If the universe is <10,000 old....

[gluadys]

Yes, of course, no matter where you are, there will be criticism. But the TE compromise is about evangelism, isn't it? Problem is, atheists can read scripture, and know exactly what you're doing. They know and understand the hermeneutical somersaults that are being performed and I don't think they're buying it.

YEC are not attempting to make the bible acceptable to them [geocentrists]. We're just looking at the text, allowing it to say what it says. And ironically, the world is much easier to understand, and much more logical, when we look at it through the lenses of scripture.

Much seems to lie in the eye of the beholder. I have never seen any presentation of YEC that is a matter of "just looking at the text, allowing it to say what it says." And to me, the hermeneutical somersaults of YEC are even wilder than those of geocentrism.

I DO look at the world through the lenses of scripture, and I find it does make sense of the world. But I don't use a hermeneutical principle that makes no sense to me.

 

[Calminian]

Much seems to lie in the eye of the beholder. I have never seen any presentation of YEC that is a matter of "just looking at the text, allowing it to say what it says." And to me, the hermeneutical somersaults of YEC are even wilder than those of geocentrism.

I DO look at the world through the lenses of scripture, and I find it does make sense of the world. But I don't use a hermeneutical principle that makes no sense to me.

Would you care to point out a particular passage that you believe illustrates this proclivity by YEC's?

How about this? post the top 3 passages you think that are just crystal clear that YEC's are reinterpreting. If you can't think of 3, the top 2 or eve 1.

IOW's give me an example of where YECs are ignoring the plain meaning in order to accomplish an agenda of some sort, and please tell us what you think that agenda might be.

I'm not here to pounce on you, I'd just like to find out where you're coming from, and see if I can't help you understand a little better where we're coming from.

 

[Calminian]

hi cal,

Nicely put!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Thanks Ted. Blessings right back at ya. You add a great deal of quality insights to this forum.

 

[gluadys]

Would you care to point out a particular passage that you believe illustrates this proclivity by YEC's?

How about this? post the top 3 passages you think that are just crystal clear that YEC's are reinterpreting. If you can't think of 3, the top 2 or eve 1.

IOW's give me an example of where YECs are ignoring the plain meaning in order to accomplish an agenda of some sort, and please tell us what you think that agenda might be.

I'm not here to pounce on you, I'd just like to find out where you're coming from, and see if I can't help you understand a little better where we're coming from.

I am not here to pounce on you either. And I am not accusing you of having an agenda. But I think YECs are kidding themselves about simply looking at a passage and allowing it to speak without interpretation.

See what you can do with these passages.

Gen 3:1-2
Ps. 104:5
Isa 40:22b

What do they say to you when you just look at the text and allow it to say what it says?

 

[Calminian]

I am not here to pounce on you either. And I am not accusing you of having an agenda. But I think YECs are kidding themselves about simply looking at a passage and allowing it to speak without interpretation.

See what you can do with these passages.

Gen 3:1-2
Ps. 104:5
Isa 40:22b

What do they say to you when you just look at the text and allow it to say what it says?

Gen 3:1-2 - This passages is about a conversation between a creature (the snake that tempted her and Adam) and Eve about what is allowable to eat in the prelapsarian Garden.
Ps. 104:5 - This is a passage about the dry land and its foundation.
Isa 40:22b - This passage is about the half sphere of the sky the domes over the earth (I don't think this passage is referring to our planet).

What agenda do you think YEC's use these passages for? What is the interpretation that you believe falls off the passages?

 

[gluadys]

Gen 3:1-2 - This passages is about a conversation between a creature (the snake that tempted her and Adam) and Eve about what is allowable to eat in the prelapsarian Garden.
Ps. 104:5 - This is a passage about the dry land and its foundation.
Isa 40:22b - This passage is about the half sphere of the sky the domes over the earth (I don't think this passage is referring to our planet).

What agenda do you think YEC's use these passages for? What is the interpretation that you believe falls off the passages?

I told you I don't think it is a matter of having an agenda or of "using" the passages for a purpose.

But I still think you are kidding yourself about just looking at the text and letting the text have its say.

I would also say that if you take no more meaning from these texts than what you have expressed, you are most unusual.

Gen. 3:1-2
I note you refer to the snake first as "a creature". You grant in parentheses that it was a snake. Why then use the circumlocution at first? Do you perhaps consider that it was something other than a snake?

Most interpreters (including TEs) do.

