> In a message dated 2/11/02 11:54:57 AM Mountain Standard Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> Allan I agree completely with what you say herein. However, I would
> dispute that it is consistent with what is generally said on this site.
> It is not that we are disputing that YEC is the ONLY viewpoint. What is
> being said is that YEC is 100% wrong and should never be considered for
> more than a microsecond.
> This may be because many of us here have given it Megaseconds of
> consideration in the past, and found it to be scientifically vacuous and
> theologically dubious. It is not unreasonable to quickly dismiss something
> that has been so thoroughly discredited over the past 100 years (especially
> if you are seeing it for the thousandth time) unless some new evidence is
> being offered.
And they can say about you.
> Speaking of evidence, I note that when George Murphy asked for reasons why
> YEC should be given consideration, all you came back with was 2 areas
> (unrelated to the age of the Earth) where current scientific knowledge is
> deficient. This creates an argument of essentially the form:
> "Science at present has not answered 100% of all scientific questions,
> therefore YEC is plausible."
No sir, I offered an argument that physics is fundamentlly flawed and
that scientiists are hiding the fact behind words such as you use. I
have seen in my lifetime many a catastrophy hidden by the words "is not
100%" when the truth is that "it is 0%" -- which is indeed not 100%
And yes, knowing the warts in science, why should anyone give it any
respect whatsoever --- especailly when those who should know better
refuse to face them?
> But this argument is identical if you replace "YEC" with "perpetual motion"
> or "geocentrism" or "a flat Earth" or "the moon is made of green cheese" or
> "Greenland is full of invisible elephants." If you want me to believe that
> the earth is flat, or 6000 years old, or anything else that science has
> shown to be false beyond a *reasonable* doubt, then you'd better show me
> some evidence, not just tell me that science is imperfect. I already know
> that, but I'd still be a fool to invest in a perpetual motion machine
> unless you demonstrate a working model.
A YEC advocates non of the above. He simply takes the Bible at face
value and discounts any science that disagrees with it. It just replaces
your hokey science with it's own hokey science.
I still think that a respectful interchange could bring fruit, where the
other approach fails. Are we after fruit or thorns?
But what do I know :-)?
> Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
> "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
> attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <email@example.com> In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 23:31:15 EST