What Does the Universe Say About the Age of Creation?

God creates out of nothing. Wonderful you say. Yes, to be sure, but he does what is still more wonderful: he makes saints out of sinners
-Soren Kierkegaard 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/04/hubble-20th-anniversary/

Pillars of Creation: Hubble Telescope

Today, Jim will discuss how light helps us to understand the age of the universe. We will finish up on this series on Friday and are grateful to Jim for providing us with his perspectives. We have a lot of stories to discuss in the coming weeks. We also plan to do a short series on Missio Alliance at some point in the near future, a group that will provide some hope to those who have not found an alternative to the current Neo-Calvinist/mega celebrity pastor state of the postevangelical world.

I would like to make something clear, once again. One can argue creationism strictly from the Bible. However, when one decides to argue science, the discussion must turn in the direction of evidence. There is no place for judging peoples' motives in either situation.  Today, in the Christian Post, Ken Ham said the following:

Ham urges his readers not to be taken in by "such elaborate ideas, which are nothing more than fallible sinful man's attempts not to take God at His Word!"

"How arrogant is finite man in thinking he can tell God what He got wrong. How sad so many Christian academics think they can put themselves above the infallible Word!" Ham concludes.

Creation Museum CEO and President Ken Ham has written a blog post, blasting a Christian academic for overlooking Biblical authority in an attempt to explain the long life spans of people mentioned in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.

Ken Ham uses the words "arrogant, "fallible" and "sinful" to describe the efforts of man in this area. He even accuses Christian academics of putting themselves above God's Word. I find these comment despicable and self-serving. I have news for Ham. He cannot escape those labels himself. We are all sinful, including the man who "knows" precisely what the Bible says.

I will not allow further comments that utilize Ham's well-known tactics of labeling those who disagree with his premise as somehow Bible deficient. It stops now. There is a reason he got thrown out of homeschooling conference link. Remember, homeschoolers are his main constituency.

As you will see from Jim's comments, he goes out of his way to say something nice to those who disagree with him. I will add something to this. I do admire the YEC devotion to the Scriptures and I know they wish to be true to what they read. However, they must realize that so do lots of people, including myself, who come to a different conclusion. 


Does science support a six day creation Part III: What does the universe ‘say’?

In exploring the claim by Tim Challies that “Science Confirms It” in reference to a young Earth (<10,000 years in age) and a six day creation, we have dealt with why Mr. Challies would make such a claim and his qualifications to make such a claim, coupled with a look at what science itself is. In this essay, I’d like to take a look at the plausibility that his opinion that:

“I find the science demanding millions or billions of years less compelling than the science supporting a much less ancient universe.”

is based on a real understanding of what the data and its implications actually are. I am in fact far more inclined to think that such a statement, if made in truth, reveals that Mr. Challies has taken a position either from ignorance or in spite of the true implications of the data and the science which would drive its interpretation, not because of it.

So what IS the data that implies drives a conclusion about the age of the Earth or the age of the Universe? That is massive question. There is not just one or even 10 or 100 datasets that drive that conclusion. It is, in fact, the implication of so many different areas of investigation it would take the remainder of this essay just to list some subset of the major drivers. And so all I can do is begin to point to what is out there and then perhaps make a few remarks about how those that claim to have a valid counter deal with this data.

As an amateur astronomer, many of my favorite indicators of the age of the Universe itself come from no less than the stars themselves. So I will deal in this essay with what derives from two of the most fundamental aspects of our universe: light and its physical size.

In absolute agreement with the opening phrases of Genesis 1, light itself is one of the earliest and most fundamental building blocks of the structure, form and properties of the universe. Further, its propagation velocity drives and/or is derived from the fundamental properties of the universe at a level that implies it is one of the fundamental constants of the universe. For the universe to function and remain stable, that velocity must also remain constant. If it changes, so must a multitude of other basic properties also change (like mass and the gravitational constant to name two), simultaneously and in precise inverse or direct proportion. Otherwise, our universe becomes uninhabitable.

But then there is the physical size of the Universe. The velocity of light indeed very fast, but it is finite. And the universe itself is immense. So immense in fact that it makes the fantastic speed of light (a spacecraft moving at that speed would orbit the Earth 7 times per second) seem slower than the progress of a snail on the way to Paris, France from Sydney, Australia. Indeed, the time it takes light to cross the distance to even the very closest stars is measured in years. Hence the astronomical distance measure: the light-year.

And for light to reach us from the Milky Way – the white band that stretches across the summer sky and visible when one leaves the city lights behind – requires more time than all of recorded human history. In fact, it requires roughly twice the amount of time that YEC will allow for the whole of the universe to exist. And yet that band of stars is relatively close on the cosmic scale. It is the light from the central stars of our galaxy – a structure that requires almost 100,000 years for light to cross.

And in the universe, there are billions of similar structures, billions of galaxies. Indeed, orbiting our galaxy are a few smaller satellite galaxies that lie around 150,000 light years away. And the very closest major galaxy not gravitationally bound to our own, Andromeda, lies 2.5 MILLION light years away. That is, for light to cross the distance between us takes 2.5 million years to arrive here on this planet for us to observe. And to top it all off, the most distant galaxies are more than 1,000 times farther away than that. In fact, fully 4,000 times as far away – over 10 BILLION light years away!

So I ask this simple question:

 If light takes millions and billions of years to cross the distance between objects we can see at night, some with the naked eye (Andromeda), then what is the most obvious, compelling conclusion about how long this universe has been in existence? What does this data imply?

As I said in the earlier essays, science makes observations and then proposes hypothesis to explain the data that is derived from those data. What hypothesis should a scientist propose based on the observations of the distances involved and the known speed of light? And then, how could he test that hypothesis?

Would it help if I mentioned that not only have these implications been tested and challenged over and over again, but so have the underlying implication that light’s velocity must remain constant. In fact, one of the most direct ways to validate the speed of light in the past is simply to watch light propagate from a bright event in the distant universe and measure its speed. And this has in fact been done several times. And in each case, the speed of light there and then is the same as it is here and now. Implying that for us to be observing those events, the amount of time that has passed to allow us to see the event is in fact equal to the number of light years which separate us from the same events.

The most famous example of the kind of observation is the light echo of a super nova that exploded in 1987 in the Magellenic Cloud. We have been watching light move out from that event (at a distance from us of 168,000 light years) for the past 27 years. It’s moving at the speed of light. That means it took 168,000 years to get here, and we are looking at an event in the universe 168,000 years ago. And that is a relatively NEARBY event.

And this just barely scratches the surface. We can observe not just the distances and the implications of the speed of light, but in virtually every corner of the universe we can observe records of processes taking millions of years to complete or form – from tidal tails created by the passing of two galaxies to the expanding gasses of a supernova remnant, or the dying remains of stars with multi-billion year lifetimes. Everywhere are signs and records that point directly to a very, very old universe. Literally trillions of distinct examples consistent with and directly implying a universe whose age and history spans some 13.7 billion years.

How then does Mr. Challies say that the evidence the universe is only a few thousand years old is compelling? What compelling evidence for a universe <10,000 years old comes out of a universe where every major galaxy observed requires spans of time hundreds or thousands of  times the allowable YEC figure just to be seen? The real question is: Is there in fact anything we can observe that would lead us directly to with immediacy conclude the universe should be in fact <10,000 years old? And if one could cite such a bit of evidence, how would one reconcile it with the literally hundreds of billions of galaxies that require millions or billions of years of time just to be seen? What possible thought process would logically derive an age for the universe of <10,000 years from that massive set of observations I have described?

The reality is certain YEC scientists have attempted to address these issues and I freely and gladly acknowledge that these are in fact very intelligent and well educated men.( Ed. note: YEC reread that last sentence.) They have constructed elaborate conjectures, speculations driven not by the data but rather what they have already concluded MUST be the case. And in fact, when all is said and done, these speculations fail to explain a whole host of relatively nearby phenomena.

To pick one, the white dwarf which orbits the brightest star in the Earth’s night sky – Sirius. And they know their speculations fail (as science). When queried about this very star, the scientist whose hypothesis has perhaps the most respected in YEC circles for helping provide some kind of stop gap to the implications of the data I have just described simply invokes the right of the Creator to randomly violate His own creative process ‘for variety.’His name is Russell Humphries and he outlines his ideas in 'Starlight and Time" link.

To note that God is not bound by any particular process is in fact fundamental to Christian belief and faith. But it is absolutely contrary to the statement “Science confirms it”. For science to confirm a young Earth, a young Earth (or in this case, a young Universe) must be the logical natural, derived conclusion from the data itself according to the methodology of science. And as has been shown, that simply is NOT the case.

And so, rather clearly, at least as regards a young Universe, the science does NOT confirm it. It, in fact, counters it with almost every observation.

​Lydia's Corner: Jeremiah 4:19-6:15 Colossians 1:18-2:7 Psalm 77:1-20 Proverbs 24:23-25

Comments

What Does the Universe Say About the Age of Creation? — 246 Comments

  1. Ham and his cohorts, even those with Ph.Ds in the field, know their science is bogus, which is why they won’t defend it in any mainstream science forum. All they’re doing is throwing out enough scientific-sounding mumbo-jumbo for a gullible public to use as a crutch in denying universally held scientific findings.

    Ham and cronies cast this as a Bible vs. science issue so that if you believe the science, then you believe the Bible is wrong and you have put science above the Bible. That is so much BS. The vast majority of us who believe the current science do NOT believe the Bible is wrong. We believe that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

  2. JeffT wrote:

    We believe that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

    Yep! But Ham says his interpretation is correct and the rest of us are denying God’s truth.

  3. To pick one, the white dwarf which orbits the brightest star in the Earth’s night sky – Sirius. And they know their speculations fail (as science). When queried about this very star, the scientist whose hypothesis has perhaps the most respected in YEC circles for helping provide some kind of stop gap to the implications of the data I have just described simply invokes the right of the Creator to randomly violate His own creative process ‘for variety.’His name is Russell Humphries and he outlines his ideas in ‘Starlight and Time”.

    AKA wave his hands and go “GAWDDIDIT! GAWDDIDIT! GAWDDIDIT!”

    And so the Creation Wars begin again. To the Death, as always.

    The only thing that’s more of an instant Bright Red Murder Flag to Christians than Evolution(TM) is Homosexuality(TM). (And there are those who DO make a direct link between the two.) Let the Jihad begin.

  4. I don’t see this controversy as any different than the Catholic Church condemning Galileo for his argument that the earth revolved around the sun rather than the sun revolving around the earth. No one would argue the latter today. How do the YECs explain the passages in the Old and New Testament that describe the sun rising and setting and the earth as immovable?

  5. Well, I don’t know whether anyone else thought to do this, but I’ve actually gone and asked the Universe its opinion on the age of creation. It’s reply was: I didn’t know you were a pantheist, Nick!.

    I walked right into that one, tbh.

  6. Marsha wrote:

    How do the YECs explain the passages in the Old and New Testament that describe the sun rising and setting and the earth as immovable?

    Well, obviously, the same way I explain away bits of Biblescripture I don’t want to obey. Which is: they clearly don’t mean what they appear to say.

  7. Marsha wrote:

    How do the YECs explain the passages in the Old and New Testament that describe the sun rising and setting and the earth as immovable?

    I have asked this question and have gotten the same answer each time which causes me to bang my head against walls. The answer? They were obviously mistaken since that was obviously literary license.

    I always response by asking why can’t it be the same thing with the age. I am then called, and I kid you not, arrogant and condescending. (Hey, Deb, remember that?)

    You can’t win an argument because they change the rules each step of the way.

  8. Growing up oilfield and cutting me teeth (literally!) on core samples and the study of geology, I’ve never doubted the idea of an old earth. Of course, intellectual honestly demands I admit God could have created an old appearing earth 20 minutes ago if He so chose.

    What drives me nuts (short trip, I know)is that a careful study of the scripture doesn’t appear to me to teach a young earth, anyway. There are some pointed hints that what we think of as “creation” were “this creation” over and against a previous one or ones. But those are only hints. Not a hill to die on.

    In order to prove YEC, OEC, or the gap theory from scripture one has to do a fair amount of twisting and interpreting. The scripture doesn’t seem to be “about” the age of the earth, or how God created it, but only about the who–God doing the creating, and the why of creation.

    Freely admit the universe shows an old appearing (and I believe a plain old) creation. I’ll grant, again, that could be by design to appear old. Doesn’t say Adam was born an infant, but created apparently grown. I get it.

    But think–just think–if the industry and book selling money and effort went into evangelizing and discipling instead of arguing basically how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

  9. @ dee:
    I would love to hear them answer truthfully on the claim that Samson killed ten thousand men with a donkey’s jawbone…

  10. numo wrote:

    @ dee:
    I would love to hear them answer truthfully on the claim that Samson killed ten thousand men with a donkey’s jawbone…

    Agreed, cause your average donkey bone breaks up and disintegrates after dispatching 40-50 men. 10,000 would mean Samson would need a lot of donkey skulls laying around. ^_^

  11. Good post.

    I am trained in theology (MA) and my wife is a scientist. We are both believers, and neither of us adhere to YEC. Why? For her, the science doesn’t lead there, and for me, the text of scripture in no way requires it. There is no conflict on the issue, and no reason for such a conflict. Genesis was written in an ancient pre-scientific culture, and its main intent was to introduce and establish God as the creator, particularly over against other creation stories of the time. The text simply isn’t interested in the kind of modern, scientific questions that so many seem to ask of it these days. Some of it is poetry, for heaven’s sake.

    Now, if one chooses to believe in a young earth or literal six-day creation, that is fine. I’d differ with them on the textual interpretation, and I think you have to ignore a lot of science to do so. But I don’t question their faith or integrity.

    How people like Ham blow this whole thing up into a major war and make it into one of the core tenets of the faith is very sad, and I think it does the church far more harm than good.

  12. @ Albuquerque Blue:

    Well, obviously, the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon Samson and the jawbone.

    You see the same effect in Alien versus Predator.
    [SPOILER ALERT]

    The first battle between the two alien species sees a cloaked and barely-visible Predator about to wipe out a group of humans. But then, without warning, a cloaked and barely-visible Alien tail bursts out of its chest and lifts it off the ground. The cloaking device, in other words, affects the Predator, its weapons, and anything that impales it. Samson’s anointing clearly functioned in the same manner, conferring supernatural strength and endurance on both Samson and any weapon he took up.

    Alien versus Samson would be an interesting one.

  13. I always find it interesting that after one decides that YEC is the way to go, then one has to spend lots of effort coming up with explanation after explanation of the things that are not consistent with this.

  14. linda wrote:

    Of course, intellectual honestly demands I admit God could have created an old appearing earth 20 minutes ago if He so chose.

    That’s called the Omphalos (belly-button) hypothesis, and has its own set of problems (primarily making God into a deceiver). A man named Gosse first proposed it in Victorian times (at the first flareup over Darwin) and promptly got piled on from all sides.

    Another name for it is “Last Tuesday-ism”; if God could create ex nihilo with a perfect appearance of age, how do we know He didn’t create the universe last Tuesday with all our memories and history as part of the ex nihilo backstory? Like Grand Unified Conspiracy Theories (which figure heavily into YEC these days), it can detach you from reality to the point you wonder if you even exist.

  15. dee wrote:

    You can’t win an argument because they change the rules each step of the way.

    No, they change every rule but one in the service of that one:
    “I ALWAYS *WIN*!”

  16. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I’ve actually gone and asked the Universe its opinion on the age of creation. It’s reply was: I didn’t know you were a pantheist, Nick!….I walked right into that one, tbh.

    How did the Universe sound? Because, you know, maybe it wasn’t her.

  17. @ Patrice:
    I ask because every time I’ve heard the Universe, she sounds like a Beethoven symphony, but with more bells and whistles. And she’s never mentioned pantheism.

    PS: Poked around your bestest-in-the-world site. It was a pleasure. Your photos of Skye are like the bones of the world taking a bath in the sea. Amazing!

  18. Why does the United States attract loons like Ken Ham? Can we deport him back to Australia? Pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase!! 😛

  19. I wonder if it’s possible that God created light in-transit, and not exclusively from a point of origin, such as a star. This would certain give the appearance, as measured today, of a great many years having passed, when actually the light simply appeared in an instant, both at and distant from its source.

