Why is one religion so devided?

[NobleMouse]

If the earth doesnt need to be studied to understand its age, then physics doesnt need to be studied to fly to outer space...

This just shows you don't trust God's word regarding the age of the earth. And again, non sequitur in trying to link this to physics and flying in space. You don't need to study my skeletal structure to determine my age, just ask for my birth certificate. The Bible certifies the age of the earth.

 

[NobleMouse]

I am greatly impressed with your posts. Thank you. I am a 74 yo retired physicist (nuclear), mathematician and educator and, like you, I am a Christian. And again, like you, I am frustrated by those who cannot understand that long before our scriptures were written God left a scripture in the stones and the bones and the stars. It is only in the past few hundred years that we have begun to read that original scripture. The beauty of it is that this record is still in the original manuscript.

I will look for your posts in the future.

God gave the truth to men, not to rocks, bones and stars. Truth from these things is biased and formed by how you were taught to interpret their characteristics/properties. Where in scripture is the idea that truth about our origins is found anywhere other than in His word. I'll agree that we should be able to find the same truth in the physical universe as is given in the Bible, but saying the universe is 13.8+ billion years old is not in conformity with what God has revealed. That said, I'll also admit truth for me is also biased by being taught that Genesis means what it says - in isolation there is then a possibility to be wrong on the Genesis account. Unfortunately for the OEC, the rest of scripture affirms the accounts recorded in scripture. If, for example, Jesus had said in Matthew 19:4, "have you not read that he who created life after the beginning and later brought forth a creature of his likeness, calling him man, making them male and female..." and other similar verses from the OT and NT then I think there would be grounds for revisiting how to interpret what Genesis means.

KomatiiteBIF already answered my question, the bottom line is OEC's are picking and choosing what they want to believe from scripture and then weaving in new truths based upon what they believe from science. Conclusions from scientific study overrides scripture. That's all I needed to confirm. Thank you for your comments!

 

[Job 33:6]

This just shows you don't trust God's word regarding the age of the earth. And again, non sequitur in trying to link this to physics and flying in space. You don't need to study my skeletal structure to determine my age, just ask for my birth certificate. The Bible certifies the age of the earth.

If your birth certificate was worked up 2000 years ago, underwent both oral transmittal and written translation, was broken into pieces and put back together in different orders and fashions by people who debated over it 1500 years ago, and underwent further translation...

Then, I see no reason it would be detrimental to either of us, if we examined your skeletal structure, regardless of what your birth certificate says, just to be safe. You skeletal structure is just as much a creation of our Lord, as the birth certificate (though the birth certificate was literally written by flawed people, whereas your skeletal structure is nothing that man could ever create), and should not simply be ignored.

Perhaps it is you that does not trust our Lords creation (the skeleton), or perhaps you do not trust the certification or Gods word enough, to be able to reconcile it with your skeletal structure.

 

[Ancient of Days]

"If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?" Satan knows this, he is good at what he does and has been at it for a long time. He knows he cant take away your salvation but he can stir up division and struggles amongst Gods children. But you have been given the knowledge to overcome. "The truth shall set you free" You will recognize the lies in this world by knowing the truth, not the other way around as some will have you believe. There is absolutely NO WAY to come to any other conclusion by reading his word ONLY and NOT adding to it that the earth was created somewhere around 6000 years ago. When is a day NOT a day? Evening morning, the next day. Six literal days, that is how he did it. Its not what I know or what others know that's important but God said he did it this way and the real question is DO YOU BELEIVE HIM? Instead of adding millions of years why don't some ask the question "why did he take so long to do it"? Could he have not done it in five days? Four days? One day? One hour? One second?? Time doesn't exist to God he is not constrained by anything. If you put away the concept of time(which is just a measuring tape anyways) and IMO does not exist as a perceptual entity you will really start to understand how God views things.

 

[JackRT]

but saying the universe is 13.8+ billion years old is not in conformity with what God has revealed

Not exactly. But I do agree it is not un conformity with your interpretation of scripture.

