Re: Kurt Wise on the creation crisis in Christian colleges

From: <CMSharp01@aol.com>
Date: Fri Feb 03 2006 - 20:45:15 EST

This is exactly how I challenged Jason Lisle of Answers in
Genesis at the end of one of his presentations on astronomy
here in Tucson last November. I told him that the Kirkwood
gaps in the Asteroid Belt can be explained by resonances
with Jupiter. If a test particle is put at certain mean distances
from the sun, then with computer simulations it is seen that
after a few 100,000 or million years of simulated time, the
test particle is perturbed out of that orbit by Jupiter. No
assumptions are involved other than the law of gravity has not
changed, and Jupiter's orbit has not changed much in the
last few million years.

Guess what, the Kirkwood gaps as observed correspond
exactly to this, which shows that the Solar System is much
older than 6000 years old. I confronted him with this argument,
and by default he adopted the last-resort-cop-out, by claiming
that God created the Solar System that way 6000 years ago.
To that I responded that he believes in a God of deception,
not of truth.

Christopher Sharp

In a message dated 2/3/2006 4:07:41 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com writes:

<< > You're right that entrance into the kingdom requires forgiveness, not a
> list of propositions to which one adheres. However, a view that requires
> that God mislead honest observers of his works (e.g., apparent age, one
> among many), making the Heavnely Father the father of lies, is as
> perverse as possible. That it also closes the door for those who know
> something about creation and, because they cannot fit it to what "the
> scriptures teach inerrantly," reject salvation, will certainly bring
> judgment. The principle of Matthew 18:7 holds inexorably.
> Dave
>
 How do creationists answer critiques like the above of the "appearance of
age"
 argument?
 While I don't believe that God would deliberately deceive honest
investigators,
 I can think of one argument for appearance of age that might have some
 credibility: That God is an artist. We don't claim that human artists are
lying
 when they use paint on canvas to represent a landscape, so why should we
accuse
 God of lying? I don't believe I have ever heard this argument from a
 creationist. I am putting forward the above argument because I'd like to see
 how the list refutes it, not because I accept it.
>>
Received on Fri Feb 3 20:47:05 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 03 2006 - 20:47:05 EST