Why do fundamentalists believe the world is 6000-10000 years old?

[buffalo]

Explanation:

God is a trickster and deceiver. He just very recently created the universe but made it look like an old universe, 13 billion years old, in order to fool scientists and lead them astray.

I learned this from a former gnostic creationist who was a trusted member of their inner circle. He knew their code and secret handshake, and was privy to their secret insights about creation.

Bogus argument! Again, if one is walking down the beach and sees left footprints as far as he can see, should he conclude a deceiver was at work?

 

[hecd2]

I think I can fairly represent his view though, if you have any more questions.

Sure:

• How is Humphrey’s model of a white hole reconciled with Hawking’s demonstration in his classic 1975 paper (Hawking, Black holes and thermodynamics, Phys Rev D 13, 191 - 197) that because a black hole has entropy and negative specific heat, it can be in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings which in turn means that it is time symmetric and indistinguishable to an external observer from a white hole?
• How does it reconcile the negative square root solution of the Schwarzschild geometry with violation of the second law of thermodynamics which is unphysical?
• Why is the time elapsed on a properly transformed co-moving clock trajectory the same in the Schwarzschild-like co-ordinates based on the Klein metric (which Humphreys uses) and in the Robertson-Walker metric?
• What is the significance of the fact that the proper time elapsed on any co-moving space time trajectory is scalar invariant and independent of the location of the clock at or near an event horizon?
• Why does the model use what Humphreys calls Schwarzschild time when clocks keeping Schwarzschild time are unphysical (ie they must move at greater than the speed of light relative to local matter) rather than co-moving clocks keeping proper time?
• Why does the model claim that conventional cosmology does not treat bounded, inhomogeneous universes when that is not so?
• Why does the model claim that dynamical solutions to the field equations are radically different in a bounded universe from an unbounded universe when that is not so?
• In fact, why does the model claim that the gravitational field in a bounded universe will be significantly different from that of an unbounded universe, thus violating Birkhoff’s theorem, when that is not so?
• Why does the model claim that the universe will age hugely as the event horizon traverses the surface of the earth when the correct solution is that the time elapsed on co-moving clocks will give the same result as conventionally, since co-moving clocks all register cosmic time for local observers - and a red-shift and an observed *slowing *of distant clocks equivalent to the expansion of the metric?
• Why are the model predicted changes in red-shift with time of high-z objects simply not observed?
• How does the model explain observed angular diameter distances of astronomical bodies hugely in excess of 6,000 light years?

And, to be fair, his actual theory is more than just wild speculation. He’s a nuclear physicist by trade and trained in his graduate studies in relativity theory.

And to be fair, he is not a cosmologist. So I have a final question: why has he not published a single paper on this hypothesis in a scientific journal?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Magnanimity]

Alec

By the nature of your questions, you are already as familiar as I am with the Humphreys model and ensuing criticism it received (perhaps you read his book and the back and forth in the creationist “Technical Journal?!”). Likely, you are more familiar than I am. When I followed that controversy within creationist circles a few years ago, I remember seeing at that time a number of the criticisms you raise here. Perhaps you just feel the need to raise them afresh for those following this thread?

What you need, if you’re seriously inquiring, is a YEC apologist, and probably one with a background in relativistic physics (like Humphreys). But, I don’t think anyone would be surprised to learn that those types of individuals are few and far between. There is certainly nothing in my background, nor in what I’ve posted in this thread, which would reasonably lead one to believe that I’m a YEC apologist trained in physics.

As to your last point, it is an obvious truth and I whole-heartedly agree that science, like any other discipline, rebuts any attempt to critique it or offer viable alternatives from outside of itself. The only legitimate way to critique and offer alternative views is from within a community. But then I’m a somewhat educated Catholic. Of course, I would hold that view.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Ever hear of the Copernican heresy Mystic? It is the Devil’s Greatest lie. It got the whole world - from popes to children in the classrooms to deny the credibility of what we see with our eyes in exchange for a mathematical image. It totally blocks out people’s love for truth by making them so prejudiced that they reject everything that can show the heliocentric theory is not an absolute scientific truth. It changed the hermeneutics of the Catholic Church so that scientific assumptions decide how the Bible is to be interpreted and not the Fathers.

