6 day creation..could it appear as billions of years

Faith & Science Conversation
41

But if scripture says God did not then God did not. If it says God did then it says God did. It doesn’t matter if you or I like or understand it. There are plenty of things (rape, genocide, misogyny) that literalist Christians take as true commands from God in the Bible. Making light in transit or creating fossils and a history to the world for humans to investigate is pretty low on the objection list to me. Personally, as one who thinks evolution is correct, I find this model of the universe (with cancer, death, disease, natural disaster, primate aggression and so on where life has to feed off other life to survive and a “fall” that didn’t really seem to do very much) a lot more theologically difficult than a mature creation. It’s not even close to be honest. Planted dinosaur bones vs a walk through a children’s cancer ward? To be fair, most YECs don’t believe in planted bones even with nature creation I am guessing. They have flood geology. But for me, as a Christian, none of the solutions jump out theologically as superior. I think God’s world is amazing but there are many things in it I do not understand or agree with. That theological issue cuts all ways. We don’t get to tell God how to create a universe and there is no guarantee we will agree with how he created the one we inhabit. When an evolutionary Christians talk about “mature creation being deceptive” it’s all smoke and mirrors unless they are very honest about the much larger theological problems their view brings.

As I have said, I do not find the term “false” very useful in this framework. I agree the fossil question is very tough. Bones of animals that never actually lived. But other things like light in transit are not really difficult. God made lights for humans and in order to function as such, that light needed to reach us in a timely fashion and was made in transit. You, like me, assume light must have come from a star and travelled for years through space. But why does that light have (necessarily) to had travelled all the way through space? Why could it not have been created in transit at a specific time in the past? Tracing it back you are assuming methodological naturalism has no limits and can go backwards into the past as far as you want it to. You are assuming God could not or did not create it in transit (or lacking belief in that). At the end of the day, logically, you cannot justify that position. You accept it on faith. You are so entrenched in this position that you see anything else as false or fake or deceptive. I actually agree with that position but on logical grounds, I see it for what it is, something taken on faith that cannot be scientifically proven. We know how light behaves today and can model it and make predictions. There is no logical necessity saying what we know of science has to be or should be projected 14 billion years into the past. If anything is false or deceptive it is accepting and touting that standard as absolute truth and judging everything else by it. The models are consistent for sure going backwards but that just means the mature creation has order through and through.

When Jesus makes bread and fish as a miracle, do they have a false history? Is is wrong that the bread wasn’t actually baked? That the fish didn’t actually swim and grow? The fish had the appearance of other fish that grew in those lakes, the appearance of a specific type of bread made and baked in a specific way in a specific part of the world.m? Does this make Jesus dishonest? There is something silly in imagining God could not make light in transit or an earth with a “prehistory” or that doing so is somehow false especially when, in this framework, he tells us how he created it. It seems far too many Christians are too comfortable in telling God He could not make a metamorphic rock because that would imply a prehistory not there…. That is bad theology. I’ll raise it a double-feeding miracle in the Gospels where Jesus makes mature fish and bread.

Maybe try it this way. Rather than “false history” we can say God made a mature creation with a logic that we could discover His thinking in how he created and ordered it (what we incorrectly perceive as its history past its narrated beginning). To say it never actually happened is true but misses the point because it is how God designed it. Instead of discovering ancient history we are simply discovering the logic and order of God’s thinking in designing a cosmos fit for humans. That is not God being deceptive, just you confusing what your research is actually discovering because you choose not to accept what the Creation accounts from God clearly narrate. Science works so well because it is discovering how God ordered and designed and built the cosmos. Deception gone and replaced by human error.

So do you start with science and assume it’s discovering history back 14 billion years or do you start with God’s word and assume science is discerning the order in how God chose to makea mature universe for humans?

I think this latter view wrong, just not on the basis of deception. I’m not convinced the Bible teaches it and truth be told, as was pointed out earlier, there is no way to actually distinguish between a mature and non-mature creation aside from direct Revelation from God.

I’d say you are missing common nuance. From another page there:

“God’s written Word distinguishes His special communication to man as immeasurably superior to all other supposed revelations. God has vindicated His Word, and His Book is a genuine writing, with prophecies and revelation that must be taken seriously.”

They just mean that God and humans wrote it simultaneously. That is it not all dictated directly by God does not mean God did not write it all. They are saying dictation applies to prophecy where it’s prefaced by “The Lord says” or something like that: The Chicago statement on Biblical inerrancy:

There you have it. Another paradox (this one I do not subscribe to). God wrote it and humans wrote it at the very same time. AIG doesn’t believe the Bible includes mere research from Moses. Human research is fallible. The usual proof-text hunt comes from 2 Timothy 3:16-17… all scripture is God-breathed.

