Re: Response to Why YEC posting

From: george murphy (
Date: Wed Aug 22 2001 - 12:46:03 EDT

  • Next message: Allen Roy: "Re: Ellen White, Price, and YEC"

    Allen Roy wrote:

    > I originally posted anonymously a short autobio. from Curt Sewell.
    > There were some responses which I sent to him for him to comment on if
    > he wished. He did so, thinking that the 5 responses were from one
    > person (that was my fault). He also has an autobio. book out that can
    > be found at God at Ground Zero : The Manhattan Project
    > and a Scientist's Discovery of Christ the Creator
    > by Curt Sewell. 1. I used the phrase "believed early Genesis."
    > Yes, I'm very aware
    > that many people prefer the phrase "believed early Genesis to be an
    > accurate
    > historical narrative and scientific record." But, to me, those two
    > phrases
    > ARE synonymous, and my intended audience would understand completely.
    > I used
    > a short-cut. I believe that the entire Bible was inspired by God, and
    > was
    > intended to be read and studied as His "user's instruction manual for
    > proper
    > living." As such, I believe that He guided its composition so that
    > sincere
    > but simple-minded readers could understand it. To me, it is obvious
    > that a
    > sincere and simple-minded reader would get the impression that it was
    > intended to be taken at its face value, which is a literally true
    > document.
    > (Of course, you don't have to be simple-minded to understand it.
    > :-) You
    > just have to keep your priorities straight -- put God first, and human
    > wisdom
    > second. The simple text describes six literal days (not eras), and
    > other
    > Biblical statements show that the action of His creation was within
    > the last
    > 6 or 8 millennia. I don't know of a single historical writing in the
    > Bible
    > that has ever been documented as untrue, in contrast to many errors
    > found in
    > other ancient books. There have been several archaeologists who have
    > tried
    > to find such errors, and ended up as Bible believers.
    > ...................................................
    > 4. Radioactive dating is based on the assumption of
    > Uniformitarianism
    > -- the idea that the present is essentially the product of the past,
    > and that
    > no massive supernatural event has taken place, that could not be
    > detected and
    > measured by present-day science. In other words, there is the basic
    > belief
    > that our world has come into being by some sort of slow materialistic
    > process
    > of cosmic evolution. In still other words, the Pb-206 that we find
    > around us
    > got there only by the decay of U-238. (There are other decay chains
    > that
    > I'll ignore for now.) One of the key calibrations for U-Pb dating
    > came from
    > measurement of various lead isotopes in iron meteorites. As Henry
    > Faul says,
    > "If one assumes that the solar system condensed from a primordial
    > cloud, it
    > follows that the materials of planets, asteroids, and meteorites have
    > a
    > common origin. ..." [Faul, "Ages of Rocks, Planets, and Stars,"
    > McGraw-Hill, 1966]
    > Using this key UNPROVABLE assumption, one can prove that the
    > earth is
    > ancient. BUT THAT IS CIRCULAR LOGIC, based on the initial assumption
    > of a
    > slow materialistic origin.
    > These two items together show the incoherence of this man's
    > thought on these matters. Of course assumptions need to be made in
    > order to use radioactive dating - but assumptions have to be made in
    > any scientific work. The argument, however, is not "circular" in the
    > proper sense - i.e., one doesn't assume the antiquity of the earth but
    > only something about the original abundances of isotopes.
    > But then there is apparently complete unawareness of the fact that
    > he is making presuppositions, & the most naive ones possible, about
    > the character of the biblical text. & this naivete is accompanied by
    > the hubris of telling us, as if he were a biblical scholar how Genesis
    > was written. (Sorry, I accidentally snipped this. See the original
    > post.)
    > It's a tragedy that competent scientists and biblical scholars
    > have to spend their time refuting this kind of stuff over and over
    > again, tired old arguments that have long ago been disposed of. & it
    > could just be left unanswered, like claims for phrenology and circle
    > squaring, if it weren't for the fact that it causes so much havoc
    > among churches, distorts the gospel, and gives people the impression
    > that they have to blow their brains out before they can be Christians.
    > Shalom,
    > George
    > George L. Murphy
    > "The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 22 2001 - 12:46:27 EDT