 

[NobleMouse]

I will concede this point if you will concede that it’s God’s Day/Yom, not mans 24hr day. Otherwise we are at an impass (example in next point). I never said I think it’s poetic imagery... on the contrary I think it very accurately describes the beginning of the whole universe every boson, photon, proton, neutron, electron, atom, molecule, matter...

God's day/yom is the same as man's day/yom. Not sure if you were going to go down this path, but to preemptively address, let's briefly bring up 2 Peter 3:8, "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

I believe this is a popular verse that OEC's like to bring up to discount the yom's of Genesis as being 24-hr days. As I've mentioned regarding hermeneutics let's; however, look at the context of this verse by reading on to verse 9:

"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

The thousand years is a day is telling us that God is now slow to fulfill His promise... that is, everything is perfectly timed according to His perfect plan. God is very well aware of what a 24-hr (1440 minute) day is, He created it and He created time as a protection. Yes, God does exist outside of time - He sees our past/present/future as a single continuum, but He also knows time and conveyed the time of creation in units of time that were understood.

A good indicator these are normal days is that God commanded to observe the Sabbath. When's the Sabbath? The 7th day, the day God rested. When's the 7th day? What's a day?!! We wouldn't even know where to begin with complying with such a commandment if God did not tell us what a day was in the terms in which we understand a day to be.

As I have demonstrated many times on this forum, YEC’s state the Bible says days/yom in Genesis are 24 hour days. If God did not create time until the fourth day (Suns) in Genesis, how can the 3 previous days be 24hr days?

Light existed before day 4, it existed on day 1 (Genesis 1:3-5). Why assume days 1, 2, and 3 are not 24-hr days? Again, God gave us the beginning in terms understood as a normal day. Just as easily in the Hebrew language, God could have given a longer time period... periods of time like month and year can be conveyed in the Hebrew language - He could have just as easily conveyed billions of years, but He didn't, He conveyed days.

Please describe the state of the earth in Genesis 1:1-2

From the ESV...
"1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

Verse one sets the stage: God created the heavens (space) and the earth. Verse two now begins to describe what earth initially was like on day 1. The earth was void - nothing filled it, it was empty of life, of rocks, soil, trees, etc... From the passage, all we can know so far is that water exists and has not yet been formed into the planet as we see it today, and God's spirit was present (hovering over the face of the waters). A number of commentaries on these verses describe a sort of darkness, gloom, and chaotic state of the earth here.

One last question can we have an Earth without gravity?

Yes, every single time. To expound/qualify this a bit... this can ONLY be true IF a supernatural being (God) is creating the Earth in a supernatural way, as He did.

As always I respect your thoughtful posts but respectfully disagree!

Likewise, I appreciate and respect your thoughts as well brother.

Lastly, YEC’s use the scientific definition of Day: 24 hours (86 400 seconds), the word day is used for several different spans of time based on the rotation of the Earth around its axis. An important one is the solar day, defined as the time it takes for the Sun to return to its culmination point (its highest point in the sky).

Where in the Bible does it say the length of a day. If you are using the scientific definition why is this ok, and not the other applications of scientific observations?!

As I've already discussed above, God told us of creation in the understanding of a day. Turning your question back over to you, where does the Bible say it is any other length of time than ~86 400 seconds? We know God is true, we know God is noncontradictory, we know God has revealed His truth by His word, and we know God could have indicated any number of time periods other than a day, but He didn't.

I have no problem with ideas of billions of years, or even evolution, except God said He did it a different way and on a different timeline. If you want to read up more on the yom's, the following is a very extensive and well-supported article on the topic:
G. F. Hasel - The "Days" of Creation in Genesis 1

As you indicated in your opening remarks, we are at an impasse on the topic as you are asserting that (1) a day means something other than which it would have been understood to be (that is, God communicates to His children in a confusing way when He in fact could have just as easily conveyed long periods of time if that was clearly what He meant), and (2) no where is this idea of days meaning vast periods of time corroborated/supported elsewhere in the Bible, and (3) contradicts other passages from the Bible. To me, this sounds more in line with taking the Bible out of context and moving things around than what you suggest YEC's do.

