I want to stay out of HPT theory. Not my forte.
Horewer, scientific theory can't start with Bible since Bible itself can't used to test correctness of theory since Bible itself is variant of somebody has said something, instead of reality itself.
Horewer, if universe is 6000 years old, then what is issue with carbon dating? And all other measures which says more 6000 years.
Why is redshift used to observe distance between stars wrong?
Did natural laws chaged throught time?
Regarding 2 Peter 3:8, well Lord is patient. 15 billion years is like 15 million days which is about 41095 years. Small time for extremely important project. Also same verse can be understood as metaphor of Lord patience.
Remember, it rook just one day between Lord and David.
Personally, I find it more magnificient when old universe has 30+ extremely precise constants or no universe.
My personal rule, when in doubt correct explanation is one with most magnificience for Lord.
This is an EXCELLENT segue! Would it surprise you if I told you that HPT addresses some of the scientific concerns or that C-decay addresses the concern about redshift? Real Science Radio has covered these topics.
@FollowingHim raises a legitimate question regarding God resting for 1,000 years. in my youth, I tried to reconcile billions of years with the 1,000 years = one day, and the math just doesn't work out! I am going to quote Dr Ross, whom I have repeatedly attempted to refute in this thread, but one thing I will agree with him on, is that it is not a question of what God COULD have done, but rather a matter of what He DID do. While I STRONGLY disagree with his conclusions, he is spot on with this question. I asked Dr Ross, at a conference held at a church I was a member of here in Austin, TX about the redshift, because I had found an article in CMI, that said that the speed of light was slowing down after all. That was because of the fact that Dr. Ross core argument hinges on the speed of light being constant throughout eons of time. Now I have heard this "Constants prove the existence of God" argument many times, and it sounds impressive on the surface, but I am convinced that we need to reexamine that argument. This is because this argument is pretty much an "Intelligent Design" argument which relies on a completely unbiblical "process of evolution" for many of its improbabilities.
After I asked Dr. Ross two follow up questions, because he had blatantly misstated facts, he wrapped up the Q&A section. I believe he was rattled a bit, based on feedback I got from the minister who had invited him. His closing response to my second follow up, was that he believes that constants are constant because God is constant, which is something that has to make you wonder where he came up with that conclusion. A constant is constant by the very definition of what a constant is, not because of God's nature, but the real question is, are the things we have labelled "Constants" truly constants to begin with, or is it possible that they are based on a variable and their proportions to that variable? Barry Setterfield, who has twice been offered honorary PhDs, and has turned it down both times, has proposed that these things we have always assumed are constants, are actually proportional either linearly or quadratically, and for some inversely, to the strength of the ZPE. I would strongly encourage you to investigate this ZPE, because it has explanative power for the "force of gravity", the Bohr radius, the "Strong force", and the mass of the nucleus of the atom (and by extension ions) itself. I have covered some of that in this thread. I also highly recommend you watch some of the Ray Fleming videos that I have posted here as well. We, as believers in Christ, have to ask ourselves whether we are going to continue to embrace Einstein and his failed models, or the Word of God. Those who continue to embrace EInstein, have come up with all kinds of wacky pseudo-scientific ideas such as "string theory". They believe in the nonsensical notions of curved space-time and time dilation. As for me and my house, we have chosen to believe God's Word, and expose Einstein for the fraud that he was.
EDIT: Our knowledge of the universe, is not as complete as we have fooled ourselves into believing. A small minority of scientific minds has come to realize the significance of the Kasimir experiment, and being in the minority in the scientific community will almost always earn you scorn, whenever you challenge the entrenched beliefs of the science establishment. However, time and time again, those who have done so, have been proven right in the end. Take that to heart.
EDIT EDIT: I mentioned that some of the issues you raised, are addressed by HPT. I will include the link for the chapter on the Origin of Earth's Radioactivity.
https://hpt.rsr.org/onlinebook/Radioactivity.html Also Bryan Nickel has a video that covers this in his uploads
Unlike the Grand Canyon, this section is based on something that is much more repeatable and hence observable. While the Grand Canyon itself might perhaps be repeatable on a small scale, handling magma mixed with water, is a difficult thing to manage, due to its explosive nature.
