Re: Questions to Allen Roy

From: Walter Hicks (
Date: Tue Sep 23 2003 - 08:56:27 EDT

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: Questions to Allen Roy"

    Don Winterstein wrote:

    > God in principle could have created a young
    > earth to look indistinguishable from an old
    > earth, but there is merit to Glenn's point that
    > God would be lying if he did so. Lots of
    > apparent old-earth features such as thick layers
    > of soil, light from distant stars, mature trees,
    > etc., etc., would be acceptable and good to make
    > the place "natural" and livable, and God would
    > not be lying were he to provide such basics.
    > However, as soon as God would do by fiat
    > anything like form sedimentary rock miles thick
    > with well-ordered arrays of fossils, he would be
    > lying. The rocks can be read like history
    > books, and such rocks would be telling us things
    > happened that did not really happen. Lies,
    > pure and simple. We may not know much about
    > God's nature, but we can tell a liar when we see
    > the evidence.

    I obviously did not make it clear. I start by
    talking about a simulation that I make to test out
    certain systems. I only do this major background
    ONCE. In fact, the background is simply that -- a
    background. Following that I use that background
    to study various systems. The same background is
    literally used thousands of times, while different
    system variations are examined. At no time is the
    background a lie. Just because I use it in situ,
    instead of creating it from scratch each time,
    does not make it any less real or make me, the
    Programmer, a lair. For God to use the universe as
    His background does not cause Him to be liar

    So can it be thus with God. He may have created
    this universe just once. He may even made us a
    special act of this one and only creation to fit
    Glenn's model, OR He may done what the YECs say
    and started mankind recently. The YEC view
    conforms more closely to the Bible.

    To say that you think it makes God out to be a

    1.) Says that you did not understand what I
    presented -- and it is probably my fault for
    explaining it poorly.

    2.) Is placing what you consider to be a
    satisfactory line of reasoning in order to reject
    the notion. That is based neither upon science nor
    upon what the Bible teaches. It is important to
    separate philosophy from science and Biblical

    I too happen not to believe in a universe with
    history and Mankind plonked in at some recent time
    because it just does not seem consistent with my
    gut feel for what God is like. I see what He has
    done as so majestic that I find it hard to
    minimize that into a 6000 year old earth. I
    declare my attitude to be different from you and
    Glenn and many others on this list because I
    recognize that this has nothing to do with science
    and that it does not justify criticism of others
    -- and I may be quite incorrect.

    I don't worry much about all this age of the
    universe stuff because I consider it to be
    unimportant to Christianity. To me Christianity is
    total commitment to Jesus Christ, actively
    following Him and doing what He commanded.
    Scripture is _recommended_ by the Apostles (I
    never read the word "infallible".) but most
    Christians never had them until the printing press
    was invented. After death, if God asks me how old
    I think the Earth and universe are, I'll really be


    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 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 23 2003 - 08:56:07 EDT