I find it interesting ñ and somewhat disconcerting --- that most discussions on
this list are of the nature ìI am right; You are wrongî. It is well known that
this close-mindedness practically never leads to anyone convincing anyone else.
Indeed it would be a statistical anomaly if anyone on this list ever
or her mind about anything.
Let me suggest that what I see are arguments that are totally
specious and ignore
the possible reality of the point of view I threw on the table --- "apparent
age" is the detractors' vocabulary. I do not accept the viewpoint myself, but I
think that it has not been effectively refuted and that it probably cannot be
----- by the very admission of those who try to discredit it.
If we take the viewpoint that Jesus, is the Word and He created this
implied by the Gospel of John, then we can well ask why billions of
to achieve this? Certainly the Bible never implied that, and it only the recent
interpretation of (Christian) scientists who say that:"If the
universe appears to
be 15 billion years old, then God must have created it 15 billion
years ago." So
why must this be so? If it is only the last several thousand years that are
important to God, why need He need to use up 15 billion years of
space time to do
it ---- when a few thousand years are adequate? We don't know much
about how God
might do things but it is not difficult to believe that thousands of years of
space time are far more economical to create than billions of years
makes for an awful lot of rather useless time and space just to keep some
scientific purists happy.).
The argument about "apparent age" and God lying is nothing more than
debatemenship. The universe is exactly the same either way. The dead stars are
really there every bit as much as if the first 15 billion years existed. The
results of science are the same and Glenn Morton can use his science
find to oil
in either case.
The only argument that I think could be valid is that God has a use
for the rest
of the 15 billion years of space-time that does not include mankind.
is that such may well be the case, but I certainly cannot support it from the
In short, there are no valid scientific objections to the recent
universe idea as
postulated and I don't see any really good Biblical ones either. It's just
another thing that is possible and the insults and bickering between
I would maintain, are counterproductive and not consistent with the stated
outlook of ASA.
Not that they will ever stop anyhow.
Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
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 : Sun May 26 2002 - 21:42:13 EDT