You are correct that the issue will be around in 100 years. But you are
wrong at them not paying attention to me. Many YECs pay attention, they
have privately commented to me about my views. NOt all, I grant you, but
enough to know that I am getting to the more intelligent ones. They know
the inner wondering about why God gives all the good evidence to the
devil's disciples.
>
>Glenn continued:
>--------------------------------------
>Maybe I am harsh here The 'this' in the above sentence refers to the
>conflict between their words and actions. They say that YEC has no
>evidence
>yet actively argue that people should become YECs. I will amend it to
>state
>HIGHLY INCONSISTENT.
>-------------------------------------
>As long as they have a Bible interpretation to turn to, they will claim
>that that is evidence, and that, therefore, they are not inconsistent.
>But I will agree with you anyway (as amended).
They are not idiots. They are smart people and they know that the
suggestions they make to explain science won't work. They simply have
nothing better to offer so they offer what they have. You are correct
about their view of the Bible as evidence but wrong about them knowing the
inconsistencies. They often talk about it among themselves. I did when I
was part of the fold. I had some interesting discussions with Steve Austin
about the carbon problem and with Slusher and Barnes about the problem of
light from distant stars.
>
>Glenn continued:
>-----------------------------------
>I simply don't see how you can claim that I couldn't see beyond my
>training. I may be many things, intense, argumentative, irritating and
>obnoxious, not to mention hypocritical, but one thing I have proved in my
>life, I could see beyond my training in becoming a YEC and then see
>beyond
>my YEC training in becoming a TE.
>-------------------------------
>Yes, true. One example, however, does not prove a whole. You know that.
You also forget one thing. I was NEVER trained as a geologist or
geophysicist. I was trained as a physicist. Thus, not having the training,
there was none to see beyond. I learned everything on the job.
>The reason I
>espouse TE rather than PC is strictly theological. Both views predict the
>same things but PC seems to require that God constantly fiddle with the
>universe-always fixing things and changing things to achieve His goal.
>To
>me that implies that God didn't do a very good of designing a system that
>could reach the goal without further intervention.
>-------------------------------
>For you, then, God must be omnipotent and have "done everything right and
>complete" at the beginning.
Yes, I see God as omnipotent. I really don't like the idea of a fallible God.
>
>I don't see him as omnipotent. For instance, he says at one time
>(Jeremiah, I think) of the Israelite's activities "It never entered my
>mind." There are other passages which suggest great power, but not
>omnipotence.
>
>But, even if I would concede omnipotence, and I could do that, that does
>not rule out the idea of God "playing around" with his creation -- from
>time to time changing things, introducing new life forms, even new
>physical laws!
Playing around, yes. I could see that. But there is no way to know what is
playing and what is preplanned. and playing for fun's sake is different
than appearing to practice to get things right.
>
>He did, you know, "play around" at the Cana wedding; certainly this was a
>PC event. Other events can easily be cited. Given PC events HAVE taken
>place, what is the problem of holding a PC, rather than a TE, position?
>Theologically of course?
It comes back to the fumbling God idea. God doesn't seem to be like me,
one who must experiment, fail and then improve. I do appreciate the cases
where God supposedly changes his mind. They do bother me and my position.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution