Dreadnaughtus discovery

Came across this article about the largest dinosaur yet discovered. Truly massive. http://news.yahoo.com/astoundingly-huge-dinosaur-skeleton-unearthed-050002143.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons

Without pointing me to ken ham's site (or the like) can you young earthers explain where this creature fits into the Biblical time frames?

Don't need long response, just curious if you think they were all wiped out by the flood, or if some survived the flood (I.e. they were on the ark) and is so did they make it to Jesus's day.

What do you do with the theory about the asteroid strike wiping them out etc.

Created on the sixth day, on the ark, went extinct later.

That's about it in a nutshell.

For a more in depth response I'm afraid I'll have to point you to Answers In Genesis :).

So do you all think Noah and his sons were fighting off T Rexes? Not being facetious I am just curious about how much contact humans had with Dino's.

Maybe the Flinstones had it right and the pyramids were built using Dino power. You never can tell!

I agree but I am sure there will be an explanation for it.

Below is an article talking about the dinosaur soft tissue- the lady who made the original discovery thinks she has solved the dilemma:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/11/27/controversial-t-rex-soft-tissue-find-finally-explained/

This sort of thing fascinates me, and other similar unexplained phenomenae makes this earthly journey totally exciting every day!

Truth is truth, my opinions on whether the earth is 6000 years old or 4.5 billion is somewhat inconsequential. I cannot create truth, I can only discover it. Modern science, driven by prospects of prestige and grant money does not have my luxury. They have to make things say other things, and suppress those whose discoveries threaten the money stream!

I truly believe that God is never afraid of science. Indeed, men have excelled in science following the clues God has hidden in His creation, things that work together to keep men always interested in new discoveries. But when some of these science minded men and women open their hearts to God's personal wonder, they excel even more. They also fall from the favor of those who believe the scientific impossibility that something can be created from nothing!

There will be answers to all of it, and the dinosaurs will make perfect sense as God worked time and material into a habitation for the pinnacle of his creation- human beings.

But we might not get it until we venture into His celestial video theater on the other side.

While we're on the subject, does anybody believe that the vast fields of oil now known to be thousands of feet below both earth and oceans are the result of dead dinosaurs from X number of years ago?

Hi TMK,

I know that there is much debate about this sort of issue. "Young Earthers" and "Old Earthers" often bicker over trying to unite science and the Word of God.

First off: I really don't know much about Ken Ham. I did attend a workshop at a Christian festival in Napa a few years ago where I found the speaker to be grossly ignorant of science in general and blatantly incorrect in stereotyping what scientists feel one way or the other. That isn't to say that the speaker at that workshop was wrong in everything that he said. Rather, his message probably wouldn't be embraced by scientists because he was incorrect in assuming the reasons why they believe what they believe. If someone is going to try to use science to explain science, they need to be informed. Otherwise, they will come across looking like a very ignorant person.

When I was a youth and didn't believe in God, the Bible or Christianity, it wasn't because of evolution. I know people who feel that there are holes in evolution (or reject it altogether) yet they are atheists and believe that the Bible is fiction. For most, it isn't because they believe in an "old Earth" -- but because they believe in an "old universe."

Physicists can measure the distance of objects in space based upon the shift of nearer objects and the stationary-like position of more distant objects. They also use triangulation techniques to determine placement and movement. They've determined that the universe is expanding away from a central point. If you go back about 13.8 Billion years, everything would have been together (hence the need for a "big bang" to explain why the enormous gravity of the entire solar system would suddenly reverse course, escape the central gravity point and expand outward).

Consequently, the nearest extra-solar objects (e.g., stars outside of our solar system) are measured in light years of distance. Light years, of course, is measured as the distance that light will travel in a year. The reason that scientists don't embrace a "young earth" has nothing to do with evolution. Rather, it is because the observable universe itself is measured as being about 13.8 billion light years across. When we look into the sky through telescopes, we are looking at light that has been traveling at 186,000 miles per second for, literally, millions of years. If it took millions of years for that light from distant objects to reach the Earth, scientists reject the notion that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

So, how can the universe be younger than 6,000 years in age if the vast majority of objects (e.g., stars, galaxies, etc...) in space are much further than that as measured in light years? What do dinosaurs have to do with this?

