Creation scientists

[Rella]

The energy of the Big Bang; presumably by way of E=Mc², or if you prefer from M=E/c². And this together with the entire system of natural law imposed, i.e., created, by God at the time of the Big Bang.

But for some I would guess that there are no such natural laws created by God, since such was never mentioned in the Genesis account.

Morning,

No I am not trying to 

Just trying to be more specific on a subject that can not be specific.

You said above....

"The very first particles to form in the big bang were the elementary particles called quarks."

I asked where those particles came from.

You say


"And this together with the entire system of natural law imposed, i.e., created, by God at the time of the Big Bang."

And I am saying AH HA...  ... So God IS involved in the creation of light.  

I agree....

You furthered your comment with "But for some I would guess that there are no such natural laws created by God, since such was never mentioned in the Genesis account. "

For some, you are likely right, but then if every single thing was written in Genesis on every single thing that came into being during creation we would have a volume larger the War and Peace.

These people , IMO, that have to read things in order to believe have little to no faith. But they are great in taking an idea an embellishing it beyond reason or common sense. That is too bad.

[4WD]

And I am saying AH HA...  ... So God IS involved in the creation of light.  

You are not hearing me.  Light was not created. Light came about from what resulted from the creation of the Big Bang, including the complete system of natural law.

[3 Resurrections]

It is not surprising that this post can continue for 2066 replies and counting.  We, the finite, will never in this life be able to truly comprehend the infinite, eternal God as the originator of all created things.

The picture we have in Daniel of the Ancient of Days has an eternal stream of fire issuing forth from before Him (Daniel 7:9-10). "...His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire.  A fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him..." This pictured God as the un-ending Source of pure, fiery energy which sets all other things created by Him in motion.

Any light mentioned on the first day of Creation week in Genesis emerged from that eternal Source of pure energy. 

And every single cell in all of creation provides an atomic example in miniature of that energy in motion. 

Our God is called "a consuming fire" for a reason. Human evil in its fallen state cannot survive in the immediate presence of this concentration of total purity.  However, in our resurrected, glorified state, the saints will be be enabled to dwell intimately in fellowship with that "devouring fire" and those "everlasting burnings", as Isaiah 33:14 predicted.   

[Rella]

You are not hearing me.  Light was not created. Light came about from what resulted from the creation of the Big Bang, including the complete system of natural law.

YOU said "The energy of the Big Bang; presumably by way of E=Mc2, or if you prefer from M=E/c2. And this together with the entire system of natural law imposed, i.e., created, by God at the time of the Big Bang.

the entire system of natural law imposed, i.e.,CREATED
BY GOD

Why do you deny the obvious. If God Created whatever that would result in light... and God called forth light... THERE IS NO QUESTION HE CREATED LIGHT.

Example:  If I took some flour, water and yeast and mixed them up... then let the yeast do it's job of having the mixture rise.... them form into a loaf and allow it to rise again and baked it and pulled it from the oven...

WHO OR WHAT made that loaf of bread? Me, who put everything in place for it to happen or the yeast that caused it to happen but only after I put it in with the flour and water?

[Rella]

It is not surprising that this post can continue for 2066 replies and counting.  We, the finite, will never in this life be able to truly comprehend the infinite, eternal God as the originator of all created things.

The picture we have in Daniel of the Ancient of Days has an eternal stream of fire issuing forth from before Him (Daniel 7:9-10). "...His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire.  A fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him..." This pictured God as the un-ending Source of pure, fiery energy which sets all other things created by Him in motion.

Any light mentioned on the first day of Creation week in Genesis emerged from that eternal Source of pure energy. 

And every single cell in all of creation provides an atomic example in miniature of that energy in motion. 

Our God is called "a consuming fire" for a reason. Human evil in its fallen state cannot survive in the immediate presence of this concentration of total purity.  However, in our resurrected, glorified state, the saints will be be enabled to dwell intimately in fellowship with that "devouring fire" and those "everlasting burnings", as Isaiah 33:14 predicted.   

