>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Bill Payne
>Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 4:26 PM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Creation Ex Nihilio and other journals
>
>
>On Sat, 6 Jan 2001 21:02:38 -0700 David F Siemens <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
>writes:
>> I must disagree with Allen's claim, for YEC only accept those areas of
>> physics which fit their purpose. [snip]
>>
>> 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.
>
>If you accept God's physical laws as being immutable, then you must
>reject the floating axhead of 2 Kings 6. If you accept that event as a
>miracle, then what rational basis do you have for claiming that God did
>not suspend his physical laws at other times?
Bill, don't confuse this criticism of YEC as implying that God can't
intervene in nature. No one is implying that God can't intervene. The
problem with the YEC position is that they claim to have a perfectly
non-miraculous explanation for the flood and then have to reject every
single law of nature. One can't have it both ways. If you want a global
flood, one that no one can attack, simply say God intervened and
accomplished everything miraculously and then cleaned up the evidence so
that no one could point a finger at him. That is a perfectly reasonable
approach to the flood problem. However, No YEC that I know of is willing to
say that God did it all miraculously. THey always want to get famous for
proposing theories of the flood.
>
>> 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.
>
>Oh really? YECs might say that OECs create a box to contain God within
>the few specified miracles of the Bible, thereby excluding Him from
>interaction with the rest of His creation. Philosophically, there is no
>difference in saying in His Word that He made an axhead float (in
>violation of the law of gravity) and saying that He created the universe
>in six days (in violation of all that other stuff).
Bill, no one is denying that God can make an axhead float if he wants to.
What people deny is that any of the YEC suggestions will work to solve the
problems they have. YECs need to simply have the courage to actually say,
'God caused the flood miraculously'. No one can criticise a YEC for this.
But the reason YECs don't do this is because they know that no one will
listen to them because even they themselves don't believe that God performed
the flood in a fully miraculous way. Thus these silly explanations of the
flood offered by YECs are nothing but evidence of their lack of faith in
God's miraculous powers.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 08 2001 - 01:33:08 EST