) ideas necessary to understand the Bible? “Perhaps.” “Maybe.” “What if.” Dr. Lyle posits that God may have used “supernatural means.” to allow light to travel in practically no “time” at all. How does that translate to our being able to trust what we see, “displayed knowledge,” in the heavens in that verse?
Dr. Lyle seems to believe the heavens were created on the fourth “day” (yom). Why are creation verbs not used there? What rule of Hebrew semantics require a “Yom” be 24 hrs? Why, then, is an “evening and a morning” not a mere 12 hrs?
He suggests that the Big Bang is an “alternative” to Biblical creation. I suggest it is identical to it. As, apparently, do these secular scientists;
Sir Frederick Hoyle- “The big bang theory theory requires a recent origin of the Universe that openly invites the concept of creation.”
George Smoot, director of the COBE background radiation project- “The question of ‘the beginning’ is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians.”
Robert Jastrow- “The essential element in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”
I suggest that any English speakers interested in these things get an interlinear Bible, A Hebrew lexicon with Strong’s numbers, and make a list of the many english translation possibilities from the Hebrew words, and then decide which of these possibilities are the best explanations. And unless you cannot definitely refute a possibility, why wouldn’t you have to leave it in as a possibility? And try not to inject preconceived or favorite notions, so that we can be fair to the remaining possibilities. Is everyone who disagrees with you incompetent? After all, I can suggest Christian PH.d astronomers who disagree with Dr. Lyle. Maybe Jeff Zweerinck?
Also ask some questions…, such as- Was there really a practice to skip over many personages in Hebrew genealogies? Would that explain why Biblical genealogies are not identical? How many generations are missing?
Why does God, speaking thousands of years ago, call the hills “ancient” in more than one place?
Why does not the Hebrew ”shemayim eretz” in Gen 1:1.not mean “the entire physical universe.” Gleason Archer, the renowned Hebrew scholar, says it can. Could that explain why “Bara” the creation verb used in verse 1 is not used in “Yom” 4? Why is the “dark” localized in verse 2?
Why is the radical creation verb “bara” used in psalm 104: 29-30. Where God causes the death of creatures- “when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust." And then- “When you send your Spirit, they are created (“Bara”) and you renew the face of the earth. “The face of the earth?..,” what scope! Which 24 hour period contained these actions? Here perhaps I should take my own advice & point out that the Hebrew translated here “earth” can also be translated “ground” which could be said to be smaller in “scope,” but it doesn’t have to be, and all I have to do is suspend my penchant for dogma. Yet I still have to ask,…, why is God killing creatures not included in the Genesis one account, at say, 2:30 in the afternoon on the 5th “day"? Why is this not a perfectly good question? Why and how is Psalm 104 not an explicit teaching of “day=age progressive creation?” And why exactly would one reject it without explanation? Or at least providing a better one.
Speaking of possibilities…, the Hebrew lexicon for “Shemayim” (“heaven’s, plural) used in the flood account contains the Hebrew convention of a perspective view of “from horizon to horizon.” Another opportunity for honest assessment of possibilities, is it not?
I see no compelling reason to abandon the belief that everything that has been created, was created supernaturally, some thousands (versus billions) of years ago, during six 24 hour days of a Creation Week—gaps in biblical genealogies notwithstanding.
That the Hebrew word for “day" is referring to a solar (24 hour) day—at least in Genesis 1—is supported by the story of the giving of the Ten Commandments, because when God commands that work be done for six days and then rest for one day, the Scriptures make explicit reference to God’s own work in like manner during the six days of creation, and His own rest on an earlier day seven:
As to “ancient” hills (as mentioned, for example, in Dt. 33:15), that adjective “ancient” is synonymous with “aforetime,” “from of old,” or “earliest time.” Again, I see nothing compelling to move us from a scale of thousands of years old, to a scale of billions of years old.
