Evidence for God from Science

I am wondering if any of you have heard of him. He is a die hard young earth creationist that I have heard speak on a few occasions. My church is scheduled to have him in early March and I am wondering how I can prepare for him being an old earth creationist.
I want to speak the truth in love and I think most people at church respect my beliefs but I am not sure about him.

waynes world wrote:I am wondering if any of you have heard of him. He is a die hard young earth creationist that I have heard speak on a few occasions. My church is scheduled to have him in early March and I am wondering how I can prepare for him being an old earth creationist.
I want to speak the truth in love and I think most people at church respect my beliefs but I am not sure about him.

I don't know of him personally so I can't suggest much.

I would suggest that you read the articles on the main board that Rich has put up with regard to the scientific "proofs" of young earth creationism. In particular, note that a great many of them that haven't already been outright refuted rely upon projecting processes out, (silt accumulation in the ocean for example) without any counteracting processes. In other words, they focus upon individual rates of a particular process without recognizing that many of those processes are part of a system which has factors that reduce things as well. Without that counteracting process, they make claims like there should be huge amounts of silt, the ocean should be more salty, there should be more helium in the upper stratosphere, etc.

It's highly unlikely that Don Chittuck is going to admit that in front of a congregation. Normal YEC modus operandi is to simply not respond when they are refuted and move onto the next argument.

I'd ask why there are no YEC proponents who do not start first with their scriptural interpretation and then go looking for evidence to support that. If YEC is true or plausible, wouldn't it make sense for at least one impartial scientist to put that forward as a possibility on the basis of the physical evidence alone?

That's one tactic.

The other may be to simply focus upon the exegesis of Genesis 1 & 2 and the use of the word Yom.

I find in these type of situations it's best to focus upon the audience and to plant the idea that YEC not only doesn't have a lot of answers, they don't even know how to ask the question properly.

Not trying to be harsh. Just trying to give a straight answer.

Blessings,

Bart

waynes world wrote:I am wondering if any of you have heard of him. He is a die hard young earth creationist that I have heard speak on a few occasions. My church is scheduled to have him in early March and I am wondering how I can prepare for him being an old earth creationist.
I want to speak the truth in love and I think most people at church respect my beliefs but I am not sure about him.

In other words, ask him where are the scientists that support YEC who are not Christian....

I'll do that. I think he has tried to use non scriptural methods to prove his theory but they are the same old ones that have been disproven. For example I asked him how we can see the light from the stars if the universe is only 10,000 years old. what he told me was that light doesn't travel to earth in a straight line but in a curve. I thought later that a curve would have to be pretty narrow for the universe to be that young which wouldn't be possible. I think the only theory that works for the YECer is the apparent age theory that is that God put the light in transit and made the stars closer than they appear. The problem with that is it makes God a deceiver.

waynes world wrote:I'll do that. I think he has tried to use non scriptural methods to prove his theory but they are the same old ones that have been disproven. For example I asked him how we can see the light from the stars if the universe is only 10,000 years old. what he told me was that light doesn't travel to earth in a straight line but in a curve. I thought later that a curve would have to be pretty narrow for the universe to be that young which wouldn't be possible. I think the only theory that works for the YECer is the apparent age theory that is that God put the light in transit and made the stars closer than they appear. The problem with that is it makes God a deceiver.

In fairness to YEC, it doesn't necessarily have to make God a deceiver. It could simply be that there are elements of the creation process that make it appear that way to us now, because science certainly hasn't figured everything out. It's about God in that regard, not about us. We shouldn't presume that God is accountable to us in that regard.

However, science has come up with some extremely predictive models that explain everything with remarkable accuracy down to the first microseconds of the Big Bang. The problem with some of the YEC claims that the speed of light hasn't always been constant is that they have no satisfactory model, that I've ever seen at least, that explains exactly how such a model could have worked. Moreso, the models they raise to try and overcome actually raise more questions than they answer. That's fine in one sense as there's nothing wrong with asking questions in science. However, to give one theory weight over another there has to be good evidence and YEC appears to be more about casting doubt on what they don't want to accept than actually answering questions.

My opinion anyway.

Bart