AIG Godbresthed

If you don’t think AIG thinks the very words of the Bible are God’s words and all of them are completely true and correct and serve as the highest intellectual authority there is, you are not paying attention.

Why do the photons need to come from the star? I’m not following at all. A photon is a photon. When God made the stars he made the photons that go with all of them as well. Those are those star’s photons because God—the Lord and King of the universe— made them as such. Every photon we see (created in “transit”) was made by God for that specific star and placed where it was just like every other piece of matter in that star was. What more evidence do you need “Oh ye of little faith” :wink: I think that response misses the elephant in the room. Everything was created by God exactly where it is and needs to be for the climax of his creation: human beings.

The rock layers appear to have started out straight? That seems to beg the question. The sun appears to rise too. Appearance isn’t reality at times. That is your modern science prejudice being applied to them. That they must have started out straight is purely your opinion from understanding geology and physics post-creation 6,000 years ago. The fact that you feel you can trace the logical order in God’s mature creation (science) back past a time when God tells us He created the universe is just your opinion. God made a mature creation with a logic so ordered and amazing it is entirely consistent. We can discover God’s thinking in designing the cosmos (what we confuse with history). The processes are so wonderful and reflecting of their Creator that they can mistakenly be traced back to a time before God created us. But it’s not His fault if you don’t listen to His word and accept creation when and how He says it occurred.

Ultimately I agree with you but

P the Bible is God’s word—His revelation to us.
P Adam and Eve are made mature in the Bible.
P God says let there be and things come to be in the Bible. No millions of years.
P God makes the luminaries for humans in the Bible
P the luminaries are too far away for their light to be seen by humans (science)

Conclusion: when God made the luminaries he made their light in transit. They would not function for humans as intended otherwise.

This is not a hard argument to make. :person_shrugging: Fossils are a bigger challenge than light. But as I said to T above

When Jesus makes bread and fish as a miracle, do they have a false history? Is is wrong that the bread wasn’t actually baked? That the fish didn’t actually swim and grow? The fish had the appearance of other fish that grew in those lakes, the appearance of a specific type of bread made and baked in a specific way in a specific part of the world. Does this make Jesus dishonest? There is something silly in imagining God could not make light in transit or an earth with a prehistory or that doing so is somehow false especially when, in this framework, he tells us how he created it. It seems far too many Christians are too comfortable in telling God He could not make a metamorphic rock because that would imply a prehistory not there…. That is bad theology. I’ll raise it a double-feeding miracle in the Gospels where Jesus makes mature fish and bread.

I’m not telling God He can’t make a folded rock. I’ll leave that braver theologians.

I’ve read some thoughts from Maimonides but like you said, these are rare views. Latching on to obscure views from the past seems desperate. None of them knew science. I mean is anyone’s interpretation of Genesis 1-3 in the first 1900 years of Christian history even remotely trustworthy? None of them really know what we know about the world and its history. It might all be mostly useless.

42

"When Jesus makes bread and fish as a miracle, do they have a false history? Is is wrong that the bread wasn’t actually baked? " It may be useful to distinguish between apparent age and apparent history. The fish would be the same size as what normally takes a while to grow. But if it included bones and not just meat, the bones would not need to have growth lines. Making fish and bread and wine instantaneously requires a certain apparent age, but not the apparent history that must be explained if creation is actually young. Schroeder’s relativity solution actually avoids that - the history is real; the short time is simply from a very high speed viewpoint and an observer on earth would see geologic history take place over a few billion years.

“is anyone’s interpretation of Genesis 1-3 in the first 1900 years of Christian history even remotely trustworthy? None of them really know what we know about the world and its history” To be precise, by the late 1600’s people began to suspect that the earth was rather old on scientific grounds and by the mid-1770’s it was definite that science supports an ancient earth. Astronomical history doesn’t get much discovery before the 1900’s, and actual dates rather than “really long ago” are also a 20th century development, but the basic situation has been known for somewhat longer.

However, in their approach to understanding the Bible, we can get some useful insights from earlier thinkers. Many thought that Genesis 1 was not particularly talking about an actual calendar week. They were rightly skeptical of mythical claims about humans in the distant past. Lacking good historical evidence of greater age of the earth, they generally thought that it wasn’t too old, but did not have the modern YEC error of taking the Bible as modern science. (Although it is true that most early church writers were strongly influenced by Greek thought and not as in touch with traditional Hebrew thought as might be ideal for comprehension.)

