Reconsidering YEC with an open mind

[No Other Name]

1) We've observed this supernova and ancillary scientific facts --> YEC must now prove itself in light of this
2) The Bible teaches YEC based on a plain reading and historical Christian understanding --> now how does this supernova and ancillary scientific facts, and scientific assumptions, fit into with that?

I am firmly in Position 2.

I also disagree that saying something like "You shouldn't even be asking this; science has no say, just call it a miracle," is factually (even if unwittingly) an anti-intellectual position". I don't think it's anti-intellectual to put appropriate, scripturally-derived limits on the exercise of our intellect. We do the same thing with the concept of the Trinity. We cannot explain it, and eventually we must simply say "we don't understand it, we can't explain it, but the Bible teaches it and so we accept it". This isn't anti-intellectual, it is reasonable given the fact that we are mere creatures and do not possess all of the answers. We don't have the mind of God.

1) When you say "we don't understand it, we can't explain it, but the Bible teaches it and so we accept it" you seem to be conflating investigating the mystery of distant starlight with doubting Scripture! These are not even remotely the same things nor the same kinds of things.

2) You also commit a profound category error. The Trinity is a mystery of the Creator's infinite, uncreated nature, which can only be known through special revelation. We bow our intellect to it because the finite cannot fully comprehend the infinite.

The propagation of photons, however, is a physical mechanism within the finite, created order (general revelation).

God explicitly gave us the capacity to measure, observe, and mathematically understand the physical universe. To use the incomprehensibility of the Triune God as an excuse to stop doing physics is to fundamentally misunderstand the cultural mandate and the purpose of natural philosophy a la Edwards.

You still claim SN1987A could be possibly a "miracle". On what basis?

In historic Reformed theology, miracles are never arbitrary magic tricks performed simply to dazzle the creation; they are inextricably bound to redemptive history and the authentication of special revelation.

 

[No Other Name]

I

I grasp what you are saying. But I still don't think it's contrary to the "appearance of age" concept as I understand it. But I'll admit a basic ignorance. If the Lord can stop the sun in the middle of the sky, and life on earth didn't cease to exist due to its lack of rotation, then there is nothing about an exploding star 168000 light years away that is inconsistent with YEC and the veracity of the Lord.

The fault is in how we are interpreting the avaliable data and the implications we think it has.

As with @De Jager you have to account for the purpose of miracles in our shared theological traditions. When the Lord stops the sun / stops the subdial etc tec, he is doing so with specific intent.

So yes He did that and life on Earth did not cease to exist due to the lack of Earth;s rotation (if that indeed even happened), yes.

But your "then" statement doesn't even follow logically? Of course there is nothing about an exploding star 168k ly away that is inconsistent with YEC nor inconsistent with the veracity of the Lord. This has nothing to do with God's ability or power. We all agree he is infinite in both.

I am arguing that "appearance of age" or "light in transit" doesn't help here and other theories do. If you are uninterested because you think it does, well, then ok. Good for you. As you were

 

[No Other Name]

I have always found Jason Lisle to be good on this subject

He is very good on the subject and the missing factor is time itself at the speed of light. Now if anyone wants to move past the false dichotomy that the answer MUST be "light in transit" or "appearance of age" because it is

1) simple or

2) because if you don't then it follows that you doubt YEC and the veracity of our Lord,

then we might get somewhere interesting.

 

[EvanF]

Brother, I would also gently warn you against such broad claims as to "where is your faith?"

It is commendable that you defend Scripture against secular scientists that would seek to subvert and overrule its authority, but to assert that rejecting "Light in Transit" equates to "trashing" the Genesis account is a false dichotomy to say the least.

There are other theories and avenues of inquiry. There really are.


One implies. The other testifies. That is the difference.

you fail to account for the differences between biological observations of cells and astronomical observations of starlight and supernovae.

Scientists are not "putting the label on the jar". Please let me explain.

If a scientist met Adamin the Garden on Day 8, he would observe a mature man like looking at a portrait, and he would incorrectly infer a childhood. Observing SN1987A was never looking at a portrait nor was it inferring the past; the scientists see the star explode, measures the neutrino burst, watches the radioisotopes decay over months and watches (is watching) the shockwaves hit the surrounding gas rings - all in real-time.

Not a portrait. It is a movie playing out at a distance of 168,000 light years away.

