I am glad that you realize that your 'religious' beliefs might interfere with an unbiased interpretation of the facts.
Vernon: Concerning Noah: it was clearly God's intention to save this man and his family; in that case, why should He allow him to be gassed? >>
Yep. A good example of religious versus scientific thinking.
Vernon: Apart from this - if I read them correctly - the other evidences you give appear to be supportive of a 'young earth' scenario, in which case, are not evolutionists threatened by observational data? <<
Not at all since the data showing that the earth is not that young is overwhelming.
>Well this is an argument that goes both ways. Christians were the >ones who killed each other in Northern Ireland. Christians were the >ones who killed people for having a slightly different theological >view. (both Catholic and Protestant killed those they viewed as >heretics) I would think that a better way to view the situation is that >men, all men, including Christians and you and I, are capable of very >evil sin.
Vernon: I quite agree with your concluding line. However, whilst Christians have little excuse for departing from the Lord's teachings and carrying out the horrors you mention, I suggest that evolutionists - if they so desire - have the backing of a completely different teaching.>>
How so ? Evolutionist can be Christians and vice versa. But Christians and other religions have used their teachings as an excuse to carry out horrors. Now you say that they were wrong ? Perhaps as wrong as those who use other ideas as an excuse ?
> I am a geoscientist. Can you tell me specifically and in detail how >you think geology can be interpreted in other ways? It was geology >that forced me to change from a young-earth, global flood advocate, to >what I now believe.
Vernon: Before moving into a career in mathematics and computing I was a mining engineer. I therefore have some knowledge of geology and hydraulics. It seems to me that the arguments presented by Morris and Whitcomb in 'The Genesis Flood' cannot be lightly dismissed. >>
Ideas can easily be dismissed by reality, data and experimentation. Little of each are given by Morris et al to support theyr 'ideas'.
Vernon: Presumably you will agree that fossilisation is generally to be associated with catastrophic
events, and Noah's flood seems to fit the bill. Clearly, we don't have all the answers; but isn't that also true of the evolutionist?>>
Fossilization can be associated with such events and yes Noah's flood would have been catastrophic but lacking any evidence supporting a Noah type flood these are just conjectures.
> Jesus said NOTHING about evolution.
Vernon: No. And he did say something about the flood, and about believing the words of Moses! Are not these very good reasons for adopting a 'young earth' position.>>
Even if they conflict with reality ? I am impressed how well you have showed how data can be interpreted through a biased mind.
Vernon:
In my view, it is difficult to dismiss the flood narrative as allegory, or as referring to a local inundation. On the contrary, it is real life drama, and speaks clearly of a world event! Most significantly, the
words of Jesus and of Peter (a close companion for three years) confirm it as real history.>>
So you have the words and interpretation of these words on one side and reality on the other side ? And you decide to believe your interpretation of God's words over His reality ? That is what I mean by lack of faith.
>...there are no Baal worshippers today.
Vernon: I wouldn't be too sure about that! Paganism is still very much alive, and flourishing. >>
Paganism <> Baal worshippers. A logical flaw.
Vernon:
However, it was my intention to use the term 'Baal' in a general sense to describe what man worships when he denies his Creator. I suppose that 'Mother Nature' - to whom many miracles are
attributed by evolutionists - could have been used instead.>>
Another logical flaw. You are again projecting your ideas and misunderstandings onto others.
Vernon: In this connection, Henry Morris has written an informative book, The Long War Against God. It is well worth reading.>>
If it does not contain science, as most of his books do then it might indeed be worth reading