The usefulness of verification

mortongr@flash.net
Thu, 28 Oct 1999 21:28:20 +0000

I would like to point out a big difference between my views and those of
Paul's and Ray's. I can have data and experiments verify my position. I
would like to point out that the dating of the Velika Pecina modern human
that I mentioned yesterday
(http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199910/0208.html) is confirmatory of my
theological/concordistic position. If Neandethal created the early art and
invented the Upper Paleolithic because there were no modern humans in
Europe at that time, then my views are confirmed. My views can be confirmed
or falsified. Thus I risk the embarrassment of being proven wrong and the
thrill of being proven correct.

This can't be done with views that ascribe Genesis to merely legendary
status. Such views are the 'safe' view. The views can't be falsified and
thus the authors can't be embarrassed by being wrong. But neither can they
experience the thrill of having their views confirmed. To me this lack of
verifiability of most theological views represents merely the desire never
to be proven wrong and the desire never to be embarrassed. There is a
saying in the oil business: risk much win much, risk little win nothing.

Views that can't be confirmed risk nothing.
glenn

Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm

Lots of information on creation/evolution