I must disagree with Allen's claim, for YEC only accept those areas of
physics which fit their purpose. For example, I understand that the
contemporary work in quantum physics explains radioactivity and the
reason why nuclear disintegration is describable in terms of half-lives
very precisely. As a result, the various measurements of age via
radioactive breakdown are accurate within small error. But YEC reject
this entire area of physics, even though it is confirmed in the operation
of every nuclear reactor.
I contend that I do not have the option of deciding which of God's
physical laws I will accept because they agree with what I want to
believe, and which I will reject. This is why I was forced to jettison
the YEC view I had been taught. My respect for scripture also forced me
to reject day-age interpretations of Genesis 1.
The list of other scientific matters rejected by YEC is, unfortunately,
more extensive--the source and cooking of petroleum deposits, the amount
of vegetable material in coal, massive halite deposits that are
incompatible with deposition by a recent Flood, the size of the universe
(absorption might explain dimming Cepheid variables and novae, but can't
produce the Doppler shift), the magnetic pattern of rocks on either side
of the mid-ocean ridges, etc. Either God misleads or YEC lie.
Dave
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001 17:54:01 -0700 "Allen Roy" <allenroy@peoplepc.com>
writes:
From: Glenn Morton <glenn.morton@btinternet.com>
> But creationists use naturalism when it suits them. They almost always
come
> up with some naturalistic mechanism for a global flood--i.e. a vapor
canopy,
> continents sinking, runaway continental drift, meteor impact, the
collapse
> of an ice canopy. They never, ever simply say, "God produced a
miraculous
> flood".
>
> They always allow that t the laws of physics would be the same during
the
> flood, with water pushing big blocks of rock around and eroding things
as
> normal floods do. They assume that the laws of bouyancy were in place
> allowing the ark to float. They assume that the laws of life applied in
that
> if terrestrial animals are covered with water they will drown. They
assume
> that there was a naturalistic reason for the lack of a rainbow before
the
> flood--i.e. it never rained. They assume
One does not have to accept the philosophy of naturalism to accept the
constancy of the laws of physics. God invented, design and made the
universe and all it's laws. And while God may, if he wished to, do
things outside of the laws which he originally set up, Creationists do
not believe that the Flood was something which would need to be outside
the ordinary way of things. There is no reason to make recourse to
"miraculous" events. Creationists do not reject or accept naturalism if
ever they wish. Creationists accept the laws of Creation which God
invented -- the physical laws and such -- and completely reject the
philosophy of naturalism. Looking for mechanisms to cause a flood is not
tantamount to looking to the philosophy of naturalism for answers. It is
looking for explanations within the way of things as designed by God.
Allen
Member MENSA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 06 2001 - 23:00:42 EST