Ps. 104:5. Indeed, that is what the passage is about. But what does it say on the topic? What is the message of this passage if one uses no interpretive technique?

It interests me that you use the alternate translation of "dry land". Does just looking at the text tell you that? Do you think those who saw/see it referring to the whole body of the earth are over-interpreting?

Isaiah 40:22b. Where in the text does it speak of a "half-sphere of the sky"? Where does it say the sky is a dome? How do you come to these concepts by just looking at the text?

 

[Assyrian]

But the whole point of theistic evolution is show that the bible and christianity acceptable and compatible with mainstream scientific modern thinking. Isn't that the case?

Yes, of course, no matter where you are, there will be criticism. But the TE compromise is about evangelism, isn't it? Problem is, atheists can read scripture, and know exactly what you're doing. They know and understand the hermeneutical somersaults that are being performed and I don't think they're buying it.

In fact, I think they realize that the interpretive techniques you're employing could be used with any religious book to verify its truth and compatibility with reality.

YEC's, OTOH, aren't holding their views to entice Geocentrists to consider christianity. That's assuming there are geocentrists out there. Frankly, I think most of the websites are practical jokes. But even if there are some believers still here and there, YEC are not attempting to make the bible acceptable to them. We're just looking at the text, allowing it to say what it says. And ironically, the world is much easier to understand, and much more logical, when we look at it through the lenses of scripture.

No it isn't about evangelism, not directly, TE's recognise that that YEC denial of reality is causing a terrible stumbling block both for evanglism and for young believers raised in YEC churches. But that isn't a reason to accept evolution. To accept evolution just to sell Christianity would be deeply cynical and hypocritical. No, the reason to accept evolution is because as Christians we believe God is the creator of all things, therefore everything we learn about the universe, is learning about God's creation.

YECs realise this too, they just draw arbitrary lines between what science that accept as the reality of God's creation making scripture fit the science, and the sciences they reject in favour of their literal interpretation of scripture. They stand in a long tradition of sciences like a spherical earth and geocentrism accepted by the church and condemned by the literalists, these science they accept unquestioningly and assume the way they make scripture fit must be the real meaning of scripture. After all the bible couldn't possibly be wrong, it must mean that.

Every Christian accepts science (apart from a few flat earthers) and finds way to reconcile scripture with what they understand about science. TEs are no different from OECs, YECs, the church after Galileo when it accepted heliocentrism or when the church which from the beginning held the Greek science of a spherical earth. The only difference is we don't try to deny some sciences at the same time as accepting others.

If it is wrong, if it is compromise, to accept the reality of the universe as part of God's amazing work of creation, then the only ones who are not compromised are flat earthers. Otherwise it is a choice between being consistent in our approach to reality and accepting all we learn about God's creation as TEs do, or being inconsistent accepting some science and rejecting others. But if you opt for a inconsistent approach, you can hardly call believers who happen to accept a bit more science than you do compromised, not without charging yourself with not just compromise, but hypocrisy too.

 

[Assyrian]

It interests me that you use the alternate translation of "dry land". Does just looking at the text tell you that? Do you think those who saw/see it referring to the whole body of the earth are over-interpreting?

calminian is unusual for a YEC in that he understands the word erets as a region of dry land not the whole earth.

 

[Calminian]

Gen. 3:1-2
I note you refer to the snake first as "a creature". You grant in parentheses that it was a snake. Why then use the circumlocution at first? Do you perhaps consider that it was something other than a snake?

Most interpreters (including TEs) do.

Actually I think it was a snake. I have no reason to go against multiple bible translations. I wasn't implying by my use of the word creature, that it was not a snake. I think it was the prelapsarian snake who somehow spoke and was able to move along the ground in an upright position.

Ps. 104:5. Indeed, that is what the passage is about. But what does it say on the topic? What is the message of this passage if one uses no interpretive technique?

No interpretive technique? Not following.

It interests me that you use the alternate translation of "dry land". Does just looking at the text tell you that? Do you think those who saw/see it referring to the whole body of the earth are over-interpreting?

erits in scripture always means land and never means planet or a collective body comprising the land and sea. Heaven, earth and sea are always distinct in scripture and often listed together. I came to this conclusion after much research on the issue. I'm convinced the term never refers to the land and sea as a whole as our term earth often does. Earth and sea are always distinct. That's why I alway see the term earth in scripture as land. Even the pre completed earth in its formless state, prior to verse 9 in genesis 1, is never called the sea (yom, or perhaps yahm, not sure how to transliterate it).

