From: Walter Hicks (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Sep 27 2003 - 09:05:28 EDT
> It seems to me that Creation is integral to the whole reason why we need and have a
God's creation is awesome. We need a saviour because we are messed up
> I am I, S/N, T/F, P. Under some circumstances I'm strong NT and others SFP. But
> personality type has nothing to do with the bias we start within in science.
I don't buy that one. Bias is a strong function of personality type because the very
inclination to select a philosophy is a personality characteristic. That is why there is often
a correlation between a person's career and his personality. INTP make good research
physicists for the very reason that they do NOT tend to have a strong bias.
> There are
> certain axioms or presuppositions which are needed for science to be done. And the basis
> for those presuppositions come from philosophical foundations regardless whether one
> realizes it or not.
Margenau, I believe was the one who said that physics is no more or less than the ordering of
experience. That's good enough for me. Now how physicists might speak; that is a different
> Since when do you have the right to set terms for what God should do? I do not believe
> that the Bible is a science text book.
Come off it, Allen. I was just illustrating how it is not a science text book. First you
critique me and then agree with me in the next sentence. Do you disagree just to be
> > I believe that _you_ believe that the flood was "Global" but I cannot imagine why.
> > Those who wrote that portion of the Bible clearly considered the "world" to be an area
> > local to them.
> That is your interpretation that that is what they believed. I believe that it is obvious
> that the description of the flood is global.
I suggest that you get a map of the world and color in every area that is mentioned at any
place in the entire Old Testament ---- and New Testament as well. I think that gives a pretty
good indication of their known world. Why do say that they speak of more than that? Is it
because you need for the flood to be global in order to support your paradigm? There is no no
need for me to buy into that; it is just too contrived.
You ignored my question about kangaroos in Australia -- why?
> My OU/YCW-FC (Old Universe/Young Creation Week -- Flood Cataclysmistism) view point is one
> that is shared by a large portion of the 12 million or so SDAs around the world.
Does quantity make it correct? If so, you loose to the "evolutionists". 12M is a meagre
> The SDA
> scientists at GRI (Geoscience Research Institute) of Loma Linda University also accept
> this position. I find it amusing that Michael Roberts nearly complements me for my
> adoption of an OU position as a step in the right direction away from YECism. Especially
> when this position (based as it is upon Revelation 12:7-9, Ezekiel 29:12-19, Isaiah14:12-17,
> Job 1:6-12, and other related texts) has been promoted by Ellen White since at least 1888.
To me and some other millions, the purpose of the OT is to point people to Jesus Christ -- not
the other way around. I hate to trivialize what you do for a living, but I don't see any
lasting value in it. The great commission is to tell the world about Jesus Christ, not
someone's concept of an ancient flood.
-- =================================== 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 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 27 2003 - 09:05:01 EDT