Replies

"Say, did you get a chance to look over some more of my color coded questions?"

~~~~~

Although I'm "retired" -- as Texas Archeological Steward and Chairman of the Cass County (Texas) Historical Commission -- I have an almost-too-busy life apart from FR... so my time for FReeping is quite limited. Your questions are fun - but they are a diversion from my primary quest for understanding re Creation, Scripture, and our Creator God.

You, apparently, understand the basic relationship between the speed of light, distance, and the relativistic effects on an observer in a universe where everything is moving -- and some things are moving with respect to themselves (rotating on their own axis). You seem to get it right on the small scale, so I am interested in where your reasoning falls apart so badly as to allow you to be suckered into to the concept of a young universe. Especially so since the data from the Hubble telescope and the COBE experiments are readily available.

Remember that I am a Christian and a firm believer in our (infinite, timeless, eternal, all-powerful, omnipresent and un-bound by space and time), Creator God and His incomprehensibly mighty works. What I am seeking is an understanding of why otherwise intelligent and thoughtful folks still insist on diminishing their concept of Him and his mighty creation so as to deprecate them into the man-centered YEC model -- when His works shout, "I AM far greater than your finite minds can comprehend!"

There is a huge difference between the truth of the words of "I AM" in Scripture and the ego-centered and geo-centered hubristic (mis)interpretation of His words by mankind...

IOW, what (aside from sinful ego and fear of being wrong) drives folks to cling to Ussher's 16th-century mind-burp misinterpretation of Genesis -- when they are literally "surrounded by so great a cloud of Witnesses" in what we can now see of His Creation?

Remember, I do not doubt the truth of Scripture; I only question the rationale of those who would deny clear evidence in order to belittle Almighty God down to a puny "thing" that their minds can "wrap around". And, I especially question those who go to great lengths of effort and expense to proselytize and try to force that (to me, sinful) belittlement of God on the rest of mankind.

~~~~~~~~

Sorry, although I would enjoy doing so, I haven't time to spend "playing with" your little "puzzles". If I interact further on this thread, it will be to return to the question of the "Universal Now" and how only a Being ("I AM") Who is outside of and unconstrained by time and space can comprehend the truth of that instantaneous totality of reality... (...and why any creature within that Creation can not -- by definition -- comprehend it...)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gotta run; a rancher a few counties from here has just unearthed another 10,000-year-old "Indian" site, and has asked my help in evaluating it...

I do not doubt the truth of Scripture; I only question the rationale of those who would deny clear evidence in order to belittle Almighty God down to a puny "thing" that their minds can "wrap around". And, I especially question those who go to great lengths of effort and expense to proselytize and try to force that (to me, sinful) belittlement of God on the rest of mankind.

It really does appear that the YEC view stuffs our Almighty Eternal God into a little box about the size of our puny notion of Time.

We humans experience Time in a certain limited way (irreversible linear series of moments moving past–present–future). God does not. To use Him as the authority to back up the very limited, partial human view of a "young earth" (~6,000 years) seems, er, inappropriate in the face of accumulating evidence. To say the least. At the heart of such a claim is a major "category problem": God and His Ways do not reduce to our human conceptions (no matter how brilliant) simply because He is God and we are not.

It's interesting that some commentators here favorable to the YEC thesis are aware of all the evidence piling up in support of a ~13.7 billion year old universe (If past predicts future, probably that estimate is not cast in stone). They say they appreciate the evidence, it's pretty dandy, and such like. But they maintain that the conclusions from the data are "faulty." I gather they are faulty because they do not square with the YEC perspective. No other explanation has been advanced so far, AFAIK.

And yet the burden is on them to show how the cosmological data can be interpreted differently than the way contemporary physics interprets it. This is a scientific question; so to answer with a literal reading of Genesis wouldn't cut it....

Don't get me wrong. God is the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe and everything in it, including you and me — but this is so regardless of how old or young we conjecture the universe may be from our human standpoint.

Thank you so very much, TXnMA, for your excellent essay/post!

Said MrJesse:
"Say, did you get a chance to look over some more of my color coded questions?"
Replied TXnMA:

Although I'm "retired" -- as Texas Archeological Steward and Chairman of the Cass County (Texas) Historical Commission -- I have an almost-too-busy life apart from FR... so my time for FReeping is quite limited. Your questions are fun - but they are a diversion from my primary quest for understanding re Creation, Scripture, and our Creator God.
...[Lines Skipped]...
...aside from sinful ego and fear of being wrong...

