Re: [asa] Non-controversial science

Bruce

A lot share your questioning. It is right that historical sciences can
disturb Christians as to accept geology means that creation cannot be
confined to 6 days 6000 years ago, and many are taught that in their
churches or think that that is the orthodox Christian position.

In a sense historical conclusions are more questionable than say
determinations on the boiling point of water at sea level.

However what do you conclude if your kids' pet rabbit has disappeared
overnight and there are prints of fox paws along with a trail of blood
leading from the hutch? Clearly a fox killed your bunny and that is the
principle of historical science. We use it everyday and to deny it means
that no criminal could get convicted unless they admitted guilt or were seen
by trustworthy witnesses. Every forensic science is historical science.

The basic principle of geological science is to extend that back further.
Early geologists had no idea of the age of the earth but gradually the
evidence from strata pointed to great age. No actual figures could be given
before radiometric age dating.

Geology has now been going over 300 years and radiometric age dating for
over 100 and the results are conclusive;- at the very worst the age is vast
millions on millions or best the age of the earth is 4.6 by an accepted
figure for 60 years. Some of my geology teachers were radiometric age men
and if they could demonstrate otherwise they would have done as that would
have enhanced their careers etc etc.

Of course there will be minor corrections as for example when I went to do
field work in part of South Africa and was tie fourth geologist to look at
the area I soon came to the conclusion that some rocks which were reckoned
to be early Precambrian (i.e. 2.4 by) were much younger and soon the other
geologist looking at was convinced (BTW he was an atheist and became a
leading German geologist). We convinced two of the previous workers that
they were wrong, but the first was dead so couldn't persuade him. The two
happily accepted our arguments and were convinced.

As for being questionable, there are simply no arguments that the earth is
not billions of years old and rocks any age up to that. The arguments put
forward against a vast age have without exception shown to be wrong. This
may sound arrogant but this is what geologists have been saying for over 200
years.

I may add that I well aware of arguments like those of AIG and the RATE
project (for that consult Bertsche on the ASA website).

Michael

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Bennett" <304law@bellsouth.net>
To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Non-controversial science

> Michael,
>
> I am not a scientist nor do I have a scientific background, so I'm a bit
> trepid in my remarks. But isn't it the conclusions of historical science
> that sometimes causes the greatest stir among many Christians? For me, I
> don't outright reject historical science as being a legitimate science;
> however, I do think their conclusions (say for example, the age of the
> earth) might be more questionable than those drawn from non-historical
> science.
>
> Bruce
>
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 26 10:57:48 2008