Well stated 3Rs.

[4WD]

YOU said "The energy of the Big Bang; presumably by way of E=Mc2, or if you prefer from M=E/c2. And this together with the entire system of natural law imposed, i.e., created, by God at the time of the Big Bang.

the entire system of natural law imposed, i.e.,CREATED
BY GOD

Why do you deny the obvious. If God Created whatever that would result in light... and God called forth light... THERE IS NO QUESTION HE CREATED LIGHT.

Example:  If I took some flour, water and yeast and mixed them up... then let the yeast do it's job of having the mixture rise.... them form into a loaf and allow it to rise again and baked it and pulled it from the oven...

WHO OR WHAT made that loaf of bread? Me, who put everything in place for it to happen or the yeast that caused it to happen but only after I put it in with the flour and water?

You refuse to accept the difference between creating something ex nihilo and making something out of ingredients. Yes, you made the loaf of bread out of the ingredients, but you didn't create anything from nothing.

Whenever the scriptures speak of God creating, it is nearly always, if not always, creating something from nothing.   

[4WD]

It is not surprising that this post can continue for 2066 replies and counting.  We, the finite, will never in this life be able to truly comprehend the infinite, eternal God as the originator of all created things.

The issue is not about comprehending the infinite, eternal God as anything, including the originator of all created things.  It is about comprehending the finite things the infinite, eternal God created.  And even more, understanding that which he created from nothing, and that which comes from a system of natural functioning that he created. 

God did not create water which forms when hydrogen is burned in oxygen. He didn't create the hydrogen and the oxygen. He didn't even create the electrons, protons that make up the hydrogen and oxygen.  He did create the system whereby such things are made.  Slowly, but surely, we are learning more and more about that system.

It is interesting that in the Genesis account, there is virtually nothing said about that system.  God left that for us to discover, something that the YEC insist can't be done.

[Rella]

The issue is not about comprehending the infinite, eternal God as anything, including the originator of all created things.  It is about comprehending the finite things the infinite, eternal God created.  And even more, understanding that which he created from nothing, and that which comes from a system of natural functioning that he created. 

God did not create water which forms when hydrogen is burned in oxygen. He didn't create the hydrogen and the oxygen. He didn't even create the electrons, protons that make up the hydrogen and oxygen.  He did create the system whereby such things are made.  Slowly, but surely, we are learning more and more about that system.

It is interesting that in the Genesis account, there is virtually nothing said about that system.  God left that for us to discover, something that the YEC insist can't be done.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Where did light come from if it was not created?

Most of the acts of creation in Genesis 1 happen through a process of DIVIDING what already exists.  That's the case here.  Darkness is pre-existent in verse 2.  God makes a division between light and darkness in verse 4.

You can still call that creation, but it isn't ex nihilo.

Tell us what Gen 1:3... any translation... means

Any translation?  Ok, I choose the one I created myself and posted here a decade ago 

1 At the first, God made the heavens and the land,
2 But the land was chaotic and barren, and darkness covered the surface of the primordial abyss.  And the Breath of God is blowing, pushing back the surface of the waters.
3 As God is saying, 'Light - exist!'  And light came to be.
4 And God is looking at the light, for it is good.  And God is dividing between the light and the darkness.
5 And God is calling the light 'Day' and is calling the darkness 'Night.'  And there is dusk and there is dawn.  Day one.

[Rella]

I posted a reply to this but guess it did not take because I did hit post and was certain it was noted

That was on a different laptop.

I logged out again and then back in and nope ...

When I get to the other Ill check it.

Otherwise   

[Rella]

Nope... it is gone.

Be ha[py... Ill leave it alone now

[Amo]

You have only affirmed what I said.  When in Genesis it says, And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. That does not say that God created light. But of course you need that distortion of truth to support your false faith and total lack of respect of God's attributes and abilities.

When it says in Genesis, "And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so", that is not a statement of creation.  But again, you need that distortion of truth to support your false faith and total lack of respect of God's attributes and abilities.

