Re: My Daughter is a YEC

From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Sun May 26 2002 - 20:08:28 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "Day-Age"

    I find it interesting and somewhat disconcerting --- that most discussions on
    this list are of the nature I am right; You are wrong. 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
    changed his
    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
    universe as
    implied by the Gospel of John, then we can well ask why billions of
    years elapsed
    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
    worth. (That
    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.
    My suspicion
    is that such may well be the case, but I certainly cannot support it from the
    Bible.

    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
    Christians,
    I would maintain, are counterproductive and not consistent with the stated
    outlook of ASA.

    Not that they will ever stop anyhow.

    IMHO

    Walt

    ===================================
    Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>

    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 : Sun May 26 2002 - 21:42:13 EDT