5 Likes
43

The universe was created this morning. It just appeared like 13.7 billion years.

All the latter statement does is leach all meaning out of the claim that the universe was created this morning and make no more than empty words.

Likewise, if you want to plaster an empty label of “seven days” over the appearance according to all measurable evidence of 13.7 billion years, then by all means do so if it makes you feel better.

The making of golems out of stuff like dust or bone is same magic we see in games and novels of fantasy… attributed to wizardry or necromancy.

Fabricating evidence of something which isn’t true is not only deception but the worst kind of deception.

Indeed why should we worry about the discomfort of believing God is a complete and total liar in the very worst way. (sarcasm font)

44

Your derogatory characterization of that interpretation of scripture is just loud noise. It offers nothing of substance. Games and novels are not considered God-breathed in Christian thought. Scripture is considered God-breathed and two genealogies trace humanity back to Adam. It is quite clear that several Biblical authors took the Genesis story seriously and several also took the alleged flood that killed all of humanity (minus 8) very seriously as well. We take the Biblical stories serious and make every effort to accept or apologize for what we believe the accounts teach or intend to teach because we think it’s ultimate inspiration comes from God. So please stop trying to compare a literal interpretation of Genesis with a literal interpretations of Dungeons and Dragons or whatever Harry Potter nonsense you are comparing it to. If you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion besides depreciating language and childish vitriol, maybe keep your fingers off the keyboard?

That is typical old earth creationism and I have not advocated or discussed that once in this thread to my knowledge. I am not sure why you are bringing it up.

Your claim that (an example I assume you agree with) the light must have originated from the andromeda galaxy several millions years ago is just as fabricated. Logically both solutions are possible. It came from the galaxy. God made the light in transit to match as if it did come from that galaxy. There is no deception here. God made the luminaries for humans. Let us follow the train of thought listed above:

P the Bible is God’s word—His revelation to us.
P Adam and Eve are made mature in the Bible.
P God says let there be and things come to be in the Bible. No millions of years.
P God makes the luminaries for humans in the Bible
P the luminaries are too far away for their light to be seen by humans (science)

Conclusion: when God made the luminaries he made their light in transit. They would not function for humans as intended otherwise.

This is how a lot of Christian thought works. It how your thought works. Of the two of us you are the one that actually believes in a literal Adam. I didn’t know the characters we see in games and novels with wizards and necromancies making golems involved real people. It’s cute how you reject 80% of what the account narrates but arbitrarily retain some minute historicity because you think there was a historical Robin Hopd and Santa Claus. You are engaged in Christian harmonization and force fitting like the rest of us. Don’t pretend to be any different.

And my response would be, you are imposing your worldview onto scripture. The deception is all in your head because you have been conditioned to view the world in a specific way. God told you when and how the world was created. That you don’t want to believe God made a mature creation in 6 days is your business.

45

This is a very subtle distinction I must gestate on it a bit. It has the initial appearance of plausibility but something inside me is telling me it may be artificial. So a few questions:

[1] How does baked break not have an appearance of history? The bread surface browned from mallard reaction that never happened in a fire that never existed? A fake history of amino acids combining with carbohydrates in the presence of heat that didn’t exist? Not to mention the ingredients themselves. Flour in the bread from wheat that never existed (unless you think Jesus poached some existing wheat)? I mean baked bread has every appearance of a history of being baked in ovens that didn’t exist heated by imaginary logs in a nonexistent fire.

[2] I am assuming the fish Jesus served was not raw (sashimi anyone). Maybe I am wrong but how does cooked fish not have the appearance of history? The fibers shrunk which would make me assume they were heated. The proteins were denatured leading to the same conclusion. How is cooked fish not appearing as being cooked? I mean everyone who lives next to the Sea of Galilee knows how you go from raw fish to cooked fish. The fish had fire char marks on it from a fire that never happened? The fish had developed muscles, bone and flesh it never used?

[3] Everyone knows grapes fermented into wine. How does one drink wine without it having the appearance and taste of being fermented grapes? Grapes that never existed grown in vineyards that never existed? Was it the purest deionized wine imaginable? Not a single contaminant?

So I am not sure the appearance of age vs history distinction is valid. I may be wrong. I await your response.