On and on, you distort the Scriptures.  It is you who continue to seek out your own explanations and prove them with your faulty translations/interpretations.

Delusion is, as delusion does. The following quoted article from the link provided states my views pretty well. I am not the one choosing to "kick against the pricks"regarding this subject and scriptural teaching 4WD.

https://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-does-bible-say-about-evolution.html

Does the Bible say anything about Evolution?

We first need to define evolution before delving into the Bible. The theory is the belief that organisms change and adapt (genetically, in behavior, etc.) with the passage of time. As organisms grow more complex, they compete for resources and struggle to adapt to environmental changes.

Living things, according to evolution, which are best able to adapt and successfully compete, go on to procreate and pass their genetics to another generation (survival of the fittest). Those that fail in their competition with others, as the theory goes, do not pass on their genetics and eventually die off.

This theory, of course, rejects God's word and the idea that an all-powerful, eternal God is needed to create and sustain the universe. It, instead, replaces him with the inatimate "gods" of time and chance. It is interesting to note that Charles Darwin's original title of his book in support of evolution was called "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection."

Scripture does not use the word evolution or directly mention its theories. It does bear record, however, of the universe's creation through a Supreme Being. This is not to say a minor amount of change could not have occurred since creation (known as microevolution).

Changes below the "family" taxonomic level (such as genus or species) could be perfectly compatible with God's word, since it only talks about creating "kinds" (see Genesis 1:21, 24). The Hebrew word translated "kinds" need not be equated with the term "species" commonly used to defend evolution.

You might have, however, a bigger question in mind, such as whether this theory is compatible with the account of creation found in the Bible or whether scientific creationism is at all rational.

The overall system of evolution, of "mono-cell to man," is incompatible with the creation account found in Scripture. It involves ignoring and manipulating the text too much to be plausible. Would we interpret any other book so unilaterally when the story of creation is told very matter-of-fact in Genesis chapters 1 and 2?

The apostle Paul gave his close friend and fellow evangelist an interesting warning in the book of 1Timothy. He told him to "guard the doctrine which has been entrusted to you, avoiding profane, empty babblings, and contradictions of false knowledge that is called science" (1Timothy 6:20, HBFV).

Paul's warning centers on avoiding contradictory arguments that claim to represent scientific truth but instead are nothing more than a lie. One reason why Scripture does not directly discuss evolution or things evolving is that it is "false knowledge." Such theories represent the "empty babblings" of humans who deceivingly wish (as Satan wanted, see Isaiah 14:13 - 14) to replace the true God with themselves.

The apostle Paul gave his close friend and fellow evangelist an interesting warning in the book of 1Timothy. He told him to "guard the doctrine which has been entrusted to you, avoiding profane, empty babblings, and contradictions of false knowledge that is called science" (1Timothy 6:20, HBFV).

[Amo]

You are not hearing me.  Light was not created. Light came about from what resulted from the creation of the Big Bang, including the complete system of natural law.

Says the self declared Lord's of scientific research, observation, and speculative theories, you choose as masters of the truth. You know, the one's constantly correcting what they have been wrong about when so often proving such even themselves. Who nevertheless continuously do as you just did above, in unhesitatingly spouting your theories off as absolute facts until once again adjusted or abandoned later as necessary. You are no different than anybody else who claims that their faith is the truth. Nevertheless, scripture declares what the real bedrock of authentic faith is, which has nothing to do with the constantly sifting sands of speculative theories of purely human observation.

Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

There's not one hint of the theory of evolution found in the word of God, save it is presumed upon interpretation by those who have already chosen that particular faith as above the plain simple testimony of holy scripture. Your evolutionary faith is not by way of hearing the word of God, for there is no evolutionary theory in the word of God.

[4WD]

Delusion is, as delusion does.

I have no doubt that is a true statement.  Thinking that phrases in the text like "let there be" and "made" and "the earth brought forth" in the Genesis account means "God created" is indeed delusion. It is really worse than delusion, it is intentional misinterpretation.

