> Oliver Beck wrote:
> >On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Glenn Morton wrote:
> >
> >> Of science and the Bible Randy Landrum wrote:
> >>
> >> >I care about both. Can't one, for instance, like peanutbutter and jelly?
> > I
> >> >also care (like I am sure many others) about the dangers of the
> >> >propagation of bad science or rather religion which really is not science
> >> >but rather sticking a high brow label on a sow's ear. Some say it's
> >> >creation other say it's evolution.
> >>
> >>I too care about both.If the Bible is not historically true,then I have real
> >>problems.But I cannot see how it is beneficial to advocate an interpretation
> >> of the Bible which requires what I can see with my eyes to be false.
> >
> >First,it is not only an interpretation of the bible.The bible speaks for
> >itself.
>
> I thought that is what I said immediately above your reply. We can't be
> advocates for an interpretation of the bible which requires that I ignore
> observational evidence.
No, it wasn't. You said that observations contradict what I call the clear
meaning of the bible. I apologize for not having spoken clearlt enough.
> >Second : What do you see which is incompatible with this 'interpretation'
> >of the bible ?
> >
> I think you are confusing me with Randy or meant this post for Randy. I am
> the one who laid out a major problem with one of the dating evidences of the
> YECs. I personally see almost all scientific evidence against the young earth
> position and know that nearly all of their arguments for a young earth will
> not stand up to detailed scrutiny.
I didn't confuse you with Randy. My question was: You said you cannot
advocate an interpretation which requires that what you see with your own
eyes is false. I think this 'traditonal' interpretation th eonly way to
understand this part of Scripture and I want to know which observations
you thinkto be contraditory to it.
> >> This
> >> forces me to choose between what I see or what I believe. To me it is a
> > matter
> >> of getting our facts straight. A case in point is Whitcomb's and Morris'
> >> juvenile water argument for the age of the oceans.
> >>
> >>[discussion deleted]
> >
> >It seems to me you don't make any difference between what the bible is
> >saying and the theories which YECs have built on it. One should always
> >distinguish between the facts taught by the bible and the scientific
> >theories by which we want to describe the facts of nature according to the
> >bible. The direct creation of everything is an example of the former, the
> >water canopy around the earth before the flood of the latter.
> >
> Once again, I think you are confusing Randy's views with mine. I know that
> there is a difference between what the Bible says and what the YEC theories
> propose. See my web page.
>
I didn't confuse you with Randy, but you discussed Whitcomb and Morris and
ended with the statement that (in my words) Bible and science fit together
, " but not with the traditional translation". Hence I thought you were
confusing their argument with the so-called traditonal interpretation.
Oliver Beck
student of physics