From: Walter Hicks (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Sep 12 2003 - 10:27:36 EDT
At some point in time, God decided to make something special out of man, if we
accept the Bible in any form of interpretation. If our Christian Faith means
anything, it is that this life is merely a precursor of things of to come. I may
look upon the universe as a simulated environment where we are to grow
spiritually in preparation of a future life quite unlike what this universe has
Now some take the Bible as literal and think that we came into existence a few
thousand years ago and that what we see of history in the universe did not
actually transpire. That is: God presented us with a universe with the history
'built in". Most here like to ridicule such a notion. I wonder how many of these
have ever conducted simulation of some technical aspect within their filed. If
so, I am certain that they work within simulated environments with a history
built into it. I run simulations ot check the dynamics of certain systems. It
could never even be done if I had to work from the ground floor in machine
language to do everything. It would be nonsense for me to use anything other
than a structure from a previous simulation -- even if "just" the compiler..
Should I believe that God is less wise than his creations? That he has to start
form scratch with His simulated background for us?
I am not a YEC but I support those who are not trying to make up a voodoo
science that distort that belief system. In fact, I wonder if many on this list
are not responsible for the continued reaction against scientists who refuse to
accept any viability of the "history built in notion" whatsoever.
Robert Schneider wrote:
> Walter writes:
> > Science is fine for telling us the present. However, it cannot
> > extrapolate to the past and ignore God's Word. God created the Universe
> for man.
> > It says so in the Bible. If He he did so, why waste 15 billion years when
> it is
> > just as easy for Him to bring it into existence in 6 days as the Bible
> > proclaims? That does not dispute what science sees in an "apparent"
> Bob's comment:
> YECs and other biblical literalists illustrate the problem that Bernard Ramm
> described 50 years ago, the psychological problem of failing to
> differentiate between inspiration and interpretation. They tend not to be
> conscious of the fact that they are interpreting what they are reading, and
> assume their interpretation is identical to "what God says" or "what the
> Bible proclaims."
> The statement that "> Science is fine for telling us the present. However,
> it cannot validly extrapolate to the past and ignore God's Word," is a good
> example of the muddled thinking that one often finds with people like
> MacArthur. He states an assertion ("it cannot validly extrapolate to the
> past ") as if it were an uncontested fact, and then introduces a
> hermenutical statement about God's word. Science read the Book of Nature,
> not the Book of Scripture; why should it not ignore the Bible.
> Anyway, does science extrapolate to the past? The past lives on in the
> present because "there is something about reality that forever fixes the
> facticity of things," as John Haught writes. Scientists find what is there,
> whether it be the cosmic background radiation left over from the big bang,
> or the skeleton of a dinosaur. Nothing "apparent" about itl. When the
> astrophysicist looks out into space, she looks back into time. She sees
> what happened 2.7 light years, or 13.4 billion light years ago. And if she
> is a believer, I doubt, as she gazes in wonder at it all, that she thinks
> God has been "wasting his time." Besides, the notion that God would not
> waste his time but get right to creating man on the sixth day is a typical
> YEC egocentric/anthropocentric notion, in my view.
> Bob Schneider
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <email@example.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 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 10:38:33 EDT