Here are a few things to think about:

1.) Scientists accept that the speed of light is a constant (well, actually THE constant) in thinking of the laws of the universe. However, scientists also believe that light traveled astronomically faster in the moments following the "Big Bang." This mean that light was much faster -- exponentially so -- than the current speed measured at 186,000 miles per second. Since time and space are "relative" according to Einstein & Co., this would mean that time moved much faster too (exponentially so). Is it possible that the initial distribution of light from "Let there be light" took placed in what now would be an instant but, in terms of relativity and space-time, took place over billions of years?

2.) I had a physics professor at the university that I attended who was a Christian. He believed that God created a "mature universe." The way he described it is that God -- who isn't confined to science -- created all of the elements and pieces of the university (that stretch across the 13.8 Billion light year width of the universe) at the very moment that He said, "Let there be light." In other words, light waves from the deepest regions of space were already here by the time Adam looked up at the night sky.

3.) The theory of an asteroid wiping out dinosaurs is really the attempt to explain why dinosaurs disappeared from the Earth. We know that they walked the Earth. We know what they are found on nearly every continent. However, we know that the fossil record stopped abruptly too. So, scientists sought to find a way to explain this abrupt end to the fossil record.

Is it possible that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was a dinosaur? After all, Satan is described as a "dragon" which, in Revelation 20:2 is called "that ancient serpent." The serpent was called a "beast of the field" and cursed to craw upon his belly from that point onward. At this point, no "dragons" would have existed since. BTW, I do think that it is interesting that when dinosaur fossils were purportedly first uncovered in China at around 300 A.D., they were considered "dragon bones." Moreover, it wasn't until the late-17th Century that dinosaur fossils were uncovered in modern times.

I won't pretend to know the absolute validity of these things. However, these are some of the things that I have thought about for a long time now. I apologize for the lengthy nature of this response too.

Hi Chris-

I appreciate your post and the only thing I strongly object to is #2- the "God created the universe with the appearance of age" argument. I realize God can do what he wants, but I believe this argument slanders the character of God.

Greg Koukl (apologist) wrote this article addressing this problem: http://www.reasons.org/articles/star-light-the-age-of-the-universe

I always had a problem with this theory even when I first heard it- and I think I was in middle school. I just don;t think God would "trick" us.

The idea that the universe was really crated 15 billion years ago but only seems to have been created 6000 years ago does not really explain the age of the earth.

And where do neanderthals etc fit into all this? we know there were non-human primates that used tools etc. Where were they in the time of Abraham, etc? I suppose neanderthals were wiped out in the flood- but did they have souls? apparently their DNA indicates they were human.

So many questions!

TMK wrote "I appreciate your post and the only thing I strongly object to is #2- the "God created the universe with the appearance of age" argument. I realize God can do what he wants, but I believe this argument slanders the character of God."

I don't see that this slanders God at all. If He chose to create things 'ready to inhabit' and perfect for our needs that is a good thing. It has nothing to do with trickery, that is your faulty perception.

If anything slanders God it is the theory of an ancient earth prior to the Genesis account (gap theory) that means a pre-Genesis creation that God just got wrong and decided to wipe out completely and start again!

Non-human primates that use tools? Yes they do today! What does that prove. Many animals use tools, even blackbirds.
Using tools does not make you a 'missing link'.

As for Neandethals, yes they were a human ethnic group, possibly wiped out by the flood. The science community just changed it's minds on this folk. First they were not human, then they were, now they have evidence that they interbred with other homo sapiens. That's because they were homo sapiens and were just another tribal group of humans. If you look at the Australian Aboriginals and the Pigmies of South America these also have outwardly striking differences to their look, bone and skull structure. No reasonably person would dare suggest they are not human and descended from our common ancestor (Adam). If it was not for the fact that they were around today, I'm sure there would have been 'scientists' claiming these were a different species and not homo sapiens!

Edit: Now I used the name 'homo sapiens', but I used this interchangeably with 'humans'. I should not really use the term, because there is no other type of human, no less than human, just humans! There have only ever been humans, created in the image of God. Otherwise you are down the route of evolution and racial discrimination. We all have one father (Adam) and one creator (God).

I don't want to give the impression that I believe in evolution because I absolutely do not.

But the non-human primates that evolutionists say evolved into humans existed so they either predates humans or lived along side of them.

I just can't see where primitive humans fit into the biblical economy because in the Bible the earliest humans were advanced-- they farmed, raised livestock, worshipped, and built cities. So I don't see where these primitive humans came from.

