Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
12,071
edits
Changes
→YEC v. OEC
::''And even if some of scripture were wrong (say God himself comes down and says "Genesis was true, but not literal") why does that neccessitate that Jesus was not our savior?'': See my chronologically-previous post above about correctness vs. trustworthiness.
::''And even if some of scripture were wrong (say God himself comes down and says "Genesis was true, but not literal") why does that neccessitate that Jesus was not our savior?'': See my chronologically-previous post above about correctness vs. trustworthiness.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:18, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:18, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::In answer to your questions: as to 800,000 layers of ice, you're forgetting one big event that probably laid those layers down in ''one'' year instead of 800,000: the [[Great Flood]].
::The light-time problem takes just a little bit longer to explain. The best model I have seen is the "white-hole" theory by D. Russell Humphreys. That model--which relies on the general theory of [[relativity]], BTW--states that the universe began, ''not'' with an explosion of all of space from a point, but rather with the introduction--through a white hole--of lots of matter ''into'' what was once empty space, with nothing in it. So much matter came through, in fact, that the universe was too dense for the kind of space-time continuum that we're familiar with. The original space-time continuum had ''four'' dimensions of space and ''none'' of time.
::Gradually, beginning at the edges, this matter began to thin out, and time began to flow. But toward the center, time did not flow until about 6,000 years ago.
::So: the ''earth'' is 6,000 years old, because 6,000 years of time has flowed near the earth. The rest of the cosmos might be far older--by a clock in the fringes of space. By ''our'' clocks, it's all 6,000 years old, but the stars on the fringes have undergone accelerated aging.
::Maybe you didn't know that Albert Einstein figured out long ago that time was not uniform. Time, and the flow of time, depend on your frame of reference. And the concept "frame of reference" includes more than position and its derivatives (velocity, acceleration) with respect to time. "Frame of reference" also includes the strength of the local gravity field--because what ''is'' gravity, except the ''curvature'' of space? And, of course, time always flows ''more slowly'' at the bottom of any gravity well than at the top.
::The Scriptural reference to "four corners" actually translates as four ''winds''--the four points of the compass. So that doesn't violate physical laws, either. Other verses in Scripture are amply consistent with a rounded earth.
::Now about "peer review": I have the direct experience of "peer review." "Peer review" means a bunch of guys sitting around a table and asking each other, "Is this guy for real, or are his theories just flat-out too outrageous to be true?" And contrary to what you might think--and I know this because I've been there--"peer reviewers" are human, too, and they have a human weakness: that they always seek consensus, because they're not willing to think for themselves. And so a creationist submits a paper, and nobody wants even to review it, because his theories are too outrageous for them even to admit the possibilities. Nothing nefarious (well, sometimes it is, but not usually); just a case of "[[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong|His theory cannot possibly work under our theories, and so his theory must be wrong]]."
That one [[logical fallacy]] has blinded more men to more great scientific discoveries than has any other. It's really simple to fall into through no fault of one's own. It blinded me, too, for many years, until--well, [[John Newman]], the former slave trader, said it best, didn't he? "I once was lost, but now am found;/Was blind, but now I see."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 21:40, 6 July 2007 (EDT)