The article stated

Scripture does not use the word evolution or directly mention its theories.

Imagine that!  Scripture does not use the words such as electron, proton, neutron, gravity, electromagnetism, galaxy either, so I guess the YEC rejects the reality of all such things also. More delusion.

The author quoted 1 Timothy 6:20 and thinks Paul was speaking against evolution. Delusional? Clearly!

[4WD]

Your evolutionary faith is not by way of hearing the word of God, for there is no evolutionary theory in the word of God.

Nor is there any gravitational theory in the word of God, nor electromagnetic theory, nor any atomic theory, nor... nor...nor

Sorry, Amo, that is not a winning argument against much of anything.

You might want to read up on the cosmological theories that were considered scriptural in Old Testament times and try to convince anyone the truth of those.

[Amo]

The issue is not about comprehending the infinite, eternal God as anything, including the originator of all created things.  It is about comprehending the finite things the infinite, eternal God created.  And even more, understanding that which he created from nothing, and that which comes from a system of natural functioning that he created. 

God did not create water which forms when hydrogen is burned in oxygen. He didn't create the hydrogen and the oxygen. He didn't even create the electrons, protons that make up the hydrogen and oxygen.  He did create the system whereby such things are made.  Slowly, but surely, we are learning more and more about that system.

It is interesting that in the Genesis account, there is virtually nothing said about that system.  God left that for us to discover, something that the YEC insist can't be done.

Who are you to tell everyone else what is all about? To declare what God has created, and what He has not. Just who do you really think you are? Do you really think God and or His own are all really limited to and by what you think this or that issue is all about?

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

There is and has been conflict concerning the testimony of scripture and creation, between those of biblical faith and this world, since those who have chosen another faith after the fall created such. The theory of evolution is just another one of these bible contradicting faiths, that  you and many other have bought into. Revamped to dupe those placing more faith in the observations of fallen humanity, than the simple truths expounded upon in the holy scriptures.

You are playing with words. As though God creating systems which naturally produce this or that effect, means He had nothing to do with the existence of the very things and substances which produce such, which we can now observe. Whose word is this observation you are promoting built upon? As though you or they were there to confirm your above assertion which is found nowhere in scripture?

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Act 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. 23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. 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. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Nor ought any to think that they can understand and confine God or His creative power in any way shape or form, by the mere "scientific speculations", of fallen humanity. As though God were to be defined or determined by the puny scientific observations of humanity, rather than by the infinite power of God and His Word.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

[Amo]

I have no doubt that is a true statement.  Thinking that phrases in the text like "let there be" and "made" and "the earth brought forth" in the Genesis account means "God created" is indeed delusion. It is really worse than delusion, it is intentional misinterpretation.

The article statedImagine that!  Scripture does not use the words such as electron, proton, neutron, gravity, electromagnetism, galaxy either, so I guess the YEC rejects the reality of all such things also. More delusion.

The author quoted 1 Timothy 6:20 and thinks Paul was speaking against evolution. Delusional? Clearly!

So when someone says let there be, an then there is, that means what, that it just happened? Or happened by the processes of evolution? As though that is a better explanation concerning the context within which it is written? Like I said delusion is, as delusion does. The same applies to the word made, in relation to the context within which it was written. Like creationists are the ones taking something out of context when the scripture under examination and many many more simply state exactly what we believe. While evolutionists are not, while applying definitions or explanations completely out of context, and found nowhere in scripture at all. Yes, delusion is as delusion does.

The theory of evolution is in fact among the "profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:" mentioned in the scripture you are upset about. Many including myself, think it to be one of the silliest theories scientists so called, have come up with.

[Amo]

Nor is there any gravitational theory in the word of God, nor electromagnetic theory, nor any atomic theory, nor... nor...nor

Sorry, Amo, that is not a winning argument against much of anything.

You might want to read up on the cosmological theories that were considered scriptural in Old Testament times and try to convince anyone the truth of those.

More of the same, delusion being as it does. Building supposed "truth" upon what scripture does not say or address, rather than that which it does simply and plainly state. Such seems somewhat akin to "avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:".

