My reason for holding the days of Proclamation view is that it is the ONLY
one I have heard that allows the data of science to be accorded with the
Bible. There is no other reason. If all the scientific data contradicts
the implications of all the other interpretations, then if any of those
interpretations are true, it requires that the Bible is hopelessly at odds
with modern science and in my view wrong. I don't know about you, but I
would prefer to have a science that supports the Bible. When I was a child,
I played make-believe science, kind of like the stuff on Star Trek. ICR does
it also. The make-believe science foisted on the unknowing by ICR, is not
true science and forces the Biblical account to be false.
>>How much of this is dependent on a young earth? Are you saying that young
>>earth and global flood must always go together?
>
><<That is exactly what the function of the global flood is. It functions as
>an
>attempt to explain geology. Without the global flood, one can't have a
>young earth because they have no means of explaining footprints and burrows
>
>throughout the entire geologic column.>>
>
>Interesting. I don't have a problem with an ancient Earth, due (ahem) to my
>interpretation. Does that mean do away with the global flood? I don't see
>that the two are NECESSARILY tied together.
One can have a global flood and an old earth but one can't have it the other
way. But the problem with having a global flod in an old earth situation is
the inability to point to any geologic deposit and say "There, those are the
rocks laid down by the flood. If someone could find a suitable candidate
strata, then one would have gone a long way towards having the global flood.
>
>>It doesn't sound to me like he thinks it fried the earth. It sounds to me
>>like he thinks this is how the Earth got to look the way it does.
>
><<Then why don't you read more than just the Baptist newletter or whatever
>that quote came from and have a bit of skepticism when something supports
>your position?>>
>
>(Austin, et. al. snippets)
>
>Well, since Baumgardner made his comments in 1998, and your posts were from
>1994, I assume what I posted is his current view.
I just ordered the 1998 ICC proceedings which should come out sometime this
Fall. I will bet you they haven't solved the heat problem. I will try to
remember to remind you of this when it comes out. For your information, at
their 1990 talk, the 6 authors didn't mention any problems with their theory
until some guy had the courage to ask them a question about it. Prior to
that, they had portrayed their model as if it had no problems whatsoever. If
the interviewer didn't ask, they probably didn't tell. Kind of a YEC don't
ask don't tell policy.
>You do provide a VERY
>interesting quote, though, which I reprint:
>
>"Finally, it seem evident that the Flood catastrophe cannot be understood
>or
>modeled in terms of time-invariant laws of nature. Intervention by God in
>the natural order during and after the catastrophe appears to be a logical
>necessity. Manifestations of the intervention appear to include an
>enhanced
>rate of nuclear decay during the event and a loss of thermal energy
>afterward. Although many scientists do not readily entertain such
>possibilities, Scripture indicates that God has indeed on rare occasions
>intervened in the laws of nature on a grand scale."J. R. Baumgardner.
>
>This looks like what I've been saying all along. I don't have a problem
>with it.
And what I have been saying all along also. If God must solve the problems,
the modeling of thermal runaway subduction, floating vegetation mats,
fossilization footprints, non-pillow basalts and all that geology stuff is
totally irrelevant. God did it and we don't have to write or sell books to
convey that thought.
They are like a young bully who is willing to go pick on another kid, but
when the kid (science) kicks back, they run to their big brother for
protection. In other words, when their naturalistic mechanisms fail then go
miraculous. All this appears to be placing God at their beck and call to
solve any little problem they have. Somehow I don't think God is at their
beck and call for miracles on demand or "Dial M for Miracle".
>
>I do understand your point. Why do YEC's "assume the laws of physics were
>working then." I would ask the same thing.
I think they assume the laws of physics because they want to appear
scientific and that requires some science. Simply saying "The Flood
happened miraculously" is not a scientific statement. But the rocks upon
which they are dashed is that the laws of physics today won't allow for a
rational explanation of the geologic data which is why the global flood
geologists of the early 19th century finally abandoned the global flood.
And if you start toying with the fundamental constants, as Baumgardner wants
to do, and as I wanted to do when I was a YEC, you end up killing everybody
and destroying the universe. Baumgarnder wants the rates of radioactive
decay to change. If you do it with a fundamental constant, the carbon in
your body becomes radioactive. Fun huh?
>
>This has been an interesting run, but I'll sign off for now (unless moved
>by one of your provocative posts). Thanks for taking the time.
I am probably going to take a break soon, I am tired (also sick at the moment)
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm