David F Siemens wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:21:42 -0500 george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
> writes:
> > We know that we can rely on regularities of basic natural
> > processes
> > for inferring events for short intervals in the past. Bear tracks
> > in the
> > forest are evidence for a real bear. Radiocarbon abundances (with
> > attention
> > to possible variations in cosmic ray intensity &c) can be used to
> > date
> > pieces of wood for a few thousand years in the past. Tree rings
> > give
> > indications of real ages. In other words, nature is "truthful" up
> > to about
> > 6000 years ago. But according to the apparent age hypothesis,
> > nature is
> > supposed to suddenly become deceptive if we try to push it past that
> > point.
> > It's a pretty small step from that to the position that the one
> > whose
> > creation nature is, and who is supposed to have seen that creation
> > to be
> > good, is deceptive.
>
> George,
> I see clearly that you have not been reading YEC publications.
You caught me. I also confess to seldom reading the astrology column
in the newspaper.
George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 15 2001 - 16:15:40 EST