As to the assertion that the Big Bang is equivalent to biblical Creation: why must we try to shoehorn a supernatural event into the confines of an imperfect naturalistic model? As Jason Lisle pointed out at the end of his 4 minute video, and elaborated on in this short chapter: *“the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. If both models [bing bang and biblical creation] have the same problem in essence, then that problem cannot be used to support one model over the other. Therefore, distant starlight cannot be used to dismiss the Bible in favor of the big bang.” *
Again, I refer to my earlier point of Adam being created in adult form, from dirt, supernaturally. Granted, we indeed see naturalistic mechanisms—that were earlier put into place supernaturally—currently chugging right along, and exemplified in biology by human conception, with a nine month gestation period.
YET, back to the supernatural superseding the natural: we have Jesus becoming a human, without any DNA contributed by a human father; water to wine; food multiplied; blind eyes open; the lame walking; men walking on water; the dead raised, and more. As with biblical creation, there is simply no satisfactory naturalistic analysis that can be provided for any of these events, either.
I would like to understand better what Jim means by, “Yet I still have to ask,…, why is God killing creatures not included in the Genesis one account, at say, 2:30 in the afternoon on the 5th “day"? Why is this not a perfectly good question?” But let me reiterate from my original essay, at the beginning of this thread:
Blessings
From Jim:
Hermano is an honorable debater. This “in house” old earth, young earth, Christian debate is not a salvation issue, even in a non Christian-universalist scenario. The question is how to understand what the authors, whom I believe to be “inspired,” meant their readers to understand. In this case the Authors wrote in Hebrew. When questions arise it is necessary to try our best to understand Hebrew practice, convention, syntax, tradition, and even vernacular. Both “theology” and “science” are imperfectly practiced by mankind. Psalm 19, and Romans 1:20 , for example, refer us to creation for information about God. How are these verses not “authorizations to commit ‘science,” which is nothing more than looking ever more closely at creation. Christianity, which assumes a predictable creation because God made it, is demonstrably causative in the development of the best of these practices.
(For example, it was noted that Gen.1:1-2 provides the earliest known example of the error minimization practice known as the “scientific method.” This is seen in verse 1 where, first, the “boundary conditions are given. In this case we see God creating through fiat the “shemayim eretz” which means the entire physical universe in one perfectly legitimate translation. The second verse begins with the second step of establishing the local “frame of reference” or “point of view,” a perspective from which we are to view the following narrative, until a new frame of reference is established. In this case the perspective is from a position “hovering” or “brooding” above the surface. This is the position we are to view the following narrative. We are placed in and not taken out of this position throughout the Gen.1 narrative. Step 3 is to cite the local conditions. In this case they are above a useless (“formless & void”) water planet (“Now the earth was”) in the dark. Notice that it is dark at the surface. If we assume that the Universe was created in verse one, a legitimate translation, then the sun was shining above the opaque reducing atmosphere causing the surface to be dark where it says it was dark. (Proverbs 8:28, Job 38:8,9- clearly a creation account) Science tells us the earliest atmosphere was reducing and opaque. The vast “swarms” of oceanic microorganisms (from the spirit’s “brooding?”) were producing oxygen and the sky became translucent, plants contributed til in the fourth period (“yawm”) that atmosphere became partially transparent as it is today so that the sun, moon, and stars became visible and God “set” them to serve as signs etc. The active verbs used in the 4th period are not radical creation verbs. Why not? Because these objects were created in verse one. These are as things appeared and progressed as seen from our given frame of reference. The rest of the narrative is not controversial among most Christians. Well, except for the “Christian evolutionists” like Dr. Francis Collins. I do not believe evolution comes near to explaining phyla, species, or really anything above the microorganisms, where mutation and selection do indeed operate)
Hermano refers us to the 4th commandment to support the idea of a 24 hour “Yowm” (it is spelled that way in Strong’s). That is circular reasoning. “Yowm” is translated a “watch in the night,” a 12 hr. period, a 24 hour period, and an indefinite period, elsewhere in the Bible. The question becomes “Why must it be 24hrs in Gen.1?” If, as Hermano suggests, it must be since the 4th commandment says so…, well, the 4th commandment says “yowm” as well, in the Hebrew. Is there another possibility? Clearly there is. Hebrews 4:4, “And on the seventh day God rested from his work,” confirming that the seventh day of creation is the subject. Verse 6; “It still remains that some will enter that rest.” THAT rest! Verse 9. “There remains, then a Sabbath rest for the people of God.” God’s seventh “yowm” of rest continues to this day! The seventh day of Genesis 1 is clearly not 24 hrs! Others argue that wherever an ordinal is used (1,2,3, etc) it must be 24hrs. While that is true in other Biblical verses where yowm is used, there is no Hebrew rule requiring such. The burden of proof falls to the advocate of such a “rule.” The “seventh day” has an ordinal! It is clearly ongoing even now! This argument actually supports an indefinite period view.