  20. linda wrote:

    Of course, intellectual honestly demands I admit God could have created an old appearing earth 20 minutes ago if He so chose.

    *
    That’s where I stand –
    *

  21. @ Patrice:

    There is some evidence that the Universe is genderless (this would explain why it adds bells and whistles to Beethoven, but is not afraid of spiders) and holographic in the sense that it presents a personality reflecting that of whoever’s talking to it.

    P.S. – thanks for dropping by, and glad you liked it! The Skye foties were all taken on the same day, in October last year. A very good day, in fact.

  22. numo wrote:

    I would love to hear them answer truthfully on the claim that Samson killed ten thousand men with a donkey’s jawbone

    It was only 1,000, not 10,000. And he did it one at a time, of course. Just like Uma Thurman taking out the Crazy 88 in Kill Bill Vol 1. 🙂

  23. To take a moment and expound on one idea, I’ll include here a link to a picture of two interacting galaxies and the tidal interactions between them that have produced both a lot of movement of the stars between them and some fairly spectacular tidal tails.

    interacting galaxies

    For those not familiar with this particular phenomena, these galaxies, objects 10’s and/or 100’s of thousands of light years across have been interacting for long enough to allow us to see movement due to their gradual interactions that are effectively stars from the galaxies falling either toward or away from the galactic cores (for the same reasons the ocean tides rise on both sides of the Earth – towards and away from the moon) But these stars are moving at a few 10’s of miles per second, maybe at most 100 miles per second in the process. Yet there movements are displaced by perhaps hundreds of thousands of light years. So, be generous and allow for 100 miles per second, and we are talking about 1/2000 the speed of light. So for these stars to ‘fall’ over those hundred thousand light years or so, we need 200,000,000 years. And we can find example after exmaple of galactic encounters like this one across the universe. Formations that require hundreds of millions of years just to form. Super, super, slo-mo if you will.

    Zeta (Jim)

  24. Patrice wrote:

    I ask because every time I’ve heard the Universe, she sounds like a Beethoven symphony, but with more bells and whistles. And she’s never mentioned pantheism.

    Patrice, you-speaka-my-language! I remember some years back when I was still a Lutheran (ELCA), a gifted young woman of the congregation who was also the music minister, wowed us with Franz Liszt’s piano arrangement for Beethoven’s 5th symphony.

  25. John wrote:

    I am trained in theology (MA) and my wife is a scientist. We are both believers, and neither of us adhere to YEC. Why? For her, the science doesn’t lead there, and for me, the text of scripture in no way requires it. There is no conflict on the issue, and no reason for such a conflict

    I bet you have some interesting discussions.John wrote:

    ow people like Ham blow this whole thing up into a major war and make it into one of the core tenets of the faith is very sad, and I think it does the church far more harm than good.

    He has been doing this for years. It appears his very faith, as well as his income, is based on this issue and that is sad

  26. Ken J Garrett wrote:

    I wonder if it’s possible that God created light in-transit, and not exclusively from a point of origin, such as a star.

    This is a typical AIG “proof” and it is frustrating because you cannot “prove” that it is true or false. One of the clever things that Ham does is come up with sayings that are a stretch. It is the same thing as God created the earth to look old. and then his followers repeat his typical statement “My grandmother looks old and she is only 93.” Where in the world does one begin with this?

    I hope JIm reads this comment because he is very good at explaining why the speed of light is constant.

    This entire concept turns God into the cosmic trickster. I have heard many YEC claim that it is His way of seeing who truly is faithful to his word. I don’t see God like that at all. i believe he has created a constant universe in which we can depend upon these laws until his return and then all bets are off as he creates a new heaven and earth.

  27. dee wrote:

    He has been doing this for years. It appears his very faith, as well as his income, is based on this issue and that is sad

    Dee, I remember some time back you said that Ham’s objections stem primarily from theological constraints concerning the fall, blood atonement etc. Could you refresh the screen so to speak on this?

  28. @ Muff Potter:
    You have a great memory. I referred to this statement that you can find on the AIG website.

    Young Earth is Not the Issue.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/01/23/young-earth-not-issue

    He believes that anyone who believes in an old earth is in danger of denying the doctrine of the atonement which, of course, means salvation. This is, and has been, Ham’s contention although he vigorously claims that he does not say tat those who don’t by his stuff aren’t saved. He just says it in every which way he can, just like he did by the above quoted statement.

    Ham urges his readers not to be taken in by “such elaborate ideas, which are nothing more than fallible sinful man’s attempts not to take God at His Word!”
    “How arrogant is finite man in thinking he can tell God what He got wrong. How sad so many Christian academics think they can put themselves above the infallible Word!” Ham concludes.

  29. Good post, Dee and Jim.

    It does seem untenable that someone using scientific observation alone would seriously conclude that such observations support a young universe more than an old universe.

    Not to defend the YEC argument, but I suspect the response would be something along the lines of “real science TM does not automatically assume uniformity since the beginning of creation,” and/or “God could have created the light from distant locations already in transit and real science TM does not rule out this possibility,” etc. Those are philosophical arguments about the nature of science, but unlikely to be satisfying responses to mainstream scientists (who I’m sure would understandably take offense at the implication that their science isn’t real).

    Just a side thought, but I personally have no problem with the argument that God could have created the universe with the appearance of age (such as with the the “light in transit” idea). I do not agree with those who dismiss the apparent age view by saying it makes God deceptive. It would only be deceptive of him if he did not give any other revelation about himself and of his activities than what we see can observe in nature. But he also gave us the revelation of himself and his actions in his Word, the Bible. So if one assumes that we are to take Genesis 1 and the subsequent biblical chronology as literal descriptions, and one concludes that the universe must be younger than it appears to be (based on that interpretation), and then one concludes that the universe was created with the appearance of age, there is no deception involved (since God told you via his Word that things are younger than they appear to be).

    Again, I’m not trying to defend the YEC position, just saying how I think a YEC person might respond, plus throwing in my own thoughts on how one might reconcile the “apparent age” issue. But I recognize that it is not at all necessary to hold to an interpretation of Genesis that demands a young creation, and I think it is legalism for anyone to insist that unless someone interprets the Bible in that way does not believe the Bible (or may not be a Christian). I think it is a bad idea in general to hold to a view of the Bible that demands conformity to any particular scientific theory, and also a bad idea to hold to a view of science that demands conformity to any particular hermeneutical approach. We should always remain open to correction in our interpretations of scientific data and of the Bible.

  30. Ken J Garrett wrote:

    I wonder if it’s possible that God created light in-transit, and not exclusively from a point of origin, such as a star. This would certain give the appearance, as measured today, of a great many years having passed, when actually the light simply appeared in an instant, both at and distant from its source.

    God ‘could have’, yes. But here is the problem. It’s not just a matter of creating ‘light in transit’, is is a matter of encoding information into that light that conveys history. And this is not a capability problem, it’s a moral one.

    But let’s back up. Assuming YEC, Let’s go back 6000 years to the day after God created Adam and Eve. And let’s say that when he created them, he created them with the appearance of being 25 years old each. So far not such a big deal. But now suppose God also gave Adam and Eve belly buttons from a birth that never happened. Still one might say “God would create them as they should be after 25 years’, and certainly a belly button is not such a big deal.

    But now lets suppose God gave Adam and Eve memories. 25 years of memories. Memories of playmates that never were, and parents that never existed. Memories of towns and meals and conversations, rainy days and sunny days, all the memories in fact of a person that grew up there on planet Earth as if the Earth were 4.5 billion years old and they were born here.

    But they were created ‘yesterday’.

    What about that? Is that ‘OK’? Does that make sense morally? What is going to happen to Adam and Eve’s stability and sanity as they try to reconcile all those memories with God’s “word’ He made them yesterday? Does this make any sense for God to do? Does it comport with who we understand God to be? And how in such a situation could Adam and Eve ever be able to understand what is real about the universe and life and anything else for that matter?

    Now, back to light from stars. In my essay, I discuss a supernova that went off 27 years ago. In the ‘light in transit scenario’, not only does this star not exist, neither do any of the events we have watched unfold over the last 27 years. The History we observe in that light is in fact so complete we can learn a very great deal about the physics of supernova from them. We can watch radioactive elements decay. We can watch material hurled out from the supernova catch up to gasses previously expunged in a pre-supernova state (which also doesn’t exist) and smash into them producing incredibly bright and hot gaseous rings around the SN. And so on.

    And its all just a fiction, an elaborate movie in the sky that was positioned some 6000 light years hence some 6000 years ago, just so we could be fooled into thinking some star exploded in the Large MAgellenic cloud.

    A history that never was, in a universe that is not – by a God who IS truth?

    The greatest hoaxster in the entire universe he is then.

    Does that make sense? And one must multiply that – literally – by the thousands of trillions so complete is this fake history in every observable direction at at every observable distance. A complete and accurate history for every single observable object in the cosmos (and unobservable objects too – so that as we get better and better Telescopes the hoax can continue). And not just histories for those objects, bit leftover ‘memories’ of all their potential interactions, like the tidal tails I mention above.

    God is a God of Truth, and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth – yes?

    Zeta (Jim)

  31. Orion’sBelt wrote:

    And its all just a fiction, an elaborate movie in the sky that was positioned some 6000 light years hence some 6000 years ago, just so we could be fooled into thinking some star exploded in the Large MAgellenic cloud.

    As Christian Monist put it, “I’d like to know where God put the projector behind that screen 6017 light-years away.”

    A history that never was, in a universe that is not – by a God who IS truth?

    The greatest hoaxster in the entire universe he is then.

    More than that. Creating a deliberately deceptive universe, then requiring you to NOT believe that physical reality on pain of Eternal Hell. Making everything with an appearance of age, but don’t you dare believe that it really IS old. Maybe He created everything 10 seconds ago and all your memories earlier than that are all another deception. Maybe you don’t really exist, but were created 10 seconds ago with the appearance of existence.

    What is reality at that point?

  32. Jim, I would be very interested to hear how a change in the velocity of light would affect things other fundamentals of the universe, such as mass and gravity.

    Nick Bulbeck, did you see Alien vs Predator: Requiem? Memorable for all the wrong reasons – I thought the lighting in the cinema had gone wrong.

  33. When queried about this very star, the scientist whose hypothesis has perhaps the most respected in YEC circles for helping provide some kind of stop gap to the implications of the data I have just described simply invokes the right of the Creator to randomly violate His own creative process ‘for variety.

    So how do you know the Creator didn’t randomly violate His own salvation process ‘for variety’? How do you know He didn’t randomly violate what’s in The Bible ‘for variety’? How do you know He won’t randomly violate any assurance of your own salvation at the Great White Throne ‘for variety’?

    When everything gets explained as “and then A Miracle Happened” why should the universe work consistently from one nanosecond to the next? Like Star Trek V’ger and its trademark “unknown space anomaly of the week”, when everything becomes an anomaly, they’re no longer anomalies — they’re what’s NORMAL and the universe is just “Lovely, Lovely Chaos” and you’d better start checking your closets and under your bed for a being shaped like a Chinese Dragon made out of mismatched parts with a voice like John De Lancie.

  34. @ Kolya:
    If you get through a good high school / decent Freshman college physics class you get to learn all of these equations that allow you to calculate how things work together. How mass, volume, acceleration, gravity, etc… all tie together. Things get very weird if you change any one of the underlying principles of our universe works.

    And if you dig deeper into physics and chemistry you find it’s all tied together.

    Changing the speed of light even very slightly means that most of what science knows about our universe would break. To the extent that the periodic table might not exist in a form we would recognize. And we would certainly not be here as carbon based oxygen breathing life forms.

  35. dee wrote:

    However, to go deeper, then what does this say about God and His character?

    “PLEASED TO MEET YOU!
    HOPE YOU GUESSED MAH NAME!
    (doo doo doo doo; doo doo doo doo)
    CAUSE HUSTLIN’ YOU
    IS THE NATURE OF MAH GAME!
    (doo doo doo doo; doo doo doo doo)”?

  36. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    dee wrote:
    However, to go deeper, then what does this say about God and His character?
    “PLEASED TO MEET YOU!
    HOPE YOU GUESSED MAH NAME!
    (doo doo doo doo; doo doo doo doo)
    CAUSE HUSTLIN’ YOU
    IS THE NATURE OF MAH GAME!
    (doo doo doo doo; doo doo doo doo)”?

    BS&T – 3rd Album

  37. Kolya wrote:

    Jim, I would be very interested to hear how a change in the velocity of light would affect things other fundamentals of the universe, such as mass and gravity.
    Nick Bulbeck, did you see Alien vs Predator: Requiem? Memorable for all the wrong reasons – I thought the lighting in the cinema had gone wrong.

    One very simple example is found in that very, very famous equation E=mc2

    c is the speed of light in meters per second. mass in kilograms. E is the energy in joules.

    This equation governs how much energy the sun produces as matter is converted into energy during fusion. So, suppose we change the speed of light by a factor of 2. That means the energy in 1 kilogram of matter goes up by 4 times. What happens to the Earth if the sun gets 4 time hotter?

    Well, I suppose we could fix that by simultaneously making the ‘m’ value 4 times smaller.

    But ‘m’ is mass. mass is coupled to how strong a gravitational field there is. The more mass, the stronger the field. So now the Sun is putting out the same amount of energy and not frying the Earth. But it has 1/4 the mass, which means 1/4 the gravity. Now the Earth weighs 1/4 as much, so that cancels, but how fast the orbit needs to be is dependent on how strong the field is a certain distance from the sun. (All objects in the Earth’s orbit orbit at the same speed). So now the Earth is moving way to fast and wonders off into interstellar space. So to fix that, we must adjust the gravitational constant.

    And so on. It’s a really big, big mess once you start fiddling with the speed of light. Nasty stuff. God could do it of course – bit it would be no ‘accident’. There would need to be a purposed intent to make things look old when they were not. To get that light ‘here’ in a jiffy, then slow it down quick.

    But what happens to the recorded history in light that has been zipping along at millions of times it’s present speed so we can watch what is going on ‘way over there’? Well, it gets really streeeeeeeeaaaaatched out. And that means, when moving at the much slower velocity we observe today, all the things going on ‘out there’ should appear to be going on way slower than physics would imply. And we just don’t see anything like that in the universe we observe.

    Zeta (Jim)

  38. dee wrote:

    Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:
    That’s where I stand –
    However, to go deeper, then what does this say about God and His character?

    *
    Dee, what does it say, according to your perspective, about God? I don’t really see a problem with it. “Let there be light – Voila – there was light.”

    Seriously, I as the created feel a little uneasy judging the Creator.
    *
    He didn’t answer Job’s questions, I don’t suppose He needs to answer mine.
    *

  39. One comment I see recurring is the idea that the Bible clearly teaches that the sun orbits the earth. It took quite an upheaval for the church to change its position. But aren’t YECers being dishonest when they claim (on faith) a young earth, but deny geocentricity? I addressed some of this here in a response to Todd Wilken, but the bottom line is that it isn’t actually accurate for YECers to say that they take the Bible at face value. I have no ill will against my YEC friends; I find most of them to just be normal people who want to believe God. But I do think their position is not well thought through.

  40. Kolya wrote:

    Jim, I would be very interested to hear how a change in the velocity of light would affect things other fundamentals of the universe, such as mass and gravity.
    Nick Bulbeck, did you see Alien vs Predator: Requiem? Memorable for all the wrong reasons – I thought the lighting in the cinema had gone wrong.

    I forgot one other problem with reducing the mass. It’s the sun’s mass that sits in balance with the outward pressure of all those hot gases. So, if we reduce the sun’s mass by a factor of 4, it blows up. Poof. Bye bye Solar system.

    Zeta (Jim)

  41. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    you’d better start checking your closets and under your bed for a being shaped like a Chinese Dragon made out of mismatched parts with a voice like John De Lancie.

    References to Discord are always appreciated.

  42. John DeLancie and Tara Strong are why I became a brony.

    Come to think of it, those are probably not the most wholesome reasons…

  43. @ Albuquerque Blue: actually, donkey jawbones are pretty delicate. They’re used in some parts of Latin America as percussion instruments, though up here, they’ve largely been superseded by something called a Vibraslap (there are clones, but the name is trademarked).

    The Vibraslap was invented because musicians needed a more durable alternative to a jawbone. You can hear them used a lot in TV and movie soundtracks.

    /trivia diversion

  44. Jim, thanks for answering my question. That does make changing the speed of light seem like a very drastic step!

    Seneca, I agree that God doesn’t need to answer our questions. On the other hand, at the end of Job, God is actually asking Job the questions rather than simply silencing him. And in the very last chapter God rebukes Eliphaz and the others for not speaking truthfully of Him as Job had done.

    Dr Fundystan, there are in fact YECs (albeit a small minority) who do take the view that the Biblical position is that the sun orbits the earth. However this is not the mainstream YEC position.

  45. Re the jawbone of the ass issue, something that has struck me is that throughout history it seems to have been very difficult for the numbers involved in any battle to be assessed correctly. Even in histories of WWII opposing sides can give wildly different figures (usually for the other side’s troops!). I wonder if this was the case in the Ancient Near East? I’m not a Hebrew scholar so can’t comment on how numbers in the Bible might be read.

  46. Eagle wrote:

    Why does the United States attract loons like Ken Hamm? Can we deport him back to Australia? Pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase!!

    Eagle, being from the state in Australia that Ham is from, my p.o.v. is that you guys in the States can keep him! Christians here are generally more tolerant and harmonize their faith with science. Though going by the books that are starting to become promoted more by the biggest Aussie Christian book chain (Ham’s titles mainly), it looks like the Aussie evangelical world wants to import the US’ cultural wars to the land ‘Down Under’.

  47. Muff Potter wrote:

    Franz Liszt’s piano arrangement for Beethoven’s 5th symphony.

    It is my opinion that Liszt, in working his arrangement of the 5th, mistook the voice of the Universe for that of the Milky Way Galaxy, which has the timbre of a piano (and also with bells but no whistles). After all, anything the piano heard, Liszt could play. Very beautifully too. Like the Milky Way.

    That must have been delightful to hear, Muff.

    Tomorrow night I am going to the Detroit Symphony Orchestra for Orff’s Carmina Burana. My daughter’s fiance’s mother sings with the U of Mich choir, performing with them. w00t

  48. Just caught this over at Phoenix Preacher:

    My point we cant put each other in a box, I know I have put the church and God in a box way to many times.

    Ken Ham is a bit over the top, I cant stand him in a professional sense but he is polite so I will get this out of the way. I have never heard Mr. Ham call his opponents foul names threaten their families wish ill will on others etc. I cannot say that for those that disagree with Mr. Ham. Every single time Mr. Ham has held an event he has treated his detectors with respect I E not calling them names, not cussing at them etc. I believe it is important to make this point, you see I thought evil in my heart, I E questioning Mr. Ham’s sincerer beliefs and heart and I said evil in my heart about him. I also did a few times here. Though I am sure Mr. Ham would not consider me a Christian I consider him one and this means I sinned against a brother. For that I am sorry. Someone asked if I felt YEC /ID folks were stupid and I said no, I was not entirely honest I think I did deep down in my heart. That was / is pride and I repent of that and am sorry. I tirade it does not excuse applying wrong motives to others. For that I apologize. Does that make sense I am truly trying to examine my heart with the, no thats wrong, through God’s grace I was dragged kicking and screaming to examine my pride. Yup that is more accurate.

    http://michaelnewnham.com/?p=15953#comment-63218

    Well?
    Can we all not respectfully agree to disagree?

  49. In my readings of YEC articles over the past few years, I’ve noticed that when you get down to the nitty-gritty of their arguments, some will admit that their science breaks down and they have to invoke some kind of miracle to make the system work (usually buried deeply in an article). But if that’s the case, then for them to say that science supports their view is dishonest and misleading. I’ve also noticed that they still dump all over radiometric dating, but on the other hand, say it’s reliable enough in short time frames to possibly date which rocks came from which part of the Flood!

    Reasons to Believe has responded to the Nye-Ham debate here:
    http://www.reasons.org/nyevsham

  50. Patrice wrote:

    How did the Universe sound? Because, you know, maybe it wasn’t her.

    Incidentally, Patrice, I meant to say there: touché!

    (Lesley’s comment was, and I quote: Ha ha ha ha! Excellent!)

  51. I highly recommend the new volume edited by Richard Averbeck, Reading Genesis 1-2.

    It includes some of the best evangelical scholarship one can find regarding ANE and OT issues and most of the contributors present readings that are faithful to the text in its context. Most of the contributing scholars also refrain from trying to deduce scientific “facts” from what is a very decidedly non-scientific passage.

    (No, I am not one of the contributors, nor am I affiliated in any way with the authors or the publisher 🙂

  52. numo wrote:

    I would love to hear them answer truthfully on the claim that Samson killed ten thousand men with a donkey’s jawbone…

    A better translation of that verse might be “with the jawbone of an ass I killed *an entire unit* of men.”

    The word which can used to indicate the cardinal number 1000 was also a technical military term that simply meant “a unit,” not necessarily of 1000 men.

    A good example of this can be seen in Joshua 7, where three “thousand” (elephs) Israelites attack Ai. The text says that the Israelites lost 36 men and were routed in what ended up being a horrible defeat. The text makes little sense if the Israelites really had 3000 troops. Losing 36 men out of 3000 would amount to around 5% losses and would not likely lead cause soldiers to rout and flee.

    If, however, the Israelites went to battle with 3 elephs (units), with each eleph consisting of 50-100 troops, then losing 36 men could mean losing up to 25% of the total force. Plus, it’s not hard to imagine one eleph leading the charge, losing 36 men (of out only 50-100, so 36%-72%), panicking, fleeing, and then causing the other two elephs to rout as well.

  53. @ Marsha:
    Atheists use this argument to show what rubbish the bible is and how stupid Christians are for believing it.

    God is simply speaking to us using the language of the observer on earth. We still talk about sunrise and sunset and the sun being ‘high in the sky’ as that is how it appears to us. Another metaphor is the earth being on foundations – only this time the earth is likened to a building. If the earth were literally solid all the way ‘down’, then you would expect the sun to reach the horizon and bounce back up again. What we actually experience implies the earth is spherical, the sun goes round the other side, and a spherical earth was known even amongst some of the ancients. In both cases the bible is not dealing with astronomy as such.

    It is inconsistent to argue such metaphors are to be understood literally and at the same time argue for a more figurative meaning in Genesis 1.

    As for Galileo, correct me if I’m wrong, but the church back then was defending the wrong science rather than the bible or church teaching against science. Copernicus himself was a canon of the church and was not condemned for his astronomical views, which Galileo later agreed with. This church v science and reason seems to be another oversimplistic atheist myth.

  54. Kolya wrote:

    Jim, I would be very interested to hear how a change in the velocity of light would affect things other fundamentals of the universe, such as mass and gravity.
    Nick Bulbeck, did you see Alien vs Predator: Requiem? Memorable for all the wrong reasons – I thought the lighting in the cinema had gone wrong.

    1)

    An interesting background on this is the book “Just Six Numbers” by Martin Rees, who is a senior figure in astronomy here in the UK (indeed, he is the Astronomer Royal, although that is an honorary position these days!). In it, he describes six fundamental physical constants that underpin the laws of physics, and inevitably – because it’s inescapably true – he remarks on how astonishingly well-balanced these numbers have to be for the universe we inhabit to exist and support life. Tinker with any of the laws of physics, by so much as one part in a trillion, and it all goes horribly wrong. Rees doesn’t think anybody Intelligent designed them, of course, but the world is round and 2 and 2 make 4 whether that moves you to worship or not.

    2)

    AVP Requiem was indeed a missed opportunity. All the important scenes involved black insectoid creatures hunting at night or in unlit caves and my son and I (who watched it together) had absolutely no idea what was going on. My recommendation to anyone thinking of watching it is, I suspect, similar to yours: by all means have the sound on in the background while you get on with something else. You’ll see just as much that way. AVP itself, by contrast, I really liked; you couldn’t call it a sci-fi classic in the way that Alien was (and in fact Ridley Scott hates AVP), but it doesn’t pretend to be.

  55. Dee wrote:

    Here is what the universe sounds like:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAtgHMluJnM

    Sweet! A composer could do something more with those radar waves than electro buzzes, whoops, and twinkles.

    But the vid conclusively demonstrates that the universe I heard was likely only the bells and whistles, leaving me bewildered about what Beethoven and Liszt were doing, much less who was conversing with Nick. wooowooo

  56. Seneca wrote:

    He didn’t answer Job’s questions, I don’t suppose He needs to answer mine.

    That’s true but the questions that God pounded at Job make clear that examining the universe is one way to find out more about Him/Her. God took great delight in telling Job about all he didn’t know.

    And as we humans slowly build our understanding of the questions God shot at Job, our wonder and view of God increases. Which is the only reassurance in Job, really. God cannot be understood, yet when you look at what S/He made, you can be reassured by the fact that it is being managed by a gigantic Someone of strange and weird order and complexity, and we can be at peace about it even while we continue to explore and explore His/Her very nature.

    “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.
    5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?
    6 On what were its footings set,
    or who laid its cornerstone—
    7 while the morning stars sang together
    and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?
    ….

    “What is the way to the abode of light?
    And where does darkness reside?
    20 Can you take them to their places?
    Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
    ….

    “Can you bind the chains[b] of the Pleiades?
    Can you loosen Orion’s belt?
    32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons[c]
    or lead out the Bear[d] with its cubs?
    33 Do you know the laws of the heavens?
    Can you set up God’s[e] dominion over the earth?

  57. Anon wrote:

    Can we all not respectfully agree to disagree?

    We cannot agree to disagree. We can agree to be civil. But the issues are too important, and too many people’s faith is at stake in the way the arguments are formulated for “agree to disagree” to be an option.

  58. Nancy wrote:

    We cannot agree to disagree. We can agree to be civil. But the issues are too important, and too many people’s faith is at stake in the way the arguments are formulated for “agree to disagree” to be an option.

    And the YEC faction is definitely in it To The Death.

  59. Just wondering how science and the Bible can be integrated in other areas – like the virgin birth and ressurection and miracles.

  60. @ Junkster:
    It is nice to hear from you Junkster.

    I guess the problem for me with the “God told us” POV is this. If it were just trees and canyons, it would be one thing. But it appears as if God created bones and fossils in the layers in order for the world to appear old. That would mean he is placing dead bodies of living creatures in order to give an appearance of age. That gives me pause.

    I always have to say this next thing for those who are waiting to say ‘See, she doesn’t believe in a powerful God.” I do believe he could do it. I just have trouble believing he did.

  61. Mr.H wrote:

    A better translation of that verse might be “with the jawbone of an ass I killed *an entire unit* of men.”

    The word which can used to indicate the cardinal number 1000 was also a technical military term that simply meant “a unit,” not necessarily of 1000 men.

    And “ten thousand” (or “ten elephs”) with Samson may have been an idiom for “a great number”. In Chinese and Japanese, “ten thousand years” is an idiom for “forever”.

  62. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Creating a deliberately deceptive universe, then requiring you to NOT believe that physical reality on pain of Eternal Hell. Making everything with an appearance of age, but don’t you dare believe that it really IS old. Maybe He created everything 10 seconds ago and all your memories earlier than that are all another deception. Maybe you don’t really exist, but were created 10 seconds ago with the appearance of existence.
    What is reality at that point?

    I love the way you said this, HUG. I agree. On another note: did you hear about the “earth is just a hologram” argument?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/universe-hologram-physicists_n_4428359.html

  63. @ NC Now:
    Yeah, I had a very upset and angry member of a former church go at me and say “My grandmother looks old and she is only 92.” The point: What looks old is only subject to our interpretation-our sinful interpretation. (snark intended)

  64. Ken wrote:

    @ Marsha:
    Atheists use this argument to show what rubbish the bible is and how stupid Christians are for believing it.
    God is simply speaking to us using the language of the observer on earth. We still talk about sunrise and sunset and the sun being ‘high in the sky’ as that is how it appears to us. Another metaphor is the earth being on foundations – only this time the earth is likened to a building. If the earth were literally solid all the way ‘down’, then you would expect the sun to reach the horizon and bounce back up again. What we actually experience implies the earth is spherical, the sun goes round the other side, and a spherical earth was known even amongst some of the ancients. In both cases the bible is not dealing with astronomy as such.
    It is inconsistent to argue such metaphors are to be understood literally and at the same time argue for a more figurative meaning in Genesis 1.
    As for Galileo, correct me if I’m wrong, but the church back then was defending the wrong science rather than the bible or church teaching against science. Copernicus himself was a canon of the church and was not condemned for his astronomical views, which Galileo later agreed with. This church v science and reason seems to be another oversimplistic atheist myth.

    I am a little pushed for time, but just to stir things up a bit perhaps consider:

    The difficulty with us responding to a person skeptical of the scriptures by asserting that elements like the sunrise/set or the firmament or the foundations of the Earth or the sky as cast metal and so on and so on and ‘meant to be figurative’ is that many of them most likely were NOT meant to be figurative. If we look at how the Ancients understood the universe at the time the OT was being written, they most certainly understood the Earth to be flat, the sun to rise and set literally, the sky itself to be a kind of dome that contained the stars and across which the sun and moon traversed, and above which was a vast ocean – the waters of heaven’, the source of rain and the Flood – and the Earth itself to be more or less the center of all these things.

    So when they describe the creation in these terms, they are simply describing what they understood to be. It is phenomenal text written in the cultural idiom of the day. This is why it is such a mistake to read scripture as a science book instead of what it is, a text written by ancient men in their language and cultural idioms that tells us of their experiences with and revelations from the God of the universe, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God who became a man, dwelt among us, and then allowed Himself to be offered a sacrifice for the atonement of our sins. It is inspired, profitable for teaching and reproof, but it is not a substitute for a physics or biology text.

    Are elements captured that are beyond them? Of course. Look at the opening verses of Genesis. What better description of the Big Bang in poetic terms. But that is not what they understood it to be, or what anyone could understand it to be prior to the mid 20th century. So can these kinds of references be correctly derived devoid of direct revelation of direct knowledge of creation – no. And are these references flowing out of cultural misconceptions of what the universe is – yes.

    In the end, what the skeptic can’t abide is what the YEC is looking for: Physical proof the Bible is inspired. The skeptics believe the Bible is just some ancient text written by some ignorant ancient people and they think these cultural references prove that is what it is. Just like the Romans who mocked this little carpenter guy who was too stupid to keep himself from getting killed on a cross. The YEC’s adopt the same carnal proof like mindset – only they do an end run of faith by hiding their minds from the truth about what they demand to be true if the Bible is inspired. It’s still a place of faith, only it requires blinders to the truth about the physical world and what the text is actually saying. And by falsely claiming these cultural idioms don’t exist, we actually hinder the skeptic. For without faith it is impossible to please Him. And in the end, we just make ourselves out to be ignorant or liars, undermining what we have to offer – the message of Grace, Hope and Life in Christ.

    But the proof the scripture is inspired, like the proof Jesus is the Son of God, lies not in the physical form or any physically tangible evidence beyond the Resurrection itself, and in the Son to whom all things are given. We can find elements of scripture (like the Messianic prophecies) that will help us understand its inspiration directly and are sufficient to those with faith, but nothing we can set on a table devoid of faith and find fully satisfying to our fleshly, carnal mind outside the realm of faith.

    Zeta (Jim)

  65. Seneca wrote:

    Seriously, I as the created feel a little uneasy judging the Creator.

    I didn’t ask you to judge his character. I asked what it says about His character.

  66. Kolya wrote:

    On the other hand, at the end of Job, God is actually asking Job the questions rather than simply silencing him. And in the very last chapter God rebukes Eliphaz and the others for not speaking truthfully of Him as Job had done.

    That’s well put. I see God in a conversation with mankind, poking and prodding us to look at Him and interact with Him. He sent His Son because He loves us and wants to be in communion with us.

  67. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    I addressed some of this here in a response to Todd Wilken, but the bottom line is that it isn’t actually accurate for YECers to say that they take the Bible at face value.

    Is that your blog? I would love to add it to our blog roll if that is OK with you. I always enjoy what you have to say.

