RE: ASA's "neutrality policy"

Hi Terry, you wrote:
 
I understand what you're saying and do agree with you by and large (i.e.
light from supernovae seems more of a stretch than just light from
stars; tree rings with evidence of forest fires is more damning to the
young earth hypothesis than just tree rings).
 
However, being a grown man is "empirically" the "appearance of age" even
without "worn dentition, liver spots, scar tissue...", right?
 
Just want to hear you say that there is a sense in which the appearance
of age argument in principle makes sense. While I don't personally adopt
a YEC position, I don't think the case against YEC is as air-tight as
you suggest.
 
I think the case against what YECs believe is air tight regardless of
what could have happened theoretically on the outer fringe of
possibility. They believe the universe and the earth is young - they're
old. They believe in a global flood - it was local. They believe there
are no genetic links between species, while all life on earth is
connected by descent from common ancestors.
 
Their entire range of beliefs, of which I cited only three, lies outside
the realm of possibility if we can believe anything in science at all.
They're all hair-brained ideas taken individually. Taken as a total
package, YEC is entirely and completely out to lunch.
 
As to Adam, I don't care whether Adam was created by God's own two(?)
hands out of the Mesopotamian clay or whether Adam was a gifted child of
two adoring human parents. Either way works for me. It's the time of
Adam and the place of Adam that I believe is important. And my position
squares with the Bible, whereas the YEC position fails on that score
too!
 
~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.orgDick
 
Received on Tue Dec 20 14:24:19 2005