I’m not sure “from of old” or “earliest time” abrogates “ancient” very much, if at all. “aforetime” may be a mitigating choice of English words . But Hermano is right to seek alternate possibilities. That is perfectly legitimate.
It should ALWAYS be done, especially regarding controversial subjects. The autographs are, after all, Hebrew, not English. If we practice this we can find that the word translated “father” in Genesis 5, (a primary source of the YEC model), it is also legitimate to translate it as “ancestor.” “When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the “ancestor” of Enosh.” This can be seen in Daniel 5 where Nubuchadnezzar is called Belshazzar’s “father” but was really his grandfather. A common practice. So missing generations are not the only problem with Archbishop Ussher’s 6000 year old earth.
The words in Gen. 1 translated “evening” and “morning” can be translated “ending” and “beginning.” This renders their use to transitional from one set of actions to another rather than any kind of a time citation. English translations add words in Genesis one, and change the syntax. "The first yowm” is actually written “yowm one.” A subtle distinction, but containing an inference as well. This also can contribute to a question about whether a translator can avoid being an interpreter as well. Clearly it is important.
If Adam was created in adult form, as I believe he was, was he given 30 years, say, of cholesterol accumulation so as to exhibit “an appearance of age?” as is suggested by so many about the universe in the YEC community?
“Why must we shoehorn a supernatural event into the confines of an imperfect naturalistic model.” See above as to whether your model of interpretation is “perfect” or whether it might be reconsidered to an equally legitimate, by all the rules, competing model? In any caseI don’t do that. I merely note that imperfectly (but impressive, nonetheless) practiced science confirms the Biblical account, as was noted by the secular doctorates my previous post.
I do, very much, question the arbitrary way in which many YEC’s say progressive creationists “don’t believe the Bible” when they (I) are merely pointing out that alternative, and equally “literal” choices can be made with quite different results. “Old Earth" goes back to at least Augustine, as well.
“If He is nonviolent” In this YEC model, all death is attributed to the fall of man. Why did Paul then say, through the fall “Death came to all men? Rather than death came to all creatures? Did no T. Rex step on any ants?
Job 12:7 “Ask the animals and they will teach you.” Job 39:14 "She (ostrich) lays her eggs on the ground”…,”Unmindful that a foot may crush them, that some wild animal may trample them.” Why? Verse 17 “for God did not endow her with wisdom or give her a share of good sense.” Job 38:39 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions?” Psalm 104:21 “The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God.”
It does seem that a T-Rex may have stepped on an ostrich egg because God made things that way, if an explicit teaching can be believed.
What I meant by quoting Psalm 104:29 & 30 is that it says clearly, in all the translations, that God kills large numbers of animals and replaces them, by the “face of the earth/ground in scope. This actually reminds me of the 5 major extinction events quite clearly portrayed in the fossils record. Though my point was how do you fit these things into a 24 hour narrative? Read Psalm 104:29-30 in several translations, or the Hebrew. Reconcile it with the YEC model.
Interesting question; Why was there a tree of life in the garden? It was not forbidden. What was it for if nothing could die? Why was it forbidden only after the fall? Why did God “increase” Eve’s pain in childbirth. Clearly pain, then, preceded the fall. We must try to understand everything in a model that explains everything. “Study to show thyself approved.”
Job 38:31, “Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades?” “Can you loose the cords of Orion?” How is it that these constellation contain the only known gravitationally bound star groups visible to the naked eye. Why is the Bible the only “holy book” that contains descriptions of the complete water cycle including the invisible evaporative step?
Blessings yourself Hermano
Just a little technical matter. To write the “squared” symbol in E=MC², while holding down the Alt button, type “253” on the numeric keyboard.