  68. Brandon F wrote:

    Christians here are generally more tolerant and harmonize their faith with science.

    That is my understanding as well. I heard Dr John Lennox say that Christians throughout Europe and Australia are more accepting of science and an Old Earth. I brought the subject up with my Norwegian hosts while visiting with a friend in Oslo. They are a Christian family. They were stunned that there was even a controversy on the age of the earth since OE/TE are well accepted there.

  69. Anon wrote:

    I have never heard Mr. Ham call his opponents foul names

    I will respectfully agree to disagree with his analysis. In fact, the reason that Ham was thrown out of a homeschooling convention is due to this very issue. Ham has developed a way to condemn those who disagree with him and then claim that he didn’t.

    In fact, yesterday i told Deb that I am planning on working on a post in which I will list the infamous statements made by Ham, including some of the things that he has said about Hugh Ross and others.

    What is a foul name? Well, calling someone a #$% might be considered foul in some circles. However, Ham questions the very nature of those who oppose his supposed scientific proof. Please look above to the quote by him in the post.

    “How sad so many Christian academics think they can put themselves above the infallible Word!”

    Think about what he is saying. i would far rather be called an #$% than be accused of this. Think about what that means-he says it over and over again. He questions the very commitment to the faith and I tire of his semantic games.

  70. Mr.H wrote:

    No, I am not one of the contributors, nor am I affiliated in any way with the authors or the publisher

    Even if you were, you would be welcome to plug it here!

  71. Nancy wrote:

    We cannot agree to disagree. We can agree to be civil. But the issues are too important, and too many people’s faith is at stake in the way the arguments are formulated for “agree to disagree” to be an option.

    That is a great answer. I watched a friend of my daughter’s slip away from the faith because he believed he had been lied to. He was an extremely bright young man who began to study the sciences at Columbia. he told me “The church lied to me.” I tried to talk to him but he was really upset. i gave him a book from Biologos with the hope that one day he will realize that Jesus came to save fallible individuals who make lots of mistakes.

  72. @ dee:

    Reports from England/UK say there’s a fundamentalist movement there that’s spreading the word according to Ken Ham. Creating some real divisions.

  73. dee wrote:

    Anon wrote:
    I have never heard Mr. Ham call his opponents foul names
    I will respectfully agree to disagree with his analysis. In fact, the reason that Ham was thrown out of a homeschooling convention is due to this very issue. Ham has developed a way to condemn those who disagree with him and then claim that he didn’t.
    In fact, yesterday i told Deb that I am planning on working on a post in which I will list the infamous statements made by Ham, including some of the things that he has said about Hugh Ross and others.
    What is a foul name? Well, calling someone a #$% might be considered foul in some circles. However, Ham questions the very nature of those who oppose his supposed scientific proof. Please look above to the quote by him in the post.
    “How sad so many Christian academics think they can put themselves above the infallible Word!”
    Think about what he is saying. i would far rather be called an #$% than be accused of this. Think about what that means-he says it over and over again. He questions the very commitment to the faith and I tire of his semantic games.

    Jonathan Sarfati of AIG (and clearly sanctioned by Ham) wrote 2 or 3 books condemning Hugh Ross’s ‘compromise’ of the faith over old Earth. (the first is the aptly titled “Refuting Compromise”). I’m not sure how much more offensive one could get beyond labeling someone a heretic and taking physical action against them. It’s the modern equivalent. And of all people Hugh Ross. I’ve met the man and seen him in action. He lives Christ’s command to love His enemies. And refuses to characterize the AIG side in such terms, even with the direct attack from them on His ministry and writings.

    Zeta (Jim)

  74. Kathy wrote:

    Just wondering how science and the Bible can be integrated in other areas – like the virgin birth and ressurection and miracles.

    Miracles, are by nature, just that. For example, just because I do not believe in a young earth, I do believe in the miracle of creation. At one point in time, God created the universe ex nihilo-out of nothing. But, within the context of creation, He gave us all this with the ability to look at it all and discover.

    It is because the earth has rules and order that we can discover things like nuclear energy, antibiotics, ways to grow more food on less land, travel into space, etc.

    The miracle of the coming death and Resurrection of Jesus was foretold, beginning in Genesis and stressed by Jesus. The miracles that he performed were to point to who He is and to help us understand what is coming. Sure- He healed the lepers but then gave us the ability to discover antibiotics which cured leprosy. One was His miracle-the other was the result of our ability to discover cures from the world that He created.

  75. @ Orion’sBelt:

    Jim is much for learned in these areas than I am but there’s another issue at work.

    The OT has something like 4000 (or 8000?) unique Hebrew words. And 100,000s of words total. So there is a lot of what some of us call “overloading” of terms. In other words a term may have multiple meanings based on context.

    Compare that to a modern reasonably well educated/read English speaker of today. They know 50,000 to 75,000 words. And maybe 125,000 words. This allows for a vast increase in precision to be given to a single word compared to ancient times. And yet we still need context to understand the exact meaning of many words in English. (If you have anything to do with computers think of the various meanings of the word memory.)

    My point is reading the OT as if it was written in modern English is a fools game. You’ll never understand it as intended. Yet this is what KH seems to want us to do. While claiming that’s not what he’s doing.

  76. Orion’sBelt wrote:

    I’m not sure how much more offensive one could get beyond labeling someone a heretic and taking physical action against them. It’s the modern equivalent. And of all people Hugh Ross. I’ve met the man and seen him in action.

    Hugh Ross has been deeply hurt by Ken Ham and has not responded in kind. In fact, he is far nicer than I would have been. Ross is a gentleman-Ham is not. Now you’ve got me going. i am going to create that page of lovely quotes from Ham-it might give some people something to think about.

  77. dee wrote:

    I watched a friend of my daughter’s slip away from the faith because he believed he had been lied to. He was an extremely bright young man who began to study the sciences at Columbia. he told me “The church lied to me.” I tried to talk to him but he was really upset.

    Maybe we need to start telling him they did lie.

  78. NC Now wrote:

    Maybe we need to start telling him they did lie.

    I told him that they were influenced by a man who has made a business out of this. I also told him that many people do not understand science and are, in fact, a little afraid of trying to figure it out.

    The latest “phrase” coming out of this groups is “No one leave the faith (or refuses to come to the faith) over this issue. They are all just a bunch of sinners who want to live their own lives apart from God.”

    I disagree. I have met those who have left the faith over this issue and many of them still struggle with the issue. Some Christians have defined the faith as the Cross, Resurrection and Young Earth. When people are told that such a belief is part of the package, they turn away from it all because they cannot accept that premise.

  79. Mark wrote:

    Maybe you can also address geocentrism. I think it is going to become a more mainstream debate when this movie comes out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8cBvMCucTg

    To be honest this sounds like more science by AIG. In other words take a few data points out of context and claim it’s proves something it doesn’t.

    One of the comments I heard in the clip was about how we’ve found all these planets and none of them look like Earth so this points to geocentrism. Well there are likely billions of planets out there. In just OUR galaxy. And it’s expected that very few, very very very few would look even close to earth. And we’ve only found indications of about 8000 out of the billions. When we’ve found and analyzed a few million then we can talk.

    And non of this point to Earth as the CENTER of the universe. Just that it might be very rare in terms of supporting life as we might recognized it.

  80. @ Orion’sBelt:

    I believe that the YECers are in the camp of “inerrant and infallible” as opposed to “inspired” when it comes to scripture. When you claim that scripture is inerrant and infallible, then it ‘can’t’ be wrong. Every word has to be literal truth because your faith is in the actual writing on the page instead of in God.

  81. Good timing on this post, and some musings.

    Today during my quiet time I was reading in Isaiah 29. Loosely paraphrased I came across some verses that basically was speaking of a time when the leaders and the intellectuals lose all common sense and smarts. Flipped over to the NT and happened to read about when the Sadducees, who did not believe in a resurrection, asked Jesus questions about the resurrection they did not think would happen.

    Got me thinking about this: God had told the Israelites He would be their king, but no, they wanted an earthly one just like the pagans had. Yeah, that worked out well for them….not. Then the NT makes very clear we have been given the awesome opportunity as Christians to relate directly to God, with Jesus as our great High Priest. What have we done? Nope, we want shamans over us just like the pagans get to have.

    Not working out too well for us, eh?

  82. The problem with the “light in transit” theory is that it presumes that light was created as ALREADY having traveled between two reference points. But how could light have already traveled if it did not exist to make the trip?

    So what the “light in transit” argument is attempting to say is that light was created at a fixed location by traveling there from NOWHERE (from non-existence). This is not logically possible.

  83. Bridget wrote:

    @ Orion’sBelt:
    I believe that the YECers are in the camp of “inerrant and infallible” as opposed to “inspired” when it comes to scripture. When you claim that scripture is inerrant and infallible, then it ‘can’t’ be wrong. Every word has to be literal truth because your faith is in the actual writing on the page instead of in God.

    *
    Actually, it’s belief that God could give us EXACTLY what He wants to in the written word. It’s faith that God can get it right and He can be trusted to do so.
    *

  84. dee wrote:

    Seneca wrote:
    Seriously, I as the created feel a little uneasy judging the Creator.
    I didn’t ask you to judge his character. I asked what it says about His character.

    Seriously Dee, what do you interpret as to His character if he thought into being the universe – full grown – so to speak?

  85. dee wrote:

    The latest “phrase” coming out of this groups is “No one leave the faith (or refuses to come to the faith) over this issue. They are all just a bunch of sinners who want to live their own lives apart from God.”
    I disagree. I have met those who have left the faith over this issue and many of them still struggle with the issue. Some Christians have defined the faith as the Cross, Resurrection and Young Earth. When people are told that such a belief is part of the package, they turn away from it all because they cannot accept that premise.

    In trying to remember where I saw this, I came back to the movie Divided, which was reviewed here several years ago. This notion that kids are growing up and leaving the church because we’re not indoctrinating teaching young earth creationism well enough seems contrary to what actual, legitimate research shows (if Barna is to be believed, which I do). In my experience with the teens with whom I’ve worked, the bias against science of all kinds, whether biology, geology, (astro)physics, climate, or psychology, in my corner of evangelicalism raises barriers to belief that I have a hard time removing. Whenever science comes up in a Sunday morning sermon, I feel like that evening I’m fielding questions with answers like “You have heard the pastor say, but I say unto you…” That I haven’t been kicked out of my church yet is a testament to… who knows what?

  86. Bridget wrote:

    I believe that the YECers are in the camp of “inerrant and infallible” as opposed to “inspired” when it comes to scripture. When you claim that scripture is inerrant and infallible, then it ‘can’t’ be wrong.

    And it becomes nothing more than “EES PARTY LINE, COMRADE!”

    Every word has to be literal truth because your faith is in the actual writing on the page instead of in God.

    “IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN!”

  87. dee wrote:

    The latest “phrase” coming out of this groups is “No one leave the faith (or refuses to come to the faith) over this issue. They are all just a bunch of sinners who want to live their own lives apart from God.”

    A more accurate translation:

    “They are all a bunch of sinners (UNLIKE *US*) who want to live their own lives apart from God (UNLIKE *US*).”

    It’s a variant of the “Just Like You, Dear Reader” pandering you get in Left Behind and Atlas Shrugged.

  88. dee wrote:

    Miracles, are by nature, just that. For example, just because I do not believe in a young earth, I do believe in the miracle of creation.

    But the YECs join the Resurrection to Six-Day Creation like conjoined twins, so that if you disbelieve one, you deny BOTH. All-or-nothing Package Deal.

    Problem is, reconciling YEC to physical evidence takes so many “And Then A MIRACLE Happened/Gawddidit!”s that Miracle/Miracle/Miracle become what’s normal and physical reality/natural law becomes the anomaly. Like Star Trek V’ger‘s “Unknown Space Anomaly of This Episode”, when everything’s an anomaly, they’re not anomalies anymore — they’re what’s NORMAL and all is Chaos and you better start checking your closets for something that looks like a Chinese dragon made of mismatched parts with a voice like John De Lancie.

  89. @ NC Now:

    Indeed. The problem, of course, being that it is impossible to read the Biblescriptures without interpreting them. I believe it is far better to accept one is interpreting them than to deceive oneself into thinking: others interpret the scriptures as they choose to; I do not, but read them as they truly are. That is, perhaps, the mother of deceptions.

    Now, I say that with some circumspection because the italicised bit is exactly what I used to think myself. So I’m not going to chuck too many rocks at people who believe it. But I was mistaken (and undoubtedly still am in a variety of ways), and so are they.

    [[MOD italics corrected per request of author.]]

  90. dee wrote:

    Yeah, I had a very upset and angry member of a former church go at me and say “My grandmother looks old and she is only 92.”

    At least he didn’t say “92 years YOUNG.” THAT phrasing should be grounds for getting punched in the junk.

  91. Argo wrote:

    This is not logically possible.

    When you start with a miracle then logical possible doesn’t really apply.

  92. dee wrote:

    The latest “phrase” coming out of this groups is “No one leave the faith (or refuses to come to the faith) over this issue. They are all just a bunch of sinners who want to live their own lives apart from God.”

    So is their conclusion that it is OK to lie to people since they have a built in excuse for any consequences of their lies? Or if not direct lies, OK to tell people just anything and everything that suits their purposes since there is that built in excuse? No, wait, I got it. Anybody incautious enough to read some book they did not get out of the church library, or worse yet to go to a public school or state university, or worst of all to question “my authority” maybe deserves what they get? Surely not.

  93. In other news: six years ago, a man struggling with severe mental health issues was about to take his own life by jumping off Waterloo Bridge in London. A passing stranger engaged him in conversation, and as a result dissuaded him from jumping. They went for coffee somewhere, then went their separate ways.

    Subsequently, the no-longer-suicidal young man conducted a a lengthy twitter campaign to trace his Good Samaritan; this Tuesday, the two were reunited. They plan to stay in touch. You can read the details here on the Beeb.

  94. dee wrote:

    But it appears as if God created bones and fossils in the layers in order for the world to appear old. That would mean he is placing dead bodies of living creatures in order to give an appearance of age. That gives me pause.

    Hi Dee,
    Regarding fossils and other indications of age, I do see why they are problematic for the appearance of age theory. My intent is not to say that there are no problems at all with the “appearance of age” theory, just that I do not buy the argument that it is the same as “Last Tuesday-ism,” as the appearance of age argument does necessarily imply God was being deceptive, provided one accepts the idea of the Bible as revealed and inspired by God. The appearance of age theory is not at all the same as saying that God created everything 20 minutes ago with all our memories in place, as that would mean that the revelation of scripture concerning former events a lie. So if we are willing to accept that the Bible has any reliability at all (even if we differ on what it means) we can automatically reject any position that contradicts that the world is at least as old as the earliest people and events recorded in the Bible.

    Other arguments against the appearance of age theory (e.g., the fossil record) are fair in my mind, but the “Last Tuesday-ism” argument is not.

  95. linda wrote:

    The scripture doesn’t seem to be “about” the age of the earth, or how God created it, but only about the who–God doing the creating, and the why of creation.

    I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Thanks linda!

  96. Junkster wrote:

    Other arguments against the appearance of age theory (e.g., the fossil record) are fair in my mind, but the “Last Tuesday-ism” argument is not.

    If you think long and hard about it created with the appearance of age (and history) has no lower boundary. It could have been done 100,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, or 10 minutes ago. Result is the same. We exist in a universe that appears older than it really is.

  97. Dee @ 1/29, 629pm: You wrote, “This is a typical AIG “proof” and it is frustrating because you cannot “prove” that it is true or false. One of the clever things that Ham does is come up with sayings that are a stretch.” Please, do not use a speculative, perfectly plausible (since the Bible does present God as able to control light itself) idea to suggest that I’m a “typical” anything, or a part of anyone’s agenda. You morphed my comments into something to simply feed your agenda on this one, which is confronting this guy Ham, whoever that is.
    Orion @ 7:11pm (1/29): You wrote, “The greatest hoaxster in the entire universe he is then.” Well, I guess you could look at it that way, if you feel in some position to make a moral pronouncement on God. That’s your business, but it seems to mix in your own belief/ethic convictions to the issue. I wonder if that might cloud the issue, in terms of your being objective about the matter?

