RE: Pejudice? Cowardice? Re: A Peace Proposal

Hi Walter,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wallyshoes [mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 7:41 PM
>
> I agree with you that they cannot both be true. However, I cannot
> see any bullet
> proof way to determine which is true and which is false. To take
> a position that
> one knows which is correct is what leads to the conflict (from
> both sides).

Then you don't accept any of modern scientific data regarding radiometric
dating, the speed of light, the distance to the stars? Come on, Are you
really saying that the scientific method can't demonstrate certain truths?

>
> None of the data you present refutes a YEC belief in a world in which the
> history simply exists. It is equally valid for them to proclaim
> that *you* are
> the person who does not accept scripture and who's view is
> fundamentally flawed.

But Walter, that is precisely what the YECs do not do. they don't say the
world was created with an appearance of age miraculously. Over and over
they say that the scientific data supports their position. If they did say
all history is appearance, then I would have no problem with them. I can't
prove that the world wasn't created 15 seconds ago. But if all history is
mere appearance, what of the resurrection? Using the logic you seem to
suggest, they can't prove that the earth was created 6000 years ago rather
than yesterday afternoon at 2:13 pm. That view is self-defeating.

>
> You may agree with George Murphy on YECs, but agreement does not make your
> position correct. What you need to do is present a case that is
> sufficiently
> compelling to convince a YEC. If you could present one, I'd be
> happy to carry it
> forward at my church. So far the arguments I hear are not
> compelling enough for
> me to contest the YEC viewpoint Im have presented ----- and I am
> not talking
> about debating the voodoo science of ICR.

Actually I have convinced several YECs to change. Most recently was a 25
year supporter of ICR from a small European country. That was 2 months ago.
so I have presented a case compelling enough to convince 'a YEC'. I expect
you to carry it forwward as you have promised! You can find my posts on
TheologyWeb.com.
>
> Do you have the persuasive argument or not?

Are you going to carry it forward?

I just documented it.
>
> (no brains in a vat please).

Dont know what this means.

>
> I note that you and George have very fundamentally different
> views of how to
> interpret scripture. Only one can be Truth and the other must be
> Falsehood.
> Outside of your mutual alliance against YECs, which of you is
> correct? As you
> have said above, both cannot be correct and one of you needs to
> stand corrected.
> Otherwise is it not like the Germans citizens in WW II?

Yes, George and I do have different views along those lines. And yes one of
us will be wrong in the end. It very well might be me. But with that
disagreement, there is no experimentum crucis. It has dawned on me that
your problem is that you think science is just like philosophy where one can
beleive any nonsense he wished to and he can't be proven wrong as long as he
is consistent. Science is different than philosophy or theology. One can go
out and test the ideas against the real world. What experiment do you
propose to differentiate whehter George or I are right? But when it comes
to the age of the earth, I can say:
"If the earth is young, I should expect to find short-lived radioactive
minerals but if it is old I should expect to find no isotopes with
half-lives shorter than about 1/10 the age of the earth . We find the latter
case.

I can say: "If the earth is young and the speed of light is constant, I
should not see any stars more distant than 6000 light years." What do we
find? I can geometrically triangulate stars farther than 6000 years.

Your problem is that you give no weight to these types of experiments which
are available to science. And contrary to your claim, YECs often claim that
the real science supports their position. It isn't mere fideism on thier
part.
Received on Sun Feb 1 21:04:09 2004