Re: Non-truths that do not transform

From: <CMSharp01@aol.com>
Date: Tue Apr 26 2005 - 03:09:18 EDT

Hi Vernon,

You wrote:

> Hi Christopher,
>
> While we await Dr.D.James Kennedy's response to your letter let me press
you
> a little regarding one of the matters raised. You wrote, "The real irony of
> YEC is that its proponents...often resort to some form of deceptive
creation
> with the appearance of age."
>
> I trust you would agree that anything created by divine fiat ex nihilo (as
> strongly implied by the words of Genesis 1) must be fully functional from
day
> one, and hence must inevitably assume an 'appearance of age'. Surely, to
deny
> this is to question the capabilities of the Creator. So, if we believe in a
> God for whom nothing is impossible (Gen.18:14), how can we Christians deny
> the possibility of something being younger than it appears?

This point has been brought up before in the past. I am not talking about
just the appearance of age, but the appearance of a past non-existence
fake history. The moon and most other small bodies of the solar system
are peppered with impact craters, and there is plenty of evidence that
the earth has also been bombarded. After a star like the sun completes
its red giant phase, it becomes a white dwarf and cools down over billions
of years. There are plenty of white dwarfs in the solar neighborhood.
Why would God want to create dead stars that look millions, or in some
cases billions of years old? This makes no more makes sense than God
creating dead trees and tree stumps in a forest the day you first visit. In
1987 a star was seen to explode in the Large Magellanic Cloud about
169,000 light years away, and thus about 169,000 years ago. If God
created light in transit, as Duane Gish and Henry/John Morris sometimes
claim, then God created an illusion of a nonexistent exploding star.

This whole appearance of age business cannot avoid being deceptive,
as we are dealing with evidence of past history, rather than just full
functionality, and what functions do dead stars perform? Of course on
top of all this is that science does not deal with teleology. Empirical
evidence cannot be interpreted on the basis of what you think God
should or should not have done, or likes or dislikes.

It is ironic that YECs, who keep talking about the truth, deny objective
truth from the evidence.

> As in our earlier exchanges you consistently refuse to accept the fact
that -
> to be meaningful and truly productive - all discussions involving matters
> which raise questions concerning the Integrity and Authority of the Judaeo-
> Christian Scriptures must involve a consideration of the _supernatural_.
Your
> being satisfied with the restricted light of methodological naturalism
> suggests you have little time for the cautions expressed in Eph.6:10-18 and
> 1Pet.5:8, for example. Is that, indeed, your position?

As I have said before, science does not deal with the supernatural, there is
no way it can be tested, and science can only operate within methodological
naturalism. I really do not understand the relevance of a couple of Bible
quotes taken out of context.
>
> Vernon
> www.otherbiblecode.com

Christopher Sharp
Received on Tue Apr 26 03:11:34 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 26 2005 - 03:11:37 EDT