You bring up an argument about the bones not needing growth lines. The fish and bread being cooked have the same problem to me. T also mentioned/asked would Adam have had calcium deposits from bones he never broke. A strong point. Very strong. And yes, fossils from animals that never were are especially troubling. All good points. Forceful but are they insuperable in the literalist framework? Creation is hardly perfect (good as scripture says). We know that people are born blind (per Jesus) just so the Lord’s power can be made manifest through them. It may be as I said before, all this was to give us something to do, to see design etc. Or maybe the fall screwed up all of reality past-present and future. I honestly fully admit I do not have a good answer for bones and many things. I don’t find light in transit problematic biblical. Bones of animals that never existed is. But here are a few more questions for you:

  1. Do I have to fully understand or agree with everything God does? For example, God could have made one solar system and one planet or one galaxy. Does God need many or did God choose many?

  2. is it possible there is a reason to those bone lines and tree rings we just don’t understand? I have put forth several ideas in this discussion, some far fetched because I admit there is not a good answer or at least I don’t have one.

  3. If scripture teaches something I don’t understand or agree with, should I accept it as true? I understand we can dispute what scripture teaches but that is not my question. How far are we to trust scripture?

  4. Can God make a metamorphic rock?

Last but not least:

  1. Is it so much easier to believe in a God who made cancer, death, disease, pain and suffering, primate aggression, life that feeds of the death and destruction of other life, a “random” (not completely) evolutionary process, natural disasters galore and so on, then it is to believe in a God who made mature trees with rings and left us ample evidence in scripture allowing us to figure this out once we learned more about the world?

Let me try this another way (because I refuse to give in though I’ll probably be beaten into submission sooner or later). I know nothing of trees. I plant a tree and ten years later I cut it down and find ten rings. I plant another and 5 years later cut it down and plant 5. I have 50 of my friends all do the same varying the dates. We learn there seems to be a direct correspondence between the age of trees and the number of rings. Yay science. Logically, does this mean I am justified in assuming God could not have made any mature trees ever? That every tree with lots of rings must have started from scratch? Why? Why on earth do we assume that? Because we are conditioned to be naturalists. We are conditioned to view the universe through the realm of atheism.

Why do I get to call God a liar if I incorrectly infer all trees must have grown the same exact way based on my understanding of how some trees work? Why is the fault with God and not with me logically over-extending my worldview? Especially when we have revelation from God describing the when and how of creation.

Vinnie

46

There are enough people who regard the Bible as having been effectively dictated by God that at least two works of systematic theology offer arguments against it – and at the same time there are works of systematics which argue essentially for it!, calling it “plenary verbal inspiration” or some such; even some reducing that to merely verbal inspiration nevertheless insist that each word was inspired by God.

1 Like
47

That rock layers look exactly like they would if they were formed over many millions of years but weren’t formed that way is deceptive unless we are explicitly told that they were made that way – and there’s no such information in the text. It’s deceptive because it is counterfeit, designed in a way that makes us conclude one thing when another is true.
And such deception is contrary to the truths of God being faithful and not lying: the appearance of how a rock formed is a lie unless the rock formed that way.

But God doesn’t tell us when He created the universe – that is also a lie based on the very thing you’re proposing: ignoring what a thing looks like on examined objectively. The Hebrew text provides all the marks of being literary types that do not intend to convey literal history, and so for the sake of honesty they must be interpreted as being of those types of literature and thus not to be taken as history.

The text doesn’t actually say that, as at least one church Father noted.

Again I will reference the Hebrew scholars who purely on the basis of the Hebrew concluded that the universe was incomprehensibly old and the earth also uncountably ancient, along with those who note that the six days had to be “divine days” right up to the creation of humans.

I suppose you’re trying to show how the YEC view here can be consistent, but the problem is that the YEC view is just as deceptive as fake geological history.

Except He did that openly where people could observe it.

It’s not desperate to point out that sound scholars before Galileo concluded the Genesis teaches deep, deep time, it’s keeping people honest who insist that reading Genesis 1ff literally is how it’s always been done.

Among those who treated it allegorically there are some that don’t conflict with modern science at all. I don’t know if that makes them “trustworthy”, though even applying that word if by it is meant “scientifically correct” is sort of moot since the scriptures make no claim to teach science.

48

My entire argument has been predicated on the notion that scripture can easily support mature creation as a possibility with Adam and Eve clearly being mature and things being functionally made for humans. I outlined the premises above. It’s a simple argument. Add mature Adamannd Eve to the narrative where God says let there be and things come to pass. So the idea is God told us when the universe came to be. God made the first people mature. God made the entire universe in short order patterned after a 7 day week. We have several genealogies helping to establish the origin of Adam and Eve.

