Re: Non-truths that do not transform

From: <>
Date: Thu Apr 28 2005 - 21:12:02 EDT


You are of course welcome to believe what you want
to believe, but you offer Chris no explaination for
the difficulties he is in. He has look at the stars,
you have not. He has pondered the stars according to
their ways, you have not. It has mulled over how they
could come together, and how God, in His infinite and
unfathomable ways has made these wonders of heaven.

Surely, Chris has considered on at least one or two
occassions to "just believe"; he is a Christian
and believes in the resurrection. If you were asking
him to endure hardship of persecution for being morally
upright, or being a just man, you can say, "just believe".

But science is about truth that can be obtained from the
real world. Chris (or his collegues) are able to predict
exactly how the heavens move and can estimate with suffient
accuracy how to send a satelite to any planet or moon in the
solar system. Yet you claim that somehow, 6000 years ago,
we have to stop. Why?

King David wrote in Psalm 19:
1. The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
(Except the YEC who say that we must believe
in a capricious world where God does things
on fiat and makes seamless transitions so that
people who study his world cannot understand
it or make any estimation about it.)

2. Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
(knowledge of ICR nonsense, what is this???)

3. There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard
(except at AiG and ICR because they ignore the
data from the heavens and the earth.)

4. Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the endes of the world.
(except the soundproof, data proof, fact proof
impenetrable minds of concrete, all mixed up an
permanently set, chambers of YEC cells.)

Vernon, you really have not answered Chris' question
at all. You must explain to him why he should believe
your view. He has posed to you problems, and you have
not offered any explanation that can reconcile him with
the data he has. You must do that, or you have nothing
to say.

By Grace alone we proceed,
Veron wrote:
As Christians,
we assume that God made the universe, and that we
are a product of His making. We scientist simply
look at the "how did God make us question".

The bible is about the truth


>As promised, some observations on the 'apparent age' issue:
>You will know that, in the words of the Apostle Paul, "All
>(Judaeo-Christian) scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
>profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
>righteousness..." (AV, 2Tm.3:16). &nbsp;Putting this another way, the Bible
>represents a body of _divine revelation_ which (as Paul says in Eph.6:17) is
>intended to function as the "sword of the (Holy) Spirit". &nbsp;However, it is
>clear that this becomes a blunt (hence, useless) weapon in the hand of the
>Christian who allows wordly wisdom to question the Authority of this unique
>Book. &nbsp;Such people apparently believe that no one should be _deceived_ by
>its claims - particularly as these relate to ultimate origins and earth
>history. &nbsp;But, in resisting these 'deceptions', do they not imply that God
>himself is a would-be _deceiver_? - saying one thing, but meaning another?
>Not wishing to put too fine a point on it, Christian evolutionists and
>'old-earthers' believe in a God who occasionally seeks to deceive - they
>themselves being wise to the attempted deceptions. &nbsp;It's a bit rich, then,
>that when I come along with a reasoned defence of 'apparent age' and a young
>earth you immediately step in with the accusation that the Creator must,
>therefore, be a Deceiver!
>In the Creator's hands, those markers which convince you and others that
>certain entities must indeed be very old, are not necessarily there to
>deceive, but may serve another purpose of which we are completely ignorant.
>For who are we to claim that the divine parameters within which the creation
>was accomplished are, to us, an open book? &nbsp;But aside from this, I have
>already drawn attention to scriptural information which warns that mankind
>faces a _spiritual antagonist_ -and _real_ deceiver - who, clearly, &nbsp;has a
>considerable interest in seeing the Word of God rubbished and our minds
>diverted from the truths revealed therein. &nbsp;We are first introduced to this
>powerful being in Gen.3:1-15; further details appear in Job 1:6-12, 2:1-7
>where he is revealed as a petitioner and, even more remarkably, as God's
>'hatchet man'! &nbsp;This last observation strongly suggests that the outworking
>of God's agenda contains elements (like the crucifixion) that we cannot
>possibly understand - &nbsp;indeed, were never intended to understand;
>nevertheless, because they are clearly recorded they cannot, sensibly, be
>So I suggest that you (and others) who reject the biblical account of
>creation and of earth history (having, in effect, already judged God, and
>found him wanting) are being tested by these 'wonders in the heavens'. Such
>'theatricals' are clearly within the scope of a being who delights to
>deceive - and, for reasons which are completely beyond our understanding, is
>being _allowed_ to deceive. As Christians, it is wise that we always
>remember that His thoughts and ways are completely beyond our own. He has an
>_agenda_; whether we like it or not, its fulfilment inevitably involves us!
>---- Original Message -----
>From: <>
>To: <>
>Cc: <>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 6:40 AM
>Subject: Re: Non-truths that do not transform
>> In a message dated 4/26/05 4:18:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>> writes:
>>> Vernon
>>> &nbsp;PS &nbsp;I shall be addressing the vexed question of 'apparent age' in a
>> separate
>>> posting.
>>> &nbsp;V
>> I await your views on this with interest. &nbsp;In the Solar System
>> there are a number of observations based on celestial
>> mechanics and tidal forces that show quite clearly that it
>> is much much more than about 10,000 years old. &nbsp;Although
>> unlike radiometric dating these processes may not give
>> very accurate ages, they are good enough to show that a
>> young Solar System is not possible, and they are quite
>> independent on radiometric dating as follows:
>> 1) Our moon and most of the moons of the other planets keep
>> the same face to their parent planets. &nbsp;With the exception of
>> the very irregular moon Hyperion of Saturn, as far as I know,
>> the only moons that do not show synchronous rotation are outer
>> small moons of several of the planets.
>> 2) Jupiter and the inner three of the four Galilean moons, Io,
>> Europe and Ganymede, are old enough for these moons to
>> be in exact resonance orbits, but not old enough for the
>> outermost moon Callisto. &nbsp;Several of the moons of Saturn and
>> Uranus are also in resonance orbits.
>> 3) Both Pluto and its moon Charon are tidally locked, i.e. each
>> shows one face to the other.
>> 4) Mercury is in a 2:3 spin orbit resonance, i.e. for every two
>> orbits it makes around the sun it turns on its axis three times
>> relative to the distant stars. &nbsp;If Mercury were in a circular orbit,
>> it would probably be locked in a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance like
>> the moon, but the orbit is appreciably eccentric.
>> 5) There is a 3:2 orbital period radio of Neptune and Pluto.
>> 6) The asteroids in the main belt are not distributed smoothly,
>> but certain exact orbital resonances with Jupiter are avoided.
>> All these depend on celestial mechanics and in some cases
>> tidal forces, and the time scales are much too long to be
>> possible if the Solar System were only about 10,000, unless
>> you propose that God deliberately placed the planets, moons
>> and asteroids in such configurations as a part of a deceptive
>> plan. &nbsp;What fully functional purpose would such orbital
>> resonances have?
>> Christopher Sharp
Received on Thu Apr 28 21:14:26 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 28 2005 - 21:14:31 EDT