Replies

[So God might have created the world in six days, but in his creation he would have left dinosaur fossils that were already aged a great deal?]
God did create the world in six days.

Then why does the world give every indication that it took far, far longer to form?

I'm not a scientist,but if I were,I would probably look at the various methods used for dating.

For... what?

There is definately a way to reconcile it to the biblical account of creation.

So you've assumed your desired conclusion and then just sit back certain in your belief that there must be "definately [sic] a way" to support it, but no need to actually do so? How is that different from what we see liberals do all too often?

It just has not been done.

Because the evidence points to the contrary, actually.

As it stands now,it may never be.The antagonism is too great.

Is that the excuse you're going to go with for why your belief hasn't been supported by the evidence, and for why the evidence points to a different conclusion?

Isn't this what liberals do when they postulate a big conspiracy or something in order to "explain" why their beliefs about things aren't being confirmed on a daily basis?

Earlier you wrote:

The truth I accept is based on scripture.Any truth outside of that is a lie,conjecture or opinion unless supported by scripture.

But isn't your own belief about *which* "scripture" might be "the" scripture something that is "outside of that [scripture]"? After all, all scriptures, present and past, claim to be "the" (or at least "a") scripture. But the problem is that their self-proclamations are entirely circular, just like the letter from Hank.

In any case, because "scriptures" can be corrupted by man, or well-meaning scribings of ancient oral myths originating from simple storytelling (or deluded "revelations"), or self-serving missives by self-appointed "prophets" (as you probably believe about the Koran, for example), it seems to me that the only truly reliable source for information about the Universe is the Universe *itself* (including, of course, the Earth and what is in/on it).

So my own personal epistemology is closer to:

The truth I accept is based on reality. Any truth outside of that may just be a lie, conjecture, or opinion unless supported by reality.

"Evidence", of course, is just another word for "reality" -- it's what we have found by examining the real world. And the scientific method is, in a nutshell, just a collection of methods for doing reality-checks on ideas, by comparing them against the real world and seeing if they hold up when measured against reality.

Modern science does provide a way to reconcile a six day creation with all of the evidence of a universe that is 10-15 billion years old. You need some understanding of two modern theories, the big bang theory and general relativity. First of all, general relativity states that time is not an absolute quantity. It states that under certain conditions, I could very well say that it took me 15 seconds to type this sentence and someone else watching me could say it took 3 years for me to do so. Which one of us is right? This is where common sense fails us; GR states that BOTH observers are right. The problem is that time is not some absolute thing ticking away at the same rate everywhere. Time depends on the observer's frame of reference. One of the conditions that causes the rate of passage of time to vary from one reference frame to another is the strength of the gravitational field. Big bang theory states that in the earliest moments of the universe, the mass of the universe (actually present as an equivalent amount of energy, but irrelevant to this argument) was the same as it is now. However, the universe at this time was extremely small. With a large mass and a small size comes an enormous gravitational field, much higher than the gravitational field present on earth today. High gravitational fields slow down the rate of passage of time as observed by someone in a lower field reference frame. The practical upshot of all this is that if you were present in the early universe keeping track of time and you measured off six literal days and then compared your results somehow with an observer who measured the same amount of time as you did, you might very well find that the earthbound observer would say that your six days actually lasted 10-15 billion years! Again, who is correct? GR states that the answer is BOTH of you. Now who would be an observer recording events in the early universe that lasted six days? Why God, of course. So God is correct when He wrote in the Bible that the creation took six days, and modern science is also correct when scientific theories state that the universe is 10-15 billion years old. Given this argument, neither big bang theory nor evolution are inconsistent with Scripture. Both are just tools that God used to create the universe.