Re: Cobb County

Christopher,

You write, "I've been following these exchanges on and off for the last few days, and I'm totally astounded that in 2005 people are still making these types of arguments." May I ask, At what point in my argument do we part company? Are you happy with the basic references used? Or do you have a different understanding of these? Possibly you don't believe the Scriptures to be a body of divinely-revealed truth. Might that be the problem?

When you label these matters 'unscientific' the implication must be that, in your view, no truth can be established other than through science. What causes me particular concern about science is the tacit understanding that the _supernatural_ must never be allowed 'a foot in the door'. In view of the many statements and actions of our Lord and of the Apostles concerning this particular matter, do you believe this to be a reasonable assumption for any Christian to make?

Referring to my thesis you say, " ...it contradicts Rom 1:20, and implies that there is no such thing as objective truth." I suggest you are misreading this. Paul's statement, surely, is simply this: that there is enough in creation and providence to establish the fact that God is the Creator and that God is the moral governor of this universe; that is why the whole of mankind is without excuse.

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com

----- Original Message -----
  From: CMSharp01@aol.com
  To: vernon.jenkins@virgin.net
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 1:18 AM
  Subject: Re: Cobb County

  Vernon wrote:

    Before moving on to refute these ideas, permit me to point to some further weapons in Satan's armoury: overseeing pyrotechnic displays in the heavens (e.g. SN 1987A); manipulating the speed of light and rates of decay of radioisotopes; laying false trails in the geologic column and ice-sheets; and so on. Such are well within his capabilities - and, with God's approval, must occur.

  I've been following these exchanges on and off for the last few days, and I'm totally astounded that in 2005 people are still making these types of arguments. At the time of Philip Goss, when he wrote his book "Omphalos" around 1860, such arguments about Satan planting fossils to fool us, or God planting fossils to test our faith were used. This is of course completely unscientific, as there is no way of testing or falsifying such an argument even in principle. Indeed it is worse than that, it contradicts Rom 1:20, and implies that there is no such thing as objective truth. When a YEC brings up such arguments as appearance of age, he has lost such arguments, and fallen away into a fantasy land of solipsism and illusions.

  As it happens, my boss works on supernovae amongst other things, in particular SN 1987A, and in a much more modest way I have also worked on that star. It was a real star that had a real explosion about 169,000 years ago, and not only that, we can understand what happened. Incidentally, there is no evidence for a change in the speed of light or radioactive decay rates. Last night I went to a creationist presentation on polonium halos based on Robert Gentry. The usual creationist arguments were used, including the change in nuclear decay rates. After the presentation I challenged the speaker on SN 1987A, not just the light travel time, but the fact that we can see radioactive isotopes like 56-Ni and 56-Co decay at exactly the same rate as they do on the earth.

  With arguments like yours, no wonder Christianity has a negative image amongst people who have a science education.

  Christopher Sharp
Received on Sat Jan 22 17:53:17 2005