I tried that and it doesn’t work²
Oops…
Two things Dave:
Ohhhh! I just noticed now that you succeeded in typing the squared symbol after the word “work” in your post!
Yeppir, worked right out of the box!!
Is there a list of some sort of those kinds of work-arounds - like the tilde, the degree sign and others?
There are many more “alt” characters that you might find useful. Here are a few of them:
[size=130]128 Ç 129 ü 130 é 131 â 132 ä 133 à 134 å 135 ç 136 ê 137 ë 138 è 139 ï 140 î 142 Ä 143 Å 144 É 145 æ 146 Æ 147 ô 148 ö 149 ò 150 û 151 ù 152 ÿ
153 Ö 154 Ü 155 ø 156 £ 157 Ø 158 × 159 ƒ 160 á 161 í 162 ó 163 ï 164 ñ 165 Ñ 166 ª 167 º 168 ¿ 169 ® 170 ¬ 171 ½ 172 ¼ 173 ¡ 174 « 175 » 181 Á
182 Â 183 À 184 © 185 ╣ 186 ║ 187 ╗ 188 ╝ 189 ¢ 190 ¥ 191 ┐ 192 └ 193 ┴ 194 ┬ 195 ├ 196 ─ 197 ┼ 198 ã 199 Ã 200 ╚ 201 ╔ 202 ╩ 203 ╦ 204 ╠
205 ═ 206 ╬ 207 ¤ 208 ð 209 Ð 210 Ê 211 Ë 212 È 213 ı 214 Í 215 Î 216 Ï 217 ┘ 218 ┌ 219 █ 220 ▄ 221 ¦ 222 Ì 223 ▀ 224 Ó 225 ß 226 Ô 227 Ò 228 õ
229 Õ 230 µ 231 þ 232 Þ 233 Ú 234 Û 235 Ù 236 ý 237 Ý 238 ¯ 239 ´ 241 ± 242 ‗ 243 ¾ 244 ¶ 245 § 246 ÷ 249 ¨ 250 · 253 ² 254 ■ [/size]
Notes:
158 is the multiplication symbol
159 is the letter “esh”, used as “s” at the beginning or middle of a word in early English writing. The ordinary “s” was used only as the final letter of a word. This corresponds to Greek. This sigma (σ) is used at the beginning or middle of a word, where as this one (ς) is used at the end of a word.
Here is a page from a first edition of the King James Bible. You will see an esh or two or more used where we would use an “s”:
Thanks Don - I did not know there were so many - some of those will come in useful. Though admittedly I don’t have a LOT of use for the å that often.
[size=130]It is now -5º C. at my place. The degree symbol can be made with Alt 167.[/size]
Yes, there are many more. There’s even a smiley [size=180][/size] (Alt 1)—but increase the size to 180.
Alt 2 is also a smiley [size=180][/size]
There are a whole bunch of symbols with alts beginning with zero. I use alt 0151 regularly. It’s a long dash —
There’s a pretty good list here:
tools.oratory.com/altcodes.html
Paidion ♫
P.S. The musical notes are alt 14.
As in “Julius Cæsar”
You called it a “letter.” I thought that was just a minor slip on your part. Clearly it’s not a “letter”; it’s a marrying of “a” and “e” and is used in the word “Cæsar” although many people simple write “Caesar.” It is also used in “Encyclopædia Britannica.” But many people write “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” and in United States it is spelled “encyclopedia.” You also asked about how it is pronounced. It is pronounced as a long “e”.
By the way “æ” and “œ” are called “ligatures.” It struck me just now that you may have been asking for the name of the ligature “æ”.
It’s ancient name was “æsc” (probably pronounced “ēsc”).
If Hermano would subscribe to the physics questions at quora.com/ (geared towards the layman),…Where laymen can get answers - usually from Ph.D. physicists (also chemists, if needed)… Then he might be “a tab more careful”, in what he considers to be - scientific fact. Or physics discoveries, that should be reproducible experimentally.
Otherwise, it’s like my scrambled egg example - made with butter. Where MOST of the professional cooking schools, restaurants, and cooks - use milk.
