The TRUE reason for the EvC controversy, and why it can not be resolved.

let me get this straight. The world of today is the fallen world, right? The fallen world began after the flood, right? If the laws of physics (which eventually lead into the laws of all other branches of science considering physics deals with matter and energy) have been unchanged since the fall, then the fallen world is over 13 billion years old(I gave up years ago with keeping up with how old the universe is). Noah's flood occurred on earth, right? Then the earth must be as old as the fallen universe, right? And how old is the earth, according to the science in this fallen world, which obeys the continuity of scientific laws? Try about 4.6 billion years old. Which means that Noah's flood could not happen on the earth, right? But if Noah's flood has to occur on earth, since man has always been on earth, even in the bible, the fallen state does not exist as you define it.Please do correct me if my analysis is wrong.This message has been edited by kuresu, 03-25-2006 01:42 AM

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

The fallen world began with the Fall, that is, with the original sin of Adam and Eve.

It isn't just moderators who will remind you of the topic. Members who are familiar with standard administrative practices here do it all the time, because they know that off-topic messages use up the 300-message limit of a thread, and threads that are persistently off-topic frequently receive closures, sometimes permanent.Most subthreads only drift gradually off-topic, and that appears to be the case here. The origins of the digression appears to be rooted in parts of Jar's Message 63, but it isn't clear how "God sacrificing His only begotten Son" is related to this thread's topic, which postulates that the creation/evolution controversy has no resolution. If you can tie Christ's dying for our sins into the thread's topic then please proceed, by all means, but otherwise it is best to take it to a more appropriate thread

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

right, but that still leaves a very old universe. GFC is saying that since science can only measure the world after the fall and before the second coming, nothing can be known prior or after these events by science. And if the fall is the beginning of when science can observe nature, and science has observed a many billions year old universe, and science has observed an earth that is only 4.6 billion byo, many times younger than the universe, it leaves a illogical conclusion for him. His conclusion requires the earth to be as old as the fall, and his logic places the fall at the beginning of science, over 13bya. Adam and Eve's fall still occurred on earth, which would then mean that the earth has to be less than 100000 years old, which isn't the case.

I'm not following you. Or following this thread really. I merely felt like correcting your mistake about when the fallen world started. I've been waiting to see if I'll eventually get what GFC is saying.But I THINK he's saying that we can't KNOW what you are claiming is known by science, because conditions were so drastically altered at the Fall that none of science's assumptions and methods are trustworthy back before that point. They do fine in the fallen world, but beyond that period of time are useless. God isn't deceiving us, it's just that the physical universe was altered by sin and our tools can't detect a previously nonfallen universe. So great age is merely a false reading based on faulty tools.

It really doesn't much matter. There is no evidence either physically in the real world or Biblically to support the concept of a Fall or changes in basics such as radioactive decay.Until he can present some evidence of such changed conditions it's simply wild speculation.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think i get what GFC is saying. It doesn't matter when or who started the Fall (GFC says Noah's flood is the fall, you say Adam and Eve's original sin), but his assumption that science can only measure the universe after the fall means that the measured universe must be as old as the earth, or vice versa. neither holds true.The universe is over 13 byo. The fall is when the laws of physics are created as we know themThe earth is 4.6 byo. Since the fall is the beginning of time for science, and since science can measure the age of the universe to what was previously stated, something isn't adding up.The earth is younger than the universe. which means the earth was created after the universe.The fall happened on earth, no?Can you tell me what's wrong with this picture?This message has been edited by kuresu, 03-25-2006 11:55 AM

I think what Faith and GFC are trying to say is that we are "fallen" - i.e. "tainted", "damaged goods", etc. - and therefore our entire thinking about science is "warped". It's tantamount to saying that we can never know anything.Ironically, as I've been trying to tell GFC, that "worldview" is what prevents them from understanding science.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

GFC is going to have to explain what he meant as I was simply doing my best to understand it and am not sure I got it all that well If he placed the Fall at the Flood he's wrong. The Flood was merely the first great consequence of the sin that started accumulating at the Fall, and there is reason to believe that this great consequence DID alter things quite a bit. So I guess he could try to make the case that the consequences of the Fall in the physical world didn't really occur until the Flood -- but I don't think he can make that case totally, as death certainly began with Original Sin, and God threw Adam and Eve out of Eden then, to till a changed earth.But none of this precludes science, as science is really the result of belief in an orderly universe which was not really fully believed by any people, even the Greeks, until the Biblical God became known, which is why science took off with such strength in Christian Europe.Since I believe that it was belief in the rational God of the Bible that stimulated the growth of science, I certainly don't believe that science is impossible and that we can't know anything, quite the opposite. Science is a great gift from God and it has brought great knowledge and blessings into the world.But I do of course believe that notions about a very ancient earth have to be wrong, based on the same Bible I believe brought this rational science to us in the first place, so I'm intrigued by GFC's idea about how our science can't discover the originally perfect universe God created.

If I understand what GFC is saying, what's wrong with your picture is that none of those calculated ages are correct because our measuring instruments are untrustworthy, because everything in the universe changed after the Fall. So these ancient ages are false readings.The error seems to be specific to time or great age, and HOW he explains why the false readings are specific to great age I don't know.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-25-2006 01:58 PM

YOU don't see the Biblical evidence for the Fall but the majority historic Church disagrees with you, as you can see in most of the catechisms and confessions of the churches through the centuries, as they all affirm the Fall.There is plenty of Biblical evidence of changed conditions after the Fall, although WHAT conditions are what we are thinking about. And if GFC is right, the kind of evidence you are requiring wouldn't exist because our instruments would fail to recognize it.But we do have God's word, which is the most reliable instrument of all, and it tells us on God's authority that death entered with the Fall, that the whole Creation was cursed with the Fall, and that a global Flood was God's first great punishment of the sin that the Fall brought into the world. Terrific evidence there. The best.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-25-2006 02:07 PM

Unless and until you can provide some evidence of this alleged Fall, it's just dazzling propaganda.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Again, until you can provide some evidence in support of this Fall all you have is more delusion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The basic evidence was given in my Message 81: Oh, and the catechisms and confessions of the churches are evidence that the Bible testifies to the Fall too. As I also said.I'm sure you don't need me to remind you of the Biblical account of the serpent's seduction of Eve and Adam to disobedience of God, of course, although you refuse to believe that it is a record of the first sin. In that you are at odds with the historic church.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-25-2006 02:16 PM

What you're forgetting is that according to you the entire fossil record is post-Fall. Even if you had some decent evidence that the Fall affected things in ways that would be convenient for your position - and you don't - it would still leave a vast amount of evidence against your beliefs untouched..