Evidence for a Young Sun

[Anita]

Me:

Yeah so what? I posted part of this post in the forum of "Creation Talk" pertaining to the similar converstion.

You:

so what? that's your answer to the last question?

You must have deleted your post from above because I wrote that after you posted a post saying “double post”.

Anyways Himan, as for your refutal about the moon, I don't think you fully comprehended what I said above, therefore I think you need to reread it and RETHINK IT!

[Anita]

xoxo

[zoegirl]

If you are going to go this route, then forget about using ANY evidence...forget about the math and calculation for anything.

I mean, this is ok as far as it goes, but really what you are saying is that God's creation cannot be trusted to make any conclusions. IN which case we can essentially say ANYTHING and decalre it to be so.

hey, I say the sky is green, after all it really is just a matter of faith and you can't tell me otherwise and how can you REALLY tell.
there is no gravity, it is only are thinking that makes it so....this is essentially your philosophy.

Good grief, NO WONDER you don't like dealing with evidence. NO wonder you get upset over technicalities.

[Anita]

That is correct Zoe! Now you can see my whole basis of rationale.

[zoegirl]

OKAY, didn't realize that you think God's creation is so untrustworthy

That's fine, but forget about ANY evidence. Any YEC calculation are just as null and void as any OEC.


Just a question then. Do you take medicine? DO you go to the doctor? DO you drive over bridges? Use any sort of technology?

[Anita]

OKAY, didn't realize that you think God's creation is so untrustworthy

Zoe, this is not what I am saying.

[Anita]

Just a question then. Do you take medicine? DO you go to the doctor? DO you drive over bridges? Use any sort of technology?

Yes, medicines

[zoegirl]

OKAY, didn't realize that you think God's creation is so untrustworthy

Zoe, this is not what I am saying. What I'm saying is that everything is designed so that we can see G-d through FAITH! G-d is in no way untrustworthy as He wants us to look BEYOND the material aspects of things. He want us to see that the whole Universe is designed by Him.

I don't disagree. And the whole of creation reveals His glory. I am not disputing that. But the question remains. Is HIS CREATION reliable and PREDICTABLE.

IF the answer is yes, then we can reliably OBSERVE the rules that He has established and make predictions. If we observe aspects of the speed of light then we can trust these observations to make certain conclusions from them.

If we understand population growth and have information about the populations in the past, we can understand how the human popualtion increased. That is simply a matter of establishing equations and facts. That is not mysterious.


But I did not say that you thinkn God is untrustworthy. I am saying you think GOd's creation is untrustworthy. YOu said

And this is the idea that in all actuality I'm not sure if anything we see is truly “material”,

it becomes questionable if what we are actually seeing is truly what's really out there?

We can liken this to a camera that is another manmade tool that can fool the human eye with depth perception. Like a camera that views a small fly sitting on a leaf, only the camera views the fly as something huge and the tree and leaf as something small (especially if we take a close up shot of it). Though to us we can relate that that is a small fly sitting on a huge leaf attached to a tree, but the camera cannot decipher this difference. So when our telescopes look out into space we have no clue what things are really supposed to look like because this is not our known environment that we come in contact with on a daily basis. We cannot know whether or not a star is big or small, close or far away because we cant decipher what the background is supposed to be.

In the first quote you essentially say that we cannot trust what we see. Again, that's fine if you want to go there, but essentally this means we cannot trust what our eyes, ears, noses, skin, and our brain tell us.

IN the second quote, you want to simply declare that we cannot know anything and the implication is so why bother? Again, that's fine, but there are means to understand some of what is out there. Now, if you want to debate those means, that's fine, but we have some very good reliable means. Now, please understand, I have no problem saying that we don't have all the answers, or that we will never completely understand everything. But our CURRENT understanding is based on GOd's observable creation. UNless you have the means to establish that these are unreliable, then your declarations about those images are just that, nice declarations.

We should inherently know that the world is not just defined by our subjective perception. John 20:29 - J-sus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

[/quote]

But for the part of it that is objective, we can RELY on it. We can test it, we can observe i, we can look upon it and say, "wow, those are the rules that God established" .

That is why I asked if you take medication. (Not to imply anything, sorry!! DIdn't realize that it could be taken that way when I wrote it!!). You take medicine, you drive across bridges, you know that the creation is predictable and trustworthy. If some method of examining the universe is invalid, then you must show why (instead of resorting to jsut some vague "It's jsut a theory" or we aren't out in space). OTherwise, where do you draw the line?

And for the record, notice that Christ did not condemn Thomas for wanting evidence. He came and allowed THomas to examine His wounds. His has a physcial body that Thomas could examine.

[Anita]

I don't disagree. And the whole of creation reveals His glory. I am not disputing that. But the question remains. Is HIS CREATION reliable and PREDICTABLE.

Zoe, I really sometimes don't understand you. One minute you believe and the next minute you are refuting.

[zoegirl]

I don't disagree. And the whole of creation reveals His glory. I am not disputing that. But the question remains. Is HIS CREATION reliable and PREDICTABLE.

Zoe, I really sometimes don't understand you. One minute you believe and the next minute you are refuting.

Ok, just because I reject your conclusion, does not mean that I reject the premise. I agree that scripture says that creation reveals His glory.

Let's for the record establish what I believe because for some reason, you just don't understand what I am arguing.

I believe that God created the universe.

