Thread:SouthWriter/@comment-5018798-20130812104509/@comment-1777104-20130829054811

Okay, I'm borrowing code from above! I'll start with your first question:

God's ways are higher than ours. Yes. But what possible line of reasoning could there be that would end up with God putting in a load of information that can be taken to mean other than what actually happened?

You go on to provide the "information" that you are considering, but let me deal first with the idea of "be[ing] taken to mean other than what actually happened." [Emphasis mine.] That is assuming that we humans are coming anywhere close to interpreting the information correctly. As you can see above, I took known information and quite easily explained how it could have come about -- actually happened'. And not only that, it just happens to fit the text. Your examples, though, deal with what came next (after "day one).

Why would light seemingly originate from 17.5 billion years away unless it did?


 * (1) Of course, original "Light" started at the edge of the universe after in had been contained into a sphere (Gen. 1:3). If that was a cloud of hydrogen, my rough estimate would be somewhere around 138 light years from the center. I might be way off, but even a magnitude of a thousand would be a lot smaller than 17.5 billion.


 * (2) But by "day 4" that distance would be apparently around 4 to 5 billion light years away (or whatever the age of the universe is figured to be these days). The 17.5 billion light years is projected based on the observed expansion (movement) since the supposed "big bang." This is the "problem" of starlight and time. There are indeed answers that don't require assuming "deep time."


 * (a) The first two days were the revolution of the original mass around its own axis (days) with the light of the "days" being the shikinah glory cloud of God's presence. Day 3, at the center of the universe, the earth had become a size near what it is now while the universe was created within a couple of thousand light years away, moving away at an accelerating rate from that day on.


 * On day four, all the stars and other planets were formed, being "lit" by God, who then let his "light bearers" do their job. The light may or may not have been traveling at its present speed (THE constant of the general theory of relativity.


 * (b) Light has only been measured inside the gravity well of our solar system. With the Voyager probes reaching the edge of that influence, strange measurements are causing scientists to wonder about some of their assumptions. We know that gravity slows light down (see below) and certainly bends it. So what really is the speed of light between the stars? Without knowing that, our measuring of space goes haywire! Other things, like the laws of motion and gravity, help, but we are left wondering nonetheless.


 * (c) But assuming the Bible is true, the universe has an edge. With that assumption, the theory of relativity works nicely to show that time slows down under great gravity. If that gravity was caused by the sphere of water of Genesis 1:2, then time at the edges and time at the center would be vastly different. And remember, the earth was in the center where the gravity was greatest. The mathematics of it even show "negative" on a graph (meaning "zero" since time doesn't run in reverse). This dip below the line means time "stopped" at the "event horizon (something like a black hole, but not quite).

Why create a dating method for rocks that would give answers that are millions of years old?

That one is a lot easier to answer. The question is, who "created" the dating method? That's right, mankind. More specifically, scientists that wanted to find millions of years on the earth. This does not mean that Hugh Ross of "Reasons to Believe " is wrong, but it does not negate what "young earth" creationists at "Creation Ministries International " and "Answers In Genesis " teach either.


 * (1) Dating rocks by fossils within them is circular reasoning, so it is easy to dismiss. One has to go to radiometric dating methods to get any large numbers.


 * (2) However, when it comes to comparing isotopes and decay rates one has to take a lot of assumptions.
 * (a) What was the original ratio of mother to daughter element?
 * (b) Was the rate constant for the whole time?
 * (c) Was there any leaching into the environment around the specimen.
 * (d) And so forth.


 * (3) Other methods of dating, such as erosion, sediment, planetary drift, and so on, all give vastly shorter periods than radiometric dating.


 * (4) Dating methods, along with "time" itself, are man-made. However, God has given us a record that generally tells us how long mankind has been around. Working backwards, the population lands at eight people around the time of Noah. The evidence from genetics backs up three (or four) female and one male variant lines of DNA. Ancient Egyptian records, adjusted by Scripture and assuming exaggeration and/or co-regencies, back the Bible (which we accept as true).


 * (5) Before man, like the dinosaurs for example, is a construct based on the assumption that these animals died out long before mankind came on the scene (thus denying the clear record in Genesis), even accepting evolution from ape-like ancestors. Again, the population projections alone rule this out. The fossils had to be laid down in massive flooding on the level of continent wide coverage -- that is, world wide. Fossils form no other way. Therefore, Adam saw dinosaurs, and so did Noah. After the flood, the few that rode the ark wondered away to become the "dragons" mentioned in folklore all over the world.

Well, that was quite a load to put on you, David. But remember, I've been at this longer than you have been alive. I am a student of the Bible, though far from a "scholar" and I hope to let it speak for itself in this wiki.

Or are we in fact looking at a picture of two faces when we should be seeing a vase?

I only wish I could use an emoticon here. :-)

You know, one that would turn into an icon. Anyway, Big smiley face!

Yes, it is a matter of perspective. The faces have us looking to the creature, man, instead of to the Creator. To see the vase is to appreciate the "potter" that fashioned it. Same evidence, but totally different conclusions.

I look forward to your work on this wiki. Thank you again for reading what I have to say.