Re: Cobb County

I cannot for the life of me understand how a serious student of
scripture can reconcile the notion of a natural world rife with deceit
and misdirection with either the idea of a Creation declared "good" (or
"very good"), or the message of Romans 1:20. If the natural world is as
corrupt as you paint it, that world would not speak with integrity in
favor of its creator or his character. If it is lying so convincingly,
how does one discern any particular truth? Instead, it would seem a high
risk venture indeed to judge divine creation to be so frail and
susceptible to corruption. Would you really be comfortable standing
before the ageless one for confirmation of the sadly misleading nature
of his handwork, and his lack of power or will to keep such misdirection
from occurring on his watch and in his Creation? Hmmm?!

JimA

Vernon Jenkins wrote:

> 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 <http://www.otherbiblecode.com>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: CMSharp01@aol.com <mailto:CMSharp01@aol.com>
> To: vernon.jenkins@virgin.net <mailto:vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu <mailto: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 20:08:09 2005