Do YEC days 1, 2 & 4 explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy?

Conversation Side Conversation
,
1

First of all, forgive me, I’m not a scientist, and I’ve been studying quantum physics for all of one day. But already having a ton of fun; it’s fascinating.

So a lot of what I say may sound stupid. But I’m just testing theories and trying them out. I’m hoping that feedback will help guide what I study, so thank you for any comments for this non-scientist.

What is driving my curiosity is if YEC is true, what is God really doing in Genesis 1? I started an earlier thread on that note. Now I’m taking a deeper dive after rejecting initial hypotheses as I continue to study the texts of Genesis 1, Psalm 104, and Proverbs 8 and science more.

First hypothesis: “Waters” in Genesis 1:2 is quark soup.

(Perhaps it doesn’t necessarily have to be hot. Evolution assumes it to be extremely hot in order that it remains in as quark-gluon plasma. But that’s only because to create it out of atomic particles, we need heat them up. That’s working backwards. Do subatomic particles that have “never known” what it is to be part of an atom need to be hot?)

Second hypothesis: “Light” of Genesis 1:3 is not just light; it’s the electromagnetic spectrum. Of course, that’s obvious. BUT it’s also dark energy.

Third hypothesis: (Day 2 of creation, God creates a firmament in the midst of the waters, and it divides the waters. The firmament is called heaven. No mention seems to be made of the waters above the firmament again.) The first atoms and molecules were created on this day to create the atmosphere.

Fourth Hypothesis: The cosmic microwave background is the snapshot of the light filling the universe and God taking it and giving it to the heavenly bodies on creation day 4. I’m not sure how to word this specifically: The electromagnetic spectrum illuminates atomic particles. At the same time when God “made the stars” he took the quark soup above the firmament and made atomic particles out of some of it and dark matter out of the rest.

Fifth hypothesis: (I was watching a video of a physicist explaining that dark matter is 5 times more massive than what we can see.) So I’m suggesting that dark matter could be made up of unique particles that have quarks that add up to 5 times the atomic mass. Whatever is “leftover” of the initial light that is not on the electromagnetic spectrum is “dark energy.”

OK - I’m not sure the last one makes any sense at all. If any of them did. :joy: But I’m trying. :sweat_smile: Feel free to tell me I’m crazy. But this is fun. I will keep learning about quantum physics no matter what until I feel I can grasp the very basics. Thanks for reading.

2

Here is a question for you @thoughtful.

We all understand that the sun does not rotate around the earth. Rather the earth orbits the sun. In this sense, a sun”rising” in the morning is just an illusion. It is the earth rotating, not the sun moving.

I don’t think Scripture teaches. geocentrism is false, but neither does it teach geocentrism is true. It’s silent on this matter, except at times using terms like “sunrise” or “greater light”.

Do you agree that Scripture does not teach us that geocentrism is false? If you do not agree, why is it that no one believed geocentrism was false due to reading scripture alone? Why did it take Kelpler and Coperinicus to convince everyone of heliocentrism?

If you do agree, why didn’t it teach us this? So then, why didn’t they say anything that hinted that geocentrism was false?

This is a fairly easy idea to grasp and communicate. While ancient Hebrew does not have a word for “dark matter”, Genesis could have made clear that the earth moves more than the sun moves. Fast forward to Jesus. He could have easily said something like, “the earth moves around the sun, not the other way around.”

Why did not God give us this clear scientific prophecy to demonstrate that he is the Creator of all things?

2 Likes
3

I think you are trying to read far too much into Genesis 1.

Okay, I’m an agnostic, and because of that you are probably skeptical of my opinion. But I was a Christian at one time. And Genesis 1 had nothing to do with why I left Christianity. So I’ll comment on how I read Genesis 1 as a young Christian (around age 12).

On first reading, Genesis 1 was obviously wrong. It had daylight before there was a sun. And there were many other problems. However, I did not let that bother me. Genesis 1 was written for people several thousand years ago. It wasn’t written for me. And it described the world in a way that would have been seen as correct by the people at that time.

