Re: Re-enlightenment!
Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:04:41 +0000

At 12:06 AM 08/19/1999 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>Thanks for your colourful response!

Your welcome. :-)
>Do I understand you to say that there would be no effect on radioactive
>decay rates if the speed of light varied?

There would be, but, due to the fact that the change in the speed of light
would be finished by the time the earth formed and due to the chemical
fractionation which occurred at the formation of the earth, it would have
very little effect on the radioactivity on the earth. And without this,
there is no benefit for YEC.

>On a broader note, our many exchanges over past months leave me with
>the impression that you are more interested in defending dogma than
>getting to the truth of things.

Well considering that I changed from a young-earth creationist and became
an olde earth evolutionist, I don't know how you can make that charge about
me being interested in defending dogma. I have demonstrated an ability to
change in the face of new data. I haven't seen such evidence in your case.

Before bold pronouncements are made it
>is surely desirable that one studies and accomodates all available
>empirical data apposite to the matter concerned. In the ongoing debate
>re origins I am thinking, for example, of the very real phenomenon of
>cognitive dissonance which intrudes into every human endeavour - always
>in favour of explanations that deny the Being and Sovereignty of God!

I am not denying the Being and Sovereignty of God. I believe that God
exists, I believe that he sent his Son who died for our sins, and I believe
that God is sovereign. What exactly is your evidence that I deny the Being
and Sovereignty of God?

>Again, of certain numerical phenomena (clearly of supernatural
>provenance!) that may be found in the Hebrew and Greek Testaments.

Denying that is not the same as denying God. Have you reduced God to numbers?

>would like to think you would agree that no theory of origins that fails
>to accomodate facts such as these deserves to be offered to the wider
>public as 'truth'.

I don't see how numbers can accurately reflect the God of this universe.
Are you saying that God is a set of coincidental numbers? I wouldn't reduce
God to such a low level as you do.

Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology

Lots of information on creation/evolution