If there were no scriptural precedence for a mature creation there would be little reason to propose it. Just because one church father thought Adam and Eve were made as babies and reared themselves (or by angels) means little to me. The narrative as it stands supports fully developed humans (Eve from the side). You can read it anyway you want but this has been the most common and obvious reading of the account for thousands of years.

I suppose a response like this is in order:

Explicitly told? God wasn’t writing a geology manual. The Bible is accurate but it is not a science textbook. It also doesn’t tell us the sun doesn’t really rise. Should it? That’s a pretty odd argument. I am sorry the truth of scripture is not up to your standards. It tells us how and when God created. If you do not want to believe it that is your business.

The rock layers look exactly like they would if God made a mature world 6,000 years ago like the Bible says he did. Scientists deceive themselves into thinking these layers had to be made millions of years ago. There is no logical necessity requiring this. This is just a posture of faith that we can trace uniformitarianism all the way back to time zero. Again, this is an article of pure faith. I will instead place my faith in scripture.

Vinnie

49

True enough. It should be noted that if one reads the Garden story in ancient near eastern terms the making of man from the dust/dirt carries two messages (whether or not one takes it literally): made from dust was an image that conveyed mortality, and using the word “formed” indicates personal attention.

Indeed if the text was given it final redaction after the Exile (or even during it) then it’s not at all likely that it wasn’t meant to be taken literally in the first place; even before the Hellenistic period there are signs that the stories about the gods weren’t taken literally but were memorable ways of conveying truths through imagery/stories.

= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =

Some of the Fathers put the loaves and fishes miracle in the same category as turning water to wine: miracles that “shortcut” what God does ordinarily in nature by mundane means. I don’t know that such a category changes anything here at all but thought it worth pointing out.

I’m thinking “not”. The only difference is that one extends into a supposed fictitious past while the other doesn’t; the problem of the appearance of age remains.

I’d say that the issue is whether God is faithful so that what we see corresponds to other things we see.

2 Likes
50

Is a bullet fired inside the cabin of a moving aircraft traveling at the speed it was fired at or plus/minus the speed of the aircraft?

You are asking the wrong question.

Im actually really suprised to find you guys so against a new approach here. And to think you claim it is people like me who are the ones restricting modern thinking by sticking with YEC.

51

So let me get your line of thinking straight…a bullet travelling inside a flying aircraft travelling at its fired velocity plus/minus that of the aircraft is magic?

You are hearing yourself here right?

52

Look this is simply wrong. Ive already expalined this on other threads and its totally wrong.

Firstly, its theologically impossible, its historically inconsistent with the biblical family lineage according to Mosaic writings (which the entire jewish nation attributes to it very existence), it does not fit with the narrative of how sin enterred the world, has no link with the biblical plan of salvation…

Its just an extremely deficient reading of scripture…the only way to even consider a claim like that is to write into the bible words and meanings that are simply not there.

Whilst christians have the new testament, it cannot be used to discredit old testament writings.

The new testament is a revelation of christ…not a fundamental throwing out of old testament writings and history.

Christ showed the jews how they had corrupted His intentions with being the chosen people for spreading the gospel…they were supposed ro be a light to the world however it became a beakon of bondage. This was not because of tue sacrificial system…it was because of the way in which the jews used the gospel as a means of segregation and alienation, pride and even persecution.
Jesus showed a better way…an illustration of the jews being wrong is found in the parable of the good samaritan

53

I am not sure why what we see has to correspond to everything else we see. God is faithful. He gave us scripture and the Holy Spirot.

And I am trying to turn that on its head. Why are we talking about God’s faithfulness? That is never in doubt. Shouldn’t we be the ones being faithful to God and his message? Shouldn’t we approach scripture with a hermeneutic of trust? Or are we Christian’s inflicted with Stockholm syndrome? So badly beaten and defeated by science we immediately acquiesce and think the worst of God.

Vinnie

54

New stuff is fine. Exciting even! But … is it actually new? I haven’t read everything you’ve proposed above, but if it involves trying to get a young-earth interpretation validated on some ‘scientific’ level, then this isn’t actually new - but many decades old. And second (and more importantly) - even if an idea is ‘new’, that doesn’t give it license to run slipshod against so much of reality. Sure - people can just make stuff up - and do all the time. But when so much of established reality has to be ignored or contradicted to make the idea fly, then nobody who takes reality seriously feels compelled to take the idea seriously.

