tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post7358207537331966311..comments2024-01-04T11:40:48.827-06:00Comments on Dr Michael G Strauss: Changing My MindMichael G Strausshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-75119336208176208672018-12-06T21:06:41.220-06:002018-12-06T21:06:41.220-06:00Purely from "napkin math" a decreasing c...Purely from "napkin math" a decreasing c would lead to some observable phenomena, I think. E.g. Either energy is not conserved and is decreasing, or masses must increase over time, or both. If any of that were happening I would imagine somebody would have observed it in the last century.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01213120215182528953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-3523520484007303642018-05-05T15:06:19.977-05:002018-05-05T15:06:19.977-05:00Thanks for your comment. I, too am "abiding....Thanks for your comment. I, too am "abiding."<br /><br />However, I don't understand why those who disagree with me assume I haven't read both sides of the issues. Abiding, have you read both sides of the issues including good evangelical scholars who hold a high view of scripture who disagree with you? Of course I am familiar with Setterfield and Norman's "research." They wrote their initial paper way back in 1987 and I have followed their work since then. Unfortunately, their conclusions are flawed and incorrect for they don't understand the need to properly take into account the uncertainty on the measurements of the speed of light, nor do they understand how measurements of physical quantities with large errors eventually converge on a more precise and accurate measurement. I, personally, have plotted and fitted the measurements of the speed of light over a period of many years and seen that there is no trend to a lower speed. No scientist I know of who looked at their data, Christian or nonbeliever, would agree with their conclusions.<br /><br />As far as taking the plain meaning of scripture as stated, that is exactly what I have done in my understanding of scripture. However, to get the plain meaning, it is important to study the original language and culture rather than take any particular English translation as definitive. I have done just that and present some of my findings in blog posts on the biblical records such as http://www.michaelgstrauss.com/2017/06/the-six-days-of-creation.html and http://www.michaelgstrauss.com/2017/06/genealogies-and-creation-of-heaven-and.html. There is no "bending" of scripture, just good exegesis and hermeneutics. I get my information from the best scholars in ancient Hebrew. Unfortunately, most of the organizations that promote a "young earth" do not follow good principles of biblical exegesis and interpretation, nor good principles of science.<br /><br />The truth is out there for you to find and the truth neither distorts the biblical text or the record of nature.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-27664914867279050492018-05-05T12:57:50.091-05:002018-05-05T12:57:50.091-05:00I suggest that you look into the Setterfield and N...I suggest that you look into the Setterfield and Norman research into the speed of light. They have, as far as I can see, proved that the speed of light has been decreasing, ostensibly since the Fall. They that shown that the speed of light was asymptotically approaching infinity about 6,000 years ago, as measured by dynamical time. Since the determinations of the age of the earth to be 14 billion years were done through methods that invariably involve "c" in their basic equations, and the determinations assume a constant "c", then it is obvious that those measurements would always be at variance to dynamical time measurements, the equations of which do not involve "c" at all. <br /><br />You agree that the Bible is true, but I suggest that your determination that the Bible agrees with the "scientifically" determined age of the earth as 14 billion years has required the "bending" of the Scriptures. Why not consider that the plain statements of the Bible indicating an age of the earth at about 6000 years as being absolute truth and see that a constant "c" is NOT absolute truth?abidinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15219270359005097483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-51264799922487074452018-03-24T13:05:40.246-05:002018-03-24T13:05:40.246-05:00Thanks for your questions. There are good answers...Thanks for your questions. There are good answers to both the questions at the Reasons To Believe web site. Fuz Rana has written a book called "Who Was Adam?" that gives a reasonable answer to the first question, and does interpret Adam and Eve as the first humans and genetic ancestors of us all. Here is a link to an answer to question 2, but there are many more articles about that at reasons.org. http://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2016/04/28/structure-of-dinosaur-collagen-unravels-the-case-for-a-young-earthMichael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-64052831552077416622018-03-24T11:45:01.754-05:002018-03-24T11:45:01.754-05:00I have similar problems with the typical YEC inter...I have similar problems with the typical YEC interpretation of specifically Gen.1&2. I am not convinced that the 7 24-hour day interpretation is truly the most natural or original meaning (with time dilation I also have the question if the time was measured on earth (as they assume) or from God's perspective).<br />However, I have 2 questions and I don't know if this book by Dr. Ross addresses them:<br />1. What do we make of Adam and Eve as ancestors of all mankind. There is little doubt in my mind that this is the most natural and straightforward reading of Genesis and the rest of the Bible.<br />2. What to make of recent dinosaur bones that were found to be essentially unfossilised, including still having collagen (cartilage) and the remains of blood vessels and even red blood cells? Evolutionists are working very hard finding possible causes that would result in such extraordinary preservation over millions of years (and do not even consider the possibility that their dating methods might be defective or based on false assumptions).Chavouxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02548629951249411219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-58617689752091882392018-03-22T21:07:29.246-05:002018-03-22T21:07:29.246-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Stetson Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12697583852025293333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-10453805672244284362018-03-20T18:33:04.433-05:002018-03-20T18:33:04.433-05:00Your story is in some ways similar to my own, thou...Your story is in some ways similar to my own, though mine is less scholastic. I had the nickname Moon-man as a fifth grader because I idolized Werner Von Brauns books on proposed trips to the Moon and to Mars. Later in high school I read Rockets, Missles and Space Travel by Willie Ley. Then in 1975 came a two day seminar with Henry Morris and Duane Gish. I was convinced of their young earth and creation arguments leading me to read the Genesis Flood..etc. I remain swayed by the arguments against Neo-Darwinian explanations as argued by Gish. The Flood remains to be argued further as to its extent. Currently your presentations and the cosmological and physics arguments confirm the agreement between good science and scripture as to the age of the universe. I am convinced of the truths extolled by A.E. Wilder-Smith hand lately by the Discovery Institute scholars best expressed as Intelligent Design. Thanks for your testimony concerning science and scripture.Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16219283160015859565noreply@blogger.com