Re: Questions to Allen Roy

From: allenroy (allenroy@peoplepc.com)
Date: Fri Oct 10 2003 - 16:18:38 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: Questions to Allen Roy"

    Walter Hicks wrote:

    >> Glenn's assessment is probably correct in that no fact or data could ever change your view. If I am wrong,
    >> could you tell me what data might? If I am not wrong, then what is the purpose behind any discussion?
    >>
    > You have ignored it twice.

    I have said many times here that there is a BIG difference between raw data and
    data that has been interpreted within a paradigm. Nearly all of the data Morton
    uses is interpretation within Naturalism. Do I ever, ever, ever take such
    interpreted data at face value? Never. The raw data that is beneath the
    interpreted data must be found and then interpreted within a Creationary
    Cataclysmic paradigm. I do not reinterpret the Bible to fit data interpreted
    within naturalism. I start with the Bible and then look at raw data and
    interpret it within the Biblical paradigm. The Bible ALWAYS comes first. The
    data must be interpreted within it. This is the very thing that the early
    Christian scientists/naturalists of the 16, 17 and 18th Centuries either forgot
    or became persuaded that they had to set aside their belief system. And by
    setting aside their belief system, they then accepted, likely unknowingly, the
    atheistic system of Naturalism by default. Science is not neutral and has never
    been neutral. There is no such thing as neutral empirical data. All data is
    interpreted whether one even knows it or not. Why do you think I posted the
    stuff by Del Ratszch?

    I find the "facts" Morton points to as interesting and a challenge, but they are
    ALWAYS interpretation of data within Naturalism. What I search for is
    interpretation of the data that can fit within the Biblical world view. I do
    not search for ways to fit the Bible into interpreted data from Naturalism.

    Any and all isometric dating done on phanerozoic rock is irrelevant because I'm
    convinced that the Phanerozoic rock is largely cataclysmic deposition related to
    the Flood. All fossils in the Phanerozoic are also related to the Flood.
    Therefore, there is NO ancient history of life to be read from the Phanerozoic.
    Rather, the Phanerozoic is a record of thousands of events that were part of a
    global cataclysm.

    Do I have all the answers with respect to the Phanerozoic in relationship to the
    Flood? No. But that does not mean that there can never be or will never be
    cataclysmic answers.

    Allen



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 10 2003 - 16:18:57 EDT