On Mon, 29 May 1995 21:06:27 -0400 you wrote:
[...]
While we should not put unnecessary obstacles in
>scientists' way (eg. by insisting in a global Flood), we do not need
>to solve every problem of science and faith before we can
>witness to scientists. Scientists must become Christians the same way
>all sinners do. By repenting (lit. changing their mind-set). Ramm
>says:
>
>" Christianity is a religion and not a science. In science the
>principle of inter-subjectivity or objectivity prevails. What is true
>for one scientist must be true for all. But this is not true in
>religion, for if the pure in heart see God, then the impure do not,
>and what is true for the pure is not true for the impure. God draws
>near to those who draw near to Him, and He is a rewarder of them who
>diligently seek Him. He is not known to those who do not draw close
>to Him or to those who refuse to seek Him. What is true for some is
>emphatically not true for all."
>**endquote**
>
>While I quite agree that the scientist must become a Christian in the same
>manner that a nonscientist must do it, i.e. by faith and repentance, I do not
>see what this has to do with Christians explaining the data within their
>world view. Some believers are convinced that the Bible teaches a global
>flood and a young earth. You apparently are not convinced of that as I am
>not convinced of that. So how do we decide who is correct?