In a message dated 2/11/02 11:54:57 AM Mountain Standard Time,
wallyshoes@mindspring.com writes:
> Allan I agree completely with what you say herein. However, I would
> dispute that it is consistent with what is generally said on this site.
> It is not that we are disputing that YEC is the ONLY viewpoint. What is
> being said is that YEC is 100% wrong and should never be considered for
> more than a microsecond.
>
This may be because many of us here have given it Megaseconds of
consideration in the past, and found it to be scientifically vacuous and
theologically dubious. It is not unreasonable to quickly dismiss something
that has been so thoroughly discredited over the past 100 years (especially
if you are seeing it for the thousandth time) unless some new evidence is
being offered.
Speaking of evidence, I note that when George Murphy asked for reasons why
YEC should be given consideration, all you came back with was 2 areas
(unrelated to the age of the Earth) where current scientific knowledge is
deficient. This creates an argument of essentially the form:
"Science at present has not answered 100% of all scientific questions,
therefore YEC is plausible."
But this argument is identical if you replace "YEC" with "perpetual motion"
or "geocentrism" or "a flat Earth" or "the moon is made of green cheese" or
"Greenland is full of invisible elephants." If you want me to believe that
the earth is flat, or 6000 years old, or anything else that science has
shown to be false beyond a *reasonable* doubt, then you'd better show me
some evidence, not just tell me that science is imperfect. I already know
that, but I'd still be a fool to invest in a perpetual motion machine
unless you demonstrate a working model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 19:42:41 EST