Re: My Daughter is a YEC

From: Walter Hicks (
Date: Fri May 24 2002 - 09:57:26 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "Mammoth Genesis"

    I really don't believe this "theory" myself, but I feel that it is far
    more defensible than is presented below:

    Glenn Morton wrote:

    > Without a doubt, the theory is, as Jan said, consistent with all known
    > facts. But so is the theory that everything started yesterday afternoon at
    > 2:33 and 17 seconds. All such theories are, IMO, a form of solipsism.
    > There are two philosophical reasons and one theological reason for rejecting
    > them. First, we really can't know anything. If that is the case, we might be
    > brains in bell jars being fed stimuli, or people like those in the movie
    > Matrix. Secondly, it makes science impossible. Why do experiments? After
    > the experiment, you can't be sure that the experiment itself wasn't 'part of
    > the background for simulation'! At each moment you can't be sure the past
    > actually happened.

    If I were to have stated it properly, there is really no significant
    difference between what you believe and this model. The past is "real"
    in every respect as that which you would see if the 15 billion years had
    actually transpired. It is not "apparent age" any more than Adam was
    "apparently" old when God created him. He really was his actual age, if
    you believe that it was real history. When Jesus made water into wine,
    was he a lair because the wine did not age? It simply is that God did
    not "waste time" for 15 billion year when Mankind and Jesus Christ's
    appearance on earth are His main focus. You still practice science by
    the laws God created and you find oil where you expect it to be.

    Now if SETI ever found something, then the notion would be hard to
    defend. So far -- nada.

    > And theologically, it makes God a big liar. Nothing we see in astronomy is
    > real except for the sun planets and a few nearby stars. Galactic collisions
    > didn't happen, supernovae didn't occur and quasars don't exist. The universe
    > is an illusion and we can't know it.
    > And related to that: What is so special about 7000 years ago? Why not 1829
    > years ago which would make the resurrection part of the background? Maybe
    > the Bible itself is an illusion, having been written into the fabric of the
    > universe as part of the background?

    I'm not a theologian (as George well knows) but it seems to fit the
    Bible pretty well. How can that make God a liar? God never said that the
    universe is 15 billion years old. And the universe is just as real
    whichever way God created it.

    Besides, I'm beginning to suspect that ASA is not real and that you,
    George and others are just computer AI programs designed to torment me


    Walt Hicks <>

    In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)

    You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 24 2002 - 13:12:29 EDT