 

[Ancient of Days]

"no where is this idea of days meaning vast periods of time corroborated/supported elsewhere in the Bible" Exactly! Why don't they argue that Jesus was on earth five million years ago? Why is it only the six days of creation are argued as long periods of time?

 

[NobleMouse]

If your birth certificate was worked up 2000 years ago, underwent both oral transmittal and written translation, was broken into pieces and put back together in different orders and fashions by people who debated over it 1500 years ago, and underwent further translation...

Then, I see no reason it would be detrimental to either of us, if we examined your skeletal structure, regardless of what your birth certificate says, just to be safe. You skeletal structure is just as much a creation of our Lord, as the birth certificate (though the birth certificate was literally written by flawed people, whereas your skeletal structure is nothing that man could ever create), and should not simply be ignored.

Perhaps it is you that does not trust our Lords creation (the skeleton), or perhaps you do not trust the certification or Gods word enough, to be able to reconcile it with your skeletal structure.

Keeping with the analogy of the birth certificate/skeleton, the earth's original Hebrew birth certificate also says around ~6,000 years old and was written down by the doctors based upon what God told them so I don't think your argument holds. I see you also don't believe the Bible has been carefully preserved over time. As for the skeleton, you have to know it as well as the creator knows the skeleton to know you are right and even the best graduates at the highest levels of education from the top universities in the world (who BTW have never created skeletons, have never seen the beginning of a skeleton, and outside of the Bible can only draw conclusions based upon scratching around at the surface of the skeleton - not even knowing (only guessing) what is inside the skeleton) do not even come close to knowing the skeleton as well as the creator. But yet, what God told the doctors to write on the birth certificate is completely redefined based upon very limited and incomplete conclusions.

 

[NobleMouse]

"no where is this idea of days meaning vast periods of time corroborated/supported elsewhere in the Bible" Exactly! Why don't they argue that Jesus was on earth five million years ago? Why is it only the six days of creation are argued as long periods of time?

Agreed, it seems to go against the nature of God to have spent billions of years slowly letting things form as the OEC would wish, watching the dinosaurs and trilobites folly and frolic about for hundreds of millions of years, then finally, FINALLY, go, "hey, I think we're ready to create man in Our image." God is a supernatural being and He works supernaturally. As you've indicated in other posts He doesn't need long periods of time. He works in His perfect timing according to His perfect plan and He has told us His perfect timing for creation was 6 days, resting on the 7th. As much as any one of us might wish it to have been faster or slower, this is His creation and it is His timing, and His plan.

 

[Job 33:6]

Keeping with the analogy of the birth certificate/skeleton, the earth's original Hebrew birth certificate also says around ~6,000 years old and was written down by the doctors based upon what God told them so I don't think your argument holds. I see you also don't believe the Bible has been carefully preserved over time. As for the skeleton, you have to know it as well as the creator knows the skeleton to know you are right and even the best graduates at the highest levels of education from the top universities in the world (who BTW have never created skeletons, have never seen the beginning of a skeleton, and outside of the Bible can only draw conclusions based upon scratching around at the surface of the skeleton - not even knowing (only guessing) what is inside the skeleton) do not even come close to knowing the skeleton as well as the creator. But yet, what God told the doctors to write on the birth certificate is completely redefined based upon very limited and incomplete conclusions.

Even if we assumed to know the author, and assumed to know that this certificate was safe kept, and assumed to know the precise nature of how God told these doctors what to write (none of which we actually know), It was still written by people or a person. A flawed person. A person of error, as all people are. You riddle your own side with assumptions. Then you bring those assumptions to the table as if it is a justifiable position.

