From: gordon brown (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Sep 17 2003 - 19:11:05 EDT
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, allenroy wrote:
> There are two problems here. 1. The supposed "empirical data" regarding the
> age of the earth is not empirical at all, but interpretation of data based upon
> a paradigm that expects an old age for the earth. 2. That "massive" amount of
> data regarding the age of the earth is only relevant within the paradigm that
> interprets the data (and which calls it empirical). It is irrelevant how much
> interpreted data there is within one paradigm when that interpretation is
> irrelevant in another paradigm.
The history of science is replete with examples of unexpected results
overturning previous theories.
> A Creationary paradigm is based upon a revealed history and is accepted by faith
> in the truthfulness of God. His word, though written by flawed humans and using
> finite human language, tells us what we need to know. A Creationary paradigm
> also starts with a philosophical statement which supplies the presuppositions
> needed to build a paradigm--1) In the beginning God created the universe; 2) God
> created by fiat the biosphere on this planet; 3) There has been only some
> 6000+/- years since the creation of the biosphere; 4) A global cataclysm
> involving the complete lithosphere reworked the entire surface of the globe some
> 4000 years ago.
You are using a very narrow view of what it means to believe in creation.
In fact, prior to 1961, even among believers in a young earth (except for
the Seventh Day Adventists) very few accepted your point #4 (flood
geology) since the Genesis account indicates only the drowning of men and
air-breathing land animals.
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 17 2003 - 19:10:55 EDT