Who are you to question or berate cosmological theories of old testament times, you think the theory of evolution is biblical, don't you? Or do you admit, your chosen theory is wholly extra biblical?

[4WD]

Who are you to question or berate cosmological theories of old testament times.....?

And of course that would have been your question to Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno as you lit the fire under Bruno at the stake.

[Rella]

@Wycliffes_Shillelagh, @4WD, @Amo

I preface what I am about to say with some of my changes in thought and beliefs come in the wee hours of the morning upon arising after self debate while I should be asleep.

Well, I for one am going to say I have change my mind altogether on if
God created light during or for Genesis I

I do not doubt that He could have but why create what has become obvious that it already was.

Jarrod, you said....

Most of the acts of creation in Genesis 1 happen through a process of DIVIDING what already exists.  That's the case here.  Darkness is pre-existent in verse 2.  God makes a division between light and darkness in verse 4.

I do not know about most of the acts but I do see this about light.

I will say that whatever may be said about the big bang, light or anything I will not accept as it is obvious.. and taken me a lifetime to see that Light surle has always been because God has always been and it would be quite odd to think God existed in the dark..

The other thing is we always give credit to God for creation. And this is true but we have all been told that things came into being by the Word.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So God was creator  and God was "the Word" but they were two.

Now you can knock this all you want... but as it stands now ... it is firm in my mind.

[Amo]

And of course that would have been your question to Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno as you lit the fire under Bruno at the stake.

No sir, the word of God and my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ forbid that His church should be involved in persecuting others for their beliefs. I condemn such actions and any institutions guilty of them by the word of God. Especially institutions claiming to be of God and or our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who nevertheless preach and practice such tyrannical authority which has never been given to them by God.

The gospel of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the manipulative, coercive, and abusive powers that be of this world alone. As I do always condemn these kind of actions by supposed "Christians" on these boards repeatedly, for many years now. Believe as you wish, anyone who thinks they have the right to dictate your beliefs and or behavior accordingly, has placed themselves even above God  who does no such thing. They are antiChrist.

This is apart of course from faith motivated behavior which involves harming others and or their properties.

[4WD]

No sir, the word of God and my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ forbid that His church should be involved in persecuting others for their beliefs. I condemn such actions and any institutions guilty of them by the word of God. Especially institutions claiming to be of God and or our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who nevertheless preach and practice such tyrannical authority which has never been given to them by God.

The gospel of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the manipulative, coercive, and abusive powers that be of this world alone. As I do always condemn these kind of actions by supposed "Christians" on these boards repeatedly, for many years now. Believe as you wish, anyone who thinks they have the right to dictate your beliefs and or behavior accordingly, has placed themselves even above God  who does no such thing. They are antiChrist.

This is apart of course from faith motivated behavior which involves harming others and or their properties.

I accept that of you personally, Amo.

Nevertheless, the real fault in the early church in the case of Galileo and Bruno was the imposition of their faulty understanding of the physical universe upon God's word.  And that is truly the mistake that the YEC make again and again and again.

[Amo]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/webb-telescope-finds-evidence-of-massive-galaxies-that-defy-theories-of-the-early-universe-180981689/

Quoted article below from link above. Emphasis is mine.

Webb Telescope Finds Evidence of Massive Galaxies That Defy Theories of the Early Universe

The six "universe breakers" appear much larger than what scientists thought was possible at that time

Astronomers have identified what appear to be six massive galaxies from the infancy of the universe. The objects are so massive, that if confirmed, they could change how we think of the origins of galaxies.

The findings, published Wednesday in Nature, use data from the James Webb Space Telescope's infrared-sensing instruments to picture what the universe looked like 13.5 billion years ago—a time when it was just 3 percent of its current age.

Just 500 to 700 million years after the big bang, the potential galaxies were somehow as mature as our 13-billion-year-old Milky Way galaxy is now.