And there is no question in the differences in age between a babies skeleton, and an adults skeleton. Because we understand bones, we understand how people grow, we understand how they age, and how they decay. We understand bones very well, enough to distinguish a baby skeleton from an adult.

You come to the table with assumptions (many of them), then you are forced to assume the adult skeleton is a baby skeleton, because if you do not, it would contradict your assumptions.

How would you even know the difference between an adult and baby if you never studied skeletons? How would you know that...we have only scratched around on the surface of this skeleton? If you dont study it, how would you know what we have learned about it? The truth is, you dont know what we know about it. Yet you just assume we are all wrong, without knowing.

Only the religious (non scientists 99% of the time) deny that its an adult skeleton. That is telling, because nobody for regular evidence based reasons (including religious scientists), would ever come to such a conclusion. Because it isnt reality.

And yet, you are willing to not only assume details about your side, but further assume details about my side, which you do not know about. Then you assume that your assumptions, take precedence over my position which you are unaware of.

Even if hypothetically you were correct, you would have no way of knowing, because you have skipped "critical thinking", by bypassing information from the other side (and your side too).
--------------------------------------------------

Even if you trusted the doctor, 110%, doctors are still human. But also, even if you trusted that doctor 110%, there is never ever a good justification for ignoring critical thinking (by simply denouncing study of the skeleton without being informed about it). And that is precisely what is happening. And on that basis, you are handicapped, and your own judgement has been compromised (google definition of compomised: brought into disrepute or danger by indiscreet, foolish, or reckless behavior.).

 

[GBTG]

Thank you NobleMouse, you proved my original point (the argument is not about YEC or OEC)!

I hope everyone can see why OEC and YEC are at an impasse. I respect NobleMouse's view but disagree for a variety of reasons. This does not mean I believe him to be any less a Christian. I still contend that the YEC view is a stumbling block to a would be Chirstians, but that is my opinion (and I don't want to continue the debate for it is futile).

As stated before, we can have this discussion many ways and bring up the same points, by whatever titles we choose, you can use scripture as the base of the argument or geology, and the tradition of the points of view will not have changed.

This is why I had originally stopped participating on this board, circular arguments, or expecting a different outcome from the result is the definition of insanity. Why continue unless we deal with the real question?

What would it take for either a YEC or an OEC to switch points of view, so that we are all of one accord?

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[Job 33:6]

Thank you NobleMouse, you proved my original point (the argument is not about YEC or OEC)!

I hope everyone can see why OEC and YEC are at an impasse. I respect NobleMouse's view but disagree for a variety of reasons. This does not mean I believe him to be any less a Christian. I still contend that the YEC view is a stumbling block to a would be Chirstians, but that is my opinion (and I don't want to continue the debate for it is futile).

As stated before, we can have this discussion many ways and bring up the same points, by whatever titles we choose, you can use scripture as the base of the argument or geology, and the tradition of the points of view will not have changed.

This is why I had originally stopped participating on this board, circular arguments, or expecting a different outcome from the result is the definition of insanity. Why continue unless we deal with the real question?

What would it take for either a YEC or an OEC to switch points of view, so that we are all of one accord?

Warm regards, GBTG

For me to recognize YEC as the truth, something like a general understanding of plate tectonics and fundamental laws of physics, would have to be demonstrated to be false. Or shown to vary under plausibly existent conditions.

 

[GBTG]

I would second that, as I believe science to be a study of those things God has created, but it still is not good enough to sway anyone.

Science in agreement with the Bible (Bible>science) is fine (not to say we agree with every aspect of science, as some is still theoretical) (OEC).

Science disagrees with the Bible two outcomes:

a: Bible trumps science (science will never discern God's creation) (YEC).

b: Bible is false. (If the bible is false we are all believing in a really good tooth fairy story) (atheist/agnostic).

The problem as I see it, is that a would be Christian that happened to be a logical thinker and has gone to college where he/she has been exposed to science, cannot choose "a" (hence the barrier to salvation). Many intellectuals therefore then default to "b" above, they are not believers so cannot support "a". Now if they come to "a" through some other means (say for example traditional church view) or exposure then they come here and debate the difference between OEC and YEC.