As to the above, again I repeat, there is no way to prove or falsify either H or G absolutely.
And who in God’s name reads the Bible and takes every thing literally. This suggests the Church of 1616 and 1633 did not know when metaphor, poetry, allegory, symbol, expression etc., were being used by the bible writers.

Well, now I’m interested - and that supporting article was quite inspiring…

We’ve got images from objects that have left the Earth orbit, though, haven’t we? Surely they’d be reasonably convincing one way or another?

 

[hecd2]

Alec

By the nature of your questions, you are already as familiar as I am with the Humphreys model and ensuing criticism it received (perhaps you read his book and the back and forth in the creationist “Technical Journal?!”). Likely, you are more familiar than I am. When I followed that controversy within creationist circles a few years ago, I remember seeing at that time a number of the criticisms you raise here. Perhaps you just feel the need to raise them afresh for those following this thread?

Well some of my questions were raised by Conner and Page in their devastating criticisms while some have occurred separately to me. But I misunderstood you - when you said that you could fairly represent his viewpoint, I thought you meant what you said and that you would be prepared to do so, but apparently not.

What you need, if you’re seriously inquiring, is a YEC apologist, and probably one with a background in relativistic physics (like Humphreys). But, I don’t think anyone would be surprised to learn that those types of individuals are few and far between.

Not only are they few and far between, but those who actually understand cosmology theory are completely non-existent - Humphreys certainly isn’t one given the quite fundamental misunderstanding about relatively elementary matters (such as the relationship between curvature of the metric and the gravitational field, and the misuse of his so-called Schwarzschild time) that he displays. In spite of his physics degrees, his understanding of quite elementary physics such as classical wave propagation is poor - see this article on my website where I analyse an article that he wrote about a particular type of light propagation experiment and show that he really understood nothing of it:
evolutionpages.com/Critique%20of%20Humphreys%20article.htm

There is certainly nothing in my background, nor in what I’ve posted in this thread, which would reasonably lead one to believe that I’m a YEC apologist trained in physics.

OK, fair enough. I thought that you were approvingly referring to his model as an example of a valid YEC scientific hypothesis, but it seems you were merely indicating its existence as a neutral and non-professional bystander.

As to your last point, it is an obvious truth and I whole-heartedly agree that science, like any other discipline, rebuts any attempt to critique it or offer viable alternatives from outside of itself. The only legitimate way to critique and offer alternative views is from within a community. But then I’m a somewhat educated Catholic. Of course, I would hold that view.

There are all sorts of valid ways of looking at various aspects of the world and our lives in it, some more suited to certain purposes than others, but when one puts forward what is ostensibly a scientific hypothesis, then the only valid assessment of it is on a scientific level. If Humphreys’s intention was to do physics, he should have published in the literature. Then his work would be open to review, criticism and acceptance or rejection by the community, along with everyone else’s. If there is any branch of science open to speculative hypotheses then cosmology is it. But being open does not mean accepting ideas that are internally inconsistent, built on basic misunderstandings and violating known principles.

As it is, he has achieved his objective, which was not to do science by persuading his peers of the validity of his arguments, but to persuade non-scientists by the use of apparently technical arguments (but which are in truth simply pseudo-science) that a valid cosmological model that is consistent with known physics and observation and that also comports with the Young Earth position exists. In fact, no such valid YE cosmology exists. At root, his model is motivated by social, political and religious considerations, not by scientific ones, which is why it does not appear in the literature.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

edwest2:

Who made this calculation? Why do you think it’s reliable?

