Freewheeling, greenie, niner etc... a little religion talk here and there is ok but lets not get into it here. There is a subforum for that and I ask any further discussion gets taken there. Thanks for your understanding gents.
Sorry Justin, but I need to address something. I hope you can forgive me.
Actually although the argument about the date of Creation being 6,000 years ago based on the notion that water consumed is water destroyed is silly that isn't the interpretation of Genesis that makes sense anyway. Ironically 7,000 years and 2,000,000,000 years are *both* correct. Think about it. Relativity says that there has to be some point of view in the universe where only 7 days passed between the Big Bang and the development of agriculture by man, because time passage is entirely relative to speed and point of view. We also don't know where that point of view would be, because the universe expands symmetrically so we can't run the machine in reverse and scope it out. So the point about the passage of time since Genesis is moot. Moses Maimonides solved this riddle about 800 years ago in *A Guide for the Perplexed* and current astrophysics has contributed very little that is unique to his argument. He even describes the Big Bang fairly accurately.
I'm sorry, but that really shows at best a lack of understanding of what the theory of relativity actually explains, and at worst a pretty malicious misinterpretation and misrepresentation of it. They are not "both correct." Those two numbers are both incorrect, and unfortunately the notion of the beginning of the known universe is more complex than most people will let on, especially from the side of Creationists. The simple use of "think about it" is a big red flag. It means that it requires you to take a conclusion and then work your way backward to come to incorrect justifications. Your explanation of there being a point in the universe where only 7 days has passed since the Big Bang is not correct, it simply isn't. Static points within our observable universe don't work that way.
I've read Guide for the Perplexed, unfortunately, and if you think that current astrophysics has actually contributed very little to our understanding of the universe as compared to the words of the Rambam, then I have nothing really to say. That would be trying to use reason and evidence to convince someone who doesn't value reason and evidence, that reason and evidence are important. You're clearly welcome to believe whatever you want, but you're the one with all your work still ahead of you. Personally, I'm more distracted by the Rambam's assertion that God will physically resurrect the dead. Again, you're welcome to believe it all, but Maimon isn't what I (nor any physicist that I know, and I know several) would consider a foremost authority on the workings of our universe.
Dawkins, on the other hand, isn't worth the price of ink. See Gerald R. Schroeder for the resolution between modern physics and Genesis. And Schroeder tears Dawkins' arguments to ribbons all while dismissing conventional Creationism as fairly obviously naive.
Just sayin'.
Schroeder is a crackpot, and does exactly what I described above. He takes a desired conclusion, and works backwards to make pieces of things fit where they don't really. It's not uncommon for quack theologians to take scientific discoveries and then use them to say "Ah, see how clever God was all along?" That's not scholarship, and that's not faith. Using something like what he perceives as "scientific evidence" (which it isn't) to "prove" (which he doesn't) events narrated in biblical texts is not faith, it instead removes the idea of faith from the religious conviction.
Dawkins isn't my favorite person in the world, I personally can't listen to him speak or debate. It's not his forte. However, to say he's not worth whatever it is, is not correct. His books explaining the evidence and mechanics of evolutionary biology are accurate, well-written, and decently presented. His piece Climbing Mt. Improbable" is a great chapter on the evolution of the eye that answers a lot of questions, and illustrates his effectively method for not only explaining theory, but citing evidence and pointing to it. He's not an astrophysicist, and it wouldn't be wise to expect him to show real expertise in that field. There are much more qualified people to talk to about astrophysical ideas, namely Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku. I'm fortunate enough to speak with Dr. Kaku on a decently regular basis, as he still teaches at the Graduate center, and has had classes at CUNY while I was an undergrad. Granted, I've only had a good talk with Tyson once, but from what I've read of his works, he's a great person to read if you're interested in astrophysics.
I'm not a physicist myself, however I have one in the family, and a good number of my academic friends study those sciences. Apart from content area classes and school breaks, I'm usually around them, listening to them talk about this sort of material, and asking them questions myself. I've always made it a habit to make friends who have expertise that I don't, and I've learned quite a bit from taking arguments that I can't answer and bringing them to the people that can. However, my area of study involves quite heavily the study of biblical literature, so one could understand my interest in its overlap with the sciences.
Whaddup Chuck.
Name's Manny and I work in demolition. 31 years old and from the good ol' borough of Brooklyn in NYC where locking folding knives are illegal...and so is just about everything else.
Not everything... violating the term limits and staying Mayor for another term is apparently legal.