If the start out as "b" they might come to salvation through OEC, then they also come here to debate OEC vs YEC.

The YEC vs OEC debate demonstrates further reason to choose "b"! As believers are divided and cannot agree, (another barrier to salvation). I would become a YEC to save more souls (and I did struggle internally with YEC for a time myself) if I could get past the overwhelming scientific evidence of the Bibles accuracy, when you apply logic. I think many people would default to "b" if "a" was the only option (barrier to salvation).

My point is this. OEC is the only option that is not a barrier to salvation. Yes I know there are some YEC's that will state by being a OEC you have become a heretic, and lost your salvation... Which only leaves option "a" or option "b". This would by default mean that God has created the whole of the Universe; placed man within said universe; then denied the accuracy of those things we can see, taste, touch, measure, which makes Him a con-artist or fallible. Which brings us to option "b". Therefore the Bible and science must agree (negating option "a") or the only option is "b".

Regards, GBTG

 

[NobleMouse]

Even if we assumed to know the author, and assumed to know that this certificate was safe kept, and assumed to know the precise nature of how God told these doctors what to write (none of which we actually know), It was still written by people or a person. A flawed person. A person of error, as all people are. ...Even if hypothetically you were correct, you would have no way of knowing, because you have skipped "critical thinking", by bypassing information from the other side (and your side too)...Even if you trusted the doctor, 110%, doctors are still human. But also, even if you trusted that doctor 110%, there is never ever a good justification for ignoring critical thinking (by simply denouncing study of the skeleton without being informed about it). And that is precisely what is happening. And on that basis, you are handicapped, and your own judgement has been compromised (google definition of compomised: brought into disrepute or danger by indiscreet, foolish, or reckless behavior.).

And now challenging God's omnipotence... like the process of God giving His truth to us made in His image is either an inherently flawed process or highly prone and probable to error. Though, I do recognize I have a conservative view of God's word as a sacred text and others may have a more liberal view. If this were true though, Jesus would not have spent time studying and quoting scripture to defend attacks from Pharisees, Scribes, and Satan - it must be true, Jesus believed it! Many times we see Jesus saying, "Have you not read..." and "It is written..."; the Bible is truth brother. Nobody is foolish, indiscreet, or reckless for hanging on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Blessed are those who believe but have not seen. I think most blessed is the elderly widow(er) or the young child in your church or my church who just simply and faithfully believes the word of God because it says so!

 

[NobleMouse]

Thank you NobleMouse, you proved my original point (the argument is not about YEC or OEC)!

I hope everyone can see why OEC and YEC are at an impasse. I respect NobleMouse's view but disagree for a variety of reasons. This does not mean I believe him to be any less a Christian. I still contend that the YEC view is a stumbling block to a would be Chirstians, but that is my opinion (and I don't want to continue the debate for it is futile).

As stated before, we can have this discussion many ways and bring up the same points, by whatever titles we choose, you can use scripture as the base of the argument or geology, and the tradition of the points of view will not have changed.

This is why I had originally stopped participating on this board, circular arguments, or expecting a different outcome from the result is the definition of insanity. Why continue unless we deal with the real question?

What would it take for either a YEC or an OEC to switch points of view, so that we are all of one accord?

Warm regards, GBTG

Thank you too GBTG, I do find these debates a good exercise in that it helps strengthen our faith in what we believe. What is your faith if it is never challenged by someone with an opposing view? How prepared are you to defend your position if it is never challenged? I'm not looking to change minds here, but to challenge though processes and view points. Likewise, I very much appreciate the challenges returned as this makes me re-evaluate my own position and beliefs, dig back into scripture, put my faith to the mettle. I hope you can find some appreciation in that. Similarly, we are called to share what we believe with unbelievers as well. Many will respond the same way (definition of insanity as you correctly put it), but that said we are still called to faithfully spread the Gospel message because though we are fallen, the Holy Spirit can take a poorly delivered sharing of the truth of God's word and use it to completely change an unsaved person's life. God bless, brother!