No one is doubting God's power (in fact I think he is far more powerful than we even imagine here as I do believe he is actively doing something remarkable in his general revelation that is truly mind blowing!)

God cannot lie. God reveals truth; he doesn't fill the heavens with phantom events and "miracles" with no purpose.

It's interesting to think how in the past, heavenly lights were almost considered miraculous by default and were ascribed significance in every part of providence even by their regular transits, but now we might question whether a supernova even counts as a miracle.

God said he created the heavenly lights for signs as well as for seasons. We have now so far rejected ancient astrology as almost to deny that God signifies anything by his special appointment of the heavens.

I don't mean by this to argue that supernovae are either miraculous or they are scientifically explicable. I just think we shouldn't be so quick to conclude that the observable destruction of distant suns is something too insignificant to be seen as a miracle.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

I never said I was uninterested, just that I like the obvious scientific footing that you posses and do can't discuss it at the same level.

I could easily assert very simply that the reason the Lord created the works as He did, including light in transit was simply to declare His Glory. Must we look for something more complex?

But I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position to me. I really do.

As with @De Jager you have to account for the purpose of miracles in our shared theological traditions. When the Lord stops the sun / stops the subdial etc tec, he is doing so with specific intent.

So yes He did that and life on Earth did not cease to exist due to the lack of Earth;s rotation (if that indeed even happened), yes.

But your "then" statement doesn't even follow logically? Of course there is nothing about an exploding star 168k ly away that is inconsistent with YEC nor inconsistent with the veracity of the Lord. This has nothing to do with God's ability or power. We all agree he is infinite in both.

I am arguing that "appearance of age" or "light in transit" doesn't help here and other theories do. If you are uninterested because you think it does, well, then ok. Good for you. As you were

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Call me simple (might be true) but I don't see, or grasp if you will, any difference between a backstory if that is the word being used to make Adam (dust at hand beforehand and organs and structures like bones with the history needed to be functional and healthy) and starlight in transit so Adam can have starlight on his first day/night.

 

[Northern Crofter]

But God looks at everything in Genesis 1 and calls it "very good."

But then we are told that was not true of everything during the process of creation (Genesis 2.18). Only the complete, finalized creation was "very good." This is where some take the incompleteness of 1.2 and deduce there must be a gap (as there is between the creation of Adam and Eve). But I'm not sure that is what the text is meant to communicate.

What mathematical information? Are you referring to the classic problem of the speed of light and how it impacts our thoughts on the age of the earth? Like if a star is 10 million light years away, how can we be seeing if now, if not enough time has elapsed (according to YEC) for the light to reach the earth?

I'm not sure if that's the things you're referring to. But if it is, the answer for me is very simple - God created light and the light-emitting object. He not only created stars, but he also created the quantum particles known as photons and set them in place between the stars and the earth. If we believe that God is able to create things by simply speaking, and ex nihilo, then such a possibility does not seem very difficult at all.

Sincerely,
Izaak

And it is important to remember that light existed before (and therefore independent of) the stars (Genesis 1.3; 1.14).

I'm rereading Doug Kelly's Creation and Change and I can't shake his criticism of the Gap theory.

I grew up holding to a form of the Gap Theory. More fully accepting the impact of the Deluge was a major factor that led me to abandon it.

 

[De Jager]

I am firmly in Position 2.



1) When you say "we don't understand it, we can't explain it, but the Bible teaches it and so we accept it" you seem to be conflating investigating the mystery of distant starlight with doubting Scripture! These are not even remotely the same things nor the same kinds of things.

2) You also commit a profound category error. The Trinity is a mystery of the Creator's infinite, uncreated nature, which can only be known through special revelation. We bow our intellect to it because the finite cannot fully comprehend the infinite.

The propagation of photons, however, is a physical mechanism within the finite, created order (general revelation).

God explicitly gave us the capacity to measure, observe, and mathematically understand the physical universe. To use the incomprehensibility of the Triune God as an excuse to stop doing physics is to fundamentally misunderstand the cultural mandate and the purpose of natural philosophy a la Edwards.

You still claim SN1987A could be possibly a "miracle". On what basis?

In historic Reformed theology, miracles are never arbitrary magic tricks performed simply to dazzle the creation; they are inextricably bound to redemptive history and the authentication of special revelation.

