Re: [asa] Empiricism, Faith and Science

Paul

I'll just content myself with a few points ... it's clear that you don't
want to engage with the data, and in that matter you are just as closed
minded as YEC's who won't engage with the data that there is an old earth.
However, you said...

discoverer as from the text. I think Vernon could remove the two aleph-taus
> and still come up with a new impressive pattern.
>

I think for you to justify this assertion, then it's beholden on you to come
up with the pattern. Otherwise the assertion is just no more than
speculation. Remove the two aleph-taus and the sum of the resultant six
words is 1899. I could not discern any internal structure in the sub-sums.
You tell me what's impressive about the sum, and then compare it with the
patterns shown on Vernon's web page. I'll give you a start 1899 =
3.3.211. You'll have to come up with a pattern that is considerably
more
impressive than that. If you're not prepared to do that, then you shouldn't
make assertions like the above.

As for the argument that it would be even more of a miracle if the pattern
> did not appear until the last scribe updated the grammar, I admit that my
> call (sounds like magic, not biblical miracle) is a judgement call, but
> unlike Dawkins it is not purely subjective: it is based on the nature of
> miracles as they appear in Scripture.
>

I think you are being purely subjective. Throwing down a rod and making it
turn into a snake looks like magic. Walking on water looks like magic.

> If you want to change Vernon, you need to argue from Scripture.
>

Well, here at least is where something productive could come out of the
discussion. Are you saying that this is just the case for Vernon, or for
any YEC. I'm trying to have a dialogue with someone from the Christian
group at work who has recently become a YEC. He has swallowed absolutely
everything he's read on the AiG website and now believes he's scientifically
prepared to defend his faith. Are you saying that I'm wasting my time
trying to point out the scientific fallacies? If so can you point me to
some suitable passage of scripture that would be more persuasive? My own
inclination in this respect is to concentrate on John Ch 1, which does not
place the same emphasis on times and duration that is in the Genesis account
but on the continuing role of the Word in creation (Without Him was not
anything made that has been made). Furthermore, as it shows Christ at the
centre of creation, it would appear to be a more complete revelation of the
nature of things that Gen Ch 1, written before Christ.

Anyway, I'd be interested to know your thoughts. For example, is there any
point in getting any YEC to read Collins's book? Is there a way to argue
against YEC purely from scripture?

Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 23 08:02:51 2006