I took “inspired by God” to imply that God gave people ideas, but they wrote down those ideas in their own words. So what is written in Genesis would, of course, reflect the cultural traditions of the people for whom it was originally written. And quarks or dark matter were not in their thoughts at all.

2 Likes
4

Genesis 1 is not obviously wrong to me.

But yes, this seems true.

2 Likes
5

I don’t know if this entirely true, but I remember reading that the ancient Hebrew people believed the light that spans the whole sky was a different light than that coming from the Sun. For example, the sky lights up before the Sun rises. We are taught from an early age that the Sun causes the sky to light up, but it is easy to see how ancient cultures could have come to very different conclusions.

4 Likes
6

I’m not sure what your point is in asking me these questions, but I’ll take the bait. Without studying it closely, no I don’t think Scripture clearly teaches whether geocentrism is true or false.

I agree that the Bible’s purpose is not to teach anything scientific. I agree with you that belief in Jesus as our Savior is the primary thing. I believe in YEC because I believe Jesus believed it and I love him. I also believe it is the plain reading of Scripture and God did not intend to confuse children.

So, for me these questions are just fun to think about :grinning: I’m just really curious if there is any scientific objection to things like the cosmic microwave background occurring when light filled the universe and then it didn’t. That seems to me to be what happened when I hear physicists explaining it. And it’d be cool if dark matter was interesting new particles also made up of quarks and other known particles. It’s not that I have to figure it all out. It’s just that it makes me curious. I thought sharing it might make other people curious too :slight_smile:

1 Like
7

But isn’t a flat earth, covered by a solid dome, with water both above and below it, also the plain reading of Scripture? Yet you believe none of those things (or so I hope). Why?

1 Like
8

Well, in the same way, I don’t think it teach us Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Trying to read that into Scripture doesn’t make much sense to me.

Well that curiosity is great. I really recommend Ethan Siegel’s blog “Starts With A Bang” for questions like this. Have you heard of it?

3 Likes
9

I’m not reading that into Scripture. For me, it was like reading that God created animals and then deciding to study sheep because they’re interesting:

I decided that the waters was a quark soup first. Then I saw that the scripture said the waters was divided so some went into the heavens. So then I don’t remember what I looked up, but I started watching basic YouTube videos on Quantum Physics. I thought, oh, it makes sense that dark matter could be made of quarks.

I haven’t heard of anything. Like I said, totally new to this subject. :rofl: I vaguely recall the basics of physical science from high school or maybe college. I took the minimum amount of science required although I’m decent at math. I’ll check it out. Thanks!

10

Look at the title of your thread. I do NOT think that YEC days 1, 2 & 4 could possibly be explaining Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Ethan’s blog is great. Curious to see how you take to it.

11

Just putting my thoughts here as I research quantum physics in case anyone is curious with me, or you have a resource I should look at…

  1. Black Holes seem curiously like our sun, being at the center of many universes and such. I have just come across Hawkings radiation. I saw a theoretical picture that seems to indicate particles colliding and releasing energy. Could Black Holes be made of a simple dark matter particles comparable to hydrogen and others? If so, does information really disappear into them? Maybe it just “burns up.” OK, yeah, I’ve only got about 2 hours worth of knowledge on black holes. I need to research this more. Very interesting!
  2. I’d like to research general relativity. I don’t yet have an understanding of gravity. My science is at “crawling” stage. But wondering why we say mass curves space-time instead of space-time curves mass.
  3. For fun, I’m calling the dark matter particles “anjils” because “atom” sounds like “adam” so that’s just fun.
  4. Do scientists play around with theoretical matter properties? Like creating a Periodic Table of Dark Matter for fun, like linguists create elvish and Vulcan? Seems to be it’d be fun and useful and I’m curious if anyone has.
1 Like
12

hmmm. I’m not sure. As a kid I remembered I pretty much ignored Day 2 of creation because I just didn’t get that or the “waters” or what firmament was. I’m still fuzzy on “firmament.” I just focused on the rest of it which is like what I saw in the world. It didn’t directly say God created the “waters”…so what were they? Now it sort of makes sense to me if God created the universe he created all the material the first day. I liken Genesis 1 also to an artist creating a work. Unlike an artist though, the first step is to create the room and materials to use. I remember in a college theology class, a professor asked us to draw the creation week and I couldn’t do it.

13

Why do you think Jesus believed in YEC?

I agree God doesn’t intend to confuse us. However, God often reveals things beyond our ability to fully comprehend in scripture. That’s because God is infinite and we are finite beings. God also has a specific Goal when teaching us and that goal is not to teach science.
Take John 3 for example. Nicodemus, a very learned Jewish scholar couldn’t at all understand what Jesus was telling him.And Jesus even makes the following comments:
John 3: “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

Paul speaks as below about our understanding of God -
1Cor 13:12 -For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Isn’t it obvious that we wont understand many things about God and his things even if he has communicated it to us? Scripture tells us what it clearly teaches us -

2Tim 3: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I am sure that Moses and the israelites were guided in righteousness from genesis 1. They learned that there is only one God who is the creator of all things. I am not so sure they understood all that much about the actual process of creation.

2 Likes
14

This is a good question. I had to refresh what my specifics reasons for this, and skimmed the gospels. Always what’s striking is that when Jesus refers to the Old Testament, there’s no indication he takes them as anything other than literal stories. And the stories that were recorded are the ones that seem to be the most fantastical: Adam and Eve being one flesh (Matthew 19:4-6), Noah and the flood (Matthew 24:38-39), Sodom and Gomorrah, Jonah and the whale.

Also these passages struck me again I was reading them: Luke 10:21 At that time Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and declared, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was well-pleasing in Your sight. John 1 John 8:58 "Truly, truly, I tell you," Jesus declared, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

Yes, of course. For eternity we get to worship in God’s presence still learning and comprehending His goodness.

Moses talked with God face to face. Really, that’s hard for me to comprehend. I love the theophanies in the Old Testament, especially in Genesis. I have no idea how much Moses understood the process of creation, but if he was in God’s direct presence multiple times, what business did he have writing down a myth?

I just can’t comprehend that the Word who commanded the waves to be still and then they were, would inspire men to write down a creation story that showed exactly the same kind of command over creation but yet NOT REALLY MEAN that…that it might have been instead a really long process…billions of years, etc. That doesn’t make any sense to me at all. Theologically, personally, I see no choice but to accept that the Word spoke and it was created at His command. I am happy with not understanding everything about that process, and not understanding everything that science tells us now.

But, in some ways, I really don’t understand the objection. I just have the same curiousity non-Christian scientists do about how the world works. I’m just putting it in the framework of my own beliefs, and enjoying myself. I just like thinking philosophically, learning and researching. My brain is always busy. I’m not sure why exactly people have a problem with that, as if it’s not OK to be curious about how the world came to be as it is today if you’re a young earth creationist. Yes, I have a general framework that the Bible gives, but filling in the science is fun to me at this stage in my life. Doesn’t mean I will get the answers right, but it’s still interesting to me.

1 Like
15

Okay, so take the OT literally. How does that get you to YEC?

Have you read the GAE yet? It shows how a literal reading of Genesis, probably more literal than you are currently reading Genesis, is entirely consistent with an old earth and evolution. There just isn’t a conflict.

2 Likes
16

I have not read it yet. But I’ll make you a promise, I will. I have to thank you because the interview you did with Sean McDowell is what got me started on this science path. :slight_smile: I’ve researched some really interesting things along the way in the past month. One I’ll bring your attention to later, but I keep getting sidetracked, as well as getting sidetracked from reading the book.

I thought the idea was new and refreshing, as I hadn’t thought about the genealogies and we hate to read through them in the Bible :rofl: but now I appreciate them so much and they’re interesting. And it happened then I watched all of Dr. Jeanson’s Y-chromosome and genealogy series. I understand you may not agree with what Answers in Genesis does or you may not even like him personally. But I see something else. It is providential that what he’s doing and your book came out at the same time. Not only are Christians very interested in studying the end times right now (even that’s why this study of the heavens fascinates me, it’s so much a part of the end times) but Christians are also really interested in origins and I think both go together. I do actually think most Christians want to believe Genesis 1 is literal, but they don’t want to be anti-science either. Your book offers a bridge to start the conversation, which, even if I have theologically and intellectual objections to it already, as far as I understand the hypothesis, is providential. So I’m looking forward to reading the details.