  98. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    ctually, it’s belief that God could give us EXACTLY what He wants to in the written word.

    There is a problem with this. Even some of the most conservative theologians state that the Bible is inerrant in its original autographs. So, we do not have the original autographs. If the original is so important to the claim of inerrancy, why didn’t God preserve it?

  99. Josh wrote:

    Whenever science comes up in a Sunday morning sermon, I feel like that evening I’m fielding questions with answers like “You have heard the pastor say, but I say unto you…” That I haven’t been kicked out of my church yet is a testament to… who knows what?

    Jim got kicked out of an adult Creation class for asking such questions. I am glad that they have not done the same to you.

  100. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    But the YECs join the Resurrection to Six-Day Creation like conjoined twins, so that if you disbelieve one, you deny BOTH. All-or-nothing Package Deal.

    You are absolutely on the money with this.

  101. @ Ken J Garrett:
    Please forgive me. I have yet to meet anyone who debates this subject who does not know who Ken Ham is. Can you tell me which authors you have read on this subject? Or perhaps you have not which is fine as well.

  102. Full disclosure: I was taught and strongly believed the Young Earth arguments while in seminary and for many years afterward. For me, the primary issue was the theological belief that all death is the result of Adam’s sin. This is what Ham, Mohler, and others are mostly concerned about. If the universe/earth is old, and if the fossil record is an indication that beings lived and died long before human beings came along, then there was death in the world before Adam sinned. And if that is the case, the connection spoken of in Romans 5 between Adam’s sin and our death is broken. And if that is the case, why would we need a Savior? And if we didn’t need a Savior, why did Jesus die for our sins? So that’s why Ham says those who do not believe in a young earth are in danger of denying the doctrine of the atonement. (Note he doesn’t outright say they have denied the atonement, just that they are in danger of it, which is why he can say he doesn’t claim that a person who doesn’t believe in young earth isn’t a Christian. He’s basically claiming “I didn’t say you weren’t a Christian, I just said your beliefs make you in danger of not being one.” As if that were much comfort to the person he said it to.)

    As I have grown and learned, I have come to the belief that connecting all physical death to the sin of Adam is not a necessary interpretation of Romans 5. I do still believe there is a connection between Adam’s sin and our own spiritual condition of being separated from God, as that is what I think is Paul’s primary point in Romans 5:12, but I no longer see a necessary connection between Adam’s sin and all physical death on Earth. Because of this, I no longer feel that a Young Earth view is theologically necessary, but I can still see why those who take a more literal view of Genesis would think the Bible indicates that the Earth is young. I am now more open to various scientific arguments. Since I am not a scientist and have little formal science training (nothing formal beyond college freshman biology and physical science), I do not pretend to know enough to make a judgment regarding what actual scientists claim. I remain skeptical of arguments that appear to be more philosophically or theologically based (from either side) than based in observable and repeatable scientific methodology.

  103. @ Junkster:

    And, of course, God said to Adam of the fruit of That Tree that In the day [and there’s that word “yom” again] you eat from it, you shall surely die.

    But they didn’t physically die that same solar day. So I don’t think we should try to escape the fact that, whatever we think it is, something figurative/metaphorical is going on somewhere here.

  104. Deb–you are welcome. And Dee–so totally agree with you that God CAN do anything. That is not the same as saying He should, would, or did. Some forget that.

    It is interesting to me, with a pre1979 Baptist background, how the SBC writers of the time did not fight the fight of creationism. E.Y. Mullins encouraged following science wherever it might lead, since it could only blow up our interpretations of the Bible, not the Bible itself. Pretty much the same from Herschel Hobbs. Pretty much the same from all the older evangelical writers.

    This is a fairly new hill to die on, a new way of drawing the line as to who is spiritual enough and who isn’t. Problem is it is an ever tightening noose around the neck of the faith of the next generation.

    Which is part of why we are opting out of “shamanism” type church in favor of Bible studies at several churches, and teaching the grandkids to exercise their own discernment. We’ve had to do it with both the ultra liberals and the ultra fundamentalists.

    Good old oilfield tailgate Bible study might be the answer to a lot of this plain foolishness. There, you could hold whatever belief about creation you hold, have a zippy debate back and forth about the different views represented, then all get back to work after lunch enlightened, sharpened, and still with the idea of soul competency intact.

  105. Seneca wrote:

    dee wrote:

    Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:
    That’s where I stand –
    However, to go deeper, then what does this say about God and His character?

    *
    Dee, what does it say, according to your perspective, about God? I don’t really see a problem with it. “Let there be light – Voila – there was light.”

    Seriously, I as the created feel a little uneasy judging the Creator.
    *
    He didn’t answer Job’s questions, I don’t suppose He needs to answer mine.
    *

    This sounds very holy. But the whole ‘God created it looking old’ is a huge moral problem….God could have created a universe with the ‘appearance’ of Christ dying…how would we know? There is a point where not asking questions, or wringing our hands & saying ‘I’m just human & he’s all powerful’ looks like cowardice, or, as Lewis (I think) said ‘ one would be equally as willing to bow to an Omnipotent Fiend’. Character rather than power matters most.

  106. Nick–good comment. Reminds me of the prophecy that Elijah would come back before the Messiah. John the Baptist, according to Jesus, filled the role. Not….exactly….literal, huh?

  107. Dee, I notice in the header you have the link to the Senate staffer who killed himself. That has been in the news heavily here in Washington, D.C. What is your analysis of that suicide note?

  108. linda wrote:

    It is interesting to me, with a pre1979 Baptist background, how the SBC writers of the time did not fight the fight of creationism.

    As one who grew up in an SBC church, born in 1954, I suspect the issue is that high school chemistry and physics in most of the US and the world didn’t get too deep into astrophysics and such. I graduated from high school in 72. My senior year the previous physics/chemistry teacher retired and we got a new guy in his late 20s or early 30s. To put it bluntly he told us to forget all the 1950s stuff we had learned the previous year and he gave us a 6 week cram course in modern “stuff”. We then spend the rest of the year on real senior year chemistry and physics. I suspect there was a lot of this going on around the country.

    Back then we knew there was DNA and RNA but our understanding was quite week. Modeling RNA folding was a decade or two off. Now it can be done on your laptop. We KNEW about deep time in space and geology but the evidence was thin. Now we see planets orbiting other stars. Back then we were using slide rules to get to the moon.

    Basically the scientific world changed from a few people doing esoteric research to something someone with the drive to extend their college education could do at home to some degree.

    My parents were taught Algebra II and maybe some trig in the 40s/50s in high school if they were lucky. I was taught those things as a matter of course since I was college bound. Some of my classmates (who behaved better) were taught calculus in high school. This was the new fad at the time. Now kids are exposed to calculus in the 11th or 12th grade as a matter of course if they are science bound. Some earlier.

    The world of knowledge has changed. The “old” church doesn’t know how to deal with it. Especially now that almost anyone with a brain going through the public school system will get more science than many engineers who went to college just after WWII.

    Starting with my generation kids are coming out of high school regularly knowing more (book smarts here) than their parents who went to college. It has cause an upheaval in all sorts of ways. Not just in religion.

  109. dee wrote:

    Jim got kicked out of an adult Creation class for asking such questions. I am glad that they have not done the same to you.

    Oh, I wasn’t very clear. It gets better… I’m the one answering the questions. 😀

    I usually regret that youth groups tend to be silo-ed off, but in this case, it allows us to have a more mature discussion than would happen in the adult church as it’s constituted today. My fellow youth leaders and I don’t agree on everything (I’m evolutionary creation, one’s old earth day/age, and the third’s probably young(er) earth, but we all agree that it’s not essential to salvation by a long stretch!).

  110. Appearance of Age

    Just to say it again. Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis say this is not a valid argument. So if you’re making it you are now on the fringe of the YEC crowd. So to speak.

  111. NCNow–yup, changing times. Of course, as I’ve said I grew up where science, math, and especially geology were dinner table conversation from preschool days. You’d be surprised how much those in the 50’s and 60’s knew in regards to geology and history. I graduated 4 years before you and the idea of YEC just wasn’t present in our SBC churches in our area. The “old church” got it right, imho, and it is the NEW churches having kittens over creationism.

  112. @ NC Now:

    That depends on how you define “miracle”. I don’t consider miracles as necessarily having declaring root contradictory premises, is what I mean. Christ’s resurrection is miraculous in that it defies “natural law”, but it does not defy reason/logic. It does not say that Christ rose but did not rise at the same time, for instance.

    This is what “light in transit” is doing . It is saying that light was created having traveled. But it could not “have traveled” if it did not exist to travel FROM anywhere.

    So in effect the notion says that light existed before it existed. This premise is difficult to accept, for me, even from faith.

  113. Mark wrote:

    Maybe you can also address geocentrism. I think it is going to become a more mainstream debate when this movie comes out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8cBvMCucTg

    Geocentrism? In what context? If they’re trying to say that everything literally revolves about the Earth, they’re barking up the wrong tree. They might as well try and argue that [sin(a)]^2+[cos(a)]^2 does not equal one.

  114. linda wrote:

    Of course, as I’ve said I grew up where science, math, and especially geology were dinner table conversation from preschool days. You’d be surprised how much those in the 50′s and 60′s knew in regards to geology and history.

    I’d like to posit that your dinner table talk was just a bit on the atypical side of the chart. My father was very open to science even though he wasn’t trained in it. But he did keep up. He understood TVs, radio, and just a bit of nuclear physics. He was a production manager at a gaseous diffusion plant. 🙂 It wasn’t apparent till long after we kids left home that we discovered that my mom was rabid YEC and anti science in many aspects.

    I graduated 4 years before you and the idea of YEC just wasn’t present in our SBC churches in our area.

    Looking back in my church and others it was just assumed. Why discuss something that everyone (or so most adults thought) knew as fact.

  115. Ken J Garrett wrote:

    I wonder if it’s possible that God created light in-transit, and not exclusively from a point of origin, such as a star. This would certain give the appearance, as measured today, of a great many years having passed, when actually the light simply appeared in an instant, both at and distant from its source.

    Jason Lisle tried this idea in his book. My problem is that it means your god is a trickster, deceiver or liar. Is that really what you want people like me to believe about your god?

  116. Beakerj wrote:

    ‘ one would be equally as willing to bow to an Omnipotent Fiend’. Character rather than power matters most.

    Once I heard American *curmudgeon-tater* Michael Savage on the radio. He was musing about the problem of evil and stated point-blank that God is NOT omnipotent. It was a bit of a shock to hear, but something I’ve thought about a lot. Character matters. The character of a God who humbled himself. Who died on a cross. And who, if he chooses, might not be omnipotent– at least in the way we think of it. But the God who is Jesus will never, ever choose to be a fiend.

  117. @ linda:

    To expand a bit. I attended the University of Ky Engineering school. The break room central hallway had graduation photos all over the walls. Up to about 1940 there were never more than 20 or so in the photos. And UK was the only engineering school in the state for a full degree program. Starting with 1949 the photos had 50 or more and the numbers got bigger every year. By the 70s they were graduating 150 or more per year plus there were multiple schools around the state.

    The knowledge base changed. Suddenly instead of it being rare for there to a scientist or engineer in the pews, it became common place. The “church” didn’t change. Many are still trying to ignore or warp this knowledge to fit with the science of 500 AD. And the kids of these engineers and scientists knew enough to start saying “wait a minute….”

  118. dee wrote:

    The latest “phrase” coming out of this groups is “No one leave the faith (or refuses to come to the faith) over this issue. They are all just a bunch of sinners who want to live their own lives apart from God.”

    I did not totally leave the faith over this, but it was the final straw.

  119. Im kind of stuck between YEC and OEC, but this essay didn’t do much to convince me toward the 2nd. The main point is taken, yes I agree that the Universe is exceedingly large and millions of light years are involved in speaking of travel and time. But he doesn’t address the idea that in the beginning God may have set up everything already operating on earth as if it had existed already. For example, if God created 2 humans in the beginning (Adam and Eve) and He was to provide food for them, did he just throw an apple seed in ground and tell them good luck as it takes 10 years to bring mature fruit? A literal reading of those chapters would bring the idea that God set up trees that were already mature to provide for his creation. And couldn’t the same be true for light from stars?

  120. Seth, that’s just another iteration of the Omphalos hypothesis.
    (Look it up on Wikipedia, or see if you can dig up the Stephen Jay Gould essay on it.)

  121. @ nmgirl:
    One thought occurs to me. The god who is a trickster, or who MIGHT capriciously pop up a dragon under my bed or create the universe last Tuesday, or who MIGHT have given me a false assurance of salvation, when he really hated me before I was born– that god is NOT the God who can be the object of faith, answer prayers, do miracles. If god might, willy-nilly, raise anyone from the dead at any time, and such a thing did NOT violate the natural order, then who cares that Christ is raised?
    In fact, he would not be the God who created order out of chaos and ordained “rulers” over day and night, over sky and sea, and over the earth (US!) as taught in Genesis 1.

  122. @ Seth:
    Read the account: God created Adam outside the garden and then placed him in the garden. Just like the rest of the world, the garden could have been growing for a very long time. It does not say that God created the Garden instantaneously and then put Adam there.

    Also, Adam was created outside the Garden. What was going on out there, outside of the Garden? Could the garden have been a unique, set apart staging center for the human drama? Remember, the Garden still exists. We just can’t get in there. Yet we don’t see it. Where is it?

    So, could it be that the garden exists in another dimension? There are many dimensions:around 11, with time being the 12th. Is God and heaven the 13th? Could that be why He is everywhere all at once?

    Also, when God created Adam out of the dust, could the dust have been a way to say DNA:the essential building block? There are enough questions to last a eternity.

    The problem with the creation account is that there is less said than more which leaves us to ponder the possibilities. It is very cool, actually.

  123. Muff Potter wrote:

    Geocentrism? In what context? If they’re trying to say that everything literally revolves about the Earth, they’re barking up the wrong tree. They might as well try and argue that [sin(a)]^2+[cos(a)]^2 does not equal one.

    Dr Humphreys has a curious statement about geo-centrism in his article:
    “the earth is NEAR the center”     ?!?! Not “at” the center? What good is it if the center of the universe is NEAR earth? And just how near is it? The space station? The sun? Andromeda? Close does count in horseshoes, however! 

  124. Beakerj wrote:

    There is a point where not asking questions, or wringing our hands & saying ‘I’m just human & he’s all powerful’ looks like cowardice, or, as Lewis (I think) said ‘ one would be equally as willing to bow to an Omnipotent Fiend’. Character rather than power matters most.

    “I’m just human and He’s all powerful” = “He is the CREATOR and we are only the Creature” = “In’shal’lah” = “Why bother? Whatever will be, will be.”

    Islam has had this problem through most of its history, especially in its most extreme versions. It’s a corollary of extreme Predestination and Omnipotence in the absence of any mitigating factors. Both Mohammed and Calvin made God’s Omnipotence His primary attribute; in doing so, they redefined God into Infinite POWER. (And of course, the followers of both had to top their founders — more Calvinist than Calvin, more Islamic than Mohammed.) When it has top billing, Omnipotent Will ALWAYS trumps such things as character and mercy, no matter how many words are said about “the Merciful, the Compassionate”.

  125. Dr Humphreys also has makes a less-than-confident assertion about Scripture, upon which he builds a very large house.
    “In contrast to the big bang story, the Scriptural record appears to imply that the universe is in fact, an island universe.”
     “APPEARS TO IMPLY” ?!?! Not “plainly teaches”, not “likely means”, not “implies” but only “appears” to imply?!?

  126. Dave A A wrote:

    Dr Humphreys has a curious statement about geo-centrism in his article:
    “the earth is NEAR the center” ?!?! Not “at” the center? What good is it if the center of the universe is NEAR earth? And just how near is it? The space station? The sun? Andromeda?

    Dr Humphreys?

  127. Dave A A wrote:

    Dr Humphreys also has makes a less-than-confident assertion about Scripture, upon which he builds a very large house.
    “In contrast to the big bang story, the Scriptural record appears to imply that the universe is in fact, an island universe.”

    This is a real kicker when you realize the Jesuit astronomer who first proposed the Big Bang got piled on for “introducing RELIGION(TM) into Science.”