The mass of stars within each of these objects totals to several billion times larger than that of our sun, according to the research. One of them in particular might be as much as 100 billion times our sun's mass. For comparison, the Milky Way contains a mass of stars equivalent to roughly 60 billion suns.

"You shouldn't have had time to make things that have as many stars as the Milky Way that fast," says Erica Nelson, an astrophysicist at the University of Colorado Boulder and a co-author of the study to Lisa Grossman of Science News. "It's just crazy that these things seem to exist."

Researchers expected to find only very small, young galaxies this early in the universe's existence. How these "monsters" were able to "fast-track to maturity" is unknown, says Ivo Labbé, an astrophysicist at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia and the study's lead researcher, in an email to Marcia Dunn of the Associated Press.

According to most theories of cosmology, galaxies formed from small clouds of stars and dust that gradually increased in size. In the early universe, the story goes, matter came together slowly. But that doesn't account for the massive size of the newly identified objects.

"The revelation that massive galaxy formation began extremely early in the history of the universe upends what many of us had thought was settled science," says Joel Leja, an astronomer and astrophysicist at Penn State and a co-author of the study, in a statement. "We've been informally calling these objects 'universe breakers'—and they have been living up to their name so far."

Emma Chapman, an astrophysicist at the University of Nottingham in England who was not involved in the research, tells the Guardian's Hannah Devlin that these findings, if confirmed, could change how we conceive of the early universe. "The discovery of such massive galaxies so soon after the big bang suggests that the dark ages may not have been so dark after all, and that the universe may have been awash with star formation far earlier than we thought," she tells the publication.

Still, it might not be time to rewrite cosmology just yet: The researchers say it's possible some of the objects could be obscured supermassive black holes, and that what appears to be starlight in the images could actually be gas and dust getting pulled in by their gravity.

"The formation and growth of black holes at these early times is really not well understood," Emma Curtis-Lake, an astronomer at the University of Hertfordshire in England who was not part of the study, explains to Science News. "There's not a tension with cosmology there, just new physics to be understood of how they can form and grow, and we just never had the data before."

To verify their findings, the researchers could take a spectrum image of the objects they've pinpointed. This would help reveal how old they are. Galaxies from the early universe appear to us as very "redshifted"—meaning the light they emitted has been stretched out on its long journey to Earth. The higher the redshift value, the more the light has been stretched and the more distant and aged the galaxy is. With spectroscopy, scientists could determine whether their potential galaxies, or "high-redshift candidates," are as old as they appear, or if they are just "intrinsically reddened galaxies" from a more recent time, says Ethan Siegel, a theoretical astrophysicist who was not involved in the study, to CNET's Eric Mack.

While Leja agrees that more observations are needed to confirm the findings, he notes in the statement, "Regardless, the amount of mass we discovered means that the known mass in stars at this period of our universe is up to 100 times greater than we had previously thought. Even if we cut the sample in half, this is still an astounding change."

Complexity and apparent maturity much farther back in time than they once thought. An observation and statement which appears to be common among almost all deep time evolutionary scenarios and or theories. Continually moving dates further and further back in time to adjust, but never considering that such may be powerful evidence of complexity and mature functionality from the very beginning. By special creation and design, rather than deep time evolutionary processes. Such are the manifestations of deep faith in deep time.

[Amo]

I accept that of you personally, Amo.

Nevertheless, the real fault in the early church in the case of Galileo and Bruno was the imposition of their faulty understanding of the physical universe upon God's word.  And that is truly the mistake that the YEC make again and again and again.

No sir, it was not the early church of Christ that persecuted these men. It was the Roman Catholic church, more specifically the popes and clergy that did so. As both of these supposed heretics were at one time Catholics themselves. The Catholic church presumed and still presumes positions of authority that God and or holy scripture never granted them. Who also twisted and twist, manipulated and manipulate, rejected and reject, and straight up fought against and continue to fight against the truths of holy scripture to this very day. While continuously seeking to reestablish the abusive authority they had in the days within which they persecuted and or killed these men. Odd, that  you should refer to the Church of Rome as authentic early Christianity, rather than the millions of professed Christians which they persecuted in the past. Is this perhaps because they accept the theory of evolution as valid, like yourself?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Quoted article below from link above.