I think these critiques go too far. No one says that you can't investigate the mystery of distant starlight. But let's be clear - these investigations need to bow the knee to the scriptures and the limitations of human understanding. And if your science is leading you to dismiss the plain reading of scripture and the historic Christian understanding, you better tread very carefully (which modern science certainly and emphatically does not do).

Regarding the category error, I fully admit that the trinity is in a different category than the natural order. I was simply saying that at some point, you can reach a point in your inquiry into any subject, and have to conclude - I don't know, and we don't have the capability to figure this out. There are many things that one CAN determine via the revelation that God has given us, whether that be general or special. However, there are certain things (like the trinity), that cannot be understood. A humble Christian scientist should be willing to grant that there are somethings that cannot be understood by the technology/theories that are currently available, and even grant the possibility that there are some things that we simply cannot explain no matter how advanced the science is. In the same way a humble Christian theologian should be willing to grant that there are some things (like the Trinity) that cannot even be explained by scripture. They are simply facts, they cannot be understood.

So we come to a crossroads. If a scientist is investigating something in nature, and he currently comes to a conclusion that contradicts the basic straightforward understanding of the scriptures and the historic consensus of the Christian church he can do one of two things: 1) He can be humble, revisit his methods, and then perhaps conclude that his understanding was wrong OR that he in fact is still missing some pertinent information or a framework from which he can understand the thing or 2) He can say my science is right, and then shoehorn Christian teaching and the plain reading of scripture into his understanding of the world. In modern science it is unquestionably #2 that has the dominant adherence.

Regarding my claim that SN1987A could possibly be a miracle...I don't really care to pursue that any further, nor do I really care to be honest. My main concern is that we are so quick to look at things and try to assign a scientific explanation to them, as if science has an answer for everything, and also that our current scientific theories are capable of explaining everything we see. Whereas some people look at this supernova and think "based on our theories, this creates big problems for the YEC view", I look at it and think "the plain reading of scripture means that there is probably something deficient in the science, because the conclusions don't line up with scripture". I don't think this is being anti-intellectual, I think it is being properly humble. And historically, the science of yesterday is considered basically primitive and ridiculous compared to the science of today, and so it's pretty easy to envision a possibility in which the unassailable science of today is proven to be just as primitive and wrong.

 

[Phil D.]

...the missing factor is time itself at the speed of light.

This has been an informative and fun thread... Am I correct in thinking your explanation is at least partially based on the theory of Special Relativity, where at the speed of light time may stand still (at least with certain aspects of observation)?

 

[DanM]

This has been an informative and fun thread...

Agreed!

The problem with distant starlight is that there is light from galaxies, supernovae, etc... that are measured to be greater than 14 billion lightyear away thus contradicting the common value of a 13.8 billion year old universe. So various theories are proposed by YEC, OEC and atheists alike to explain this fact but there is no consensus I've found yet. So I wouldn't reject YEC solely on the basis of distant starlight as distant starlight is a shared and unsolved problem across these views

Thank you for this. And you are not entirely wrong. However, we must be incredibly careful to use accurate physics when defending the faith, lest we inadvertently place an intellectual stumbling block before others.

In standard secular cosmology, this distance discrepancy is not an unsolved problem or a contradiction. "Co-moving distances" are a basic, well-understood feature of the Friedmann equations. Because space itself is expanding, the light from a distant galaxy may take 13 billion years to reach us, but during that transit time, the space behind the light has continued to stretch.

Therefore, the current "co-moving distance" to that galaxy is calculated to be much further away. In fact, the observable radius of the universe in secular models is actually around 46 billion light-years. (Yes, this means the entire diameter of the observable universe is 92 billion light years across).

To rely on this misunderstanding of expansion-sans -co-motion" is unnecessary to defend a young earth.

Apologies all for my faulty physics, (I must admit I'm more into the other sciences) and thanks to @No Other Name for the correction.

I am interested by the other theories @No Other Name has mentioned and would greatly appreciate any resources relating to them as I am not familiar with them

God bless!

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I have a strong hunch that we as humans have barely even begun to understand the amazing things God can and has done. We as people think we understand a lot, but I think that's the error of us comparing ourselves to a previous generation of ourselves, meaning we have set the bar pretty low for judging how much knowledge we have of the universe.

There are so many things right in front of us that scientists can't figure out, but they seem to say things with great confidence about how old the earth is, what certain stars are made of, how far away they are, etc. Confidence doesn't equal truth.