 

[NobleMouse]

For me to recognize YEC as the truth, something like a general understanding of plate tectonics and fundamental laws of physics, would have to be demonstrated to be false. Or shown to vary under plausibly existent conditions.

I don't think fundamental laws of physics or plate tectonics need to be ignored or proven false - physics and plate tectonics can be observed and tested, but rather recognizing that processes today are not necessarily always how they were yesterday. For example, I design financial forecast models in my profession - I'm a process guy. I have created models that gather financial data on a daily basis, from the prior business days' financial transactions, and these records are added into a table of data along with data from all the prior days of the fiscal year. Now this model also houses historical data from prior years and combined with current year data creates mechanical projections used for forecasting purposes. When I built the model, to make it work the way it needs to, I dumped millions of records into a data repository, all at once. Now, on a daily basis, only a few 10's of thousands of records are added. Someone then coming along and looking at how the current process works might study the model and see it has been running, consistently, the way it has currently been running for as long as it's been known about. They would see the numerous years of records and very logically conclude it's been running this way for all those years. While perfectly logical and perfectly intelligent, they would be wrong because I'd tell them I built it earlier in the year and I just dumped everything into it at once so that it would function as I designed it to function.

I'm not saying this is all that great of an analogy, least of all "proof" that the Bible is correct (the Bible is correct because it's the word of God and is the absolute source of truth). What I hope comes across though is the idea that the process God used to create the universe and all matter that is in it (with all the physical laws we now see in place today) very well could have been different in the past. God did not have to create the physical law first, then apply it when creating the universe (like the conditions of my rudimentary and simplistic forecast model we much different when I was first setting it in motion than after it was running on its own), God's word demonstrates, as we see in Genesis 1:1-2 that the laws of physics we see today were not yet fully in place (God created light but no sun, God created the earth but it was formless and void, God created in six days, etc...). God did all of this at creation so that all of creation would function the way He designed. When I create a model, I essentially "stage" the objects within the model to be in place for their purpose once I 'turn it on'. There were stars in the sky when Adam would have looked up in the night sky even though the nearest star is several light years away - this just means God simply brought the light to earth faster than 300,000 km/sec. The speed of light is stable and constant at 300,000 km/sec and is completely dependable, but that doesn't mean it had been that way at the moment God created the stars for identifying the seasons and so forth.

The YEC view also doesn't make God a deceptive liar either as is sometimes claimed. The deception only occurs when assuming the current process was always the process. Someone might say I was deceptive to tell them the forecast model that houses multiple years of data was only made just earlier this year, but that's only because they assumed it always just gathered a few 10's of thousands of records a day as it has always been known to do, when in reality I dumped millions of records in all at the beginning. I want to be clear though that I don't believe God dumped the appearance of age into creation. Age is relative, subjective, and interpretive. God is the creator of the universe and He is the ultimate authority of it (not the creation itself - the creation is not it's own master so looking to it will not reveal the most authoritative answers). Like how I would tell someone I built the model over the course of several weeks earlier this year, God tells us He created everything in 6 days - not billions of years.

Ugh, I am so wordy; sorry for the long response to your short and concise statement :/

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't think fundamental laws of physics or plate tectonics need to be ignored or proven false - physics and plate tectonics can be observed and tested, but rather recognizing that processes today are not necessarily always how they were yesterday. For example, I design financial forecast models in my profession - I'm a process guy. I have created models that gather financial data on a daily basis, from the prior business days' financial transactions, and these records are added into a table of data along with data from all the prior days of the fiscal year. Now this model also houses historical data from prior years and combined with current year data creates mechanical projections used for forecasting purposes. When I built the model, to make it work the way it needs to, I dumped millions of records into a data repository, all at once. Now, on a daily basis, only a few 10's of thousands of records are added. Someone then coming along and looking at how the current process works might study the model and see it has been running, consistently, the way it has currently been running for as long as it's been known about. They would see the numerous years of records and very logically conclude it's been running this way for all those years. /

Plate tectonics is not a computer program. Physics is not a computer program either.

