bivalve wrote in part:
> It still has the problem of why God would do things this way, as it
> seems simpler to me for Him to simply create things 15 billion years
> ago. However, we do not know why God does things the way He does.
> Also, I do not see Genesis 1 as requiring a recent creation, and thus
> do not feel compelled to assert that the acual age differs from the
> appearance.
I don't think that one has to be "compelled" to assert things either way.
The only point should be whether or not one can rule out either
viewpoint. I think that scientifically they are indistinguishable. Hence
one goes to other philosophical reasons like the "would God lie"
argument.
It minimizes God's talents to say that "because the universe is 15
billion years old (we think) then God must necessarily have created it 15
billion years ago". Surely 15 billion universe years involve more effort
that 10 thousand universe years even for God. To give us a science lesson
doesn't seem like a good reason to me. Rather, I would believe (and I do)
that God had more in mind than just man when he created the universe.
With billions of galaxies with billions of stars, it is difficult not to
conceive of more things going on than just mankind here on earth. The
Bible does not restrict God's actions to just mankind,. We certainly know
of the existence of some other beings (angels) and we know not what else
might be going on.
I think that it reasonable to think that God may have restricted His
creation to thousands of years -- but only if one believes that man is
the sole focus and the universe is " only to demonstrate the Glory of
God"..
IMHO
Walt
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 27 2002 - 22:22:17 EDT