Also, on a different note that is just as amazing with God's creation, is we have no idea how microscopic the universe is inwardly. How many times can something be divided? Are there worlds existing on a microscopic level we can't detect? As far as we know the universe is infinitely big, how about infinitely small? No scientist can even tell us this.

 

[No Other Name]

It's interesting to think how in the past, heavenly lights were almost considered miraculous by default and were ascribed significance in every part of providence even by their regular transits, but now we might question whether a supernova even counts as a miracle.

God said he created the heavenly lights for signs as well as for seasons. We have now so far rejected ancient astrology as almost to deny that God signifies anything by his special appointment of the heavens.

I don't mean by this to argue that supernovae are either miraculous or they are scientifically explicable. I just think we shouldn't be so quick to conclude that the observable destruction of distant suns is something too insignificant to be seen as a miracle.

Brother, you are absolutely right that a supernova is a staggering, awe-inspiring display of the Creator's raw power.

However, for the sake of clarity in this discussion, we have to be very precise with our theological vocabulary. We must distinguish between God's ordinary providence and a miracle (or extraordinary providence).

As Reformed believers, we confess that God ordinarily governs all things by making use of secondary causes (particularly here: the laws of physics).

The warmth of our sun, the birth of an infant, and the gravitational collapse of a dying star are all breathtaking acts of God's ordinary providence. They are governed by the physical laws He established.

A true miracle occurs when God chooses to work without, above, or against those secondary causes. Turning water into wine, stopping the sun in the sky, or raising the dead are miracles because they suspend the laws of physics.

When Genesis 1 says the stars are for signs and seasons, it is primarily referring to their regular, predictable transits which govern the calendar, agriculture, and navigation. It is highlighting their orderly, predictable nature under God's ordinary providence.

The reason we cannot simply classify Supernova 1987A as a miracle (or a suspension of physics) is that the data we observe is perfectly following the established laws of physics. The neutrino burst and the highly specific radioactive decay curves of Cobalt-56 are exactly what God's ordinary secondary causes produce when any star collapses out there.

If God suspended the laws of physics to just beam an image of a supernova to Earth, He wouldn't have perfectly simulated the nuclear equations of a star collapsing. We must stand in absolute awe of God's handiwork in a supernova, but we also must classify it correctly.

 

[No Other Name]

Call me simple (might be true) but I don't see, or grasp if you will, any difference between a backstory if that is the word being used to make Adam (dust at hand beforehand and organs and structures like bones with the history needed to be functional and healthy) and starlight in transit so Adam can have starlight on his first day/night.

Brother, it would be exactly that simple if starlight was merely static illumination designed just to light up the night sky.

If that were the case, then yes, putting lights some number of X miles away on day four would be pretty much the same as creating Adam Y years old on day six. These two events would be the exact same category of miracle.

But starlight is not just light. It is a data stream. And one of the most important variables is time.

Consider your excellent example of Adam's bones. God creating Adam with fully formed, healthy adult bones so he could walk is functional maturity. Adam needed those bones to function.

But imagine if a scientist examined Adam on Day 8 and found a fused, healed fracture on his femur from a severe fall, or a thick scar on his shoulder from a bear attack.

Creating a man with functional bones is maturity but creating a man with scars from accidents and battles he never actually experienced is fabricating a false history. And I believe fully God did not do so - neither with Adam nor with stars and other luminous objects in the sky.

The only point in question is whether "appearance of age" theory or "light in transit" theory can account for the apparent fabrication of history in the stars. It cannot.

 

[No Other Name]

And if your science is leading you to dismiss the plain reading of scripture and the historic Christian understanding, you better tread very carefully (which modern science certainly and emphatically does not do).

What are you referring to? Where have I done this?

 

[Venator Veritatis]

Creating a man with functional bones is maturity but creating a man with scars from accidents and battles he never actually experienced is fabricating a false history. And I believe fully God did not do so - neither with Adam nor with stars and other luminous objects in the sky.

I can understand what you're saying.

Couldn't we simply attribute the apparent deception and false history to our lack of understanding? We can't understand how it's possible, so we look to an answer that satisfys our understanding of how creation works.

Again, my brain is too simple. I would say that if hypothetically Adam had scars and broken bones at the moment God breathed life into him, I'd assume that God's narrative was true and every man who disagreed was a liar.