You just cant...assume that physics was completely different in the past. Not without some form of justification.

For example...

Young earthers often propose that pangea existed at the onset of the flood, and with the fountains of the deep, blasting out of the center of pangea, the continents were split.

Ok, and so what is proposed is an expedited continental drift. On an order of magnitude that is over ~100,000 times faster than anything experienced today.

Now imagine, India, moving north, into Asia, 100,000 times the rate it is today. 100,000 times the pressure, 100,000 times the heat.

Thats continental drift at perhaps a 4 miles per year. a mile every 3 months. Which is 60 feet every day.

And, you might think well, 60 feet isnt that far. But when its one continent moving into another, this is pretty radical. And in this, rocks would, easily metamorphose. There would be no...sedimentary rocks. There would be no 30 degree angle compressional fault systems spanning hundreds of miles, it would all be annihilated.

So yes, young earthers do defy physics, they defy plate tectonics.

And this cant be misjudged. Unless literally everything we know about physics is wrong. Even something as simple as just light coming from the stars, and travelling at the speed of light. They believe that God sped light up so it would reach us, but then slowed it down so we wouldnt realize that it was once sped up.

And when we watch light travel in space, we can see how fast it used to travel. But God still allegedly sped it up and slowed it down and made it look as if it never changed.

It just doesnt make any sense.

 

[Job 33:6]

@NobleMouse

I would recommend reading about that supernova, in which light was viewed during the initial explosion, as well as when it interacted with particles further away from the original source of light.

Im not sure if you know what I am referring to, but even in space at great distances, and millions of years ago, we can view events transpiring with physics just as they occur here and now.

These ideas...just arent biblical either. This idea of creating stars, speeding up light, then slowing it down. Or creating continents, speeding them up, then slowing them down. Or even...here is another one,

predictions made in the fossil record based on genetic relatedness. So, now God is also speeding up descent with modification, but slowing it down as soon as we turn to look at it.

Like a trick. The continents are sped up in their motion, but are slowed down and their fractures and chemistry give the appearance that they were never fast. Why wouldnt a rock metamorphose when speeding at 60 feet a day into another continent? All of physics must have just been different.

But theres more, there are rocks that form under extraordinarily high temperatures and pressures, and we have some of them, but they are far older than 99% of rocks we have here on earth. So its not like we wouldnt know if such a thing existed. The oldest rocks on earth, played by the same rules as they do now, and they show us this with their chemistry.

But again, YECs just throw everything, all physics and reality, out of the window.

 

[Job 33:6]

but theres just no evidence for this^

So, we go from completely ignoring science, to creating anti science. Without evidence. And with evidence of the contrary.

 

[Job 33:6]

The YEC view also doesn't make God a deceptive liar either as is sometimes claimed. The deception only occurs when assuming the current process was always the process. Someone might say I was deceptive to tell them the forecast model that houses multiple years of data was only made just earlier this year, but that's only because they assumed it always just gathered a few 10's of thousands of records a day as it has always been known to do, when in reality I dumped millions of records in all at the beginning. I want to be clear though that I don't believe God dumped the appearance of age into creation. Age is relative, subjective, and interpretive. God is the creator of the universe and He is the ultimate authority of it (not the creation itself - the creation is not it's own master so looking to it will not reveal the most authoritative answers). Like how I would tell someone I built the model over the course of several weeks earlier this year, God tells us He created everything in 6 days - not billions of years.

Ugh, I am so wordy; sorry for the long response to your short and concise statement :/

Its ok.

Really, i suppose im just repeating myself. If you dont think that YEC defies physics, then i would just say, check out my old earth geology posts, and see if you can answer them without defying physics.