pounding on rubble

Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:58:34 -0500

Adam Crowl wrote:

"Check out the original Journal articles
rather than vague news reports, and then look for responses to those Journal
articles. If you are worried about some Creationist making a mountain out of
what sounds like a mole-hill, then research the originals - usually the
apparent conflict with evolution disappears. Creationists aren't as careful
with the facts as professional geologists or biologists, and often imagine
something that just isn't there...."

Adam Crowl

What constantly amazes me is why some young-earth creationists devote so
much energy to refuting details in new scientific discoveries, when we all
know that they have a fundamental disagreement with the entire foundational
concept. From their point of view, everything prior to about 10,000 years
ago is false or illusory. This means that practically everything in
astronomy beyond our galaxy is false or illusory, practically everything in
earth history, such as plate tectonics and the fossil sequence, is false or
illusory, and practically everything in modern biology is suspect because it
carries implications of evolution. Having taken this position regarding the
time scale, why do they continue to debate about minute details of false or
illusory things? It is like hammering on loose stones, after the entire
building has (from their point of view) already crumbled.