Age of earth:
Claire Patterson, Age of meteorites and the earth, *Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta *10, 230 - 237
Wilde et al, Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago, *Nature *409, 175 - 178
Wyche et al, 4350–3130 Ma detrital zircons in the Southern Cross Granite–Greenstone Terrane, Western Australia: implications for the early evolution of the Yilgarn Craton, Australian J Earth Sci 51, 31 - 45
Baker et al, Early planetesimal melting from an age of 4.5662 Gyr for differentiated meteorites, *Nature *436, 1127 - 1131
Manhes et al, U—Th—Pb systematics of the eucrite “Juvinas”: Precise age determination and evidence for exotic lead, *Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta *48, 2247 - 2264
Bowringand Williams, Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada, Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134, 3-16
Brent Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth, Stanford University Press, which includes references to many more that concur on a date of 4.54 billion years.

Age of universe since Big Bang:
Bennett et al, First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe(WMAP) Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results
Here
Spergel et al, First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters
Here
Tegmark et al, Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP

Spergel et al, *Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology
*Here

Enough for you?

And finally, back to the OP. So-called fundamentalists think the dates are wrong based on anomolies in the earth and fossil life forms still in existence, to name a few things.

What anomalies?

What happened, Ed? After you made such a large number of mistakes talking about the solar wind and light propagation in the universe, I thought you wanted to get back to discussing the OP and the evidence for a 4.54 billion year old solar system and a 13.7 billion year old universe. Now that some of the evidence is presented you seem to have disappeared - perhaps you’ve found a more amenable thread.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[itinerant1]

Now hold on a minute Itinerent, if anyone has lowered the intellectual level of this debate it is you.
I had two posts up, one regarding the Copernican heresy that I said was the Devil’s greatest heresy in that it caused man to deny the evidence of his own senses in exchange for a mathematical hypotheses.
In other words, if you see the sun with its planets] and stars move daily and yearly, why deny it could not be that way. I think I could convince the dogs in the street that if they can see something real happening then it has all the credibility it needs…

You have made a dubious epistemological assumption. First, all knowledge begins with sense experience. Intellectual concepts are derived from sensory data. In most cases, common experience is judged reliable. But this, as stated, involves an intellectual judgment. We can judge that the sun moves just as it appears to our senses. However, special experience, such as is the province of the natural sciences, can correct our erring judgment about the sun and tell us that it only “appears” to be rising when in fact it is the earth that is moving.

A similar phenomenon occurs when traveling in a car and a stationary object viewed laterally appears to be moving. It could be a farmhouse “traveling” 50 mph. Intellectual judgment tells us that farmhouses cannot travel nearly that fast. It is an illusion caused by viewing the farmhouse in the distance relative to objects in the foreground. But you leave little room for intellectual judgments on sense knowledge. Your position almost requires you to believe in speeding farmhouses.

Also, if I extend a pole into the water it appears bent. Do I conclude from my visual experience that the pole is bent? According to your statements, it seems that I should.

The fact of not taking into account the distortion of light waves caused by the water is merely a simple example of how you treat more complex matters. You seem to distrust reason to judge matters that may be different than how they appear to the senses. That is the low intellectual level you advocate.

Einstein’s special theory of relativity seems to contradict what our senses tell us. Relativity is so counter-intuitive. Nonetheless, I presume that you summarily dismiss Einstein’s physics. At least you would have to do so to remain consistent with your position. Again, it’s not very intellectual of you.

This same heresy (It was not me who branded Copernicans heretics, but the Church) caused churchmen, popes and all, to deny a papal decree and the biblical interpretation of the Fathers of many passages that HAVE a salvation value. The Salvation value is that without the literal the DOGMAS and doctrines of the Church lose credibility. Proof of this is that scientific theories HAVE LED THE WAY TO APOSTASY and ATHEISM. How in God’s name can anyone chose a science that fits the atheistic principle perfectly and apply it to the Catholic faith.

What papal decree did popes deny? And which popes were these?

Are popes bound by this decree? Is it possible that the decree was ill-advised? (most likely).

What is it that is being denied that has salvation value?

What science is it, that you allude to, that supposedly fits the atheistic principle?

