Yes, there have been a series of drastic overhauls of the physical laws over the centuries.

For example: One of the earliest theories was that were four elements - earth, water, air, and fire. These elements had a natural place / order, from the center of the world out towards God. Earth came first, then water, then air, then fire. Each element tried to return to its natural place. This is why stone sunk in water, and why fire went up towards the sky.

Each collection of laws explained most of the observations, but not all. Each was drastically revised when it could no longer be patched.

Ever since Newton, the rules understanding human sized things, at human temperatures, pressures, and times, have predicted to a high degree of accuracy observations that are made in that realm.

Einstein's equations widened the realm a long way - while NOT changing the predictions of the first set any significant amount.

There are still huge problems with them, however, at the extremes. We can expect to see a major overhaul with the same effect - none of the current results will change significantly but the equations themselves and what they predict at the extremes will change completely.

This does NOT invalidate the science behind evolution and the age of the Earth - because that science does not depend on extreme temperatures, pressures, sizes, or times.

As I said before, the trouble with using this approach to try to construct a young earth is it makes God to be a liar.

It brings in the age of the earth, but it does not change the events that have happened in that time

• All the shell-fish whose shells are in the White Cliffs must have lived and died
  
• The continents have wandered all over the globe
  
• Mountain ranges have been uplifted, folded, eroded
  
• Meteor strikes and comet hits all happened
  
• Whales have evolved from small mammals
  
• etc.
  

This is not a solution - it is simply a renumbering of history without changing any events.

The problem is THERE ARE MANY INDEPENDENT SETS OF EVIDENCE that point to an long age earth. Having an alterative explanation for the radiological evidence along in nowhere near sufficient.

/Bevin

Ok, I admit to be behind in this forum and need to read up on the last 10-15 pages. And I have another question that is more centered on the bible rather than evolution...but it does involve these concepts and perhaps this has been dealt with and I don't remember it/didn't see it address...

The question is this......

If our beginings are in doubt, that is, if we did not come from the hand of God, if we did not have this personal God intervention in humanity's begining, then because "all men are appointed to die once", how can we believe in a future for humanity, ...for us?

I'm not sure anyone here is saying that we did not come from the hand of God, or that God does not intervene. I'm definitely not saying that.

Saying that God may not necessarily have created us in 7 literal days 6000 years ago is a dramatically different proposition from saying that God did not create us at all.

As I said, I don't think *anyone* involved in this discussion is denying God's role as creator.

I am just tagging this thread because the Origins forum has just started revisiting this topic

David Koots should read this whole thread before bringing up the same issues again.

/Bevin

Good call, Bevin: I just re-read the first 5 or 6 pages of this thread, and it's amazing how much ground we're re-covering. If everyone participating in the discussions currently going on in 'Origins' reads or re-reads this thread we should be able to save ourselves some repetition.