Dear All,
As one who has followed this thread from its beginning with some
interest, I would like to address some comments/questions to the
principal participants.
To James and Bill:
'Creation Ex Nihilo' is, indeed, a peer-reviewed journal. I speak as
one having first hand experience of the rigorous vetting procedure that
eventually led to the publication of my paper "The Ultimate Assertion:
Evidence of Supernatural Design in the Divine Prologue" [CEN Tech. J.,
vol 7(2), 1993, pp. 184-196 ] - the Abstract reading, "Some alternative
views of Genesis 1:1 that explain why this first verse of the Hebrew
Scriptures must be regarded as the most remarkable combination of words
ever written."
To Glenn:
In your list of facts ignored by YECs (Sunday last), you stated: "They
even reject trigonometry as a means of determining distance. This is
because we can directly triangulate the distance to supernova 1987a in
which a gas cloud previously ejected from the star became visible by
reflecting the light from the nova 6.5 months after the nova. Thus we
KNOW that the ring is around 1.3 light years in diameter (and this is
true regardless of whether or not the speed of light has changed through
the history of the universe). We also can directly measure the angular
size of that ring. These two measurements allow us to determine the
distance according to simply geometric laws. That star was 170 thousand
light years distant requiring a universe at least that old. Of course
YECs know that trigonometry can't conflict with the bible so trig is
erroneous in this case. (see Foundation Fall and Flood, p. 63)."
The first question I would like to ask is this: Are you really speaking
as a scientist when you claim that "a gas cloud (was) previously ejected
from the star"? Clearly, no one can have witnessed this event! Thus we
don't KNOW that this is a true explanation of the astronomers'
observations, and to claim it to be proof that the velocity of light has
remained constant over the past 170,000 years appears to be wishful
thinking on your part.
Next, you side with David in believing that YECs ignore the laws of
radioactive decay. But these 'laws' are based on assumptions - as you
must well know! What is observed today may not be what applied 1000
years ago. Would you therefore not agree that you are proceeding by
faith rather than by sight in respect of this?
Finally, now that you are based in the UK you will be well aware of the
ISO paper standard - in particular, the ubiquitous A4 sheet. A simple
experiment involving a metre rule (graduated in millimetres) and a sheet
of A4 establishes firm numerical links between the metric dimensions of
this artefact and the first 8 Hebrew words of the Bible. The following
page (#3) describes both procedure and outcome (incidentally, involving
both 666 and 1260 - surface features that are found to occur in the Book
of Revelation):
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Remarkable.htm
This, of course, is manifestly factual evidence! In our past exchanges
you have rejected such empirical data - believing that labelling them
'numerology' is a good enough reason for doing so. Will you not now
accept that until such relevant phenomena are properly investigated and
explained no one is in any position to claim superiority in this debate?
To David:
I observe that you appear to get some kind of kick from making
coprolitic comments! Your statements, "I hold that YEC has sent a
multitude of people to hell. They have believed that the Bible teaches
the YEC nonsense and rejected God's Word because of it. Therefore I hold
that YEC is one of Satan's master strokes.", is simply a lot of hot air
unless you have carefully examined and weighed all the evidence that is
now available. Clearly, like Glenn, you have not! Please inspect my
pages below.
To Michael:
Perhaps you would be good enough to explain what 'clear arguments' you
had in mind when you said, " Can anyone explain to me why creationists
are not willing to listen to the clear arguments?"
To Allen:
I would like to record my appreciation of what you have written, and am
particularly in accord with your recent statement, "What is needed, is
to be able to differentiate between fact (or data) as derived by
scientific methodology and interpretation (or explanation) of the facts
or data within a specific philosophy."
Sincerely,
Vernon
Vernon Jenkins MSc
[musician, mining engineer, and formerly Senior Lecturer in Maths and
Computing, the Polytechnic of Wales (now the University of Glamorgan)]
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 10 2001 - 18:51:45 EST