But my conclusion on this had nothing to do with young earth issues. YEC didn't motivate my take on this either way. In fact many YEC's disagree with me on this.

Isaiah 40:22b. Where in the text does it speak of a "half-sphere of the sky"? Where does it say the sky is a dome? How do you come to these concepts by just looking at the text?

Again, I interpret this passage based partially on my understanding of the term erets I explain above, as well as my understanding of the word translated circle. I think the circle of the earth here could actually be translated the sphere of the earth, but unlike others, I don't think this is saying the earth is a sphere, but rather it's referring to a sphere above the earth. The sky here is a very natural inference considering it's shaped view from our point of reference. That's what I think the writer was conveying.

But again, YECs and OECs disagree with me on this. It's not a YEC motivated interpretation. My goal is to read the text in the most straightforward exegetical way possible taking into account ancient understandings of words.

But again, none of these passages have anything to do with YEC interpretations. I'm merely trying to get into the ancient writers head to determine what he meant.

 

[Calminian]

calminian is unusual for a YEC in that he understands the word erets as a region of dry land not the whole earth.

Or all the dry land everywhere, depending on how the writer describes it. It can mean a reason or all the land under the heavens.

 

[Calminian]

No it isn't about evangelism, not directly, TE's recognise that that YEC denial of reality is causing a terrible stumbling block both for evanglism and for young believers raised in YEC churches. But that isn't a reason to accept evolution. To accept evolution just to sell Christianity would be deeply cynical and hypocritical. No, the reason to accept evolution is because as Christians we believe God is the creator of all things, therefore everything we learn about the universe, is learning about God's creation.

YECs realise this too, they just draw arbitrary lines between what science that accept as the reality of God's creation making scripture fit the science, and the sciences they reject in favour of their literal interpretation of scripture. They stand in a long tradition of sciences like a spherical earth and geocentrism accepted by the church and condemned by the literalists, these science they accept unquestioningly and assume the way they make scripture fit must be the real meaning of scripture. After all the bible couldn't possibly be wrong, it must mean that.

Every Christian accepts science (apart from a few flat earthers) and finds way to reconcile scripture with what they understand about science. TEs are no different from OECs, YECs, the church after Galileo when it accepted heliocentrism or when the church which from the beginning held the Greek science of a spherical earth. The only difference is we don't try to deny some sciences at the same time as accepting others.

If it is wrong, if it is compromise, to accept the reality of the universe as part of God's amazing work of creation, then the only ones who are not compromised are flat earthers. Otherwise it is a choice between being consistent in our approach to reality and accepting all we learn about God's creation as TEs do, or being inconsistent accepting some science and rejecting others. But if you opt for a inconsistent approach, you can hardly call believers who happen to accept a bit more science than you do compromised, not without charging yourself with not just compromise, but hypocrisy too.

I don't know if you realize how many false assumptions you made in this post. Where to start? I actually think TE's are much closer to geocentrists in their reasoning that YECs. I'm going to go into this deeper when I get a chance. Unfortunately, no time right now. I'll be bach.

 

[philadiddle]

I don't know if you realize how many false assumptions you made in this post.

I would like to hear one of the specific false assumptions that he used, and the details of what he said that was assumptive, what the assumption was, and how you know the assumption is false.

 

[gluadys]

But again, YECs and OECs disagree with me on this. It's not a YEC motivated interpretation. My goal is to read the text in the most straightforward exegetical way possible taking into account ancient understandings of words.

Yes, I agree. Your personal interpretations are exceptional and not the run of the mill interpretations referred to in my generalization.

But again, none of these passages have anything to do with YEC interpretations. I'm merely trying to get into the ancient writers head to determine what he meant.

That, it seems to me, is also the basis used by most TEs. It is not the attitude I typically find among YECs.

I would agree, for example, that the text of Genesis 3 speaks of a snake and has no other connotation than a snake. I would also say the writer is using the snake symbolically, even if he thinks it was a real snake participating in a real-time event.

I would agree that the Hebrew 'erets' refers to "dry land" and in the context of the Psalm is probably referring to all existing dry land under the heavens. However, there is more to the verse than a single word. What about the phrases: "set ... on its foundations" and "it can never be moved". I would be interested to see what just looking at the text yields in these cases.

On the Isaiah passage you say: "The sky here is a very natural inference considering it's shaped view from our point of reference. That's what I think the writer was conveying."

