" Finally, a 6000 year old universe is just as vast, and just as beautiful as 14billion year old universe."
I doubt that the earth was real soft and mushy on day 8. Any planet 8 days old would be real soft and mushy. Likewise, Adam wasn't sucking milk from anyone's breast. Nor were the animals still wobbly on their legs. Why would they be? They were not born....they were made.
So, assuming that the beginning started as it is written, then the earth has all the "scientific" attributes of a well aged planet. Not to say that it is.....just that, in order to avoid being soft and mushy and unsuitable to life, it was created "Ready to go".
Fast food style.
Jesus is credited with a number of "miracles". A "miracle" is a direct result of God touching mankind and delivering results that are "Ready to go". Blind seeing, lame walking, Wine drinking....all kinds of RTG events. Things that seem to have taken place out of our normal time frame. When God has revealed Himself to me, it was just this type of thing that happened. Things were RTG when there was no way for it to have happened in real time. Not mushy. Firm.
"False. Nearly all conservative Bible scholars from the early to mid-1800s thru the mid-1900s believed that the earth was old and that animals had died before man was here. These scholars included Scofield, Spurgeon, Barnhouse, Ironside, Unger, J Vernon McGee, and many, many others who did not accept the ToE as "fact." "
There is nothing wrong with that. Adam wasn't "young". Nor was "the garden" a square of germinating sprouts. The earth has all the characteristics of something old. As does the rest of the cosmos.
There are no isotopes with a 4.5 billion yo 1/2 life, to start with. The age number is scientifical historism. Not science.
True science being a reproducible testable event.
When a guy in a lab coat, or on Nova, spews yarns of ancient planet history ... don't fall to your knees and kiss the ring. I've been around Scientists all my life. They have agendas like everyone else. Worse actually.
Anyway, earth may well have endured a massive amount of prep time. Just so we could drive fast cars on smooth roads.
"And try telling the scientists who practice it that cosmology is not a "true" science."
As if I care how they think about themselves. The fact remains, even their peers, who they bed with, can't be sure of historical events. Besides, you failed to produce even the smallest token of support other than your, and their, belief system. Again it falls out of pure science because...well....because it's always wrong. Each new discovery throws away days or years worth of previous speculation.
Take our moon for example. All of the brightest minds in the world have reached no conclusion on how it was formed. And that's after hand delivery of 100's of pounds of surface and core samples. No, if the group you call "Science" can't reach agreement on how our moon was formed with samples in their hands, I'm not going to give them ANY credit for theories on how anything else came into being.
Read about the moons of Saturn. You'll note that the moons are "Surprisingly active". I'll say. Not a single sentence has been written to try to explain how a moon that out-gasses material into space could exist for a billion years. I've not seen one. And I follow it pretty close.
According to Jesus, the scriptures are written correctly. His opinion trumps theirs any day, and is reconfirmed each day.
"According to science, the universe is HUGE, and we are but a mere speck."
But then "Science" is no less biased or based on hope and faith than the Pope. Science has "Faith" that a majority of "lab coats" will agree that they have followed a good process and that all these white coats will agree with the conclusions drawn from the data. But valid conclusions can be swept under the rug and ignored if they don't fit the biases of the majority.
To suggest we are a "mere speck" is not accurate and shows a huge ego. According to "Science" the universe is infinite. That means we are so small that we don't actually exist in the grand scheme of things. In fact, "Science" is nothing and knows nothing about nothing compared to the infinite amount of universe outside of what we know.
Ahh, but that would be going too far. Science isn't ready to admit that we know nothing. That doesn't leave room for the man-ego to boast that science knows just about all that there is to know.
Yet, I just illustrated that we know less than nothing. Especially about the infinite that we don't know. That's why there must be a Creator. Because if there isn't, then we know nothing at all.
But if there is, then we aren't just less than a speck. Then we are actually the reason for the rest to exist. And clearly we still don't know everything there is to know.
But at least we can relax and look forward to being with The One who does.
Carl Sagan seems like such a pleasant fellow. I wonder if his three wives have the same opinion? They didn't seem too happy. Being a Pot-smoking Stoner, I would think he'd be easier to get along with. What a great drug-induced smile....eh?
" Is it any less egotistical to believe in a Creator who lifts humanity up as His "special" creation over every other single known and unknown lifeform in the known universe? Going even further, is it not egotistical to believe that only certain folks are saved and the rest are forever lost?? "
- When cornered - change the subject - Putting something or somebody in charge is common. Anything with a brain has appreciation for the value of having a brain in charge. Or should. - The lost can always count on Reincarnation to pull them from the lost soul pile and stick them into a bug or something.
Why would non-believers want to spend all eternity worshiping God? No fun for them. THAT would be Hell, right?
Correct. The subject is avoided not because of consensus but because all the current theories have about the same amount of support and about the same amount of contradictory evidence. It's really quite an embarrassment (for "Science") to have so much hard data and no solid conclusions.
"Scientists are not embarrassed by behaving rationally. "
LOL! You've not been around Scientists! I've seen them escorted by security out of the building after throwing chairs. I've seem them escorted out for lieing, cheating, and even stealing. Just like the rest of the population. Rational thought is very far from the scientific method.
"....since your capacity to exercise your free will has nothing to do with the age of the Earth."
Yes it does. Not that I care about our observed age of the earth, just that history, as told in the scriptures, is important in that it tells what has taken place. At a certain time in the past, we chose sin, so God had to do something to make up for our choice. We chose Death. So God had to fix that problem. That's actually when time started. The clock didn't start ticking till we choose not to be in fellowship with God. Before that, time didn't exist... As we know it.
"Well,thatwasincoherent.Butyoseemtobetaking the assurance of scientists that they don't know everything as meaning that you know "less than nothing".You mayindeed,knowlessthan nothing-indeed, your post appears to confirm this hypothesis.But this disability does not follow from the fact that scientists say that they don't know everything.It seems, in fact, to follow from you swallowing a load of half-baked tripe. "
Well you cleared that up. Anyway, I'll restate:
If the REST of the universe is INFINITE, then the SPECK of information that we know is INFINITELY SMALL.
"And how do we know which scriptures to believe? There are many different stories, you know, and most of them contradict each other."
Rather than having done any such research, you're simply repeating what others (who have done no such research) have said. Given that God is infinite, we can expect more than one point of view regarding the same truth. And that's what we find. We can explore my twisted "multi-viewpoint" logic, if only you would reference your references for us.
In fact we even find other, older cultures telling different versions of the same Biblical History story. As you know.