John Burgeson wrote:
> Brian Cross wrote:
>
> "Subject: Re: Omphalos
>
> Burgy,
>
> >it presents a completely tight case for the>
> >YEC position, one that CANNOT be refuted.
> >
> >(No -- I am not a YEC myself).
>
> If it cannot be refuted, then why are you not a YEC?
> Either you don't care about truth, or you think it
> can (in some sense) be refuted."
>
> You make, I think, the classical mistake of thinking there are only
> two possible answers (to your own question).
>
> Yes -- I care about truth.
> No -- I think it cannot, in any sense, be refuted.
>
> Consider the theory that you, Brian Cross, are real enough,
> but you are the only entity in the universe and that you are
> simply having a dream in which the rest of us appear as
> characters or actors.
>
> This theory MIGHT be true. (It is called solipism).
>
> This theory CANNOT be refuted. It is far-fetched only in terms of what
> we know -- or think we know. Radio and TV were far-fetched in terms
> of what the people of 1800 knew -- or thought they knew.
>
> Why are you not a solipsist? Don't you care about truth?
Would you say the same thing to God? If so, then you think God cannot show
solipsism to be false (and therefore does not know whether He created
anything or merely dreamed He did). If not, then you think that solipsism
can (in some sense) be refuted. Likewise with YEC. If you believe that it
cannot *in any sense* be refuted, and yet you refuse to believe it, then
you don't care about truth. For what cannot *in any sense* be refuted is
nothing other than the truth. You are free to define "refute" as
"scientifically refute", but then claiming that something "CANNOT be
refuted" [your caps] is clearly excessive excitement and overblown
advertising about something trivially true to those of us aware of the
limitations of science (i.e. all of us, I presume).
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 00:54:13 EDT