Replies

We agree on some things.

"Surely you will at least admit that SOME people reject scientific knowledge without any serious inquiry just because they do not want to face the possibility that their religion teaches falsehood."

Certainly that is the case and has been the case historically. But allow me to point out that most people are followers not leaders. Whether we are discussing science or religion, we find that many people accept what they are told unquestioningly.

Further, most American students do not like math or science. This has nothing to do with their religion. I have always been one to question both religion and science. And, unlike most of my peers, I love math and science.

"To believe Genesis I is a literal description of what happened c 6000 years ago is to ignore all other objective evidence that we have managed to collect. Why did God make the universe seem ancient to open-minded seekers after knowledge? As one easily-understood and hard-to-handwave-away example how would you reconcile SN1987A with a 6000yo universe?"

First of all, Genesis does not say the universe is circa 6000 years old. The ages of the earth and universe are two different things. Biblically, man has been on the earth about this amount of time. And man was made on the sixth day. The universe probably seems ancient because it is. Second, understanding SN1987A may not be so easily-understood.

Can you really do the math necessary to calculate the distance of this event yourself, or do you rely on other mathematicians to do it for you? Can you do a mathematical proof of how the supernova you referred to proves that a certain amount of time has elapsed since this event occurred. I would be impressed. Please let me see it. In fact, if you know someone personally who can do it, I would like to look at it. That should be easy to do since you said that this is "easily-understood".

Pray tell, what "objective evidence" have "we" collected? When you say "we", are you one of those collecting the evidence? Or do you really mean "they"?

"But Christianity says that we will fail to avoid sin, no matter how hard we try. Why should we be punished for an unavoidable failure?"

No. The Bible says that all have sinned. That's different. We were all unwilling participants in Adam's sin. If your left hand gets caught stealing, your right hand will also go to jail. Whether that is unfair is not the issue.

The Bible also indicates that His plan for mankind serves as an object lesson for a higher order of beings. These beings do not reproduce. So, they do not have inherited sin. God did not provide these beings with a possibility of forgiveness if they sinned.

Yes. Having sin forced upon us was unfair. Just remember that God did not do it. Just like you said, we are responsible for our own actions. The existence of God does not change this. We are volitionally distinct. We are autonomous in our will. God invented freedom of choice. The assumption that God controls our decisions is theologically false.

Fortunately God had compassion on mankind and offered a way to escape the consequence of sin (which is death).

Some people avail themselves of this offer. Some do not. And some of the sins people commit are not forced upon them by virtue of inheritance; some are willful. No, the Devil did not make us do it. No, God did not either. Like you said, we are responsible.

Like many people, you infer that unfairness and injustice in the world reflects poorly upon an omnipotent Creator. You are correct. Some people conclude from this that there is no God. That is not correct. The fact that evil (sin) in the world reflects poorly upon God is one reason He hates sin. He hates evil and injustice more than you do. (And more than me. I am not trying to be condescending by being direct.)

God loved the world, and you particularly, enough to make the ultimate sacrifice so you could escape from the consequences of sin in the world. By the death and resurrection of Jesus, God has made eternal life available to everyone who puts their trust in Him.

God has commanded all men, everywhere, to repent and believe this message. Because of this command, which God has full authority to make, we have a huge responsibility. We find ourselves like the angelic beings I mentioned earlier, with a choice of not merely physical death, but of judgment with eternal consequences.

Perhaps the "Christianity" you are familiar with is not really the message of the Bible. I hope you will be a truth seeker in regards to both science and faith.

Thank you for a long and thoughtful post. I'll get back to you on most of it later, but I will respond concerning the distance calculation method for SN1987A. The math required to ascertain the distance of that particular supernova is 9th grade stuff, just calculation of the dimensions of a right-angle triangle given one of its angles and the length of one side. The assumptions involved are trivial and easily defended (essentially unassailable). What basically happened is that there is a ring of gas near that particular star. That ring lit up about a year after we saw the initial explosion, therefore we know that it is a light-year from SN1987A, this gives us a triangle with two very long sides ending at the earth, and a short side (2 light years from one side of the ring to the other). We measure the angle from one side of the illuminated gas to the other from the earth, and simple geometry gives us the two long sides (in such a long thin triangle they are essentially so close to the same length as to be identical). Other observations of that supernova tell us that the speed of light when it exploded is that same as lightspeed is now.

Therefore the universe is at least 187,000 years old or God (or some other incredibly powerful entity) has faked evidence of events that never occurred. You may be in the branch of YEC that don't have a problem with this, but most YEC have a severe problem with it. Part of the problem that we on the scientific observations side have in these arguments is that evolution rejectors are in so many little camps of separate belief, united only by your detestation of ToE so it is hard to tell exactly what set of beliefs we are trying to debunk.

Of course despite the protestations of sites like ICR and AiG science is just as certain that the earth is around 4 billion years old and that there was no global deluge in the last 6000 years as it is about the size and age of the universe. But the math and observations required to justify this are somewhat harder for the layman to understand, unlike the killingly easy SN1987A. Have you ever examined and tried to understand the assumptions that go into radiometric dating, and the results it gives? Have you ever pondered on the results that led (creationist) geologists in the 19th century to conclude that the earth is very ancient long before radiometric techniques existed?