  128. @ NC Now:

    Oh. Wait. Stop. Goodness sake. What you say about schools may have been your experience, but I was born in 1934, lived in Louisville/Jefferson Co. KY and the routine college prep course at my high school was four years of math, three years of science (one each of biology, chemistry and physics) and the usual general ed stuff. Evolutionary theory was introduced in the fourth grade, primarily from a historical viewpoint, and if anything left us a far behind as you describe, I fail to see it.

    Just had to fly to our defense there. The older Baptists were not into origins arguments, but they were also not into a lot of the stuff that it going on now. When Mohler was given SBTS he cleaned house and threw out everybody who was not into the fundamentalist takeover. This had absolutely nothing to do with any lack of adequate math and science in school for anybody.

    OK. Can I calm down now?

  129. NC Now–agree with all you are saying with one exception: there just were not as many YEC believers back then. So not only is the general populace more like the populace of those old oil field towns (or aerospace towns, one of which was also very near us) but the church leadership population seems more backward now than they were then. Put both of those together and it gets rather explosive.

    As a teen Christian, I certainly knew more science than the ardent YEC crowd seem to know, AND I did NOT have preachers, teachers, and leaders trying to foist it onto me. Now the kids know even more science and math, AND we seem to have a rise in ultrafundamentalism.

    And it is so very sad. What the Bible actually says doesn’t contradict what science actually says–just the distorted interpretations of each.

  130. NC Now wrote:

    And non of this point to Earth as the CENTER of the universe. Just that it might be very rare in terms of supporting life as we might recognized it.

    I just think it is interesting that geocentrism is just as valid a theory as heliocentrism, but it isn’t taught in schools. Even Stephen Hawking doesn’t deny geocentrism is possible. “So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.” — Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, pages 41-42.

    As a person of faith, I have no problem believing that God would make earth the center of the universe, the place where he would put his incarnate Son. Quite possibly Galileo was wrong and the Church was right.

  131. dee wrote:

    @ Seneca “j” Griggs:

    God is the Creator. He can do anything. Just because He can does not mean He did.

    *
    I’d agree with that.
    *
    I still don’t know what you were pointing to Dee. – Sen
    *

  132. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    ?… the Jesuit astronomer who first proposed the Big Bang…

    Well, this explains everything. The big bang STORY, contrasted with the scriptural RECORD, is simply Popery (TM)!

  133. @ Junkster:

    The fact that there is evidence of physical death before there is evidence for our species might or might not be a problem. For example:

    If physical death is the penalty for sin, and if we all die, then our deaths would pay the penalty for sin, and what need would there be for a savior or an atonement? Thinking about physical death, just exactly what would one be saved from, since we nevertheless die? The penalty for sin would have been paid by our own physical deaths and there would be nothing else that needed atoning for, nor anything to be accomplished by an atonement.

    Oh, some would say, the atonement would address physical death by providing for a bodily resurrection But the scripture talks about the resurrection of both the just and the unjust. So any idea that the atonement, as measured by resurrection, is available for some and not others, whether by predestination or by choice, would be patently false. Resurrection, then, would be a separate act of God not related to man’s sin, as it apparently actually is separate and unrelated.

    Yes, but, there is more to it than that. Aha. My point exactly. Could it be that the death which is a penalty for sin is something else altogether? Not just in addition to physical death, that is, but utterly different from. Dust you are and to dust you shall return, might be using physical death as evidence that God could and would destroy what he had made, regardless of what that was. As in, do not fear those who kill the body but rather fear him who can destroy both body and soul in hell. I am just saying, there seems to be a lot more going on in that curse and in that salvation than physical death. And perhaps physical death is not the issue at all. Scripture, does, I believe use the term second death.

    So if the world (the biosphere) pre-existed our species, and if our species were capable of and did/does sin, then when scripture says that “sin entered into the world, and death by sin” we must conclude a world prior to sin and the kind of death spoken of in the curse as due to sin. And if that world before sin included physical death, then the only problem would be that our conclusion that what God was talking about as the penalty for sin was physical death rather than or in addition to something else altogether. How is that a problem? We may have incomplete conclusions? You think?

    If physical death is not the issue, then the idea that we have already passed from death into life, as the result of the atonement, would make sense. Already passed, that is, not as only some promise but as an actual current reality. If not, then when I die the atonement will have been shown to be hooey and just some silly idea. Or else, the link between the atonement and physical death will be shown to be different from what we may think.

    Just throwing out some ideas here.

  134. Dave A A wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Sorry– an article linked by Jim in the OP. http://www.icr.org/article/446/

    Actually, I meant “Dr Humphreys as the Center of the Universe”?
    Because Dr Humphreys is on Earth’s surface, 6000km from Earth’s center of mass. Therefore if Dr Humphreys is the center, Earth is 6000km from the center; near, but not exactly on.

  135. Dave A A wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    ?… the Jesuit astronomer who first proposed the Big Bang…

    Well, this explains everything. The big bang STORY, contrasted with the scriptural RECORD, is simply Popery (TM)!

    Don’t laugh, Dave. Considering what we know about Christianese infighting, somebody probably proposed that FOR REAL.

  136. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    And, of course, God said to Adam of the fruit of That Tree that In the day [and there’s that word “yom” again] you eat from it, you shall surely die.
    But they didn’t physically die that same solar day.

    Didn’t they?
    Immortal became mortal.

  137. @ Daisy:

    Oh sorry, I posted that and only after posting saw that you guys had already linked to a story about it at the top of the blog. Sorry.

  138. Nancy wrote:

    The fact that there is evidence of physical death before there is evidence for our species might or might not be a problem.

    Nancy, I agree with your comments. The essential theological argument of YEC is that all physical death in the universe is the result of Adam’s sin, so therefore there could be no death of any kind prior to his sin, so therefore the death and extinction of various species indicated by the fossil record either all had to occur after Adam’s sin (and the fossil record is explained by the Flood of Noah) or else the Earth was created with the fossil record already in place.

    However, I do not think it is at all necessary to believe that all physical death is the result of Adam’s sin. In context, Romans 5:12 is primarily making reference to our spiritual condition and our need for a Savior. While it is possible to interpret the phrase “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin” to refer to all physical death, there is nothing in the passage that demands such an interpretation. It could just as easily be referring only to the death of human beings, whether physical or spiritual or both.

    If I understand your comments correctly, that’s what you are saying as well.

    I think it is important to not flippantly dismiss the theological concerns raised by YEC-ers, as if it doesn’t matter whether or not there is a connection between sin and death. If someone is genuinely convinced that all physical death is the result of Adam’s sin, if they view that conviction as an fundamental truth which overrides any other consideration or evidence, all of their attempts to harmonize science and the Bible will be constrained by that conviction. This is why YEC-ers go to great lengths to dismiss any scientific evidence that they feel even potentially runs contrary to their doctrinal perspective. I admire that level of commitment to what they believe the Bible teaches and their attempts to find what they believe are rationally satisfying arguments that support their beliefs.

    But just “what if” Romans 5:12 does not mean that all physical death in the universe is a result of Adam’s sin? The primary reason for unyielding, absolute conviction about YEC then becomes unnecessary. And suddenly it is no big theological problem to believe that the universe is old and that God created it (and possibly even various life forms) over great periods of time. This is something I think more YEC-ers need to give serious consideration.

  139. Ken J Garrett wrote:

    Dee @ 1/29, 629pm: You wrote, “This is a typical AIG “proof” and it is frustrating because you cannot “prove” that it is true or false. One of the clever things that Ham does is come up with sayings that are a stretch.” Please, do not use a speculative, perfectly plausible (since the Bible does present God as able to control light itself) idea to suggest that I’m a “typical” anything, or a part of anyone’s agenda. You morphed my comments into something to simply feed your agenda on this one, which is confronting this guy Ham, whoever that is.
    Orion @ 7:11pm (1/29): You wrote, “The greatest hoaxster in the entire universe he is then.” Well, I guess you could look at it that way, if you feel in some position to make a moral pronouncement on God. That’s your business, but it seems to mix in your own belief/ethic convictions to the issue. I wonder if that might cloud the issue, in terms of your being objective about the matter?

    The idea the universe as we observe it is a falsehood defines a hoax. It’s not a moral judgement, it’s just a fact. If 99,999999% of everything we observe in the heavens is not really there, then the light we see and the information it carries is all a fiction – none of it is real. And the real problem is, if all of THAT is a fiction and not real, what about everything else? If the light we see from 1000’s, or 1,000,000’s of years ago is a fiction, what about my memories, my thoughts. What can be trusted as being real in such a universe? It is logically and philosophically a complete dead end. Unless what we see out there and up close is a reflection of what is real and true, then there is no reason to believe ANY of it is real and true.

    At a fundamental level, this makes the YEC worries about what to do if we can’t read Genesis 1 literally look like a toddlers complaint. IOW, to save a belief about how God revealed, the appearance of age argument chooses to effectively call into question the reality of ALL of creation and all of our lives. Seems a very, very odd trade to me – because in the end we can go to God and ask Him to help us understand how to understand the scriptures. But if everything around us is pure fiction, and the God who we wish to go to for guidance is KNOWN per that concept to be willing to create a universe that is a falsehood for whatever purpose, then how in the world do we ever know if ANYTHING is true from His hand???

    It is exactly like Adam and Eve with memories of a full existence that never was, then they are expected to doubt it all because this being tells them that is the way it is?

    Upon what then do we base our trust in this being if everything around us is a fiction? And why should we trust such a being???

    Zeta (Jim)

  140. Dave A A wrote:

    Sorry– an article linked by Jim in the OP. http://www.icr.org/article/446/

    Science is also an intensely conservative enterprise. Conservative in the best sense of the word, demanding that larger proposed changes be supported by stronger and more extensive evidence. Science is ultimately evidence based, a bottom up activity, not an interpretation of a holy book given by a religious authority, a top down approach. Fundamentally, observations that can’t be reconciled with current theory are what leads to improved theories. The road to fame and fortune as a scientist is upsetting the applecart. As mentioned above, Humpherys published his theory in a book clearly not part of main stream science. Perhaps too obvious to need to mention, replacing present Big Bang cosmology with a YEC theory would require completely negating current physics and cosmology, not a small tweak of these theories, where there is no experimental evidence to the contrary.

  141. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Actually, I meant “Dr Humphreys as the Center of the Universe”?

    (hand slapping forehead)
    But maybe he still miscalculated a tiny bit, and the universal centre is … Yours Truly!

  142. Anon wrote:

    What the Bible actually says doesn’t contradict what science actually says–just the distorted interpretations of each.

    Indeed, though there’s a misperception buried in the phrase “science says”. Science isn’t a thing that speaks; it’s just a description for our collective efforts to look at the world around us. If the bible says that the world is flat, and we arrogantly went out and looked but found that it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be a case of “God’s Word” and “science” disagreeing. It would be a case of some ancient texts, which a minority claimed to be God’s visible presence on earth, containing a claim that we could see to be false.

  143. Anon wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    And, of course, God said to Adam of the fruit of That Tree that In the day [and there’s that word “yom” again] you eat from it, you shall surely die.
    But they didn’t physically die that same solar day.
    Didn’t they?
    Immortal became mortal.

    The trouble, Anon, is that you only quoted half of what I said. The bit you left out stated that clearly a part of that statement had to be figurative. The immortal becoming mortal is figurative death, not physical death. Physical death is when the mortal becomes mort.

  144. @ Orion’sBelt:

    And further, how do you know that you are YOU? If you cannot efficaciously define and apprehend what you observe, how can you define yourself? Axiomatically individual human existence is defined in terms of YOU relative to your environment (what is NOT you). If nothing you observe can be known as true, then neither can you be . And if you aren’t you, then you can’t know God. Meaning if you can’t trust that you are you, then you can’t trust that God is God.

    And the whole discussion becomes pointless.

    Your observation is the single greatest reason I reject YEC. Excellent comment, OB.

  145. @ Anon:

    When you say “immortal became mortal,” I think you are referring to spiritual death, not physical death before the sun set on that fateful day.

  146. Mark wrote:

    NC Now wrote:
    And non of this point to Earth as the CENTER of the universe. Just that it might be very rare in terms of supporting life as we might recognized it.
    I just think it is interesting that geocentrism is just as valid a theory as heliocentrism, but it isn’t taught in schools. Even Stephen Hawking doesn’t deny geocentrism is possible. “So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.” — Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, pages 41-42.
    As a person of faith, I have no problem believing that God would make earth the center of the universe, the place where he would put his incarnate Son. Quite possibly Galileo was wrong and the Church was right.

    The difference between a Universe that rotates about the Earth and the Earth rotating about the Sun and the Sun about the Galactic core is that the physics we observe would produce the latter and not the former. We observe that masses attract. And that mutual attraction results in the system where the planets orbit the Sun and the sun travels around the Galactic core. There is no observed force or structure that could produce a universe that revolves around the Earth in just such a way that Gravity would be a sufficient explanation for what we observe. Science always moves to the simplest explanation that is sufficient. This was put forward by Newton himself in his principles of natural philosophy:

    Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

    But to help along with some of the problems with Geocentrism vs. ‘Heliocentrism’.

    1) Rockets launched WITH the earth’s rotation require LESS fuel to reach orbit the rockets launched against it.
    2) We can observe the Earths orbit against the stars in the night sky. We use this oscillation (called parallax) to measure the distances to them. If the Earth does not orbit the sun, then one must explain why the Entire universe ‘wobbles’ exactly as it should if the Earth orbited the sun.
    3) We can, using the Very Long Baseline Array, measure the Earth’s slow down and speed up as predicted by the physics of momentum due to the sloshing of the tides. That is, as the tides rise and fall momentum is transferred between the oceans and the Earth, causing the Earth’s rotational velocity to vary ever so slightly. We observe this by looking very carefully at quasars billions of light years away. If the Earth rotates, then the change in apparent motion of those quasars in sync with our tides makes perfect sense. If the Universe rotates around the Earth – then how does one explain how an object billions of light years away manage to observationally track the Earth’s tides???

    It goes on and on. There are those that want to say that Relativity implies the two systems should be the same. And I’ve heard this from people that should know (Relativistic physicists). But these equivalences are primarily mathematical. No one would know how to explain the quasar/tide connection if the Universe rotated around the Earth. Or even the difference in fuel requirements for rocket launches. But it’s pretty much obvious why these exists if the Earth Orbits the sun and rotates on its axis. We can even predict that will be the case, and in point of fact, correctly determine how much fuel we will need regardless of the direction of launch.

    Zeta (Jim)

  147. Tim Challies is a liar. He knows there is ZERO evidence that shows the universe is less than 10,000 years old, yet he claims it is “strong”. Challies knows as much about cosmology as I know about conjugating Latin – which is almost nothing. If the evidence is so strong, why doesn’t he present it? Because it is non-existent and he’s lying. I’d have more respect for him if he just said he believes it because the bible says it even if all the scientific data is against it. I’d think he was a loon, but better an honest loon than a liar.

  148. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Indeed, though there’s a misperception buried in the phrase “science says”. Science isn’t a thing that speaks…

    “The White House says this, the White House says that. It’s the F’in Amityville Horror — an evil house that runs the country!”
    D.C.Cab

  149. Orion’sBelt wrote:

    Upon what then do we base our trust in this being if everything around us is a fiction?

    Solipsism?
    “Hello Dream Creatures…”

  150. Dave A A wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Actually, I meant “Dr Humphreys as the Center of the Universe”?

    (hand slapping forehead)
    But maybe he still miscalculated a tiny bit, and the universal centre is … Yours Truly!

    Remember Dave, The Universe Cannot Have Two Centers.

  151. @ Mark:

    Orion’s Belt / Jim answered this for you. But I’ve got to say, I find your arguments a bit fanciful. And do you have a reference about Hawkings saying such a thing?

    In engineering and math courses you can come up with lots of mathematical solutions to problems. Step one is to toss out the impossible ones. Just because an equation can be solved for a radio that runs off negative power doesn’t mean such a thing can exist.

  152. Orion’sBelt wrote:

    1) Rockets launched WITH the earth’s rotation require LESS fuel to reach orbit the rockets launched against it.

