I am sorry but I find this an arrogant dismissal of Glenn . see my comments below.
I agree with those who say YECdestroys peoples' faith. That was Hugh Miller's point in 1856.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Roy
To: asanet
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: Unwillingness to listen
Glenn Morton wrote:
"Having jumped back onto the list today, I am jumping into the middle of this, but that won't stop me. As a former young-earth creationist of some infamy, I can tell you why I didn't listen. I placed my interpretation of the Bible as the utmost metaphysical truth. By doing that, all contradictory data simply had to be wrong. Thus when faced with clear evidence and logic that my viewpoint was wrong, I did the only reasonable thing--I ignored the data or assumed that there was some way to discount and ignore it. There was also an emotional reason not to listen to contradictory arguments. They challenged my world view and made me extremely uncomfortable. Since I could not doubt my ultimate metaphysical truth--the YEC paradigm without thinking I would become an atheist which I didn't want to do--I would flee from the truth."
No, you were not faced with clear evidence, you were faced with interpretations of data from within the religious philosophy of NaturalismEVIDENCE FOR THIS PLEASE.. You had not been educated in the pervasiveness of the underlying assumptions within which all standard geologic interpretations are being done.hOW DO YOU KNOW? You had not been shown the religious nature of Naturalism and its corollaries of Abiogenesis and Actualism (i.e. non-uniform Uniformitarianism WHAT IS THIS?) within which geologic science usually functions. IS THAT SO? You had been taught the falsehood that Science stands alone without philosophical assumptions. REALLY!
In geology, interpretation of sedimentary rock according to the actualistic assumption that there are ONLY 3 allowable depositional environments -- marine, non-marine and transitional -WHERE DOES THIS COME FROM? I HAVE NEVER HEARD OR READ ABOUT IT DESPITE READING GEOLOGICAL WORKS FROM 1690- automatically precludes interpretation within a global flood catastrophe environment.THE EARLY GEOLOGISTS WHO GAVE US OUR METHODS STARTED FROM A GLOBAL FLOOD Thus all those "facts" of geology demand that there could not be a global flood catastrophe. NOT SO FOR MOST GEOLOGISTS UNTIL 1840 (SORRY GLENN BUCKLAND WAS STILL BASICALLY A GLOBAL FLOOD MAN IN 1841!)
Creationists START with the assumptions that God's natural laws are not violated and that there was a global catastrophic event as told us by God. IF IT WAS SO CATASTROPHIC HOW DID THE ODOVE BRING BACK A LEAF IN GOOD CONDITION Within these assumptions, Creationary geological science studies and interprets nature's facts.
Yes, the Bible is the utmost metaphysical truth because we know we can trust the God of the Bible to tell us the truth. Naturalism is a metaphysical belief based on blind faith in the rationality of human imagination. Abiogensis and Actualism must be true because according to Naturalism, nature -- matter, energy, etc. -- is all there is. There is no God. There is no Creator. There is no one but us to tell us about the past. NO MEMBER OF MENSA COULD ARGUE THIS!
We have the choice to believe God and the Bible and interpret nature within it's assumptions, or we can choose to believe in Naturalism and interpret nature within it's assumptions. You were not fleeing from the "Truth," you were fleeing from false religious teachings.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 09 2001 - 02:37:36 EST