> A very basic problem that I, and others like me, have is to
>determine who is worthy of trust. It is a very time-consuming process to
>read the posts of Paul Arveson, Glenn Morton, George Murphy, Allan Harvey
>and other regulars, to compare these with the contributions of Reasons to
>Believe, Answers in Action, and CRI and to try to sort out those who meet
>the criteria of objective, coherent truth.
This is a problem everybody has when we move out of our field. I would
suggest one possible way to determine who is worthy of trust and who isn't.
Occasionally check out the references each author cites. Read them and see if
you: 1. think the author represented the cited author's views correctly. 2.
quoted them correctly. and 3. is consistent in what they say when different
areas are compared.
An example of the latter is the chain of logic required by the young earth
creationists. They say that the entire geologic column is the result of the
flood (See Morris, "The Geologic Column" Creation Research Soc. quarterly,
June 1986). As such, the fossil men contained in the geologic column must be
pre-diluvial. (See Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, p 265-266) Yet this
conflicts with the evidence that these fossils must be post-diluvial. Many
fossil men lived in caves which are eroded out of the limestone rocks. Since
the rocks are "diluvial" and one cannot deposit a hole (cave), the caves must
have formed after the flood. Thus for a fossil man to live in a cave he must
be post-diluvial. Inconsistencies like this should make one wonder about the
source of such a view.
Anyone can make a mistake, but when anyone makes them over and over again, you
need to be careful about what they say.
Foundation,Fall and Flood