What do you mean by “apply it to the Catholic faith?” This phrase appears ambiguous.

What do you think Atheists say about a Church and its books of revelation that reveal global floods that are denied now by popes, a papal decree defining a fixed sun as heresy, as inferring the world was created in its entirity 6-10,000 years ago, as depicting a Virgin Birth, as recording miracles, etc. Who do you say gives the ATHEIST the SECURITY he or she never expected, why the Copernicans of course, the 14.5 Billion years old advocats. This gives them the time to deny the divine fiat of direct creation and put theistic-evolution into the time-frame it needs.

In the past, passages in the bible have been taken to have scientific value. This was true, for example, in regard to passages that referred to the sun. Since we now know better, that constitutes an advancement in biblical exegesis.

This fact does not, in any way, deny the literal sense of scripture as you continue to falsely claim. The literal sense is the basis for the other senses in a text.

Ironically, it is you who denies the literal sense of Scripture. For example, the OT testament speaks of a flat earth resting on pillars; above the earth is the firmament, which separates the upper from the lower waters; rain waters are released through floodgates, and many other things involving a pre-scientific cosmology. We know what the biblical authors meant by pillars, firmament, and so on, but you must deny the literal sense of these passages that portray a small heavens and earth, and impose foreign meanings onto the texts rather than take them literally.

How do you explain your highly inconsistent position?

My reference to Copernican heretics is by way of trying to get people to realise that was once and will become again a VERY VERY SERIOUS MATTER.

The only serious problems I see is that you claim to know better about how to interpret the bible, when in fact you appear to have no background in biblical exegesis. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that you are well read, or read at all, in the writings of Church Fathers.

 

[itinerant1]

Bogus argument! Again, if one is walking down the beach and sees left footprints as far as he can see, should he conclude a deceiver was at work?

The conundrum remains. Why would God create a universe to appear ancient when it is not? This idea began fairly recently in Protestant circles. Why anyone would buy into it is beyond me.

 

[itinerant1]

Ok, here we go with links to papers on cosmic inhomogeneity as an explanation for the observed anomaly in SN-1a luminosities:

David Wiltshire, Cosmic clocks, cosmic variance and cosmic averages, New J Phys 9, 377, available here
David Wiltshire, Viable inhomogeneous model universe without Dark Energy from primordial inflation, available here
Leith, Ng and Wiltshire, Gravitational energy as Dark Energy: Concordance of Cosmological Tests, ApJ 672, L91 - L94; available here.
David Wiltshire, Dark energy without Dark Energy, available here is a good overview paper of Wiltshire’s model. (Note that Wiltshire’s model depends on a local void with a radius of about 170Mpc, much smaller than the observable universe - he calls it the Fractal Bubble model. The model yields an age for the universe significantly greater than the concordance FRW model)
David Wiltshire, Gravitational energy as dark energy: Average observational quantities, available here, discusses possible observational tests for his model.

Mattsson, Dark Energy as a Mirage, available here, is a model that depends on local inhomogeneities and which maintains the large scale homogeneity of the universe (as does Wiltshire’s)

Syksy Rasanen, Evaluating backreaction with the peak model of structure formation, *JCAP *0804:026, available here
Syksy Rasanen, On the relationship between the isotropy of the CMB and the geometry of the universe, available here
Sysky Rasanen, Structure Formation as an alternative to Dark Energy and modified gravity, available here who uses non-linear effects in structure formation to generate the apparent late epoch acceleration

Marie-Noelle Celerier, The Accelerated expansion of the Universe challenged by an effect of the inhomogeneities, New Adv Phys 1, 29, available here is a detailed review paper with enough additional references to other inhomogeneous models to keep you busy for weeks - one major conclusion is that she derives a strong argument (and references other arguments) that inhomogeneities must be on a subhorizon scale, ie smaller than the observable universe, in order to predict what we see. The following paper concurs:
Kolb et al, On cosmic acceleration without Dark Energy, New J.Phys 8, 322, available here

Alexander et al, Local void versus Dark Energy:Confrontation with WMAP and Type 1A supernovae, JCAP 0909, 025, available here also derive a subhorizon sized void of the order of 300 Mpc

Clarkson et al, A general test of the Copernican Principle, Phys Rev Lett 101, 011301available here propose a test for large scale homogeneity in the universe.

