Chuck,
I put the good and the bad together because they both work essentially
the same way, fission, though at different speeds. Fusion is still a
destructive force with a hope that it can be used peacefully. I agree
with you that nuclear power is the rational way to go, even though there
are problems with waste products. The long term alternative is coal, for
natural gas and petroleum are being exhausted. All three produce CO2 with
greenhouse consequences. Coal also produces greater amounts of SO2 than
petroleum. Sopping that up has used limestone, with the release of more
CO2. Fossil fuels have serious consequences.
I'll agree that Oklo is an outstanding evidence for an old earth. But I
recall running across an article that said it never happened. I don't
recall how it was "explained," but it was not that God created it that
way. You need to remember that YECists do not need a rational
justification, just something that sounds plausible to those who are
brainwashed. Note the use of the second law to declare evolution
impossible. Were they right, there could be no growth of organisms, no
alphabetizing of files, and no dusting out a room. Truth has nothing to
do with their claims.
Dave
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:39:24 -0500 "Vandergraaf, Chuck"
<vandergraaft@aecl.ca> writes:
Dave,
Why must "reactors" and "bombs" always be used in the same sentence? As a
proponent of non-greenhouse gas producing nuclear power, I face about the
same "uphill battle" as you mention! ;-)
To me, the most convincing evidence of an old earth is the Oklo natural
nuclear reactors that operated about 1980 Ma ago. The chain reaction
could only have occurred with a higher than current U235/U238 ratio (the
half life of U235 is shorter than that of U238) and the radioactive
fission products have decayed to stable daughters. I have elaborated on
this topic some years ago in the forum.
Of course, God could have created these deposits 10,000 years ago, but
that's not an elegant solution.
Chuck Vandergraaf
-----Original Message-----
From: David F Siemens [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Thursday January 04, 2001 12:55 PM
To: haasJ@mediaone.net
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Lay Education Project
The project, in my mind, is an uphill battle. I have read the articles in
the Evangelical Theological Society journal that deal with the
interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis. They do not support YEC.
I find the same claim in the publications of IBRI and Hugh Ross. If their
message has not reached the lay audience in evangelical churches, it is
hard to envision an approach that will make the message accepted widely.
Years ago Gish addressed the Western Section of the AAAS meeting in Santa
Barbara. He was asked what evidence could possibly change his mind. His
immediate response, "There is none." We are dealing with "true believers"
who are immune to all evidence that does not support their position. As
someone remarked, the greatest hindrance to learning something is to know
it all already. YECers "know" everything about creation. This is why so
many young people in college, faced with the contradiction between "what
the Bible [necessarily] teaches" and the scientific evidence chuck their
faith.
The only way around this barrier that I see is the kind of one-on-one
psychologists and counsellors use to get through the defenses of their
clients. But this takes a lot of time and great skill, but is not always
successful. Can quantum physics, which obviously works for reactors and
bombs, and also justifies the timing of radioactive decay, be a backdoor
approach to the age of the earth? How many could follow the evidence? Is
there another approach? Exegesis and traditional interpretations have not
seemed to get through.
Dave
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:17:10 -0500 "Jack Haas" <haasJ@mediaone.net>
writes:
Greetings:
I am writing to ask list members to help with a challenging project.
An ASA member has offered a five figure sum to the organization to
support a project that seeks to educate the lay Christian community
(adults/youth) on issues related to the 'young earth' movement.
His letter notes: "...The young-earth message has bitten very deeply
into the evangelical culture, and people trust this message. What will it
take to show people believably that the young-earth view is
not the only possible one, without undermining the Christianity or
sincerity of those that hold that position? [This grant is offered] to
ASA, to promote serious discussion of the feasibility of working on
publications that show the range of views that Christians have,and/or the
necessity of believing the evidence for an ancient universe and the
possibility of finding compatibility with Scripture."
He is rightly concerned with the tensions that can emerge in any
evangelical church or denomination over age and related origins
questions. PSCF and this list reflect this tension. In spite of the
diversity of views about details there is a broad consensus upon which to
base a Christian view of science - including (I think) age and origins.
The question before us is how to communicate this consensus to the
Christian public.
I am representing the ASA Council in asking for your input. What do you
think about the project? What kind of approach should we use? What kind
of materials should we use? What types of media? Are your aware of
things in print that may be useful? Writers? My role is to collect
ideas. The next step will be to present them to a committee which will
set the course of the project.
We are open to any and all ideas!
Jack Haas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 05 2001 - 13:07:34 EST