So yes, for me it really comes down to this, as you’ve stated your theory is literal but still retains evolution:

1 Like
17

IMG_20200806_220744122_BURST000_COVER_TOP
IMG_20200806_220744122_BURST000_COVER_TOP2160×2135 226 KB

I just wanted to show you how I’m having fun. So I was watching some quantum physics videos yesterday and drew this picture, wondering if the universe was expanding at the speed of time (I don’t even know what I mean by that.) And tonight, I was watching a video about time being measured with a ruler, and space being like a clock. It’s so fun to get it sort of right, maybe :slight_smile: Hopefully I’ll inspire some of you scientists who are bored. I just like helping people and learning.

Oh, also I was wondering if anyone had a resource if this expansion is a constant rate, and if any YEC think it was constant throughout creation, if I understand correctly evolutionists do not.

1 Like
18

You have to be a little more specific.
I believe in miracles just as much as you do (maybe more, depending on your stand on their prevalence today).
None of those examples show that Jesus believed in a young Earth.

An old earth view does not look at creation any different. God Commanded and it was So. Whether it takes one day, or billions of years, it doesn’t change the fact that things happened by God’s command.
Look at the various ways that bible speaks about creation-
Proverbs 8: I was formed long ages ago,
at the very beginning, when the world came to be.
24 When there were no watery depths, I was given birth,
when there were no springs overflowing with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,
26 before he made the world or its fields
or any of the dust of the earth.
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28 when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29 when he gave the sea its boundary
so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30 Then I was constantly at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
rejoicing always in his presence,
31 rejoicing in his whole world
and delighting in mankind.
This talks about how God used His wisdom to create everything. I see another aspect to creation from these verses. I see a process happening day by day. A process in which God created a system that’s the universe today. Reading teh above proverbs or genesis 1 in a modern 20th century perspective and trying to turn waters into “quarks” and such is doing violence to the text.
The verses were written so that they conveyed a meaning to the listener. We need to look at the context and understand that meaning.
Job 38:1-10 is a similar narration.You can check it out.

If we look at the bible, we can see that the greatest work of God happened over time. He set the stage over thousands of years for the incarnation. He is now working on the church for the last 2 thousand years, and the day will come where Jesus will present his church before the Father as Holy and blameless.

Lastly we must acknowledge the fact that Scripture teaches us that God views time differently from us.
There is no reason to view what Moses wrote down as a “myth”. Moses wasn’t giving a scientific account of creation. He was communicating to his people using language they would understand.

1 Like
19

Leaving aside arguments about what the text of Genesis truly means, one ought to wonder about assertions that the major findings of modern science are to be found in this passage​ or that passage. These seem always to be after-the-fact discoveries. If all if science is to be found there, shouldn’t we use the Bible to make predictions? For example, physicists currently argue about the need for “dark energy” in their theories, and string theorists argue about which version of that theory describes the real world. Shouldn’t biblical exegesis solve these dilemmas? Let’s bring it to the aid of physics! Ahead of time, for once.

3 Likes
20

Aren’t you contradicting your earlier statement that God is communicating in simple terms that a child could understand? At any rate, the Hebrew word raqia, translated as “firmament”, is generally agreed to refer to a solid covering, as I understand it. Again, if “waters” doesn’t mean waters, and “firmament” doesn’t mean firmament, why are you assuming that other parts of Genesis 1 should be understood in a plain reading when those shouldn’t?

Is there any indication that he takes the story of the good Samaritan as anything other than literal? But it’s a parable. If he’s talking to an audience who know certain myths, he speaks to them in their language. If I tell you the sun is rising, does that mean I believe the earth isn’t rotating?

4 Likes