As to the appearance of age, we just have to disagree. No big deal. But if that theory is true then the novae we see which are evidence of an exploded star dont depict a real event. There never was a star that exploded, God just put the "evidence" of an exploded star in the sky that never really existed. That seems twisted to me and I don't see how that makes the universe a more habitable place.

Bear- as to Sasquatch--- believe it or not I have a dear Christian brother who believes he saw one running across the road in front of his car at night a few months back- this is a main road in my old home town that I know well with houses around but also woods and fields. He and another guy went out the next day to search the area where it was running and took some photos of large footprints. No joking. The only reason I give it any credence is because of the character of my friend.

TMK, you talk about 'non human primates'. Not sure what you are getting at here. Chimps are non-human primates and they live along side us (not me :)). Why do they have to fit into anything??

Primitive humans? What does this mean?? Some humans are more advanced today than others. Some tribes in the Amazon are hunter/gatherers and are less sophisticated and skilled than most of humanity. Are you suggesting they are not human? When they come into contact with the outside world they can very quickly learn and adapt to become able students capable of studying at universities. My point is, that some tribes probably migrated after the flood, became hunter/gatherers out of necessity and became disconnected from others and remained in that primitive position for years. hence the cave men etc. Why were the Red Indians and Aboriginals living in very primitive ways when at the same time much of the world had been living in post industrial revolution times? I would suggest because they were cut off from the rest of civilisation. Men can quickly degenerate into a primitive lifestyle given the conditions.

As to the universe. I'm a very simple man and look at things in a simple way. I don't understand all the mysteries of the universe, but I also don't hold much confidence in what man in his wisdom theorises about. I've been a Christian long enough to have seen many different theories come and go and none of them move me. I just say "Ah. Lord thou knowest" and know that soon they will find another theory that contradicts the earlier one. All the time I just believe what God says is true about Him, us and this world.
I like to read what chris says, so I'll leave this to him from now on.

Hi TMK,

I appreciate your post and the only thing I strongly object to is #2- the "God created the universe with the appearance of age" argument. I realize God can do what he wants, but I believe this argument slanders the character of God.

Greg Koukl (apologist) wrote this article addressing this problem: http://www.reasons.org/articles/star-light-the-age-of-the-universe

I always had a problem with this theory even when I first heard it- and I think I was in middle school. I just don;t think God would "trick" us.

The idea that the universe was really crated 15 billion years ago but only seems to have been created 6000 years ago does not really explain the age of the earth.

Thanks for the link. It is an interesting perspective. However, I would like to clarify my perspective behind my second consideration.

I wrote:

2.) I had a physics professor at the university that I attended who was a Christian. He believed that God created a "mature universe." The way he described it is that God -- who isn't confined to science -- created all of the elements and pieces of the university (that stretch across the 13.8 Billion light year width of the universe) at the very moment that He said, "Let there be light." In other words, light waves from the deepest regions of space were already here by the time Adam looked up at the night sky.

My university physics professor's idea of a "mature universe" is a little different than how it is described by other creationists. The point wasn't that God "deceived" the world to make it seem older than it really is. Rather, his idea is sort of a bridge with my previous (first) consideration.

God is not confined to the laws of nature. This was never more true than when He created the world prior to the establishments of universal laws of physics. He could produce light without a star. He can create "day" and "night" before the stars or Moon. He could create living plants before the Sun.

When God created "light" and set the universe (and its laws) in motion, God was not only at the beginning point of that light. He was -- and is -- everywhere. He didn't have to create light and confine it at 186,000 miles per second. As scientists believe that light moved exponentially faster in the moments following the "Big Bang," God could move light across the universe in an instant.

During creation, the Lord could easily move some light faster than other light. God is not even confined to forcing light to travel along the "bends" in space-time (which would make light travel "slower" due to greater distances across bends and gravitational spacial-plane distortions). Rather, God could make light go in any direction He wishes -- and even make it behave contrary to now-observed behavior. This would be, more or less, God setting up creation before God's creating had concluded.

Now, of course, all of this is conjecture. Yet, we believe in a Creator who is untamed by the laws of creation. If we believe that God came to this Earth and died for the sins of mankind, then why would it surprise us about the extent of His omniscience and omnipotence during creation?

I have previously used an anecdote about my childhood when discussing what my professor spoke about. When I was a little boy, I enjoyed playing with my room filled with toys. I had a bedroom where I would set up my toys on the floor for hours before engaging my creativity into play. I would take my Star Wars toys, Transformers, GI Joe figures, Legos and other robots, spaceships and play sets (including model trains) and build different "kingdoms." Once I completed building everything (and all of the pieces were in place), I would then begin playing and having my toys interact in the world that I created.