Now here you are introducing "our frame of reference".

What frame of reference? I thought the point was to look at the text and only at the text. Our frame of reference is the text. And I find nothing in that frame of reference to justify the description of the sky as a half-sphere or dome.

Also you are not commenting on the whole verse. What about the part that says "He stretches out the heavens like a canopy and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in"?

As for a sphere above the earth---how can you possibly get that by just looking at the text and allowing it to say what it says?


I am not going to ask you to defend that point of view. I am asking how you can justify it in terms of the process you outlined "just looking at the text and letting it say what it says". Surely such a conclusion takes a lot of digging into the text, a lot of analysis and interpretation. This is not an example of just letting the text speak for itself, but of constructing what you believe to be the best meaning.

 

[newfaithfull]

Hi Everybody,

This is my first visit to this sub-forum and I have read this whole post in one go (skimming parts obviously)... wow it's loong...

This was more interesting than I thought it would be.

Here's some thoughts...

God lives and operates outside of time as we know it (pointed out by Augustine and others). When he condesends to refer to time as we percieve it in the revelation of his word it is to accomodate our sluggish minds.

Simmilarly when the Holy Bible speaks of God's finger or God's outstretched hand or arm, this is to indicate action or intervention (pointed out by Calvin and others) and presumably not a real limb. If God had only arms and legs to interact with the world he wouldn't be able to make the sun go up every morning, make the plants grow, children be born or make my heart beat, beat after beat.

I hope that nobody is offended by this last comparisson, but it's only to make clear that there is such a thing as imagery in the Bible and nobody can deny it.

Simmilarly I interpret descriptions of God taking out the winds out of the storage houses as an image. And it is a wonderfull image indeed because it describes how everything is done by God personally and with intent. But still an image.

Back to time and creation... God created the world before we existed, that is for sure. None of us was there to watch, but he was pleased to reveal it to us by his profet Moses and did so in the words which would be the most usefull to us humans. We should read it and get wiser.

Modern science, enlightenment science or the science that started around the time of Isaac Newton (an exteemly pious man by the way), is characterized by isolation. Previously, the quests of science had been "Why?". Now it was instead "what?" and "how?" or "how much?" "how fast?" et c... If you simplefy and reduce the facts, you can quickly come up with equations, diagrams and so on. This kind of knowledge can be called "accumulation of facts". You can hold a stone in your hand and drop it to the ground. You can find out the speed with which it drops, you can calculate how other stones would drop according to shape and size, you can find out the wheight and mass of the stone, you can find out where it is from, at which rate it errodes under specific conditions and most likely you can even find out how old it is. You can describe the laws of physics, but no matter how many facts you collect, this is still an "accumulation of knowledge" and only a poor man's view from the outside of the works of God (the wonders of which he has revealed to babes).

trying to hybrid the higher knowledge (the word of God) with lower man made forms of knowledge is a dead end road in my oppinion so far.

ok, so I dont know if I said what I wanted to say and the part about enlightenment science is grossly simplefied It's fun to try on too big pants sometimes. Maybe I can continue this later if someone is still reading.


I like how "Gluadys" (cat avatar) says that if God created a "mature" universe 6000 years ago, that would mean that he deliberately created a world that was arranged so as to look like it's alot older when you dig in it... out of mirth? or to make fun of the scientists to come? That question was never answered...

I am not a big fan of the books and TV shows that try to use "sience" to prove that the earth is young. That comes out weird. If there is a battle to be fought at all I feel like this is the wrong way...

God is great

Blessings to all

Thanks for reading

 

[Johnnz]

Why should God's word and God's creation be in conflict to each other? Science discovers something of the 'how' of the cosmos, how God constructed it to function well. If there is a conflict there are three possibilities:

a) The Christian view if Creation is wrong. Example, opposition to Galileo.

b) Not science itself, but the inferences from the facts of science, are wrong. Example, atheistic evolution.

c) Both are wrong. Christians have a wrong view of the Creation story, non Christians have a wrong view about the cosmos, as for b). Example - poor understanding of the nature of the Genesis story. See John Walton's writings.

John
NZ

 

[Calminian]

Why should God's word and God's creation be in conflict to each other? Science discovers something of the 'how' of the cosmos, how God constructed it to function well. If there is a conflict there are three possibilities:

a) The Christian view if Creation is wrong. Example, opposition to Galileo. ......

