RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
MDLarson said:You have already disqualified the validity of the Bible's creation account. You do not approach the Bible with any respect, neither in matters of religion nor history nor science. You're assuming you already know all the facts "...but is in fact pretty close to what we know so far today." I'm telling you that you got the interpretation of the evidence wrong.
On the contrary, I approached the Bible originally not knowing anything else. It was it's failings that made me turn to other possibilities. I've done the same with many areas of religion, philosophy and science.
Scientist have put forth a Steady State model of the universe, one of them was one of my professors in school. I liked that professor a lot, thought very highly of him, and came to the conclusion that it didn't work given what I knew.
Current Big Bang theory (known as Inflation Cosmology) is the most widely followed theory on the subject today. I looked at it very hard, I understand why they came up with that model, but I've came to the conclusion that it didn't work given what I know.
You assume that because you blindly accept what others give you, that the rest of us must be doing the same thing only from different sources. This is completely untrue in my case. I don't assume I know all the facts, I assume that all the facts are not known. I assume that models can be modeled with what facts are known. And I assume that models are going to be shown to have short comings and they'll need to be modified.
The problem with the Biblical view point is that the model is set and can not be modified. If the facts don't match the model, you throw out the facts. In science if the facts don't match the model, you throw out the model.
Case in point; dinosaurs and my very last post. How can you deal with the possibility of dinosaur / human coexistence? How do you deal with T. Rex bones that have not totally fossilized? There is heaps of evidence for a young earth, but it is ignored or prematurely disqualified, all because "it doesn't fit the evolutionary model."
I know of no evidence of the things you are talking about. I know that neither you nor the person who told you (nor the person who told them, etc.) probably have the ability to check those facts.
Plus, in science, people are looking for anything new. If something like this was uncovered, it wouldn't be an object of Creationist myth, it would be the subject of much debate.
I'm telling you that the evidence fits better and can be explained better in the context of a global flood and a designer. Therefore, the whole post you directed at me started with a false premise that indeed I was wearing a "blindfold" to "true science."
No it doesn't. Here is the problem with your logic, you are looking for anything that might fit your Biblical view, you dismiss everything else. You've been told of these few stray facts (which are hard to even find) and you are saying those make the Bible the best fit. The best fit would be a model that fits most of the evidence, not the smallest (unverified) parts of the evidence.
When I was back in San Diego, I sat down with a couple people from ICR and we made a puzzle together while talking on these issues. I had brought the puzzle, it was a picture of a seal in the snow (very hard, I'll tell ya), but I brought it in a box with a Polar Bear in the snow on the cover. Before we started, I removed about a quarter of all the pieces. I said we are going to build this with what we have and not use the box for a reference because that is very much what working in science is like.
Part way through the puzzle I asked them what they thought the end product was going to be, they said a polar bear (they were using the box, what I told them they shouldn't do). When we finished we had the head of a seal almost complete. I asked if that was the head of a polar bear, which they agreed it wasn't, they realized that it was a seal in the snow.
They said I had tricked them by having a box with a completely different picture on it. I said that is the same thing as using the Bible as a starting point for science.
The whole premise of my post was possibilities. Not false at all. It was a completely valid question which you are now refusing as it asks you to ask what if. Faith doesn't let you ask "what if". Faith is a blind following without question. I have no faith. Not in science, not in religion, not in philosophy. Everything is open to possibilities, everything is open to questions.
Can you honestly look at that post and answer the question? Or is the possibility that the Bible's accounts are false to much for you as a person to handle. The possibilities that what I believe today is in fact false isn't hard for me to deal with. Why are you having problems with this? You asked us to open up to possibilities, you must give as much as we are here.