    From what I have read, that can be caused by the planets rotating around earth just as easily.

    The mathematics of geocentrism just as easily, but it is easily dismissed because, IMO, what that would mean. An earth-centric worldview might, gasp, make people think we are actually special.

    @NC Now, I thought I provided a quote from Hawking’s book Grand Design.

    I think OriensBelt might be interested in Robert Sungenis’ works and arguments.

  153. Re the argument about God’s omnipotence, I would strongly defend the belief that God is indeed omnipotent. However, God is not arbitrary. And any apparent limits on God are imposed by God’s own character, His love, holiness and so forth.

  154. My wife has collared me and said: “This doesn’t make any sense …”

    She is referring to this:

    They have constructed elaborate conjectures, speculations driven not by the data but rather what they have already concluded MUST be the case. And in fact, when all is said and done, these speculations fail to explain a whole host of relatively nearby phenomena.

    To pick one, the white dwarf which orbits the brightest star in the Earth’s night sky – Sirius.

    I offered no further explanation as to why Humphreys’ ‘solution’ (White hole cosmology) doesn’t address the white hole around Sirius. It’s a little bit complicated is why, but let me offer up this simplified summary.

    A white dwarf is a dead star like the sun that has lived a full life, gotten old and cranky cause it ran out of its favorite food (Hydrogen) and gradually fed on it’s own refuse till it could feed no more (while at the same time becoming a monstrous Red Giant) and then divested itself of its outer layers, leaving only its dying naked core – a bit of ‘degenerete’ matter about the size of the Earth but weighing in somewhere near the mass of the sun. A spoon full of white dwarf stuff would weigh in at many tons. It’s very hot too – but will over time cool down and become dark.

    What is the problem? Well, it takes about 10,000,000,000 years to get to this state.

    But you might then say “But Humphreys solution lets the universe be really old?”

    Well – sort of. Where it breaks down is that there is an age differential across the universe, and the closer we get to the Earth, the less time has elapsed for the universe because of how he has constructed his solution. This star is only about 8 light years from Earth, so the question is, how could something so close to the Earth be so old if Humphreys’ conjecture is valid?

    So really really old things very close to the Earth, especially stars nearly as old as the universe, don’t work so good. Hence his “God made it to spice things up a bit” (my paraphrase).

    There are, of course, a whole host of very old things nearby.

    Zeta (Jim)

  155. @ dee: the problem with trying to link this particular story with science (not with imagination, as you’re doing, but with science proper) is just… You’re leaving out Creation Story #1, and throwing all the weight on #2. Why does it have to be literal? If we want it to be entirely literal, we’ve got that talking reptile plus a God who literally “walks” in the garden. I have real difficulty reconciling all the paleontological studies of early man with “Whoa! Look it that garden in Mesapotamia! There are 2 of us there, but why is it just them?” (etc.). If you read other Mesapotamian creation stories, you can see what’s alike – and what’s different. One of the things that’s different is that there is peace and order, not a bunch of gods and monsters carrying on a cosmic war, although some of *that* is hinted at in many parts of the OT.

    Nobody even seems to be willing (in many evangelical circles) to look at the great differences (including that of literary style) between the 2 stories, let alone do a compare/contrast deal re. other *local* ancient literature. And then… why dies story #1 have absolutely no hint of the stuff in story #2, that is interpreted by xtians as evidence for the Fall? Even Augustine did not believe that story #2 should be understood as a literal account of mankind’s earliest days. So why is this a hill to die on for so many American evangelicals? (It certainly is an American thing – most xtians around the world have never heard of Ken Ham and do not believe in YEC.)

    It is intensely frustrating to see how fearful people are of even backing up a bit to look at the literary aspects of the Bible. If that gets them going, trying to deal with science is going to be the issue by which things stand or fall. The Bible isn’t *about* that, any more than Shakespeare’s plays are *about* historical accuracy. (His “facts” in the history plays came from very dodgy sources, but that doesn’t invalidate the plays overall.) I realize that’s probably not the best analogy, but it drives me up the wall when people persist in ignoring the fact that the Bible is made up of ancient writings and that overall historical and cultural context is very important to understanding what’s being communicated.

    /rant

  156. @ dee: one more question: why is a literal paradise(as in the story) so vital? What do we mean by the word “account”?if we think of that as literal reporting of facts, then we’re inevitably going to get tied up in knots before we’re past 2-3 sentences of the Adam and Eve part of Genesis.

  157. @ dee:
    Could you tell us a little more about the 11 dimensions. I think that it is related to string theory but I don’t know very much about string theory.

  158. Mark wrote:

    Orion’sBelt wrote:
    1) Rockets launched WITH the earth’s rotation require LESS fuel to reach orbit the rockets launched against it.
    From what I have read, that can be caused by the planets rotating around earth just as easily.
    The mathematics of geocentrism just as easily, but it is easily dismissed because, IMO, what that would mean. An earth-centric worldview might, gasp, make people think we are actually special.
    @NC Now, I thought I provided a quote from Hawking’s book Grand Design.
    I think OriensBelt might be interested in Robert Sungenis’ works and arguments.

    I am (unfortunately) quite familiar with Sungenis. His ideas are pure conjecture, and he makes Ken Ham look scientific. He is also allied with a very extreme RCC sect, and has dubious, very controversial, and many consider Anti-Semetic views about the Jewish people. His Geocentrism is NOT an extension of Relativity, (in fact he is quite hostile to the concept) but rather a ridiculous extension of the 19th century conception of the aether. His ideas are ad hoc. He invents wobbles and cosmic winds at the through of a hat to explain any and all problems, where these winds are simultaneiously interacting with matter (to slow rocket launches) and having no effect (e.g. any object in orbit). He has no explanation for the quasar/tides connection,

    In my first attempt at answering this I was actually unkind. I apologize for that. But beyond these comments I will not discuss him unless someone not already seduced by him has legitimate questions about his ‘ideas’.

    Zeta (Jim)

  159. Kolya wrote:

    Re the argument about God’s omnipotence, I would strongly defend the belief that God is indeed omnipotent. However, God is not arbitrary. And any apparent limits on God are imposed by God’s own character, His love, holiness and so forth.

    *
    Indeed
    *

  160. Mark wrote:

    From what I have read, that can be caused by the planets rotating around earth just as easily.

    The mathematics of geocentrism work out just as easily, but it is easily dismissed because, IMO, what that would mean. An earth-centric worldview might, gasp, make people think we are actually special.

    Not really. Have you done the math? Gravity is a very weak force compared to the tangential velocity of an 8000 mile diameter globe rotating at 1 revolution per 24 hours. About 1000 miles per hour at the equator. To get the same pull from the gravity of other planets would require some really massive planets nearby. In some very strange orbits (if they are even possible) to make it all work based on how we can launch rockets at anytime of day or night and get the same rotational boost.

    Do the math then come back and talk some more.

    To be honest you sound more and more like a troll who wants to start an argument with no idea of what you are saying. Like a kid trying to start a fight for the fun of it between others but not really caring about what the fight is about. And if this comes off as rude. So be it. You seem to be spouting junk science without any backing. Or intent of backing it up.

  161. Actually not with every observation. The descrepencies on both sides of the issue. But there is a good point to be made. One does not have to be Christian and be a YEC look at Muslims.

  162. dee wrote:

    Mr.H wrote:
    No, I am not one of the contributors, nor am I affiliated in any way with the authors or the publisher
    Even if you were, you would be welcome to plug it here!

    I appreciate that! I’ll keep it mind in case I ever get around to writing a book . . .

  163. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    And “ten thousand” (or “ten elephs”) with Samson may have been an idiom for “a great number”. In Chinese and Japanese, “ten thousand years” is an idiom for “forever”.

    To be sure, ancient Near Eastern historiography used numbers in a very different way than a modern historian might. To our Western sensibilities, it might seem “wrong,” but it was perfectly acceptable to inflate (and round off) numbers in ancient conquest accounts and battle reports. It wasn’t intended to be deceitful – it was a literary convention.

    And then, of course, there are the complications arising from the use of idiomatic phrases, which you rightfully point out.

    I’ll have to see if the Semitic language family has anything similar to the “ten thousand years” phrase you shared from Chinese and Japanese. Off the top of my head, I know that one Hebrew idiom for “forever” was “length of days” (orek yamim). It occurs at the end of Psalm 23.

  164. Mr.H wrote:

    To our Western sensibilities, it might seem “wrong,” but it was perfectly acceptable to inflate (and round off) numbers in ancient conquest accounts and battle reports. It wasn’t intended to be deceitful – it was a literary convention.

    That’s also my explanation for the “pi = 3” in the dimensions of the “brazen sea” in the Temple of Solomon — whoever wrote it down just rounded off to the nearest whole number.

    Can’t find it right now, but somewhere on the Web is a long detailed Christianese explanation (math, diagrams, and all) proving that the “pi = 3” really refers to inner circumference and outer diameter taking the thickness of the “brazen sea”s walls into account. I figure it’s some Defender of Biblical Inerrancy with too much time on their hands.

  165. Orion’sBelt wrote:

    His ideas are ad hoc. He invents wobbles and cosmic winds at the through of a hat to explain any and all problems, where these winds are simultaneiously interacting with matter (to slow rocket launches) and having no effect (e.g. any object in orbit).

    That anything like “wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey”?

  166. Casey wrote:

    One does not have to be Christian and be a YEC look at Muslims.

    Some years ago, the supreme ulema (Islamic council) of Saudi Arabia got into the news by decreeing a fatwa that The Earth is Flat, reason given “It Is Written in the Koran”. (Sounds like “Koranic Inerrancy” taken to its end-state conclusion.)

    Around the same time there was a local news item about local Mosques butting heads over which was the proper direction to Mecca — Mercator projection (as if a flat Earth) or great circle route (for a round Earth); apparently they were having quite a dust-up over it, and the Saudi fatwa was taken as justification for the first position. Apparently their belief was that prayers/devotions in the wrong direction (flat or round) wouldn’t count before Al’lah, and would have to be re-done in the proper direction.

  167. Kolya wrote:

    Re the argument about God’s omnipotence, I would strongly defend the belief that God is indeed omnipotent. However, God is not arbitrary. And any apparent limits on God are imposed by God’s own character, His love, holiness and so forth.

    Problem with the Extreme Predestination view (more Calvinist than Calvin, more Islamic than Mohammed) of God’s character is that “His love, holiness and so forth” get steamrollered by His Omnipotent Will. (End result, in the words of Lord Voldemort: “There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER.”)

  168. @ dee:
    I looked at your link. I’ve been called a ‘literalist’ in my time, but I wonder whether they think I literally believe in a dragon in Revelation!

    As I see it, you should take the bible literally whenever possible, but read history as history, poetry as poetry, and so on with prophecy, allegory, metaphor, hyperbole etc, also taking into account literary conventions and not anachronistically imposing modern knowledge that would be irrelevant to the original audience. The only problem that can arise is if it is not always clear exactly what type of literature you are dealing with, and Genesis 1 is a case in point where the differences in interpretation are how literally to take the text.

    It strikes me, incidentally, that none of the three main creationist views of Genesis is not without its problems. I’ve read some of Dr Ross’s stuff on old earth, and agree with you that all three versions could learn from him in cultivating a better attitude to those who see things differently. I was more struck by his attitude than his actual argument!

  169. Sorry for the lack of punctuation. Basically what I was saying is that being Christian can’t be based on holding a YEC perspective. Faith in Jesus Christ is.

  170. @ Casey:

    But if that is so (and it of course is so) then how can we differentiate “us” from “them?” How can we hang a sign on our clubhouse door which reads “no __________ allowed” if we do not clearly define who exactly it is that is “not allowed?” And what is the use of even having a club if it is not exclusive in some way. Besides, the ___________ who are not allowed might have cooties (and give cooties to our children.)

  171. dee wrote:

    Also, Adam was created outside the Garden. What was going on out there, outside of the Garden? Could the garden have been a unique, set apart staging center for the human drama? Remember, the Garden still exists. We just can’t get in there. Yet we don’t see it. Where is it?
    So, could it be that the garden exists in another dimension? There are many dimensions:around 11, with time being the 12th. Is God and heaven the 13th? Could that be why He is everywhere all at once?
    Also, when God created Adam out of the dust, could the dust have been a way to say DNA:the essential building block? There are enough questions to last a eternity.
    The problem with the creation account is that there is less said than more which leaves us to ponder the possibilities. It is very cool, actually.

    Thank you for asking these questions, my dear sister. For me, when I consider the creation account, I compare it to accounts of the future. I imagine the apostle John being caught up in a trance, being exposed to dimensions of reality he probably never knew existed. When I read the book of Revelation, I’ve never once concluded that somewhere on Earth will there be a literal dragon. When I read prophesies of Daniel or Ezekiel, I do not go looking for scientific evidence of four-faced creatures.

    Spiritual matter is not the same as physical matter, right? I have no idea how I can quantify that difference, but it seems like an absolute truth to me. So, I try to consider any “account” of spiritual matter with the understanding that perhaps it cannot be accurately described with words among our physical dimension. The author of Genesis was somehow exposed to the history of time, and attempts to describe it with words trapped in time. It is almost an impossible task! I try to read the big idea in things like this. How can we even explain the reality that we are “born again”? We know it to be true, we know that God has made us alive somehow in a different way, but I lack the accuracy to explain it.

    My friend Jerry gave me this analogy. Imagine a cartoon character being drawn by a cartoonist. Imagine if that character was able to explain his/her origin. Everything that the character experiences is in 2-dimensions, yet was created by a 3-dimensional human. At best, the cartoon could describe the tip of the pencil creating 2-dimensional lines in his/her world. Even the whole pencil couldn’t be explained because that transcends the paper where the cartoon is drawn.

    I love and teach young people to love Science because it makes sense. Logic is the boundary for all our investigation. There truly are “things too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to understand.” So, I don’t ever try to claim certainty about such things.

  172. @ Kathy:
    Assuming by OEC you mean Old Earth Creationism.

    Evolution is a term that get overloaded a lot by all sides. In general it means change over time. In this debate it typically means that biological entities on the earth gradually changed into new species over time. Becoming more complex over time. Via natural selection, divine intervention, or ….

    There are Christians who believe in an Old Earth (billions of years) who believe in evolution. And some who believe in OE and not evolution. I think Hugh Ross of RTB is more of the later.

    As to OEC I’ve seen various people claim to believe that but differ on what they mean exactly.

    Makes this entire debate much simpler doesn’t it. 🙂

  173. My point is that you cannot disprove geocentrism any more than you can prove heliocentrism. Either model is acceptable.

  174. @ Mark:
    Yes you can. No they are both not acceptable unless you don’t believe in math and science.

    Anyone can claim anything to be true. But unless you can back it up with facts and analysis instead of “I want it to be true” then it’s not a theory, just wishful thinking.

    I will now join Jim in ignoring your nonsense. And I use that word because all you do is say fanciful things without ANY backup. Bring some backup that isn’t more of handwavium and maybe I’ll join in the debate.

  175. Dee,
    thanks for the thoughts, yeah I could see any one of those scenarios you lay out. And Genesis is kind of mysterious, I don’t put as much emphasis on knowing it all as some of my YEC peers. I would just postulate that YEC and scientific studies pointing to an old universe are not mutually exclusive positions. For example, as you alluded too, there may have been many of things going on before the creation that is spoken of in Genesis 1-3.

  176. NC Now wrote:

    @ Mark:
    Yes you can. No they are both not acceptable unless you don’t believe in math and science.
    Anyone can claim anything to be true. But unless you can back it up with facts and analysis instead of “I want it to be true” then it’s not a theory, just wishful thinking.
    I will now join Jim in ignoring your nonsense. And I use that word because all you do is say fanciful things without ANY backup. Bring some backup that isn’t more of handwavium and maybe I’ll join in the debate.

    Well, technically I didn’t say I would ignore Mark. I just said I would not discuss Sungenis or his ‘book’ with Mark. Of course, if all Mark wants to talk about is Sungenis and his ‘book’, then the result is the same. 🙂

  177. NC Now wrote:

    @ Mark:
    Yes you can. No they are both not acceptable unless you don’t believe in math and science.
    Anyone can claim anything to be true. But unless you can back it up with facts and analysis instead of “I want it to be true” then it’s not a theory, just wishful thinking.
    I will now join Jim in ignoring your nonsense. And I use that word because all you do is say fanciful things without ANY backup. Bring some backup that isn’t more of handwavium and maybe I’ll join in the debate.