Giordano Bruno

Giordano Bruno Italian: Latin: Iordanus Brunus Nolanus; born Filippo Bruno, January or February 1548 – 17 February 1600) was an Italian philosopher, poet, cosmological theorist and esotericist. He is known for his cosmological theories, which conceptually extended to include the then-novel Copernican model. He proposed that the stars were distant suns surrounded by their own planets (exoplanets), and he raised the possibility that these planets might foster life of their own, a cosmological position known as cosmic pluralism. He also insisted that the universe is infinite and could have no center.

While Bruno began as a Dominican friar, he embraced Calvinism during his time in Geneva. He was later tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. Bruno's pantheism was not taken lightly by the church,[better source needed] nor was his teaching of metempsychosis regarding the reincarnation of the soul. The Inquisition found him guilty, and he was burned alive at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori in 1600. After his death, he gained considerable fame, being particularly celebrated by 19th- and early 20th-century commentators who regarded him as a martyr for science. However, most historians agree that his heresy trial was not a response to his cosmological views but rather a response to his religious and afterlife views, although some still contend that the main reason for Bruno's death was indeed his cosmological views. Bruno's case is still considered a landmark in the history of free thought and the emerging sciences.

In addition to cosmology, Bruno also wrote extensively on the art of memory, a loosely organized group of mnemonic techniques and principles. Historian Frances Yates argues that Bruno was deeply influenced by the presocratic Empedocles, Neoplatonism, Renaissance Hermeticism, and Book of Genesis-like legends surrounding the Hellenistic conception of Hermes Trismegistus. Other studies of Bruno have focused on his qualitative approach to mathematics and his application of the spatial concepts of geometry to language.

I find it somewhat laughable that you accuse YEC's of doing exactly what "Christian" evolutionists such as yourself do. Imposing your own deep time naturalistic "faulty understanding of the physical universe upon God's word". YEC's are not imposing definitions and translations upon the word of God, which no interpreters to date have ever applied in any translation of scripture.

Unless I am mistaken, please do provide any translation that does translate the words as you believe them to mean. As I have asked you and others to do many times before.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Here we are. Please do use any scripture to support the idea of deep time evolutionary processes. I most certainly can and have provided many backing up the six day creation account. All of which you reject according to the testimony of non biblical sources, observations, and speculations. Yet here you are accusing YEC's of imposing their views upon scripture. Go figure.

Nevertheless, you are the one today, that has the support of that very institution which persecuted and or killed Galileo and Bruno. Not YEC's.

[4WD]

I find it somewhat laughable that you accuse YEC's of doing exactly what "Christian" evolutionists such as yourself do. Imposing your own deep time naturalistic "faulty understanding of the physical universe upon God's word".

I do not do that.  That you think I do is only one more demonstration that you do not comprehend very well what you read.  I do not and have not (intentionally at least) ever  presented what I think is the most accurate, to date, view of the cosmological history of the universe as coming from scripture. That is the stall that you stand in.  The theories concerning the history that I present do not come from scripture.  What I have said is that I do not think my version of such things is in conflict with God's message in Genesis.

YEC's are not imposing definitions and translations upon the word of God, which no interpreters to date have ever applied in any translation of scripture.

Of course you do. You are a master in that realm. It is your forte. And the is what YEC's do all the time. The web sites such as Answersingenesis reek of it.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

for instruction in righteousness not in physics, not in chemistry, not in biology, not in cosmology, not in any science whatsoever.

Please do use any scripture to support the idea of deep time evolutionary processes.

As I noted already and have insisted in the past, Scripture does no such thing, no matter how much you think it does or wish it would.  Nor was it intended to do so. Nor do I use any scripture to support the idea of such things.  You do that, I do not.

Yet here you are accusing YEC's of imposing their views upon scripture. Go figure.

And that is precisely what the YECs do.

