Spier's Plan for Peace with YEC

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@r_speir

I am going to go ahead and disagree with you on the 100% speculation. The reason is that in an argument such as this one, there comes a point when it actually starts to become compelling

I find evidence compelling. I do not find repetition compelling. You can use whatever adjective you want, though.

[PdotdQ]

@r_speir

What if @PdotdQ comes on and blasts my idea out the window? So far he has been silent, so maybe you are right.

I don’t have the time to look at your idea yet. However, there are other physicists on this board. @dga471 said that your idea is not new, but he doesn’t have any physics issues with it. I would trust his physics judgements as much as my own.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@structureoftruth

From what I know this is pretty much correct, though certain symbolism and meanings associated with the serpent in Genesis 3 makes it possible to identify him as a spiritual being, even solely from the perspective of the Old Testament. (Michael Heiser’s work world be a reference for that.) The New Testament -Revelation, specifically - alludes to the serpent as being Satan and describes his fall in one of the visions, though, IIRC, it isn’t clear if that’s referring to his original fall (prior to or in Genesis 3) or his defeat because of the work of Christ.

From looking at this video of genesis plus analysis in 3c the serpent seems symbolically represent evil or sin which is snuffed out by the future Messiah. I am not really disagreeing with you other then the thought that satan is a symbolic concept.

Book of Genesis Summary: A Complete Animated Overview (Part 1)

[r_speir]

@PdotdQ

I don’t have the time to look at your idea yet. However, there are other physicists on this board. @dga471 said that your idea is not new, but he doesn’t have any physics issues with it. I would trust his physics judgements as much as my own.

Thank you for the comment.

To the rest on the forum: The idea is tenuous I agree but may gain in strength over time. If YECs get on the map, though all details are not worked out, I wonder if a modicum of courtesy could be extended such that this kind of inflammatory language as from Rauser could cease:

“For all these reasons and more, it is deeply misguided to read Genesis 1 as a flat-footed literal account of origins. No doubt, Ken Ham means well, but his errant and naïve reading of the biblical text does a grave disservice to Christians as it inclines people to read a faulty young earth creationist theology back onto the text. And this, in turn, does nothing more than discredit Christians and the church before a skeptical world. For these reasons, I don’t believe that Ham is on the side of the angels. Indeed, I must conclude that if any angels take pleasure in Ham’s misbegotten textual reading, they are likely of the fallen sort.”

I wonder, could YECs maybe expect a little more respect from you? [not directed to @PdotdQ]

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

I wonder if a modicum of courtesy could be extended such that this kind of inflammatory language as from Rauser could cease:

“For all these reasons and more, it is deeply misguided to read Genesis 1 as a flat-footed literal account of origins. No doubt, Ken Ham means well, but his errant and naïve reading of the biblical text does a grave disservice to Christians as it inclines people to read a faulty young earth creationist theology back onto the text. And this, in turn, does nothing more than discredit Christians and the church before a skeptical world. For these reasons, I don’t believe that Ham is on the side of the angels. Indeed, I must conclude that if any angels take pleasure in Ham’s misbegotten textual reading, they are likely of the fallen sort.”

St Augustine said something very similar:

It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel [unbeliever] to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn … If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well, and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books [Scriptures], how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
–St Augustine, ca 400 AD

[Robert_Byers1 (Robert Byers)]

Yes on creation week. Yet why would the mechanism change? Yes the stars are for signs and seasons at least originally. Yet how this is done need not interfere with a single model for light creation.
light from these need only be a special case yet they are not creating the light. Just directing it to us.
I don’t see how creationists can say there is a light/star/distance problem when genesis starts off by talking about light as independent of stars or anything. just a fixed thing. Then divided/hidden.
What is the evidence that light is created by the sources they now claim? i think its a error about a energy propagation that simply shoots through a light field.
this would explain all the jazz and confusio about whether light is a wave or particle. its neither. it does not move. What moves through light can be both wave/particle as needed.
I think assumptions once again wre too quickly embraced.