Just a small correction here. Galileo opponents were actually the secular mainstream scientists of the day, the aristotelian philosophers. They are the guys that absolutely pummeled Galileo into hiding at one point in his life.

Theologians were actually very open in that day and were split about 50/50. The problem for Galileo was he picked a fight with a very egotistical pope who at the time was siding with mainstream science (as the catholic church generally does).

Now that does't in itself say the christian view is right, it merely excludes the Galileo affair as an example.

 

[Calminian]

...I would agree, for example, that the text of Genesis 3 speaks of a snake and has no other connotation than a snake. I would also say the writer is using the snake symbolically, even if he thinks it was a real snake participating in a real-time event.

We agree then, that the writer believed he was describing a real snake and a real historical event.

I would agree that the Hebrew 'erets' refers to "dry land" and in the context of the Psalm is probably referring to all existing dry land under the heavens. However, there is more to the verse than a single word. What about the phrases: "set ... on its foundations" and "it can never be moved". I would be interested to see what just looking at the text yields in these cases.

Dry land obviously had a solid foundation. The writer doesn't claim to know the particular elements it's composed of, but it does have a foundation. We know from modern discoveries it goes all the way to our planet's core. But again, the word erets here is a term for land. The poet is not speaking in planetary terms at all.

On the Isaiah passage you say: "The sky here is a very natural inference considering it's shaped view from our point of reference. That's what I think the writer was conveying."

Now here you are introducing "our frame of reference".

The visual frame of reference for any writer is the location of his eyes at the time of writing. It's a safe assumption that he was standing on the ground looking up (if indeed was describing the sky). The sky from that perspective looks like a dome or ball. The hebrew word for circle can also be used in the same way. If he did mean ball or sphere, he couldn't possibly be speaking of erets, as there's nothing spherical or circular about it from his point of view. I think it's most likely he was looking up or at least thinking about what he normally sees when looking up.

What frame of reference? I thought the point was to look at the text and only at the text. Our frame of reference is the text. And I find nothing in that frame of reference to justify the description of the sky as a half-sphere or dome.

Many things going into exegesis. Literary context. Historical context. As well as the location of the writer when he's describing something. That gives you his point of reference.

If a writer says I looked up and saw a cloud moving south, the point of reference is going to be the land in which he was standing on, not the direction planet earth is moving around the sun.

Also you are not commenting on the whole verse. What about the part that says "He stretches out the heavens like a canopy and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in"?

What about it? It makes a lot of sense to me. He likely had the torah in mind, particularly Genesis 1. The universe even my modern understandings has been stretched. I think a canopy is a good way to put it.

As for a sphere above the earth---how can you possibly get that by just looking at the text and allowing it to say what it says?

Honestly i think you have a false view of YEC's and how they reason from the scriptures. They start with the text and then reason from it. Instead of using the world's knowledge to understand the text, they use the text to understand the world, and what we observe in the world.

But when it comes to that Isaiah text, I put myself in the writers head as much as I can, and let me say what he's saying. I believe the most likely view is that he was describing the sky that surrounds the land. That's the only circle/sphere in context that I think fits. Plus it's very simple and logical. That's the meaning that falls of the text when I read it, putting all my biases aside.

I am not going to ask you to defend that point of view. I am asking how you can justify it in terms of the process you outlined "just looking at the text and letting it say what it says". Surely such a conclusion takes a lot of digging into the text, a lot of analysis and interpretation. This is not an example of just letting the text speak for itself, but of constructing what you believe to be the best meaning.

Of course it is. We have to use our logic and reasonings skills to hear the text, when it does speak. But who would disagree with that? That's what I mean when I say, let the text speak! Sometimes, you have to dig into the entire book, to gain insights about literary contexts. Digging into the text, is still letting the text speak. Thinking logically about the writer's visual point of references is part of the listening process. And again, I don't know of a single YEC that would disagree with this.

What I want to be careful not to do, is assign a particular text and non-literal symbolic meaning, merely because I think it contradicts an outside source of knowledge, say a competing history book, or competing uniformitarian inferences about history. I would rather let the text educate me on those, rather than allow those to change the plain meaning of the text.

 

[good brother]

If you think the universe is less than 10,000 years old because you reject the evidence for the big bang, then how would respond to an atheist who thought the universe was static and eternal?

How would I answer? There are several routes, these would be the simplest:

1. The Earth's rotation is slowing down. That means it was going faster in the past. That is not static.

2. The moon is getting further away from Earth every year.

Sidenote to moon distance: If the moon moves away from the earth 1.5 inches every year, that would mean that it was closer in the past than it is now. The moon absolutely cannot be static on this thought alone as we know it is traveling AWAY from us. Another point to quickly consider is that if the moon moves 1.5 inches farther away every year, then it was 1.5 inches closer the year before the present. If one takes the supposed age of the moon (4.5 billion years old), the 1.5 inches the moon moves away from us each year, and do a little bit of math..... That would mean that the moon was approximately HALF the distance away 4.5 billion years ago! Talk about some big changes for earth if the moon was that close!

​

3. The Earth is moving away from the Sun at about 6inches per year.

If one does the math on this one, the Earth would have been over 5 million miles closer to Sun 4.5 billion years ago if the Earth is even as old as TOE claims, let alone the thought of an unchanging static universe! If the Earth is as old as TOE states, then it was darn near (if not completely) out of the "goldilocks zone" before it even started.
​

There are plenty more, but these are enough to stop any thought of a "static universe" using just the knowledge in our own system.

In Christ, Gb

 

[NGC 6712]

How would I answer? There are several routes, these would be the simplest:

1. The Earth's rotation is slowing down. That means it was going faster in the past. That is not static.

When people refer to a static and eternal universe they are referring to the overall structure of the cosmos not local dynamics.

2. The moon is getting further away from Earth every year.

Sidenote to moon distance: If the moon moves away from the earth 1.5 inches every year, that would mean that it was closer in the past than it is now. The moon absolutely cannot be static on this thought alone as we know it is traveling AWAY from us. Another point to quickly consider is that if the moon moves 1.5 inches farther away every year, then it was 1.5 inches closer the year before the present. If one takes the supposed age of the moon (4.5 billion years old), the 1.5 inches the moon moves away from us each year, and do a little bit of math..... That would mean that the moon was approximately HALF the distance away 4.5 billion years ago! Talk about some big changes for earth if the moon was that close!​

My first response also applies here. Also the relationship between the earth-moon distance is not a linear one. 4 billion years ago the Moon would have been about 70% of its current separation. The rate of change of the separation is proportional to the inverse 11/2 power of the separation. You have to integrate that differential equation (with appropriate constants) to get find the separation over time - not blindly apply the 1.5 inches/yr number in a linear manner.
​

3. The Earth is moving away from the Sun at about 6inches per year.

If one does the math on this one, the Earth would have been over 5 million miles closer to Sun 4.5 billion years ago if the Earth is even as old as TOE claims, let alone the thought of an unchanging static universe! If the Earth is as old as TOE states, then it was darn near (if not completely) out of the "goldilocks zone" before it even started.
​

There are plenty more, but these are enough to stop any thought of a "static universe" using just the knowledge in our own system.

In Christ, Gb

Again - see my first response. And you might want to check the math. Even applying the 6in/yr linearly over the lifetime of the Earth this change is negligible (less than 0.5%).

 

[good brother]

My first response also applies here. Also the relationship between the earth-moon distance is not a linear one. 4 billion years ago the Moon would have been about 70% of its current separation. The rate of change of the separation is proportional to the inverse 11/2 power of the separation. You have to integrate that differential equation (with appropriate constants) to get find the separation over time - not blindly apply the 1.5 inches/yr number in a linear manner.

The further we go back in time, the closer the moon would be, and the stronger the pull towards the Earth. If you want to apply inverse square, it would have a much greater pull the further back in time we go and probably would have been closer than what I said originally! It would have caused tsunami sized tidal changes all around the globe completely destroying any organism that was trying to make it's way in the world. It would have been a mess!

Again - see my first response. And you might want to check the math. Even applying the 6in/yr linearly over the lifetime of the Earth this change is negligible (less than 0.5%).

I think YOU need to recheck YOUR math! 5,000,0000 is five percent of the total distance, not 0.5%. Another thing to think about is what a change 5 million miles would have on the weather. Have you ever had a sunburn after an especially sunny day? Think about how bad that would have been for earth's little critters to have to deal with the kind of heat that would be made much worse if the planet was closer! Think about how bad it would be for struggling plant life as it would cook while rooted. The oceans would be drying up. It would be a horrible mess, especially for TOE which states that the foundation for the problem (the supposed age of the Earth and working backwards to realize how close the Earth would have been if it is that old and if the present is really key to the past) is a necessity for evolution to have happened!


In Christ, GB