tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3500036.post4209097965416332952..comments2024-01-02T04:49:16.658-05:00Comments on He Lives: Two Theologians on "How old is the universe?"Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3500036.post-67048701009095756752012-12-03T12:12:35.283-05:002012-12-03T12:12:35.283-05:00Yeah, wayne. And God created the world last Tuesd...Yeah, wayne. And God created the world last Tuesday besides.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3500036.post-26475444887878683752012-12-01T07:44:12.918-05:002012-12-01T07:44:12.918-05:00The 'best' explanation for HOW there could...The 'best' explanation for HOW there could be a Young Earth is in the Huumphreys book Starlight and Time which uses the clear truth that relavity theory allows for BENDING of time. Also that if the true center were near the earth, time-bending would create great time differences as the universe expanded through trillions of miles.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12109272772427402291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3500036.post-16125443388614210652012-10-01T11:19:29.783-04:002012-10-01T11:19:29.783-04:00gcortright- having read the Bible a number of time...gcortright- having read the Bible a number of times, I can only come to the same conclusion as you: either the Bible is right, or the real world is right. I choose the real world.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3500036.post-48048694430069653312012-09-30T00:12:46.773-04:002012-09-30T00:12:46.773-04:00I found your blog looking for entirely different m...I found your blog looking for entirely different material but was intrigued to find out who you were and read the article. With enough curiosity I listened to the entirety of both Sproul & Mohler. <br /><br />I agree with everyone at the humility and wisdom of Sproul's answer, but I also don't think you can characterize the two as opposite ends of the argument. Your presentation of Mohler's arguments entirely misses his point (and if you want it, he drives his point home at about 54:00 in the video). And namely is that reading Genesis 1 in a way which attempts to read an old earth into the account heads down a slippery slope of theological problems which ultimately throw the problem of sin and our justification before God into question. He barely makes reference to the church fathers in his opening arguments, and only mentions "uniformitarianism" in passing reference. They are not central to his argument, but I can see it is central to yours. <br /><br />In listening to both Sproul and Mohler I find very little where I can disagree with them. Sproul was careful not to dogmatically say the earth is young, and Mohler answers the question saying the earth appears old because God made it old and the effects of sin cause it to appear old as well. <br /><br />I guess, as a theologian who teaches from the vantage point that these others have raised, I'm curious how a nuclear physicist reconciles the two without destroying the inerrancy of Scripture and bringing in all the theological difficulties Mohler points out.<br /><br />Specifically if you have time, I'm curious how you defend the claim of uniformitarianism. You point out there is zero evidence that the laws of physics have changed, as evidence that they have not. But an absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. I'm curious how confidently science can show that the astronomical, astrophysical, and geological data you refer are so consistent. As a layman, it seems like a rather unwieldy, unrealistic claim to suggest that these data are perfectly consistent and that they cannot be mistaken. The whole argument "trust us, we've got it figured out" that science has made over the centuries shows if nothing else, human evaluations need constant recalculating on the basis of new evidence. <br /><br />Anyway, just curious. I won't dogmatically say I can prove the "young earth theory" but I would agree with Sproul - I stand with Scripture where it teaches clearly 100 out of 100 times when scientific ideas seem to conflict. <br />In the mean time, I hope you can be more fair to those of us who see the theological problems with evolution as being of greater concern with trying to blend Genesis 1 with evolutionary thought. Dismissing him as just having "dumb" arguments, without even touching on his central point, unfortunately is the pot calling the kettle black.gcortrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05151427312642309113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3500036.post-32047903468453943452012-08-07T13:28:55.402-04:002012-08-07T13:28:55.402-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05981973338949570468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3500036.post-21918829794279166882012-05-23T17:52:39.240-04:002012-05-23T17:52:39.240-04:00I haven't seen Mohler on this, but I've re...I haven't seen Mohler on this, but I've read similar arguments. A good job on demolishing them.<br /><br />Thanks.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3500036.post-38256605036107622422012-05-23T16:21:13.385-04:002012-05-23T16:21:13.385-04:00Exactly! I've been working on a series of post...Exactly! I've been working on a series of posts for my blog and I wanted to talk about special v. natural revelation. Quite serendipitously, someone posted a video of Sproul answering the age question about a week before I needed it (he did a better job explaining it than I could have so I posted his video to my blog (today, I think)). <br /><br />Anyway, when I was doing a little digging for more info on this, I found Mohler's talk. I was suspicious of it, but the description made me think it might improve. It did not. <br /><br />He blew it, indeed!bsoisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12839078176616706203noreply@blogger.com