I believe we have ample evidence from His creation that this universe is billions of years old.- either you must show me that the means of fining this evidence is wrong, or God's creation was established with apparent age.

I don't think we have any reason from scripture to doubt this or call this into question, in other words, scripture is quiet on whether the creation was diferent before the fall,. I don't think ex nihilo means we have to reject a means. In other words, we don't have to think that everything just poofed.

I believe that all of creation reveals HIs glory.

I believe that His creation is a true testament to Him

I believe that HIs scripture is innerrant and that it, also, is a true testament to Him.

If there IS an apparent conflict between the two, it is out LIMITED FINITE understanding of creation and scripture that is at fault: either our understanding of creation is wrong, or our understanding of scripture is wrong

I believe that the Hebrew in Genesis is such that an interpretation of Yom can mean a long period of time.

Currently I am a progressive creationist, alhtough as long as the sovereingty og God is upheld I probably wouldn't be adverse to extending this idea. I don't believe that ev nihilo means that GOd "poofed" animals into existence.

God is intimately invovled with His creation, both during the creation, and sustains the creation now.

Genesis reveals that God's creation was deliberate, powerful, and planned. There was nothing random or surprising in the creation.

That, in a nutshell, is what I believe.

If you are looking for proof and evidence of G-d, you are looking in all the wrong places by trying to debate such diabolical subjects.

I am not looking for proof or evidence of God. (When in the world did I ever say I was?!?!....I am a committed Christian, fully convinced of His existence ) I am examinin g HIS CREATION!!!

I do have the answer for you though, and it is a reliable and predictable, as well as a UNIVERSAL source.

Try examining Phi and its relationship with our earth, living things, the speed of light, and other planetary bodies. For starters Phi is a Universal contingent. Soon enough, you will find that Phi applies to ALL THINGS even DNA.

Ummm what??!? Please elaborate as you are making no sense whatsoever. The golden ratio is indeed stunning and it's applications in nature are beuatiful, but you must enlighten me as to what your are implying.

Is this what you are meaning?!?? http://www.holyconspiracy.com/archives/phi.htm or perhaps this http://www.championtrees.org/yarrow/phi/phi4.htm


If you are trying to convince me that God exists through this order (which I am just guessing, since you are being remarkably vague and needlessly mysterious), you don't have to convince me. I believe in God.

EVEN THE VERY FIRST VERSE OF GENESIS (in Hebrew) (which talks about creation). When you can link up the Hebrew to that of Phi, you will find your long awaited answer.

DO enlighten me, you are being needlessly vague and myseterious.

Good luck, I cannot breech any farther than this for you, since it is YOU who must come to terms with this on your own.

Well, another cop-out...

[Himantolophus]

You must have deleted your post from above because I wrote that after you posted a post saying “double post”.

Anyways Himan, as for your refutal about the moon, I don't think you fully comprehended what I said above, therefore I think you need to reread it and RETHINK IT!

my bad... I thought I double posted and I didn't see a delete button. when I realized I didn't double post, I had to retype what I have in that post again. I guess it was a coincidence that you doubled your post too.

for the second paragraph... why should I? Science's explanation is better!

[Himantolophus]

Anita: you have this post about the Universe being not at it seems and the laws of this and that not being constant. If you believe that nothing is as it seems, or nothing is real, then how can you study any aspect of God's creation? Why would God want to confuse Man so much? Why do you make what we see into some sort of illusion? Do you do this because none of the evidence matches YEC?

The evidence should speak for itself... God has no need to decieve us. It is absolutely clear that the Earth is old. I still want to see your list of evidence in favor of Young Earth/Universe (NOT EVIDENCE AGAINST OR ATTACKS ON EVOLUTION). We already know you question evolution. It has to be Earthly evidence from this planet or outside that the Earth is 6000 years old. I'll take anything at this point.

[Anita]

Zoe,

Ok, I understand now. But you must know that you yourself are very vague between what you believe and what you are trying to prove in these posts. To me its just a lot of hot air.

[zoegirl]

Okaaay

One cannot help but to know that who ever wrote Genesis was indeed the creator. An all knowing, all-powerful and all-pervading being. In a literal pinch (with this knowledge) nobody in their right mind could deny that any of it is even a lie.If G-d said He created things in a 6 literal days, you better believe He did!

<sigh> I have no idea where you get the idea that I am wishy washy. I have been straightforward. I am a CHrsitian, I am OEC, I am progressive creationist. THe times I have criticized you with resepct to your creationist arguements have either been because they use bad science (YEC population studies, age of earth) or bad arguments (lucy's pelvis, lack of evidence, lack of sources).


About the only thing I am really disagreeing with is the six days. (although your ramblings on the golden ratio seem to border on mysticism...not really going to get into this)

If you had access to this information you would not have the current mind set that you have now, and would certainly not be wishy-washy about believing in an old earth.

But I am not wishy washy about the belief in the old earth!

truthfully I am not qualified to even teach it. This is in no way a cop out (as you suggested earlier) it is the plain honest truth. I would not even know where to begin teaching such stuff

Why do you make it so ridiculously hard?!?! If this is some incredible new enlightened perspective, I would think you would want to provide as much infomration as possible. A couple of good sources would be a start. If you don't feel confident in teaching it, then simply provide sources!!!

[Anita]

Thats the problem Zoe, there arent any sourses on the internet that I could cite.