Stunning victory of Creation

From Setterfield's response. Feel free to verify this yourself or if you are not satisfied, I will be glad to follow up myself with Barry:

 

In any case, the changing speed of light option is ruled out for reasons outlined before.

I used too old a paper for my initial response. I don't suppose you have the name of Anderson's paper? I could probably find it with Google Scholar. There are a ton of papers on this topic listed there. Scanning a few, it seems that the leading contenders seem to be dealing with some aspect of relativity that had not been previously applied to the problem

 

Ruled out? Why? Because in a working theory all of the questions and objections haven't been answered?

That is very inconsistent of you. You yield great latitude to scientists whose theories congruent to naturalism encounter difficulties.

Which part of relativity? Mass?

 

"Ruled out? Why? Because in a working theory all of the questions and objections haven't been answered?"

No, because it is incompatible with observations. I posted a long explantion of this earlier.

 

And I will quote Augustine.

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are."

 

Of course the great scientific minds of Augustine's time argued that the universe was static and eternal. It was the ignorant Christian that insisted that the universe had a beginning because the Bible said so.

Now science has largely validated the contention that the universe had a beginning... which basically necessitates a cause that transcends nature. So the argument becomes not whether the universe began but when. That then "evolves" into an debate over who God is, what He is capable of, and what He said He did.

 

"Now science has largely validated the contention that the universe had a beginning... which basically necessitates a cause that transcends nature."

You forget that you are not dealing with an atheist. We worship the cause.

 

It appears that there is a difference of opinion about Humphrey's theory! That doesn't mean he is incorrect.

 

"It appears that there is a difference of opinion about Humphrey's theory! That doesn't mean he is incorrect."

A simple difference of opinion does not mean he is wrong. His idea being incompatible with observations is a strong indication that it is wrong, however. Predictions that follow logically from his idea are not observed.

I have read that not a single expert in relativity has ever backed his ideas. Can you name any that have? For that matter, I do not think that Humphreys has any formal expertice in relativity himself so even referring to his book is a fallacious appeal to authority. He has no standing in relativity to make such claims.

 

Let's look to move in a slightly different direction. This time, let's see if we have creationist explanations for certain observations. I'm going for angular uncomformities.

What are angular uncomformities? These are places where layers have been laid down. Then the layers are tilted at an angle. Then the layers are eroded down some. Then additional layers are laid down on top of these. Go here to see some pictures from the Grand Canyon.

http://www.casdn.neu.edu/~geology/department/staff/naylor/geo1212/gc_unc.htm

Now the question becomes, just how were these layers created in a young earth? MostYEers like to say that all the layers were laid down in the flood. But that does not leave a way for some layers to de deposited, hardened into rock, tilted, eroded, and then covered with additional deposits. Some have suggested that the tilted layers were original. This cannot be because some of the basal layers are limestone. You cannot have an original layer that has fossils in it.

Any ideas with logic and evidence to support it?

 

"Have you ever thought that God just created them that way?"

Could be...but why? Why make a few layers with fossils, then a layer that looks like a asteroid impact complete with a huge hole in the earth, then make some more layers with different fossils this time?

"This may be a "Christian" website, but it is definitely "biased" at eliminating any belief in Young Earth nd from what little I saw, also appears to push the evolution theory that I have more problem with than old Earth theory."

I think they fall more under intelligent design. Look closer, you will find material critical of evolution. Besides, the point was to show flaws in Humphreys reasoning for those that wanted to read a longer article.

"I guess this is where I am having such a problem with this because of the mixed messages I seem to be getting. One one hand, we allegorize Genesis and say that 21st century scentific evidence doesn't support it, but we support the NT (because, why? I haven't figured out yet.)"

It is a search for the truth. God's special revelation in the Bible will not conflict with His general revelation in the Creation. Some of us do not think that the message changes if the creation account is non-literal. Doing the same to the Gospels does change the message.

 

Remember, I was once young earth. I have faced the problem of coming across something challenging to my faith and survived it with my faith.

 

I am also with Phillip and the other 69.

Mike Gascoigne
Anno Mundi Books
www.annomundi.co.uk