Replies MrJesse:

So do I understand that you've changed your view on the answer to the one of my color coded questions which you did answer?

Now you see I have a problem when we sit down to discuss science because I've got this memory of when you so easily bought into someone else's incorrect idea about orbital mechanics, and then said to me "Are you deliberately acting dense?" even though you were misguided and confused, and then you never came back and said "Oh, sorry for inferring that you were being deliberately dense. I was wrong.".

And so here's the problem I have, now: When you tell me that my reasoning falls apart so badly as to allow me to be suckered into to the concept of a young universe - how do I know that you're not just confused again and saying things to insult me? Or perhaps you have again bought into someone's incorrect idea without really thinking it through or understanding it? How will I know? And then on top of it all, I've seen that when you do find out that you're wrong, you probably won't even come back and say "Sorry for insulting you. I was wrong."

So, as you can see, we haven't a particularly solid foundation on which to reason about anything. But try I shall!

You seem to get it right on the small scale, so I am interested in where your reasoning falls apart so badly as to allow you to be suckered into to the concept of a young universe. Especially so since the data from the Hubble telescope and the COBE experiments are readily available.

Maybe it has something to do with my understanding of science. Not that I'm a great scientist by any stretch of the imagination. But there are two kinds of "science:" The real science, like physics, math, chemistry, etc. The reproducible stuff. For example, I learned early on in my electronics learning that if you put too much current through an LED it changes color, puts off a pretty bad smell, and never works again. I determined it by scientific experimentation. Then I did it again. If anyone doubts, I can show them that it is true. Or I can write instructions, and anyone can try it and see that it is true.

That's real science, and that's the kind of science I have known all my life. When we start discussing unrecorded history, and start making assumptions, and practicing faiths, now we're into a whole new realm that is perhaps part science and unquestionably part faith.

So, by faith, I believe that the Bible is true. Obviously I was not there at the beginning marking off days on my walnut board, but the Bible has proven to be true in every way I have tested it, and it is the source of definition for my faith, so it is a reasonable starting position for me - that God created the earth in 6 24-hour days and rested on the seventh, about 6 or 7k years ago.

Now of course folks are going to come along and claim to have evidence that I'm wrong - scientific evidence, they say. But do they? Is it science? or is it faith?

Do you have science that debunks my faith? If so, great. Let's hear it. I seek the truth. But what I have found is that folks are not pitting their science against my faith, but their faith (mislabeled as science) against my faith!

So back to my burnt out LED experiment: I know personally that if you over-current an LED badly enough it turns black and stinks and stops working. I don't need any faith to believe it, as a matter of fact I don't even need to believe it because I know it.

But what do I do then when someone comes to me and says my faith is wrong and tries to convince me to believe something that they've never seen, and have heard of from someone they've never seen?

So you see, for me to believe something that I've never seen at the word of someone I've never met when they never saw it - that is faith, pure and simple!

So can you show me evidence that does not require me to believe in something I've never seen and in people I've never met? If not, then the best you can do is pit your faith against mine. And I've already decided that the Bible is the perfect starting point (Everybody has to start somewhere!), and there is no reason whatsoever for me to forsake my faith just to adopt yours!

Now if you think you can present to me a good argument based not on faith that the earth is significantly more then 7K years, then by all means! let's have the discussion! I would most certainly enjoy it. I am by no means above apologizing and asking forgiveness when I've seen that I was wrong, and I truly do seek the truth wherever it may lead.

Remember that I am a Christian and a firm believer in our (infinite, timeless, eternal, all-powerful, omnipresent and un-bound by space and time), Creator God..

I'm a Christian for the record. But if you believe that God is all power and infinite and timeless and all that, then how come he couldn't have created not only the stars but the light in transit?

... and His incomprehensibly mighty works. What I am seeking is an understanding of why otherwise intelligent and thoughtful folks still insist on diminishing their concept of Him and his mighty creation so as to deprecate them into the man-centered YEC model -- when His works shout, "I AM far greater than your finite minds can comprehend!"

If you ask me, it's the OEC model that depreciates God to the bare minimum, saying he just barely got things working - attributing to God only those few things that aren't (yet) explained away by Science.

The Bible clearly presents itself and claims to be true. There are parables, but they are marked as parables. "And Jesus spake unto them in parables saying A certain man sewed seeds.. or The kingdom of heaven is like..." But that's not how Genesis reads. "In the Beginning, God created....."

So if you can show me evidence rather then faith, by all means do so!

