Young earth vs. ancient earth- where do you stand?

[Guest]

Thanks Robin- i meant to respond to you as well, so i am glad you responded!

I agree that God can do anything He wants. Of course He can.

But I find Koukl's argument rather difficult to counter, unless you are willing to state that when God created the universe 10 or 15 thousand years ago, that he created in the night sky things like nova's, black holes, etc like items painted onto a canvas, in an already mature state. for example, God very well could have created novas, (which we now know from from exploding stars) w/o there ever having been a star for the nova to form from(i.e. he simply created the star dust forming the nebula). Just as he could have created our own moon pock-marked with craters from meteors that never actually hit the moon. Yes, He COULD have done these things. what i struggle with is whether doing so is in line with what we know about His character, namely truthfulness. We can say that God does things for His own purposes, but surely what He does must be in line with his character.

Put yourself in God's position (i am not trying to be blasphemous here, just trying to make a point). Would you create a moon, for example, that is already pock-marked with craters, when you know that you are also going to create intelligent beings who will one day figure out that craters are formed by meteors? and that they will assume that the moon you created must have also been struck by many meteors? Now of course, this may be an invalid example if you believe our moon was created several thousand years ago in a perfectly non-cratered state. But the example applies to other things as well, like rings around planets, novas aforementioned, black holes, in fact anything that science concludes, through discovery and observation, takes eons to form. We cannot simply throw the whole science of astrophysics in the dumpster, can we?

TK

[Guest]

wrt the Starlight argument, I've heard this reply:

"Well, if God created the Earth 6,000 years ago with the appearance of it being 4.5 billion years old, how do we know he didn't create it last week and make it seem 6,000 years old?"

To my mind, the question of the age of the universe is separate and distinct from the age of the earth. The universe could be *much* older than 6,000 years old without doing any violence to Genesis ("heavens" taken as referring to the sky, and the "lights" being added as the thinning of the primordial atmosphere such that lights became visible).

Of course, I find the OEC arguments much more convincing than YEC. Hugh Ross' Creation and Time is an excellent resource.

[Guest]

Thx- Paidion- you have recommended dr humphreys work before and i checked it out, but of course he has many debunkers as well. i am no astrophysicist or mathematician, so i can't check the figures for myself.

I understand that God COULD have created the starlight already here, but why would He do that? Why be deceptive, for lack of a better word? didnt God expect that someday man would realized that light travels at a certain speed, would use that to calculate distances?

It is NOT Dr. Humphrey's position that the starlight was created in transit so as to make it appear that there were stellar explosions, etc. The fact that you think so shows that you have not actually read Dr. Humpheys's theory.

Please go to the site below and read a brief description of Dr. Humphreys's theory by going to the following link and scrolling down to "A New Creationist Cosmology":


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

[Guest]

Paidion,

Thanks for the link, interesting article!

P.S. I noticed that the article said God is outside time. Guess I have good company.

God bless, Homer

[Guest]

Yes, Homer. Dr. Humphreys as well as other writers about cosmology say many other things as well that make no sense to my simple mind. I am not sure whether I am mentally incapable of understanding these things, or whether they are inherently self-contradictory.

[Guest]

Paidion--

the second paragraph of my 4/6/07 post at 3:25 pm was not intended to go along with my first paragraph. I actually read the same article you referenced- i.e. regarding the effects of gravity, etc on the speed of light. my 2nd paragraph was more of a response to Robin's post. sorry for the confusion! In regard to Dr. Humphrey's theory, here is a link to Hugh Ross's response to same, which needless to say is not suportive of Dr Humphrey's hypothesis. Of course I dont fully understand all of the concepts involved (i wish i did):

http://reasons.org/resources/apologetic ... ling.shtml

P.S.- CS Lewis believed that God was "outside time" as well.

TK

[Guest]

Hi TK. Sorry I did not understand that you were replying to the other position.

By the way, here is a link to a site that posts a short article in which Russell Humphreys gives a brief description of his replies to Hugh Ross:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4 ... 0-2000.asp

[Guest]

Thanks, Paidion.

I didnt bother to look but Ross probably has replies to Humphrey's replies to him! It's a never ending cycle, and rather tiresome. neither side is giving in, that seems for sure.

I suspect that someday I will be quite surpised when I learn the actual truth of this subject. currently i am officially "undecided."

TK

[Guest]

1

[Guest]

1




Nice post