And that is what I did as a YEC. But like Vardiman, I constantly had to
admit that my explanations didn't work. And you are correct about the
interpretation of the Bible being the chief cornerstone of YECism. They
never question that they might have a wrong interpretation.
>
>Turn the question around. Suppose Vardiman comes up someday with a
>possible scenario for a canopy -- or something similar. Would you, then,
>revert to a YEC position? I suspect not -- you (and I) "know too much."
If the other geologic questions could be answered in a coherent manner, I
would seriously consider becoming a YEC again. I have stated this on more
than one occasion. But I won't revert if they explain the canopy but
nothing else. Geology MUST be incorporated into their models and as it is,
it is not.
>Take my thought-problem a step (many steps) farther -- suppose that ICR
>is successful one day in constructing a plausible, consistent,
>explanation (one that has no more "holes" in it than conventional
>science) for a YEC position. Would you revert to being a YEC? What if
>that explanation did fail (miserably) the Occham's razor test, but still
>held together OK otherwise? Would you revert then?
As I said above, I very well might revert. but that is a tall order for the
YECs and no one has accomplished it even after 'supposedly' 130 years of
research.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm