Ron Chitwood wrote:
>
> The point I was making was that both sides can claim instances where they
> were swayed by public opinion to alter their beliefs.
But Glenn was not discussing public opinion, he was discussing the
reaction of a scientifically literate person to the claims of young
earth creationism.
> Lippert was swayed
> to recant Christianity by the opinions of so-called 'experts'
Jim Lippard was not swayed by the opinion of experts, he was turned off
to the validity of Christianity because he found the arguments of those
who insisted that Christianity requires belief in a young universe and
global flood (among other things, of course. Jim is a well educated man
who, I know, bases his beliefs on far more than just this).
> and the
> administration officials caved into the attacks by evolutionists over not
> showing the NOVA program since it promoted an evolutionism religion.
Actually, the opposite is true. The administration did NOT cave in to
the attacks of creationists who wanted the NOVA video taken out. The
video was already part of the curriculum.
> It is
> very hard to maintain a position you believe in when you seem alone in it.
I'm sure it is, but I don't see that that has anything to do with this
discussion.
> >>> When a YEC claims that the earth
> > was created 6000 years ago and there was a global flood 4500 years ago
> > that killed off everyone, most people with a hint of a science education
> > begin to snicker. <<<
>
> There are many on this that do not believe that yet are Creationists.
> Stephen Jones for one.
I never suggested that all Christians are YECs. I specifically limited
my comments to young earth, global flood creationists, as did Glenn. Of
course there are Christians who don't believe this; Glenn is one
himself. But that does not diminish the fact that the YEGF creationists,
who do insist that this belief is synonomous with Christianity and that
Christians must believe the way they do, do damage to Christianity by
claiming absurd and unsupported beliefs as intrinsic to that belief
system.
> I am open on the question of 6000 year ago
> creation, but there is no doubt in my mind that there was a flood, a
> world-wide flood. There is too much evidence, circumstantial though it may
> be, that it occurred. For instance, the story of a global flood is part
> and parcel of cultures world-wide.
I don't see why this is evidence of a global flood at all. To begin
with, some of the oldest and most dominant cultures do NOT have such a
myth - Egypt for example. More importantly, there is a much simpler
explanation for the common flood stories. Human civilization began in
river valleys (because human civilization is dated from the beginning of
domesticated agriculture), and river valleys flood. To an ancient
culture that knew no others, a major flood in their valley WAS a
worldwide flood in their eyes. If there were, in fact, a global flood,
the evidence would be so obvious in the geological record that it could
not possibly be missed. We can identify even major local floods in the
geological record. Why on earth would we not be able to see evidence of
a flood so huge that it drowned every continent on the planet? To base
the claim on common flood myths that have a much more obvious
explanation is to make an enormous logical leap.
> The constantly fluctuating opinions of men over the centuries have
> convinced me that man, generically speaking, hasn't a clue to what really
> happened at creation or the flood, only opinion, and to speak of it as
> fact, as macroevolutionists do, is most depressing.
Geology is not an "opinion". It is a field of study with well
established methods of study. That doesn't mean it is infallible, of
course, but to say that it is just an opinion and therefore justify
ignoring all geological data in favor of what you prefer to think is
true is far too simplistic an equation.
Ed Brayton