Re: The biggest mistake an anti-creationists can make

Armin Held wrote:
Imagine the following situation:

You have just come from the airport of a foreign city
and are now trying to make your way to an old friend.
He has sent you a letter with a sketch and a short description
of the route, but you feel a little bit helpless,
because you lost your way and need a reference point
to find out where you are.

While you are looking for somebody to ask,
a blind man attracts your attention
standing at a crossroads, having no chance
to get to the other side because of the traffic,
except with a guide. Good-natured as you
are, you hurry to bring him safely to the other side.

And here comes the question:

Would you now hand over your friend's letter to this man
and ask him where on this sketch you are,
or would you even ask him to become your guide?
Probably not!

But exactly this is what some anti-creationists are seeming to do:
They have come to the conviction that the earth is old
and that all life is based on descent.
They see these things as so evident, that anybody who does not
acknowledge them must be virtually blind.
In their opinion therefore, all (young-earth) creationists are either
blinded by religion or scientifically a bit dim.
But then, when it comes to a competent interpretation of the Bible,
without hesitating they take over the opinions
of exactly those young-earth creationists which they are rating as blind!
Hook, line and sinker they swallow any dreadful dogma
the young-earth creationism spreads in the name of the Bible
and take it for face value.
Even as well a judge could appoint a blind man
known all over the town as an expert for paintings
and then base his judgement on this "expert's opinion"!

How can you ...

... rely on a Bible interpretation which
stems from people you are rating as spiritually blind?

Why ...

... do you not rather listen to those who have "eyesight" at least
on the realm of science and seriously check their interpretation?


I can read the bible myself, I don't need anyone to interpret for me. And I don't need to read past genesis I verse 3 before the bible contradicts modern science; in this case, Quantum Electrodynamics. To be specific, consider these verses:

"2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." (genesis I, verses 2 & 3, KJV translation)

So, according to this, water existed before god created light. To be entirely clear about this, by water I mean the bound state of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom, and by "light" I mean a collection of photons, massless spin 1 particles only interacting with charged particles. The problem with these verses is this: without photons, chemical bonds cannot exist. So water cannot have formed before light existed.

Indeed, the fact that charged particles (the constituents of atoms) existed before god created light, implies that god did not need to create light. The simple fact is that according to QED, charged particles and photons cannot exist independently of each other. Every charged particle is surrounded by an electromagnetic field which consists of photons. And photons can decay into particle / anti-particle pairs. Even if no photons with sufficient energy for this to happen existed, without charged particles photons have nothing to interact with, so without charged particles photons would be undetectable. Therefore it is impossible as well as useless to create one without the other.

How to get around this difficulty? There's several possibilities:

1. QED is wrong. This may well be true. It is a scientific theory like any other, so it cannot be proved. But it happens to be the most precisely verified theory in all of physics.

2. My interpretations of the words "waters" and "light" are wrong. But if so, why would the bible talk in riddles? Is god a deceiver?

3. The electromagnetic interaction did not work as it does now during creation. But the creation story is supposed to be an explanation for how the world came about, so at what point did QED "start"?

4. The bible is not the infallible word of god.

There may be more possibilities, but I think these are the major ones. My preference goes to number 4.


http://www.urzeitundendzeit.de/engl_index.html

Armin Held












.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The biggest mistake an anti-creationists can make
    ... And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the ... So, according to this, water existed before god created light. ... atoms and 1 oxygen atom, and by "light" I mean a collection of photons, ... the fact that charged particles ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... >>There are no neutrinos in my theory. ... photons and electric charge ... > interpret it) would restrict compton scattering to charged particles. ... a neutrino-photon interactions in its Hamiltonian. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Rotating Bar Magnets & CRTs
    ... |> this as space-time curvature with respect to charged particles. ... |> elements in spacetime toward it. ... The B field of a magnet will ... |> Photons become a representation of the curvature. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... >>I was against fields having existence independent of charged particles. ... Compton scattering of photons on electrons. ... > ampere's law or even a reasonable facimilie using your interpretation ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: % of religious homeschoolers
    ... to dance and photons to travel coherently in saying: ... I only believe in one less god ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)