Hi Christopher,
CMSharp01@aol.com wrote:
> My religious beliefs/affliliations are completely irrelevant to the
> fact that a star was seen to explode in 1987. I have religious
> beliefs and affiliations, but they are not germane here.
The question was asked not of idle curiosity but because I believe it to
be relevant to the direction in which this discussion proceeds. You see,
whether you do or don't respect the Bible is surely germane. Perhaps you
do respect it - but maybe not enough to make it the primary source of
guidance in your life. Then, again, you may not respect it. In that case
I would have nothing but the strange numerical phenomena to challenge
you with.
> The deductions based upon SN 1987A observations are only destructive
> to a particular literal interpretation of the Bible, just as Galileo's
> observations of the phases of Venus or the moons of Jupiter were
> destructive to a particular literal interpretation of the Bible in his
> day.
Assuming you are a believer, doesn't it strike you as rather odd that
though able to trust the Lord implicitly in respect of his bringing our
souls safely home to him, many of us question his ability to provide a
clear and accurate account of his activities as Creator and Judge.
> However, the fact is that the flood was not global, as there is no
> evidence of such a global flood in the Antarctic and Greenland
> icecaps, amongst other places.
I suggest that you are unwise to make and stand by such claims. Let me
say it again, "those who are of the opinion that scientific
observation is necessarily immune to supernatural influence are living
in a world of make-believe."
> Then please explain a supernatural model of SN 1987A, which has to
> include the observations of neutrinos that were detected at about the
> time the light was seen. Neutrinos were predicted from the theory of
> type II supernovae caused by the collapse of the core of a massive
> star.
Why should you think that such details would present any problem for the
One who created it all? As to offering a 'supernatural model', it would
be presumptuous of me to try.
> Which branches of science do you propose to include supernatural
> influences, and which not? For example, is meteorology included on a
> day to day basis (excluding the carming of the storm in the Bible)?
While I cannot speak with authority on this matter, might I draw your
attention to the first chapter of Job where some meteorological
phenomena - undoubtedly of supernatural origin - are mentioned (see
verses 16 and 19).
> ...they (the numerical observations) are completely irrelevant to the
> topic.
I would beg to differ, of course. Are you not able to see that, through
Rev.13:18, the Lord has now introduced us to an aspect of his word that
encourages confidence in those who believe that the inspired Hebrew
words of Gen.1-11 were meant to be read and understood literally? This
new understanding of what the Bible really is is destined to challenge
those many 'interpreters' who, for one reason or another, have sought to
emasculate it.
With respect, may I again say, no factual evidence should be accorded
the status of 'data non grata'. Nor should it ever be written off as
having no possible bearing on even as specific a matter as SN1987A.
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 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 18:25:05 EST