Secular Scientists and a Young Earth?

And why are you assuming that Dawkin's is correct? I find it odd that you would take his word as gospel.

It seems you share that trait with him. Again, I say, "SO WHAT"? You are reinforcing your worldview bob, nothing more. You are placating what you already believe; let me ask you this-Do you agree with what Dawkin's says about evolution? If not, then why trust him about Christianity?

Hypocrisy?

Your point is narrowminded and immature bob. You keep trying to magically assert that 'evolution' is a religion-it's not and you've offered exactly zero evidence of it being a religion.

 

yes, it is evidence even if no one else recognizes it... read the definition again. and yet other people do recognize it.

so the ice age preserved fossils but destroyed all the rivers???

like what? what proves that the earth is older then 20,000 years?

but you reject his word!? and accept your interpretation of His works.

Prov.25
[2] It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

 

Mainstream geological scientists do not. Of course, the age of the earth is not even a question anymore in legitimate earth science, so it hardly matters whether YECs regard Niagara Falls as evidence of anything.

This statement implies such a profound misunderstanding of basic geology to make it almost impossible to adequately address it. What on earth can you mean by the statement "the ice age preserved fossils"?? Who said it did?

The ice age deals with surficial geology (i.e. it altered surface features). Fossils tend to be preserved within sedimentary strata and erode out over time. No doubt the great ice sheets did destroy whatever fossils may have been on the surface. What point are you trying to make?

Goodness...is this a serious question? Virtually all of geological science over the past 200 years has conclusively demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the earth *must* be older than 20,000 years. Are you not familiar with any of this work?

I certainly do not reject His word. I reject an impossible literalist interpretation of His word. God is very clear about the relationship that we are to have with Him and with each other, but this message gets lost if one tries to force His word into the box of literalist history. In order to do that, one *must* reject the clear evidence of His works and conclude that we cannot trust our senses. Besides, if we cannot trust human interpretation, then you cannot make the argument that your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one, either. But that, it seems, is what you want to do: trust an infallible human interpretation of the Bible and completely reject the clear evidence of the creation itself.

 

Or...one can trust the clear word of the Bible and be very wary of the changing, fallible, totally incomplete nature of man's interpretation of the amount of data he can collect.

 

I do not believe that "trust" is the problem. I trust the word of God. I am wary of bibliolatry, though.

And the fact that science is tentative and not absolute allows for the incorporation of more data, new knowledge, and better methods of analysis. I do not buy the "man's fallible interpretation" argument, though--or at least, I think it is an argument one should be careful not to carry too far. "Man's fallible interpretation" of scientific data has done an enormous amount of good and rarely appears to be questioned in areas such as medicine, or biochemistry, or physics, or pharmaceuticals, which leads me to believe that man's ability to analyze and understand the natural world is not nearly as benighted as YECs sometimes try to suggest it is....

 

An appeal to bad interpretation is only meaningful if you can show why a different interpretation fits the evidence better.

Yes, I know you have been working on parts of this better interpretation for a while. It comes up here periodically.

 

I don't worship the Bible. I do, however, worship the God whose Word it is. I do trust that He is perfectly capable of communicating clearly and maintaining that clear communication through times, languages, and cultures.

It seems to me that you are trusting yourself...

Our data is limited and man's intelligence and interpretations are fallible. That part is simple. The fact that we have made some strides in some areas does not deny that. Medicine especially is an area of much doubt in many areas.

What the Bible does is give us parameters within which the truth in any area can be found. That's all. But it's enough to let us know if we are on the right track or not. Sadly, most people, scientists very much included, reject the idea of there being limits within which the truth may be found -- and this is why imagination is so highly touted in science education. Imagination is not a bad thing, but it has its place. Data should come first. And when interpreting the data, consulting with the Creator of it is not such a bad idea.

 

EF In regards to salvation it gives Christians the truth. With regard to science, the bible is silent.

EF You've got to be kidding?

EF Imagination within bounds is required of science. Those bounds are placed there by data.

EF Then why do creationists start with a conclusion and force the data to fit that conclusion?

EF But rewriting the data in an effort to agree with a narrow interpretation of the bible is a very bad idea. It is both apologetically and scientifically flawed.

 

What's with the "EF" before each sentence? It's killing me. I can’t even read your post, my eyes are transfixed on the “EF”!

 

What's with the "EF" before each sentence? It's killing me. I can’t even read your post, my eyes are transfixed on the “EF”! </font>[/QUOTE]I think it stands for her name, as in: Elene, F(something or another).

 

What's with the "EF" before each sentence? It's killing me. I can’t even read your post, my eyes are transfixed on the “EF”! </font>[/QUOTE]I think it stands for her name, as in: Elene, F(something or another). </font>[/QUOTE]LOL Elena Francesca=EF

 

Gentry has not published in mainstream literature in many years. A search on GEOREF shows 4 abstracts by Elaine Kennedy...all from national meetings and no peer-reviewed publications (most recent 1997). I have no idea about the others. </font>[/QUOTE]BUMP

 

BUMP