    Well, technically I didn’t say I would ignore Mark. I just said I would not discuss Sungenis or his ‘book’ with Mark. Of course, if all Mark wants to talk about is Sungenis and his ‘book’, then the result is the same. 🙂Kathy wrote:

    Is OEC different than evolution?

    OEC covers a wide range if conceptions which generally have two distinguishing characteristics:
    1) They reject most if not all forms of evolution
    2) They accept the scientific conclusion about the age of the Earth and the Cosmos

    Hugh Ross is technically a Progressive Creationist. Hopefully I’ll get this part right: He believes also in the long history of life on the earth, changing form over time, but believes God explicitly made the ‘jumps’ from one form to the other as part of an ongoing miraculous process.

    A key distinction for many is not the ‘long history of life’ part of evolution. This is the part of evolution most traditional scientists regard as fact. That life has a long history on the Earth can only be refuted if all our dating methods are dead wrong or God planted fake fossil evidence in the Earth.

    The part universally rejected on the OE side of Creationism is the process by which life’s history unfolded. Accepting that in nature is sufficient power to accomplish these major changes in form moves one out of the OE camp and into the TE (Theistic Evolutionist) or EC (Evolutionary Creationist) camp.

    Zeta (Jim)

  178. Orion’sBelt wrote:

    Well, technically I didn’t say I would ignore Mark. I just said I would not discuss Sungenis or his ‘book’ with Mark.

    🙂

    I was wrapping the book up and his claims that geocentrism is valid “because I say it is” as “nonsense”.

    If Mark wants to show how to create a solar system that WORKS with the earth at it’s center with more than handwaivium I’m all for that debate. But I’m certain to more than 5 9’s that he can’t do it. Or even come close. Without that all important handwaivium.

  179. Wisdomchaser wrote:

    Could you tell us a little more about the 11 dimensions. I think that it is related to string theory but I don’t know very much about string theory.

    I am sorry for the delay in answering you. I have been, as we say in the South, ‘flicted with the stomach virus.

    You think that you don’t know much about string theory? Well neither do I. My goal is to understand the big picture. Google “how many dimensions are there?” There are a number of articles discussing the phenomena of multi-dimensions. Of course, just like just about everything, the scientists speculate based on physics, etc. So, is it proven science about the 11 dimensions? Absolutely not but almost all believe in a fourth dimension and many believe in 11. Some speculate that time is its own dimension as well.

    The reason I find this all so interesting is that the universe is far more complex than we can even imagine. And behind that universe is God who is omnipresent in all that He has created.

    Many of our children read Flat Stanley who was a paper doll. Our school had the kids send Flat Stanley to friends of the family who then photographed Stanley sitting in a cockpit, at a meeting on Wall Street, at a farm in South Dakota, etc. The kids would then show their classmates Stanley’s whereabouts.

    If Stanley were alive, he would have width and height but no depth. In his world all is flat. He would be surrounded by those who live in a 3 dimensional world yet he would be unable to perceive us. His world would be a part of ours. And so it would go for all existent dimensions.

    I know this sound way too simplistic and I am sure that all of the physics majors, etc out there will have far more to say about this. I am only relaying this woman’s attempt to understand complicated theories.

  180. @ NC Now:
    Handwaivium is an element that scientists seem not to be able to find in the lab, but it can be found in argumentation. I have seen it in court when a prosecuting attorney is missing evidence to link a defendant to a terrible crime, and handwaivium becomes the link that jury sees that otherwise does not exist. It sometimes results in a verdict being overturned on appeal or a later exoneration.

    Handwaivium is also used in civil litigation and in politics a great deal, to tarnish one’s opponent or to embellish one’s own circumstance. Being a “child of extreme poverty, having climbed the ladder” is frequently handwaivium in disguise. BTW, handwaivium is a frequent ingredient in CEO resumes and can result in large salaries and bonuses by less than prodigious financial results by the company involved; it is also frequently found in the background of board members who authorize such large salaries and bonuses, as it appears to have contributed to their appointment to the board.

  181. Seth wrote:

    I would just postulate that YEC and scientific studies pointing to an old universe are not mutually exclusive positions.

    Let me throw another one at you. Wouldn’t it be interesting if, in the place that is identified as heaven, time moves differently. So, in God’s dimension, creation took place in days while in our dimension it took place in billions of years.
    You know, that verse about in 2 Peter 3:8

    “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”

    Then both could be right?

  182. @ Orion’sBelt:
    As you know, i have met Hugh Ross and listened to him talk on a number of occasions. I believe you represent his views quite fairly. I asked him how he views himself in the Christian debate on the matter. He told me that he views his theories as only garnering a small percentage of followers. He said that the vast majority either tip YE or TE.

    On the other hand, he is working with Biologos to jointly present some views that both organizations share. Apparently, he can work with them. AIG, on the other hand…..

  183. Erik wrote:

    The author of Genesis was somehow exposed to the history of time, and attempts to describe it with words trapped in time. It is almost an impossible task!

    I really like the way you put this. I heard one man say it like this. God explaining Himself to man is not unlike man explaining himself to a mollusk. He is infinite, our brains our finite. There is only so much that we can possibly understand about Him.Erik wrote:

    Imagine a cartoon character being drawn by a cartoonist. Imagine if that character was able to explain his/her origin. Everything that the character experiences is in 2-dimensions, yet was created by a 3-dimensional human. At best, the cartoon could describe the tip of the pencil creating 2-dimensional lines in his/her world. Even the whole pencil couldn’t be explained because that transcends the paper where the cartoon is drawn.

    I wish I had had a science teacher like you!

  184. Casey wrote:

    being Christian can’t be based on holding a YEC perspective. Faith in Jesus Christ is.

    You are correct. But, amongst certain groups which are known for theological arrogance, belief in Jesus is predicated on believing who he is. And who he is is part of the Trinity which created the world in 6 days. They call this “gospel” based theology. And it gets Dee really mad, at times.

  185. @ Orion’sBelt:
    I am just cluing into this conversation. To make it simple for me, is this the theory that the entire known (and unknown) universe is somehow rotating around the earth? Is it perceived that the earth is the lynchpin in this revolution? So instead of the earth existing on an insignificant arm of the Milky Way, the earth is central, we just don’t see it? I think one guy visited this site years ago and tried to convince me of this but, as usual, I was deeply skeptical.

    Or, have I got that one wrong as well? 🙂

  186. @ dee:
    That is what I have always thought of as the term geocentrism meant.

    But reading between the lines of a few comments here some seem to use it to mean that Earth is the only planet with people or maybe the only one with life. And I think Hugh Ross is of this group. But he doesn’t call it geocentrism. He just feels (as I understand his position) that for life such as ours to exist so many things have to be just right that it is reasonable to assume we are alone. Especially in our galaxy. And to dig deeper into this requires a lot of discussion about the precise chemical makeup of our sun compared to other sun we have analyzed plus a lot of other things.

  187. Mark wrote:

    My point is that you cannot disprove geocentrism any more than you can prove heliocentrism. Either model is acceptable.

    Consider that the circumference of a circle is 2*PI*radius. Sirius is the brightest star in the heavens and is 8.6 light-years from us. It must travel a distance of about 54 light years to complete 1 orbit around Earth. Since it has only 1 year to do this it must travel with a velocity of 54 times that of light. What parts of established science do you wish to discard to allow this?

  188. NC Now wrote:

    If Mark wants to show how to create a solar system that WORKS with the earth at it’s center with more than handwaivium I’m all for that debate. But I’m certain to more than 5 9′s that he can’t do it. Or even come close. Without that all important handwaivium.

    Yet when it comes to science, Christians use so much Handwavium that you wonder if that’s all there is to Christ — Handwavium, Superhandwavium, and Hyperhandwavium.

  189. Ken wrote:

    I looked at your link. I’ve been called a ‘literalist’ in my time, but I wonder whether they think I literally believe in a dragon in Revelation!

    No, they literally believe all the Seven Seals, Seven Scrolls, Seven Trumpets, etc are all Thermonuclear Weapons Effects and the plague of Demon Locusts are literally helicopter gunships armed with chemical weapons and piloted by long-haired bearded hippies. It’s SCRIPTURE(TM)!

  190. dee wrote:

    @ Orion’sBelt:
    I am just cluing into this conversation. To make it simple for me, is this the theory that the entire known (and unknown) universe is somehow rotating around the earth? Is it perceived that the earth is the lynchpin in this revolution? So instead of the earth existing on an insignificant arm of the Milky Way, the earth is central, we just don’t see it? I think one guy visited this site years ago and tried to convince me of this but, as usual, I was deeply skeptical.
    Or, have I got that one wrong as well?

    Yep, that would be it. Handwaivium is a good description of the ‘theory’. For at its heart is in fact a new unobservable/unobserved substance.

    Anyway, unless someone is truly interested in a very wild and crazy ride, I suggest we not go there to any significant extent. It is certainly WAY off topic and flows out of an even more wooden reading of the text than Ken Ham adheres to. The relativistic “geocentrism” is more just a mathematical transformation where theoretically all observations we see fall out from the equations themselves given the right mass constraints for the universe itself (though, as I think I said, the quasar motions tracking the tides I’ve yet to see anyone try to derive from those equations). I personally do not have the background to work them through on my own.

    In reality there is not a construct that would justify the use of that transformation. Gravity as we observe it coupled with Relativity are sufficient to explain the Solar system and for the most part in all other star systems and star clusters (When we get to galactic scales there is something else in play, which is why Dark Matter has been theorized)

    Keep in mind when banging one’s head against the Christian Geocentrist, that the Relativistic transformation officially applies to ANY point in the universe, Mars, Venus, Pluto, or even my big toe. What this does is effectively render moot the complaint that the Bible describing the Earth from a viewpoint on its surface is not technically ‘wrong’ – all reference frames are valid. But that does not then resolve to ‘it is technically right’ either. In that from a physics standpoint geocentrism does not makes sense as ‘true’ representation of what is actually happening as a result of the forces and structures that we observe to exist in the Universe.

    Zeta (Jim)

  191. I’ve been lurking in the background with all this and watching this play out. You know what troubles me…and this I think needs to be called out and discussed. Many Christians in the name of YEC or any other pet issue can and often due engage in intentional fraud. They use pseudo science, pseudo history, etc.. that is really more of propaganda than anything else. The fact that people like Ken Hamm, AIG “scientists” or the David Barton’s don’t enage the scientific or historical societies or communities speaks volumes. And in the end this fraud only feeds many atheists.

  192. @ NC Now:
    I have some friends who believe that as well. I don’t. I think there are going to be many surprises in God’s kingdom.

  193. dee wrote:

    And it gets Dee really mad, at times.

    I love when you get so riled up that you use third-person speech! 🙂 And, Dee, I wish I could have been in one of your church history classes.

    I was going to say that I wish you were my “pastor”, but then I realized something midstream. In many ways, you are indeed a pastor to me, and to many others. You “equip the saints”, “watch doctrine closely”, and serve us all without financial gain for yourself. The spiritual gift of “pastoring” is obvious in what you produce. This website, and encompassing digital community, is a safe haven for me. It inspires me, motivates me, and yes….gets my righteous anger stoked up. I’m so glad that God sovereignly ordained me to connect here, …of course- for his glory and purpose. Shalom!

  194. dee wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    You never fail to elicit a laugh from me.

    “I try to make everyone’s day a bit more surreal.”
    — Calvin & Hobbes

  195. dee wrote:

    I am sorry for the delay in answering you. I have been, as we say in the South, ‘flicted with the stomach virus.

    Since Mrs. Muff & me have been washing our produce in a good solution of Dawn dish detergent and thoroughly rinsing, we haven’t been so ‘flicted in many a moon.

  196. I think I already posted that Stephen Hawking says both models are valid. Anyone who claims otherwise is speaking from a philosophical perspective. If you want a reason why geocentrism is dismissed so vehemently by people like those posting here, Hawking gives a clue:

    “…all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.”

    What does he suggest? “There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.”

    To recap, Hawking states that “We believe it only on the grounds of modesty.”
    That’s right, let’s be “modest” and not think earth is any place special. Because if the earth is someplace special in the universe, that leads to an uncomfortable position for many in science.

  197. NC Now wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    I have always been a fan of Calvin Ball. Great sport. Required as much mental agility as physical prowess.

    And like Fizzbin, you make up the rules as you go along.

  198. Today on NPR’s Science Friday, about 10 minutes into the first hour, there is a discussion by physicists about understanding the universe and the questions that are still out there. Most interesting to me was the attitude of looking for the unexpected information that research may provide.

    The show will be available on line this evening.

  199. One more thing, here’s what Phil Plait wrote about geocentrism. Phil’s a pretty reputable guy in the field of astronomy. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/#.Uuv83_ldUpg

    At first glance you may think he puts a death nail in the geocentrist’s arguments. But, actually, he says what I have been saying. The math works out. So, in many respects, your view of the universe is much a philosophical argument as a scientific one.

  200. Erik wrote:

    I was going to say that I wish you were my “pastor”,

    If you do, I will truly be called a heretic. However, we have a formed a small abbey around the mutual adoration of all things chocolate. You may call me the Mid-Reverend Dee (to differentiate from the always right reverends)!

  201. Can I be called the Rev. Dr. Dr. Blank? I have two earned doctorates, one Ph.D. and one J.D. Given comments bout me on occasion, perhaps it should be the Left Rev. Dr. Dr. Blank (blank to be filled in after ordination!!!)

  202. Mark wrote:

    One more thing, here’s what Phil Plait wrote about geocentrism. Phil’s a pretty reputable guy in the field of astronomy. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/#.Uuv83_ldUpg
    At first glance you may think he puts a death nail in the geocentrist’s arguments. But, actually, he says what I have been saying. The math works out. So, in many respects, your view of the universe is much a philosophical argument as a scientific one.

    Thanks for the link. It pretty much says it all.

    Zeta (Jim)

  203. An interesting website is http://www.icr.org …..

    However, I noticed that they allow female “editors” and such. Don’t know if that posses a problem or not in the ideals of what is portrayed.

  204. I think much of the creation vs. evolution debates throw a dog into a tail spin. Causes the dog to chase his tail for hours……..accomplishing nothing “good” for good purpose in the end.

    Take the truth for what it is and go from there.

  205. Erik wrote:

    I was going to say that I wish you were my “pastor”, but then I realized something midstream. In many ways, you are indeed a pastor to me, and to many others.

    I have contended before that Dee should go back & get her M.Div. and get ordained.

  206. An Attorney wrote:

    Can I be called the Rev. Dr. Dr. Blank? I have two earned doctorates, one Ph.D. and one J.D.

    No, because they’re legit earned doctorates, and everyone Reverends only have Honorary Doctorates awarded by other Reverends.

  207. @ An Attorney:
    I so move. Isn’t that what they do in congregationally ruled churches? I have always loved that statement “I so move….” I think it is a fancy way to say “I’m in.”

  208. dee wrote:

    You may call me the Mid-Reverend Dee (to differentiate from the always right reverends)!

    That’s Mid-ROAD-Reverend Dee. Kindly make the correction. Signed, your friendly neighborhood self-aPpointed and sometimes aPpalled aPostle. 😉

  209. (just to avoid confusion for those not familiar with the screwed up version of Robert’s Rules of Order practiced in most Baptist churches, we need someone to “second” Dee’s “motion,” then the moderator will call for “all in favor” to vote by “saying aye” or “raising your right hand,” then “all opposed” will be asked to give the “same sign.” Or something like that, depending on how badly your church’s moderator knew and followed Robert’s Rules)

  210. An Attorney wrote:

    Can I be called the Rev. Dr. Dr. Blank? I have two earned doctorates, one Ph.D. and one J.D. Given comments bout me on occasion, perhaps it should be the Left Rev. Dr. Dr. Blank (blank to be filled in after ordination!!!)

    Seriously, I was once on the staff of a left-leaning, congregationally ruled church. My boss was a real Dr. Blank, a zoologist and zookeeper.