Rejecting Six Literal Days - What's the Real Motivation?

When did I ever say science was 100% accurate? Not even close my friend.

I have never said that nor would I.

What I am doing is pointing out the my fellow YEC advocates are using buffet logic in rejecting age of the universe but accepting other claims by science that are derived from the same logic that led to the age measurement.

I really don’t have the time for this.

I really must leave :-)

[Mark_Smith]

I am a neutrino specialist. The answer is mixing of the flavor of neutrinos. This was proposed in the 60s and verified maybe 10 years ago.

Anyway, given the amount of time I have available I am bowing out.

Have a great rest of the week!

Thanks, I guess. Hmmm, I answered the question as accurately as I could from a scientific point, which I believed anyone would agree, the neutrino comment notwithstanding, and then you bow out.

I guess Mark, we just don’t understand what you are getting at. You are trying to prove to us that science (or maybe the study of science - at least cosmology) is pointless if we hold to YEC, which you have stated you believe as well. But I am not sure what you are getting at. Let’s say for the sake of the argument it is pointless, then what? What is the ultimately crux of what you are trying to get at. All of us just don’t understand what you are trying to get at, that is all. I think all of us have said we just don’t know. Is that what makes it pointless. There are a lot of things in cosmology where scientists say “We just don’t know yet”. I am not trying to be a jerk, just truly trying to understand your point.

[Mark_Smith]

When did I ever say science was 100% accurate? Not even close my friend.

I have never said that nor would I.

What I am doing is pointing out the my fellow YEC advocates are using buffet logic in rejecting age of the universe but accepting other claims by science that are derived from the same logic that led to the age measurement.

In that case, then, we are not talking about a difference of quality, but a difference of degree. If you don’t accept the claims of astronomy as 100% accurate (and I didn’t think you did), and I don’t accept those claims as 100% accurate either, we only disagree on the amount of it that could be useful.

The reason for that difference (in my case at least) is scripture. The Bible makes no claims about the distance of other astronomical objects. So if the best science we have currently measures them as millions of light years away, I have no biblical reason to doubt that claim, even though I know science may “change its mind” at some point anyway. Personally, I don’t even doubt our “observed” age of the universe. Assuming we are doing the observations correctly, there is no reason that God could not accomplish something in a 24-hour period (or 6 of them) that would age the earth as he was creating. I accept Genesis 1 (and Exodus 20:11), and I know that while we cannot seem to reconcile the data, in some way something took place during creation that would account for what we are observing, and I don’t think that something needs a “lying” God any more than creating a mature man does. We simply don’t understand the forces that were present during creation, and maybe God wanted us to have a “mature” earth and universe.

The “buffet” as you put it is simply that I accept the Bible first. Where science doesn’t seem to contradict the Bible, I’m much less suspicious of the conclusions drawn from the observations.

It bugs me that he thought I was insulting him earlier. I posted a response here and sent him a PM, but I have seen no response. If anyone knows him can you contact him and have him read my response to him both by post and PM?

I wouldn’t worry too much about it. People tend to drift in and out of conversations, and we all have issues in real life that keep us from checking in. He’ll probably respond at some point, especially if you PMd him.
Just my $0.02

Not to try to resurrect this horse in order it may be beat some more, but …

According to Genesis 1, on what day was the planet earth along with its water created?

says God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep (ie water). So, the earth and water were made on Day 1.

Mark, glad you’re around to opine because my next question is much in your area of expertise.

What happened to the light created on Day 1?

if you are holding to standard YEC then I have no idea. ALMOST ALL YEC reject the cosmic background radiation as relating to this. For example, Danny Faulkner opposes that as being too much like the “evil and godless” big bang and argues it is dust scattering light in the Milky Way (or more weird answers). Note: quotes around evil and godless are mine, not Danny’s.

As for me, the light of creation IS THE LIGHT of the cosmic microwave background radiation. It was visible or shorter wavelengths that have been red-shifted to long wavelengths and we see that light come at us essentially equally from all directions.

I wondered if that might not be a plausible answer. Thanks, Mark.

In other news …