 

[No Other Name]

I can understand what you're saying.

Couldn't we simply attribute the apparent deception and false history to our lack of understanding? We can't understand how it's possible, so we look to an answer that satisfys our understanding of how creation works.

Again, my brain is too simple. I would say that if hypothetically Adam had scars and broken bones at the moment God breathed life into him, I'd assume that God's narrative was true and every man who disagreed was a liar.

God could not have created Adam with broken bones and scars because Adam was created perfectly and very good.

So were the stars yes?

Look if you want to chalk it up to mystery, ok. I tip my hat and pray God's blessing as you go.

Others of us have dug further and have a completely different explanation that has nothing to do with apparent deceptions or apparent false histories.

 

[No Other Name]

This has been an informative and fun thread... Am I correct in thinking your explanation is at least partially based on the theory of Special Relativity, where at the speed of light time may stand still (at least with certain aspects of observation)?

Yes indeed! (although time "standing still" is a bit of a misnomer)

It's up to @RamistThomist whether I go there? Or do I start a new thread because it is not where you want this thread to go? Your call, brother.

 

[ZackF]

I have always found Jason Lisle to be good on this subject

His answer to the starlight issue is fascinating. https://answersresearchjournal.org/anisotropic-synchrony-distant-starlight/

 

[Northern Crofter]

But starlight is not just light. It is a data stream. And one of the most important variables is time.

And time is independent of stars and even light. Time was the first thing created: "In the beginning...." Again, how does your position take into account the Biblical record that light was created before stars. Even if one proposes a day-age or figurative-literary interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis, here is still an unarguable order in the narrative.

 

[De Jager]

What are you referring to? Where have I done this?

I'm not saying you personally. I'm saying you in general. But I should have used the word "one".

 

[No Other Name]

And time is independent of stars and even light. Time was the first thing created: "In the beginning...." Again, how does your position take into account the Biblical record that light was created before stars. Even if one proposes a day-age or figurative-literary interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis, here is still an unarguable order in the narrative.

I am unsure what you are saying here?

Time is independent of stars and light? As in an absolute reference frame like classical Newtonian mechanics?

What do you mean "again"? This is the first time you addressed me here. And what about the primordial light on Day 1? This whole thread is about stars which were created on Day 4.

I am really unclear as to what (or even if) you are asking me something?

 

[RamistThomist]

Yes indeed! (although time "standing still" is a bit of a misnomer)

It's up to @RamistThomist whether I go there? Or do I start a new thread because it is not where you want this thread to go? Your call, brother.

Do you what you want. I'm here to learn.

 

[Ploutos]

I amend my earlier statement. I read Kelly's book back in 2019. However, I have to say I don't remember much about it.

@RamistThomist - what, in your opinion up to this point, has been the single most compelling explanation of a non-YEC view?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Creating a man with functional bones is maturity but creating a man with scars from accidents and battles he never actually experienced is fabricating a false history. And I believe fully God did not do so - neither with Adam nor with stars and other luminous objects in the sky.

I asked AI for help because any cellular biology I knew is 50 years old and I don't remember besides. So I asked AI:
Is not the human body at the cellular level presenting the same "fictional history" as starlight created mid-stream?
Yes. From a scientific and logical standpoint, they are identical.
If you accept that an all-powerful Creator instantly spoke a functioning, mature human into existence on Day 6, then you must accept that his cells—at one second after creation—contained a highly detailed, fabricated history. You cannot separate a working biological structure from its history.
Here is how the cellular "data stream" perfectly parallels the cosmic one:

1. The Lysosome (Molecular Trash Created "Mid-Digestion")​

• The Cosmic Starlight: For the universe to be complete on Day 6, beams of light must be created "mid-transit" across space, carrying the data of exploding stars that never literally existed.
• The Cellular Parallel: For a human cell to survive at Second 1, its internal garbage disposal (the lysosome) cannot be empty. It relies on a continuous chemical conveyor belt. At Second 1, it must contain half-digested proteins and recycled molecular parts.
• The Fictional History: Those half-destroyed molecules were never fully formed, never functioned, and never naturally broke down. They were created mid-shred purely so the cell's metabolism wouldn't stall. This is "perfect garbage"—a fictional narrative of cellular wear and tear that never actually happened.

