Re: Cobb County

It looks to me as though we have a demonstration of the statement by J.
K. Galbraith, quoted by Walter Gratzer, /The Undergrowth of Science:
Delusion, Self-deception and Human Frailty/, p. 81: "Faced with the
choice of changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so,
almost everyone gets busy with the proof." Additionally, why should
Vernon consider changing his mind when he knows he's RIGHT?
Dave

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:07:18 -0700 "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>
writes:
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

----- 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 21:27:21 2005