Now, I am not trying to compare God and his methods of creation with a little boy playing with toys. However, there is something to be said about how I set my toy world in motion and how this could mirror (ever so slightly and in concept only) how God built a world BEFORE applying the laws (e.g., gravity, motion, etc...) to it. In this sense, God could create light and speed it up before confining it to a universal speed limit. I hope this clarifies a little of what this means. Otherwise, I can further elucidate this a bit more if you like.

As for the neanderthals: I do think that much of the research into human biology is built upon the notion that the Earth must be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Consequently, the principles of evolution are built upon the premise that similarities between species translates to common origin. Thus, human biologists search for links and I think that they tend to "stretch" in order to provide them. The fossil record is sketchy (at best) and even the best fossil records (e.g., the Leakey's "Lucy") aren't necessarily interpreted correctly (although I know that Lucy isn't considered a Neanderthal). I often wonder if overzealous paleoanthropologists are creating a "brontosaurus" out of what might be the bones of a subspecies of ape or even an abnormality in a human.

The DNA evidence -- in which many humans seemingly have DNA that traces to a "Neanderthal" -- doesn't mean that they aren't human. "Neanderthals" are deemed human by scientists and are distinguished by the region from which they derived (*Europe, North Africa, Mesopotamia).

There is a "connection" between the DNA lineage (which cannot determine specific genetic features but simply specific "signals" determining lineage) and modern humans. However, the notion that the "Neanderthal" is a pre-human (as described by movies and works of fiction) is incorrect.

The scant fossil remains do not mean that they point to ape-links in early humans. Rather, it simply means that there are some differences between modern humans and the skeletal remains that have been found. Even the skeletons could be the result of physical abnormalities -- much the same way that, say, Andre the Giant might appear if he had lived thousands of years ago and had been uncovered by paleoanthropologists. It is interesting to point out that human bones collected under tones of shifting dirt and rock (and after floods, humidity, etc...) aren't exactly the best indications of what the bones looked like prior to death either.

I will speak with my sister-in-law about this. She recently graduated with a degree in Human Biology from Stanford and I know that she took a class in evolutionary biology from a well-known paleobiologist too. I'd like to hear some of her thoughts.

hi chris-

I can concede that what you say about the speed of light being faster, etc might be true, but if that is the case, and we around long enough, shouldn't science be able to discover this fact, if it is truth after all? Or do you think God has "hidden" this from the possibility of discovery?

If neanderthals are humans, it would seem they "devolved" from Adam, unless Adam also looked like a Neanderthal. Now, I don't believe in macroevolution but I do believe that natural selection is obvious. So if "normal" humans came first, why would natural selection work to create a less intelligent form of human?

I guess the idea of a billions of years old earth does not bother me because I don't believe in evolution. I don't think there is enough time for evolution of species that we see today even if the earth is a trillion years old. So I am not threatened by an old earth theory. If I believed that evolution could take place in 5 billion years but I was conflicted because evolution does not fit into the Bible, then I might do everything I could to establish the earth is around 6000 years old. Men like Ken Ham seem desperate to me. Hugh Ross, who I tend to agree with on most points in these types of discussions, is not threatened by an old earth because he does not believe that allows for evolution. Still not enough time.

There are lot of theories here but no one can be sure what has happened. Bible contrains only history of humans not animals.

Bible starts with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. "
Verse 2 " Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. "

I do not believe God will create anything formless and empty. So between verse 1 and 2 something happened. There might have been some living creatures between them and also a period of time between them. The fall of Satan from Heaven could have made the Earth with living being as formless and empty.

Hence all the questions on timeline araise only when we assume that earth was created along the same time as human beings and other things that we see today (period of 6 days). But Bible does not explicitly state this.

TMK,

I think your confidence in un-regenerate scientists is probably misplaced. Everyone brings their own world view into play when looking for evidences of the origins of life and related science. Bible believing Christians are governed by the fact that God is the creator of all. Unbelievers and those who do not hold to the authority of scripture will not look for or even consider evidence based on a creator God.
Romans 1 says that unrighteous men supress the truth about God because creation is evident to all men and because of this they become darkened and foolish, while all the time professing to be wise. How does this fit in to your confidence of the science community?

