Dwashbur:
“I read them. I haven't seen any explanation of why we have "evening and morning" language before there was a sun or moon.”
My reply:
Thank you for reading them. Now you know what’s already been said. Here is the best explanation I have heard for how there was “evening and morning” before there was sun or moon: “Let there be light.” There was light and darkness before there was a sun or moon, which is what the evening and morning came from. The numbers “the FIRST day” etc also add context clues to defining the time “yom”.
Keep in mind this is part of the Creation model, so it will of course conflict with evolution-related theories about the creation of our planet/universe.
“That's amusing coming from a guy who also has a book about "logical fallacies," because that's a logical fallacy itself.”
My reply:
Please explain how this is a local fallacy.
“Who says the earth had to be fully formed in order for light from those distant stars to reach the place it would eventually occupy?”
My reply:
So your argument is that the stars existed long enough before the Earth that the light had time to get there? Please show me what scientist or science book this theory comes from, because I haven’t heard it before?
“I've seen all the "creation with apparent age" arguments, and any way you slice it, they make God deceptive.”
My reply:
There are more arguments than just “creation with apparent age” although I agree that’s the one I hear most when I bring this topic up with believers. I agree, that argument makes God deceptive, it goes against what we already know for a fact about Him—he has not and will not lie.
“Believe me, I've tried to reconcile this and it just can't be done.”
My reply:
If “creation with apparent age” is the only argument you’ve encountered, then you haven’t explored all the options. Dr. Lisle had a video specifically on this topic you can watch online free here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...tant-Starlight
“Dr. Lisle is tilting at windmills…”
My reply:
I’m afraid I’ve never heard this expression before so I can’t really understand your meaning. I was born in America but grew up (Kindergarten through two years college) in Germany. I attended 2 additional years of college in America prior to joining the military and had my first assignment in Japan from 04-08. I’m currently stationed stateside, which effectively is my first time ever living there. America tends to be more foreign to me than overseas. So I mean no disrespect asking about an expression. Assuming it is an American expression, there are many I’m still learning.
Now if I take your meaning this way: “Dr. Lisle is…frankly he’s not doing a very good of it.”
Have you read “The Ultimate Proof of Creation”? What works of his did you experience that led you to think he is not doing very good at it?
Perhaps you’d like to join Tut and myself. Tut is working on obtaining that book so he can read it and then is able to comment regarding it. He is interested in writing some questions and/or criticisms to Dr. Lisle in feedback, and Dr. Lisle normally responds. I am also interests in the responses so I have offered to help however I can. Are you interested in also writing a feedback?
So far things have been decently respectful to everyone involved, please keep in mind we want to continue that. We will respect whatever you come here believing and whomever you point us to as a reference, and expect the same in return.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ebaines:
“I strongly suggest that we NOT get into a debate on this forum about the scientific validity of dating methods. Instead, I suggest that you post a question in the science forums on this topic. That way you'll get some good, accurate information on dating techiques.”
My reply:
I’ve been in message boards that went far deeper into this subject that my education anywhere near qualifies me to give input. There happened to be evolution-believing scientists using that board. There was an agreement to disagree, and so I’d expect similar to result in another board I participate in. Would that continue to be worthwhile to you?
“However, I'll follow along ith your hypothetical question - suppose (hypothetically) that all the dating techniques are wrong. Say they're all off by a factor of 2 or 3, which would be a huge error. Hypothetically that would mean that the earth could be as young as 1 billion years old, right?”
My reply:
Thank you for agreeing to this hypothetical question, but I’m afraid you misunderstand what I meant. If all the dating techniques are “wrong”, then I’m not saying they are off by 2 or 3. I’m saying what if they are entirely wrong? No number they produce is valid? What happens when basically dating techniques that produce a result of even one million years must be thrown out?
Again, this is hypothetical. I’m not asking to dig deep into the techniques themselves or even to use math.
“In addition - besides showing that there may be some amount of error in all current techniques, you need to propose an alternate technique that can be verified experimentally which provides positive evidence for an earth that is 6000 years old, plus or minus thousand years or so.”
My reply:
To my knowledge, there exists no technique like what you have in mind that is valid or accurate for the age of the Earth. There are too many variables we don’t and can’t know (assumptions) involved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elscarta:
From your post I assume you are a teacher or professor. Pleased to meet you and thanks for joining the discussion.
Your post appears heated. Neither of us will learn anything from each other if one or both of us is heated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To All:
What began as a simple discussion seems to have become an all-against-one. This is starting to feel less like simply explaining a perspective and more like a debate threatening to get in-depth technical.
