Okay, thanks. Do you have examples that can clearly show that "all things continue" (without change) from the beginning?
Sure. For example, if any physical constants were different, we'd see signs of a huge increase in radiation in the rocks from that time. But we don't, except in the trivial case of the Oklo Reactor that went on when an unusually high concentration of natural fissionable material was formed.
It has been my impression that many simply dismiss the bible as "allegory" or "myth" or "poetry,"
I don't dismiss allegories or parable or poetry in the Bible. Often it's there, because it does a better job than a literal description would. It's why Jesus often used such things.
so if you're aware of scientific inquiry that includes the proposition that "things" were radically different in times past, I'd love to hear about it.
We can examine the solar system to test the idea that gravity was significantly different a few billion years ago. If it was a lot less or a lot more than it is today, there's no way to form the solar system we have now.
You mentioned one of the physical constants (Speed of Light) needing to remain constant, but what about other assumptions? The lifespan of man (and probably animals) has always been the same?
It seems to have been shorter for early humans. A lot shorter for very early ones. Even Neandertals aged faster than we do.
The water cycle has always been the same (as we see it today)?
Couldn't be different without a change in basic physical constants. Those are what determine the mass, viscosity, and state changes of water. So it gets back to that speed of light/radioativity thing.
What about God's curse to our labors - thorns and thistles?
Thorns and thistles preceded man in the scheme of things. But of course, agriculture and labor is a fairly recent thing for humans. Some human societies still manage to do without the curse of agricultural labor mentioned in Genesis. No one in the middle east, for several millenia, though.
Was there ever a time when the created stuff was different in its very nature to what we observe today?
Billions of years ago, before the uncoupling of the four forces. But that was long before man.
That was easier for earlier humans. Neonatal skull sizes have increased markedly, and pelvis sizes much less so.
Regarding the unknown effects of radioactivity? Do you know of any "what if" studies that include a time or period of stability such that the objection you raise would not apply?
The Olko reactor says that it would have to have been billions of years before the Earth was formed, it it happened at all.
Or are we trapped in the box of our own design insisting that the boundaries and walls we see today must also apply to all time?
There are all kinds of boxes to be trapped in. But the evidence offers no support to the box that YE has constructed. And in the absence of any scriptural support for a young Earth, I'd say that pretty much settles it.
Then, what happens when people go in the opposite direction and pronounce needful change?
Augustine pointed out that we are not God, we can be wrong about scripture,and we should always be prepared to change our opinions when the facts so indicate.
When the assumption works in the other direction and we are told to disregard what we see about the boundaries between differing "kinds" of plants and animals?
So far, no one's been able to show any boundary. As you might remember, a few threads dealt with the issue of species, and why we have such trouble defining them. It's precisely because those "boundaries" don't exist.
It MUST be that all life came from a single ancestor?
Don't think there's any way to get around it.
Genetic data, lack of a demonstrable "boundary", fossil transitionals, observed speciations, the observed hierarchy of living things, stuff like that.
Is it really impossible to even think about a kind an loving God who did what He said He did?
That's our line. We accept it His way. YE, not so much, I think.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