IOW, what (aside from sinful ego and fear of being wrong) drives folks to cling to Ussher's 16th-century mind-burp misinterpretation of Genesis -- when they are literally "surrounded by so great a cloud of Witnesses" in what we can now see of His Creation?

All I can say is "Show me please."

Remember, I do not doubt the truth of Scripture; I only question the rationale of those who would deny clear evidence in order to belittle Almighty God down to a puny "thing" that their minds can "wrap around". And, I especially question those who go to great lengths of effort and expense to proselytize and try to force that (to me, sinful) belittlement of God on the rest of mankind.

Show me what clear evidence that I am denying.

I sure do not think that I am belittling the Almighty God down to a puny thing that my mind can wrap around.

When I read Genesis and say to myself "Wow. I believe just what it says. God made everything. He even made the stars to rule the night, and he even made them so far out they'd not appear to move around (thus making a great guidance system), and yet we could see them. Amazing!" I cannot get my mind around how he did it, and I see nothing belittling at taking Him at his word and being amazed and wowed at reading of his work of creation. (Huh? Work you ask? Yup! He rested on the 7th day!)

From what I can tell, the old earth theme (of course it comes in many variations and you haven't told me exactly what yours is) anyway, from what I can tell, it raises all sorts of new problems.

I ask you these questions:

Did God create Adam and Eve, or did all life start from a single primitive cell?
At what point did non-man become man? Has it happened yet?
At what point did the generations become literal?
Was Noah an actual person?
Was Abraham an actual person? What about Issac, Jacob?
What about Jacob's 12 sons? King David? Solomon?
It is clear that you don't believe in the 6-day 7k year ago creation. But what exactly do you believe? Do you believe that Noah built the ark? And that God closed the door thereon?

Gotta run; a rancher a few counties from here has just unearthed another 10,000-year-old "Indian" site, and has asked my help in evaluating it...

If I may prod your way a tad of humor here... How did you know that it is 10,000 years old if you had not at the time yet evaluated it? By the way, how'd it turn out? Find anything interesting? Got any firm dates yet from your evaluation efforts today?

Also, here's a quiz question for you: Do know for a fact that Carbon Dating can be used to date wood that is 20k years old (+/-20%) ?

Anyway, please teach me. I want to learn. I ask you, what must I do to know that the earth is significantly more then 7k years old? Do I have to go to 8 years of secular university? Do I have to do some science experiments? What must I do?

(By the way, I do have a geiger counter and I'd love to try my hand at radiocarbon dating! One day I'm going to try me some coal or something.)

So please - give me your best evidence - and also, explain where you're coming from. Telling me I'm wrong is sort of pointless if you're not willing to clearly define what you believe to be right.

Thanks and have a wonderful day,

-Jesse

Said TXnMA: You seem to get it right on the small scale, so I am interested in where your reasoning falls apart so badly as to allow you to be suckered into to the concept of a young universe.(Emph. his)

Good Day, TXnMA!

Say, I've noticed that you haven't yet taken a chance to respond to my earlier in-depth response to your question about how my reasoning allegedly falls apart so badly.

I also notice that you were kind of harsh on folks with whom you disagree on the age of the earth. Then you lay out a rather harsh insult inferring that my reasoning falls apart and that I got suckered into something. But then when I responded logically, you all the sudden won't talk to me anymore to date.

What am I to think? It looks to me as if you parade news of your alleged superior intelligence and learning over folks and then insult them for their alleged ignorance trying to shame them into agreeing with you - but if someone actually accepts your challenge and addresses the issues, you all the sudden just ignore them and refuse to address the very issues you yourself raised.

How can I, as an honest person, come to any conclusion other then that you're not using truth but insults to try to make your point but don't have the integrity to actually stick by what you say or give meaning and body to your empty insults?

Is there something I missed? Considering the evidence before me, how can I honestly reach another conclusion?

I'm not asking these rhetorically - I sincerely would like an honest answer from you if you might be so kind.

So please, let's not just throw insults and then run - let's have the discussion! As a scientist (unpaid for which as I may be) and a Christian I truly am interested in the truth. How are you going to teach me anything new if all you can do is make vague insults and run?

So please, go on ahead and take a whack at my earlier post to you. There's got to be something you can teach me. If not, then it's really not nice to insult someone in telling them they are wrong then refuse to show them how they are wrong. What's the point? Why tell someone they are wrong in an unkind manner when you are then unwilling to teach them the truth even when they are perfectly willing to examine the evidence in search of the truth?

Thank you very much and have a wonderful day,

-Jesse