You’ll note that most of these models rely on inhomogeneities that are smaller in scale than the observable universe, although there are some proposals that make the void about the Hubble scale. The following papers propose superhorizon inhomogeneity:
Kolb et al, Primordial inflation explains why the Universe is accelerating today, available here
Barausee et al, The Effect of Inhomogeneities on the Luminosity Distance–Redshift Relation:is Dark Energy Necessary in a Perturbed Universe?, available here
However this paper shows (as does Celerier above), that the inhomogeneity scale must be sub-horizon:
Hirata and Seljak, Can superhorizon cosmological perturbations explain the acceleration of the universe, Phys Rev D 72:083501, available here

As you can see, there is a lot of work going on here looking at possible inhomogeneities to explain the supernovae data without the need for Dark Energy - actually there is a lot more than I referenced here. There is an equal amount of energy going into hypotheses that depend on modified gravity and variances of GR.

Enjoy.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Thanks much for the list. Cosmology is fascinating stuff!

What you said about Humphrey, I could not have said any better. Actually, I could not have said much of anything at all since I am not a physicist. I merely sensed there was something rotten in Denmark, so to speak.

 

[JDaniel]

You have made a dubious epistemological assumption. First, all knowledge begins with sense experience. Intellectual concepts are derived from sensory data. In most cases, common experience is judged reliable. But this, as stated, involves an intellectual judgment. We can judge that the sun moves just as it appears to our senses. However, special experience, such as is the province of the natural sciences, can correct our erring judgment about the sun and tell us that it only “appears” to be rising when in fact it is the earth that is moving.

A similar phenomenon occurs when traveling in a car and a stationary object viewed laterally appears to be moving. It could be a farmhouse “traveling” 50 mph. Intellectual judgment tells us that farmhouses cannot travel nearly that fast. It is an illusion caused by viewing the farmhouse in the distance relative to objects in the foreground. But you leave little room for intellectual judgments on sense knowledge. Your position almost requires you to believe in speeding farmhouses.

Also, if I extend a pole into the water it appears bent. Do I conclude from my visual experience that the pole is bent? According to your statements, it seems that I should.

The fact of not taking into account the distortion of light waves caused by the water is merely a simple example of how you treat more complex matters. You seem to distrust reason to judge matters that may be different than how they appear to the senses. That is the low intellectual level you advocate.

Einstein’s special theory of relativity seems to contradict what our senses tell us. Relativity is so counter-intuitive. Nonetheless, I presume that you summarily dismiss Einstein’s physics. At least you would have to do so to remain consistent with your position. Again, it’s not very intellectual of you.

What papal decree did popes deny? And which popes were these?

Are popes bound by this decree? Is it possible that the decree was ill-advised? (most likely).

What is it that is being denied that has salvation value?

What science is it, that you allude to, that supposedly fits the atheistic principle?

What do you mean by “apply it to the Catholic faith?” This phrase appears ambiguous.

In the past, passages in the bible have been taken to have scientific value. This was true, for example, in regard to passages that referred to the sun. Since we now know better, that constitutes an advancement in biblical exegesis.

This fact does not, in any way, deny the literal sense of scripture as you continue to falsely claim. The literal sense is the basis for the other senses in a text.

Ironically, it is you who denies the literal sense of Scripture. For example, the OT testament speaks of a flat earth resting on pillars; above the earth is the firmament, which separates the upper from the lower waters; rain waters are released through floodgates, and many other things involving a pre-scientific cosmology. We know what the biblical authors meant by pillars, firmament, and so on, but you must deny the literal sense of these passages that portray a small heavens and earth, and impose foreign meanings onto the texts rather than take them literally.

How do you explain your highly inconsistent position?