2. The Proteasome (Proteins Created "Mid-Shred")​

• The Cosmic Starlight: We look through telescopes and see a multi-frame "movie" of a supernova collapsing—a sequential event that critics say is a "fabricated backstory."
• The Cellular Parallel: Inside Adam's cells are millions of tiny barrel-shaped slicers called proteasomes. For Adam to have an immediate supply of recycled amino acids to keep his heart beating, these barrels must be active.
• The Fictional History: At Second 1, a scientist would find a single protein halfway through the shredder machine. One half is intact; the other half is already chopped into pieces. That protein has a "sequence of events" stamped onto it, yet it never existed as a whole molecule.

3. ATP Synthase (The Motor Already Spinning)​

• The Cosmic Starlight: Gravity and orbital mechanics in deep space require galaxies to be moving at specific speeds from Day 1 to avoid collapsing into each other.
• The Cellular Parallel: The engines that power human life (ATP synthase) are literal, spinning molecular rotary motors inside the cell. For Adam to draw his first breath, these millions of microscopic motors cannot start from zero; they must be already spinning at maximum speed with hydrogen ions mid-way through the turbine.
• The Fictional History: A spinning motor is physical proof of energy that was just spent. At Second 1, the spin records a past momentum that never occurred.

---

You cannot have a working adult skeleton without cells. You cannot have working cells without an active metabolism. And you cannot have an active metabolism without half-digested trash, halfway-shredded proteins, and spinning engines.
If God is powerful enough to create a cell running "mid-stream" at Second 1 without it being a "lie," then He is perfectly capable of creating starlight running "mid-stream" through the cosmos on Day 6. Neither is a deception; both are the necessary factory settings of a fully realized masterpiece.
N.B. AI can make mistates and I cannot vouch for its understanding of biology.

 

[RamistThomist]

I amend my earlier statement. I read Kelly's book back in 2019. However, I have to say I don't remember much about it.

@RamistThomist - what, in your opinion up to this point, has been the single most compelling explanation of a non-YEC view?

YEC can prove a young earth, but it cannot exhaustively prove six consecutive 24 hour days, if we measure days by the rotation of the earth with the sun, as the sun wasn't created until day 4.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Time is independent of stars and light?

Yes.

What do you mean "again"? This is the first time you addressed me here.

Sorry, I wasn't singling you out - I brought this up before and was curious how it fits with your position.

This whole thread is about stars which were created on Day 4.

The thread is "Reconsidering YEC with an open mind," but, yes, it has been a lot about stars lately.

I am really unclear as to what (or even if) you are asking me something?

If light existed before stars and other celestial bodies, what is the issue with distant starlight? Neutrino astronomy and neutrino detection are very recent (other than the sun, the only other source for study is the supernova 1987A), just as radiocarbon dating once was - both have many assumptions built into them. Radiocarbon dating was once used confidently to state that things like coal and diamonds were millions of years old - today no one trusts the accuracy of carbon dating past 50,000 years. Do we really want to place a relatively new scientific theory with its one sample on such a high pedestal and engage the Biblical record with it?

 

[DavePost]

If you think it through carefully, you’ll find your new nature relishing Doug Kelly’s book. Your old nature wants to go secular at all times mixing in with our needy intellects. Remember, if we have great pleasure in truth, our Lord Jesus is the final argument. He was there when Adam opened his peepers!

 

[RamistThomist]

If you think it through carefully, you’ll find your new nature relishing Doug Kelly’s book. Your old nature wants to go secular at all times mixing in with our needy intellects. Remember, if we have great pleasure in truth, our Lord Jesus is the final argument. He was there when Adam opened his peepers!

I've never once wanted to be secular. My interest in Old Earth would have been laughed at by secularists (for reasons I don't feel like going in now).

 

[RamistThomist]

I've never once wanted to be secular. My interest in Old Earth would have been laughed at by secularists (for reasons I don't feel like going in now).

I'll put all my cards on the table. This won't be as weird as my nephilim posts. I held to Old earth for something like Pember's view. I believed in an ancient cosmic war in which one planet was destroyed and Mars was scarred. None of this had anything to do with secular science. There. I've said it.

 

[Ploutos]

I'll put all my cards on the table. This won't be as weird as my nephilim posts. I held to Old earth for something like Pember's view. I believed in an ancient cosmic war in which one planet was destroyed and Mars was scarred. None of this had anything to do with secular science. There. I've said it.

That's more or less what Origen thought, wasn't it?