« The Deity of Christ and the Reality of the Trinity | Main | Letting You Know About a Great Resource: Credo Courses »

January 06, 2016


Hi Greg, As a means of introduction: I highly respect your opinion and use your book, Tactics, in our apologetics club(https://www.facebook.com/TALQClub/) as a foundation.
I was introduced to you via Frank Turek and Jim Wallace's ministries. Also, I am in charge of hosting Fearless Faith in Visalia in June.
I tend toward old earth in my view, but I don't discount the possibility of young earth. I have a question on your article Star Light & Age of Universe(http://www.str.org/Media/Default/Publications/August%201998%20-1.pdf) You mention the complexity of prior events (like a city's activities combining to form a glow and stars having a similar complex history. ...and this being different that mature Adam vs aged Adam.
To me it seems, that the complexity and interconnected-ness of preceding biological events (bone density, & sensory and motor development for speech, vision, movement, etc.) needed to for a mature Adam dwarfs those of a star's light.
One may say, "Well, Adam had to begin at some stage in his development, and if not conception, which simply pushes back the process a step, then why not mature, since assisted evolution seems even more unlikely and less consistent with scripture." The young earth-er may similarly say, "Why not the fully mature stars, with the same highly complex, interconnected apparent development as Adam. The universe had to begin at some stage, and if not the Big Bang, which is less consistent with the more common understanding of "Day" in scripture, and which which simply pushes back the process a step, then why not mature?"

What do you think? Am I missing something in my logic?

Jay, Greg doesn't interact with the comments here, but you're welcome to call the show (Tuesdays, 4:00–6:00 p.m. PT, 855-243-9975) to ask him about this. That's the forum he's set aside to answer people's questions.

I think the kind of difference Greg was talking about was the difference between having a mature body that fully functions as an adult and having a body that bears the marks of age (scars, wear and tear, etc.). The second kind of body shows a record of past events. The existence of vision or speech doesn't necessarily require a series of events—they could begin to exist fully formed. But the marks of time passing (like scars) on a body that has already been fully formed are different. Greg's point is that the star light we see similarly shows a record of past events, not merely something that is fully formed.

The comments to this entry are closed.