The only serious problems I see is that you claim to know better about how to interpret the bible, when in fact you appear to have no background in biblical exegesis. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that you are well read, or read at all, in the writings of Church Fathers.

Itinerant:

You seem to have reconciled an old earth with a sincere religious (Catholic) belief. How? Do you have, or, do you know of anyone who has written anything of a “theory” that could help people, especially Catholics, keep their faiths yet walk firmly with paleontology as regards OE reality?

The current writers of apologetics on this seem to lean heavily toward YEC. This confusion makes it tough to walk the walk. I work with dinosaurs and extinct species. I have split apart the layers and happened upon the fossil remains, all older than 10,000 years. I have counted layers of varves. God did not cause varves to occur to trick us.

Can you say something about your understanding of it all?

jd

 

[itinerant1]

Itinerant:

You seem to have reconciled an old earth with a sincere religious (Catholic) belief. How? Do you have, or, do you know of anyone who has written anything of a “theory” that could help people, especially Catholics, keep their faiths yet walk firmly with paleontology as regards OE reality?

The current writers of apologetics on this seem to lean heavily toward YEC. This confusion makes it tough to walk the walk. I work with dinosaurs and extinct species. I have split apart the layers and happened upon the fossil remains, all older than 10,000 years. I have counted layers of varves. God did not cause varves to occur to trick us.

Can you say something about your understanding of it all?

jd

Hello JD,

I can certainly provide you with excellent resources, and will be glad to do so. I can do that probably tomorrow. I have to jump off CAF now, get some ZZZZZZ’s, and then work a graveyard shift.

Talk you later,
Thomas

 

[buffalo]

The conundrum remains. Why would God create a universe to appear ancient when it is not? This idea began fairly recently in Protestant circles. Why anyone would buy into it is beyond me.

Who does God owe this explanation to?

 

[buffalo]

You have made a dubious epistemological assumption. First, all knowledge begins with sense experience. Intellectual concepts are derived from sensory data. In most cases, common experience is judged reliable. But this, as stated, involves an intellectual judgment. We can judge that the sun moves just as it appears to our senses. However, special experience, such as is the province of the natural sciences, can correct our erring judgment about the sun and tell us that it only “appears” to be rising when in fact it is the earth that is moving.

A similar phenomenon occurs when traveling in a car and a stationary object viewed laterally appears to be moving. It could be a farmhouse “traveling” 50 mph. Intellectual judgment tells us that farmhouses cannot travel nearly that fast. It is an illusion caused by viewing the farmhouse in the distance relative to objects in the foreground. But you leave little room for intellectual judgments on sense knowledge. Your position almost requires you to believe in speeding farmhouses.

Also, if I extend a pole into the water it appears bent. Do I conclude from my visual experience that the pole is bent? According to your statements, it seems that I should.

The fact of not taking into account the distortion of light waves caused by the water is merely a simple example of how you treat more complex matters. You seem to distrust reason to judge matters that may be different than how they appear to the senses. That is the low intellectual level you advocate.

Einstein’s special theory of relativity seems to contradict what our senses tell us. Relativity is so counter-intuitive. Nonetheless, I presume that you summarily dismiss Einstein’s physics. At least you would have to do so to remain consistent with your position. Again, it’s not very intellectual of you.

You have given many fine examples that prove the point that what we observe may in fact be not what is really true. We must strive to purify our reasoning and one way is to use Revelation to illuminate it.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Buffalo, right now you are making a stronger case against Catholicism than many atheists (assuming your version of Catholicism is true, which no doubt itinerant will deny).

Who does God owe this explanation to?

It is irrational to gratuitously make it appear that something is otherwise than what it is. Especially if you really want people to know or believe that it is what it is.