Nevertheless, you are the one today, that has the support of that very institution which persecuted and or killed Galileo and Bruno. Not YEC's.

The error of the Church that persecuted Galileo and Bruno was to interpret scripture to mean something that was cosmologically incorrect. That is what you do. My description of the cosmological history does not come from any interpretation of scripture.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The most mis-used and abused verse in the Bible.

Whenever I see it quoted, I immediately know that someone has run out of thoughts and is making an appeal to authority based on their own tradition.

But of course, the verse doesn't work that way.  Your own interpretation of Scripture, even that of your church, is far from universal.

[Hobie]

The energy of the Big Bang; presumably by way of E=Mc², or if you prefer from M=E/c². And this together with the entire system of natural law imposed, i.e., created, by God at the time of the Big Bang.

But for some I would guess that there are no such natural laws created by God, since such was never mentioned in the Genesis account.

That's a lot of presumption...

[Rella]

The most mis-used and abused verse in the Bible.

Whenever I see it quoted, I immediately know that someone has run out of thoughts and is making an appeal to authority based on their own tradition.

But of course, the verse doesn't work that way.  Your own interpretation of Scripture, even that of your church, is far from universal.

No... in defense of the SDA interpretations of scripture being odd can in no way hold a candle to the JWs (I just lost it in a debate there...
They make Ellen seem almost... (ALMOST)... normal.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

No... in defense of the SDA interpretations of scripture being odd can in no way hold a candle to the JWs (I just lost it in a debate there... They make Ellen seem almost... (ALMOST)... normal.

I'm pretty sure he quoted the KJV, above.

The problem is how it is being used, not an aberrant translation.

[Amo]

The most mis-used and abused verse in the Bible.

Whenever I see it quoted, I immediately know that someone has run out of thoughts and is making an appeal to authority based on their own tradition.

But of course, the verse doesn't work that way.  Your own interpretation of Scripture, even that of your church, is far from universal.

Just exactly how do you perceive that I am using the verses I quoted? If wrongly, what do you propose is a proper use of such verses?

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.(NIV)

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for all good works.(KJ21)

16 Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action), 17 So that the man of God may be complete and proficient, well fitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work.(AMPC)

[4WD]

That's a lot of presumption...

Not really.  It comes with significant from science verified through laboratory test and evaluation.  The relation between Energy and Mass is well documented.  The general laws of nature are all well tested and evaluated. Will we learn more as time goes on? Yes.

[Cobalt1959]

And of course that would have been your question to Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno as you lit the fire under Bruno at the stake.

That's way out of bounds.  To infer that someone would have someone else killed because they disagreed with you or anyone else is way beyond the pale of acceptability.  It isn't Christ-like and it is certainly not acceptable behavior on a Christian forum.  And Amo is right.  You act as if you are the end-all, be-all on the subject of creation and you certainly are not.  You hold some extremely weird ideas that are completely at odds with Christian doctrine and theology and seem to fall much more heavily on the secular humanism side of things.

[4WD]

That's way out of bounds.  To infer that someone would have someone else killed because they disagreed with you or anyone else is way beyond the pale of acceptability.  It isn't Christ-like and it is certainly not acceptable behavior on a Christian forum. 

It is what "Christians" did.

And Amo is right.  You act as if you are the end-all, be-all on the subject of creation and you certainly are not.  You hold some extremely weird ideas that are completely at odds with Christian doctrine and theology and seem to fall much more heavily on the secular humanism side of things.

Whose Christian doctrine and theology are you referring to? Yours?

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLw54E4rhFw

Another good video from Answers in Genesis. Addressing some of the many supposed proofs of evolution from the past. Which have been rightly abandoned by the very ones who presented them as proof positive of their evolutionary faith. As much of what evolutionists today insist proves their faith, will no doubt be abandoned in the near future. 

Sorry, just changed the link of this post, to the proper one.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch9w4QIfjEI

This video addresses the same issue as that of post 2098, and is the first of perhaps a series of videos addressing this same subject.