55

I have laid out my thoughts on this here. The big one is the order of creation. I don’t accept conservative attempts at retranslating the account to avoid the issue. You can if you want.

Only if God chose the words of both and was writing factual history. Otherwise your statement is not correct. The details can contradict as long as the truth it intends to teach lines up.

There is an ever so slightly above 0 chance Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

That is a valid point but it draws on a lot of issues including models of atonement. Evolutionary Christians do seemingly have to change the traditional narrative a bit. But many probably distinguish between sin and natural evil. Even if the account is figurative there would still be a first sinner and as was noted to you many times, the Devil is in the garden before humans sinned. Clearly even your interpretation has many questions.

Who suggested they could?

He didn’t do a terrific job since the Jews largely did not believe him or accept the Christian message. And you are marvelously simplifying the Old Testament and Judaism. I mean practically to a 1st grade level. So much so it’s probably offensive to most Jews how you caricature them and their faith.

The Jews were under Roman occupation during the time of Jesus. Since about 60 years prior to his birth. Before that they were conquered, and exiled, enslaved and ruled in parts by many different nations. It’s a marvel that Jewish faith survived all that they endured, especially in a time when military might was tied into strength of your deity. Daniel was written ca 163 BC just for this purpose, to strengthen the beliefs of Jews and encourage them to remain steadfast in their beliefs despite the external world offering them little validation of the beliefs of their ancestors. The Jews never had the Christian Gospel. And Christians themselves do a good job of segregation, and alienation, have pride and engage in persecution. Plank meet speck.

56

Let me get this straight. The overwhelming majority of scientists around the world of all ages, sexes, genders and cultures in the following fields are all wrong.
Geology.
Genetics.
Biology.
Botany.
Archeology.
Astronomy.
Chemistry
And dozens of others.

99.99% of the world experts in the fields are all just wrong. Why…. Because of a bullet fired in a airplane….

2 Likes
57

But you’re trying to get the universe to appear billions of years old while earth is just six days, which would require the universe to be moving at incredibly close to the speed of light relative to the earth. Even if somehow that was possible there would be problems, the first being that we wouldn’t be seeing stars as points, if we could see them at all; the entire sky would probably blend into a pale glow – and if you want to slow them down so we can see what we actually do see, there has to be a mechanism for that, something that would require a near-infinite amount of energy and use means we have no inkling of in physics.

We considered it and found it unworkable. That’s not being “against a new approach”, it’s testing a new approach and having it fail.

2 Likes
58

Because consistency is part of faithfulness. If God isn’t consistent in how He does things, why should we trust Him in inspired writings?

1 Like
59

I believe I asked one of many right questions that are appropriate in the context of the OP.

Obviously a bullet, a gun, an airplane, gravity, atmosphere, anything at all etc. are not present at the beginning of Genesis 1. Right? So this micro scenario is not possible as you described in the OP. And it doesn’t provide an explanation for the application of the principle to the entire description of creation. Or did I miss that, when I read the OP?

So, what is the entire model you are proposing? What are all the components and how do they work and work together? I’m fine with a new approach. You need to spell out your hypothesis for the whole thing out, though and explain how it all works together, etc.

The work of building the entire hypothesis is yours. And upon publishing it (that is: making it public in any way like posting here) puts it before the public for scrutiny and criticism.

But you know the process.

So, go for it. Show the whole model.

1 Like
60

fair enough point Kendel and i have to agree with you on this. thank you for the correction.

In moving forward, I do not have a predetermined mechanism for how this might work in mind…i truly do not have any other outcome than trying to find a means by which common ground may be found at this stage of the narrative. I recognize that it will not address things like fossil record differences…however, that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t bother exploring because who knows where it may lead.

The only idea i have presently is something that comes from the big bang apparently exceeding the restriction of the speed of light.

If there are a few things that can exceed the speed of light because they are not bound by them and, given that the actual speed of a bullet fired inside a flying aircraft is relative to only the system from within which its fired (ie aircraft cabin), and that is also in real terms influenced by the rotation of the earth (approx 17,000 km/h), then perhaps things may not really be as they seem in either direction…ie from either creationist or evolutionist point of view!

So whilst the idea might be mine, the developing of a working mechanism requires input from others. I am not an evolutionist…i cannot objectively provide input without bias.

It also requires those with scientific knowledge and hopefully there are others that may have thought about this already but not yet put it on this forum?