From: Susan Brassfield <Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu>
> >Allen & Diane Roy <Dianeroy@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > A. The sedimentary rocks are as much as millions of years old.
> > B. Fossils represent the record of life forms which existed over
> >millions of years.
> >Both of these assumptions are not provable, and are accepted on faith.
>
> huh? did radiometric dating and the physics which supports it vanish in
> thin air? "on faith" may mean something different to you and me. "Proof,"
> as such is a mathematical concept, not a biological one. However, the
> evidence for an ancient earth is immense. Faith usually doesn't require any
> evidence at all.
One of the assumptions of all radiometric dating is that the rocks are old enough to be measured by whichever of the radio-isotope pairs (or more) you choose. Since you must first assume old rocks, the dates acquired by measuring the radio-isotopes cannot be used to prove the rocks old. You can use all the physics you want, but it still won't get around this fact of logic: You can't prove what you assume. The assumption of old rocks must still be taken by faith.
> the debate is mostly between a small segment of Christians who want Genesis
> to be literally, scientifically true and the rest of the world. Physics
> works or we wouldn't be able to have this debate over computers. Physics
> says the earth (and those sedimentary rocks) are very old. That's a tad
> more than an article of faith.
The problem has zero, zip, nada to do with Physics. It has to do with which assumptions you choose to start with.
>
> > The Creationary Catastrophism assumptions are based on interpretations of
> >the eyewitness evidence
> >given in the Bible.
>
> There is also eye witness evidence that Spider Woman gave birth to the
> world. There is also eyewitness evidence that the world was created by
> Brahaman from a cosmic egg. Etc.
It all comes down to which is true. The Bible is. All others are not.
> >However, Creationary Catastrophism is no more (or no less) religious than
> >Evolutionism. Religion
> >(according to Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary) is a belief,
> >activity, or cause pursued with
> >fervor and devotion. One does not have to believe in a supernatural
> >being or power to be religious.
>
> however, it does not follow that *anything* pursued with fervor and
> devotion is a religion. I'm pretty passionate about belly dancing. I have a
> feeling it doesn't quite count as a religion.
Perhaps. :) When I was a kid 13 a new religion swept the world. It was the Beatles. It was like nothing ever seen before. John Lennon was not far wrong when he said that the Beatles were greater the Jesus Christ. When was the last time you heard millions of girls screaming and shouting "I love you Jesus!" like they did for the Beatles? When was the last time all the girls and boys got haircuts and clothes to look just like Jesus? Fanaticism is a trait of religion (not necessarily a very good trait).
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 01 2000 - 16:08:19 EST