I have some questions to ask you (and Sree as well I guess).

Why do you think God would take millions of years to create the earth or even just make it millions of years before man was created?

Do you think God create the earth for man or did He make it originally for others and then later re-make it for man?

If death is the result of Sin, at what point do you think sin, decay and death entered the world?

Heydave-

I don't really trust secular scientists. For example, I do not trust them at all in regard to climate change even though about 97% say man is causing it.

I never really subdcribed to the "gap theory" as described by Sree although I suppose it may be possible.

But in regard to secular science, I understand that they may be wrong about the age of the earth/universe. But my big question is always can they be THAT wrong? I mean if the earth is really 3 billion years old and the scientist say it's 6 billion, I can understand that. But science saying its 6 billion when it's really only 6000 or so makes absolutely no sense to me. If they can be that wrong, how can we ever trust them to be right? And science seems to be right about a great number of things. Look at the technology we have today.

So I guess it stretches my credibility to the breaking point to accept that they are 10 to the 6th power wrong about the age of the earth.

....but if you start from the premise that nothing cannot instantly become a complex something and that it must develop (evolve) slowly bit by bit, then you need billions of years. However if you believe that an omnipotent God can create something incredibly complicated and habitable out of nothing in an instance, then you can understand why there can be such huge differences.

Also as Chris said, if you observe things such as distance of stars by speed of light and seek to understand based what we see as true today, you will come unstuck because you discount a God who is no limited to His created order. He is outside of His creation.

Hi TMK,

I don't really trust secular scientists. For example, I do not trust them at all in regard to climate change even though about 97% say man is causing it.

To be clear: It isn't 97% of scientists claiming that the Earth is warming and that man is the chief cause. Rather, it is 97% of a pool of "climatologists" -- a specific (and new) genre of scientists who make a living from this -- who were polled in a single poll that drew such a conclusion.

If you were to poll (anonymously) a larger pool that included physicists, meteorologists, geologists, cosmologists and even climatologists, I think that the number would be much, much lower. There is great variation in the conclusions drawn by scientists over climate change. Some may believe that temperatures indicate recent change (over the last century) but are honest enough to point out that we don't have accurate measurements exceeding 50 years -- let alone thousand (or, as they believe, millions) of years. Others may believe that the Earth is warming while not attribute humans as the primary cause.

When I was working at NASA as an intern, I attended a couple of lectures by Dr. Joel Levine. He acknowledges apparent slight temperature increases (acknowledging that accuracy is relative to the accuracy of the tools we now have but did not have more than five or six decades ago); however, he attributes much of any measurable warming to natural phenomenon (e.g., wildfires).

In other words, there is no real universal "consensus" among scientists -- no matter how loudly Al Gore proclaims that there might be.

I never really subdcribed to the "gap theory" as described by Sree although I suppose it may be possible.

But in regard to secular science, I understand that they may be wrong about the age of the earth/universe. But my big question is always can they be THAT wrong? I mean if the earth is really 3 billion years old and the scientist say it's 6 billion, I can understand that. But science saying its 6 billion when it's really only 6000 or so makes absolutely no sense to me. If they can be that wrong, how can we ever trust them to be right? And science seems to be right about a great number of things. Look at the technology we have today.

I think that the force of gravity is an interesting thing to consider (and is often overlooked) when considering the "Big Bang."

According to scientists, the universe is expanding away from a single point on the universal plane. As they traced the motion of celestial objects, they discovered that all known matter of the universe was moving away from a single place. Thus, going backward in time, (to the beginning of the known universe), Einstein & Co. concluded that all matter was contained within a specific singularity -- a point with almost zero volume but infinite density (and containing all matter in the entire universe).

The "bang" of the Big Bang had to be enough to literally "create" the expanse of the universe. It had to be so ferocious and powerful that the escape of matter had to be exponentially greater than the gravity (that space-time curving/bending and attracting force) that existed at the time of the "Big Bang" and immediately thereafter. Matter "escaped" that initial gravitational pull from that singularity (and immediate aftermath) and is still expanding to this day. So, what was the escape velocity necessary for matter (including light [or its forerunner]) at that initial point?

Escape velocity on this Earth is about 11 km/sec. Something has to travel faster than 11 kilometers per second to escape the gravitational pull and atmospheric pressure of Earth. Escape velocity is much higher given the mass of other celestial bodies. Escape velocity of Saturn is about 36 km/s. Escape velocity of Jupiter is about 60 km/s. The Sun has significant mass too (enough to keep the planets in their orbit). Given its mass, escape velocity from the Sun is 617.5 km/s (which is no problem for light from the Sun -- given the fact that light travels at roughly 186,000 miles/sec [or ~300,000 km/s).

Black holes -- now detected through secondhand visual observation and analysis of x-ray emissions, yet still hardly understood -- are enormously massive (yet not necessarily expansive) regions in space-time that are so dense that not even light can escape if it crosses the "event horizon" (that "point of no return"). Escape velocity at the event horizon is the speed of light (~300,000 km/s), but the escape velocity past that point would have to exceed the speed of light -- which isn't theoretically possible at this point of the universe's "age."

Now, imagine what the escape velocity would have been at the "beginning" -- at the moment of the "Big Bang" and immediate thereafter (called "inflation"). This is part of the conjecture that matter -- including what we know as light -- had to travel (or expand) exponentially faster than the speed of light by pushing/creating/expanding space-time. Since then, the expansion of the universe has slowed considerably. However, the measure of speed of light and expansion was exponentially faster -- fast enough to escape the fluxed gravitation pull of all matter.

Scientist believe that the detonation point (or "bang") only lasted a split second as measured by today's time -- but we know that time and space (and speed for that matter) are relative. After all, kilometers/second (velocity) is dependent upon distance (kilometers) and time (seconds). If the initial matter covered unbelievably enormous amounts of "space-time," then it would seem like many billions of years happened in that instant "bang." Time, it seems, did not behave as we measure it now and the "age" of cosmological items (including light and other forms of matter) is relative to our position in space-time. Does that make sense?

As always, there are many, many holes in cosmology, physics and other physical sciences. When these holes are discovered, new branches of science are formed. Scientists studying the universe encountered "flatness" and "horizon" problems (in space-time) and have branched out into finding theories that would explain such things. Of course, they search for a "grand unified theory" that would account and explain many of the issues (and contradictions) that frustrate them. With the apparent conformation of the Higgs boson (aka "God particle"), scientists hope to finally create a grand unified theory -- or, adding gravity, a "theory of everything" that would explain so many holes and contradictions among theories of physics.

Still, I think that it is possible that many scientists overlook the "expansion" issue as relative to our position in space-time when measuring the "age" of the universe, light and distance between objects.

Whew doggy Chris. I had to hold on for dear life but I think I get what you are saying.

Where do you think dark matter and dark energy fits into all this? Doesn't it make up most of the mass in the universe?

Hi TMK,

I would like to add that I find it interesting that the Biblical account ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," "Let there be light," "so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear," "stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain," etc...) can correspond with what modern scientists later theorized about the universe itself.

The age of the universe can seem ancient in terms of relativity yet still be quite young because our vantage point on this side of "in the beginning" is very different in terms of time and space.

I have long felt that the "big bang" at the beginning -- where God made the world from nothing -- is when God spoke this universe into existence. It is interesting that scientists can only study and analyze the "known" universe.

Anything before that point of "inflation" -- when all matter was NOT expanding -- is complete mystery to scientists. That is considered the "unknown" universe. Like Paul said to the "thinkers" on Mars Hill, we can "declare" those things (Acts 17:22-28):

"24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."

As for "dark matter:" I have a friend who works at the SLAC National Accelerator at Stanford. He once quipped that nothing will create an argument among physicists as quickly as a discussion in "dark matter." I guess that is a lot like some doctrinal discussions among believers.

Chris,

I like reading your posts here. I read as if I understand everything you say (I understand some) and it makes me feel intelligent! lol.

I think a lot of what you said is what I meant, but without the science to back it up!

Hi Heydave,

Thanks. There are a couple of interesting books that try to present these sort of ideas in everyday laymen's terms. Stephen Hawking published A Brief History of Time in the attempt to explain relativity and other concepts in cosmology to non-scientists. He updated and shortened the book several years ago and re-entitled it A Briefer History of Time.

Stephen Hawking is a renowned physicist but he is not a Christian. Thus, I would take his writings with a prayerful heart (rather than a grain of salt). If anything, the books present an accurate view of the cosmos and "history" of the universe from the perspective of scientists. As a Christian, I don't try to bridge any sort of gap between science and faith. However, I do notice that many things that scientists "observe" can be understood or disseminated through from the vantage point of faith in Christ as presented through the Word of God.