There’s no reason why varve counts and C14 decay should correlate so amazingly well in Lake Suigetsu, showing right there an age of at least 50,000 years. There’s no reason why there shouldn’t be shorter-lived naturally occurring radioisotopes if the earth is only 6,000 years old. There’s no reason why there should be so many fossils and them all sorted nicely from less complex life forms to more complex. Etc., etc. God could have seen to it that there either is no Lake Suigetsu, or no varves. God could have seen to it either that some shorter-lived isotopes appear, or some of the longer-lived ones don’t. God could have gotten rid of the fossils. (If He is supposed to miraculously have flooded the entire planet, He could have likewise gotten rid of some of the damage.)

You have given many fine examples that prove the point that what we observe may in fact be not what is really true. We must strive to purify our reasoning and one way is to use Revelation to illuminate it.

You just undercut the whole apologetic basis of Christianity. Congratulations. Even if the witnesses really did observe a risen Christ, it may not in fact have been really true. God just made it appear that a human claiming to be God really did rise from the dead, but it didn’t really happen. Oh, that would make God a deceiver, you complain? And just why does He owe an explanation to you? You now have no basis to argue that Christianity is not, in fact, just a grand deception and illusion.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, right now you are making a stronger case against Catholicism than many atheists (assuming your version of Catholicism is true, which no doubt itinerant will deny).

It is irrational to gratuitously make it appear that something is otherwise than what it is. Especially if you really want people to know or believe that it is what it is.

There’s no reason why varve counts and C14 decay should correlate so amazingly well in Lake Suigetsu, showing right there an age of at least 50,000 years. There’s no reason why there shouldn’t be shorter-lived naturally occurring radioisotopes if the earth is only 6,000 years old. There’s no reason why there should be so many fossils and them all sorted nicely from less complex life forms to more complex. Etc., etc. God could have seen to it that there either is no Lake Suigetsu, or no varves. God could have seen to it either that some shorter-lived isotopes appear, or some of the longer-lived ones don’t. God could have gotten rid of the fossils. (If He is supposed to miraculously have flooded the entire planet, He could have likewise gotten rid of some of the damage.)

You just undercut the whole apologetic basis of Christianity. Congratulations. Even if the witnesses really did observe a risen Christ, it may not in fact have been really true. God just made it appear that a human claiming to be God really did rise from the dead, but it didn’t really happen. Oh, that would make God a deceiver, you complain? And just why does He owe an explanation to you? You now have no basis to argue that Christianity is not, in fact, just a grand deception and illusion.

Why? because we are limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time? You have to claim that that is all there is. I do not. I can be open to natural and supernatural possibilities. You cannot. You have painted yourself into a corner with no way out.

We do not have all the information. What we have is very limited. From this we draw these certain conclusions?

Again - what to make of the left footprints on the beach. Did the generator owe you an explanation? Was the generator a deceiver?

Right you are - and there was a doubting Thomas wasn’t there? And how did Christ respond? He invited him to explore His wounds.

 

[grannymh]

You have given many fine examples that prove the point that what we observe may in fact be not what is really true. We must strive to purify our reasoning and one way is to use Revelation to illuminate it.

Divine Revelation trumps.

Christmas Blessings,
granny

The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

 

[tjm190]

Who does God owe this explanation to?

Well since God is truth, it would seem quite strange for Him to design the universe in such a way that one would reach a false conclusion by studying it- like if I drew a painting and signed it “Picasso.”

 

[tjm190]

Right you are - and there was a doubting Thomas wasn’t there? And how did Christ respond? He invited him to explore His wounds.

But he couldn’t know for sure that the wounds were there, after all

what we observe may in fact be not what is really true.

 

[JDaniel]

Hello JD,

I can certainly provide you with excellent resources, and will be glad to do so. I can do that probably tomorrow. I have to jump off CAF now, get some ZZZZZZ’s, and then work a graveyard shift.

Talk you later,
Thomas

Thomas:

Perfect. Thank you.

jd

 

[Magnanimity]

Alec,

hey, thx for the lengthy reply to my last post. I read it. It wasn’t lost on me. And thx for the link too. I’ll check it out. I doubt that you and I fundamentally disagree on the main issues you raised there. And I certainly understand your concern with YEC.

Best,