http://www.answers.org/newlook/index.html

I have always believed that the biblical account of creation is absolutely correct, but that the human interpretation (I might say misinterpretation, if I knew I had evidence) that the universe is >10,000 years old is wrong. It's as wrong as saying men have one less rib than women do because Adam donated a rib so God could make him a mate.

Folks, I put this here so all could examine the parts of the text that appeal to their interests and comment on whether the logic holds. If you want to spew vitriol about how anyone could believe in God, please take it to another thread. I'm interested in what you think, not your knee-jerk reactions.

--Baloo

P.S.: I'll be reading it too, but will refrain from commentary until I finish, unless I have an "A-HA!" moment.

Thanks.

------------------
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

P.P.S.:I changed the link above to the index page for the book so you can choose whether you read the old version or the new one, and so you may read the synopsis.

Instead of focusing on the now overwhelming evidence for the God of the Bible and on the complete accuracy of His Word, many within Christendom would have us discount this potent new evidence, all for the sake of clinging to the rather peripheral (to the Gospel) dogma of a recently-created universe.

This digression has effectively inoculated a large segment of secular society against taking seriously the call to faith in Christ. It also has divided the Christian community into hostile camps that focus more energy on attacking each other than on reaching nonbelievers. Worse yet, the nation's courts have come to perceive age as the central issue for the creation/evolution debate. Thus, a pretext has been provided - the lack of credibility for a thousands-of-years-old universe - for removing the Bible and the concept of creation from public education.

--Dr. Hugh Ross, President, Reasons to Believe

[We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.]

--Baloo

------------------
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

At least they don't make any false claims of pretending to be unbiased...

As for Faith Vs. The Scientific Method...
So far Faith has flunked every test I've put it to, as well as every one the Amazing Randi has put it to, as well. That's all I have to say about that. A Nontestable, unobservable phenomenon is not science.

I show now actually attempt to read the rest of the article.

Science and theology are both fallible systems for seeking truth. God's Bible and His universe both supply unerring facts. Our own theories should be built upon the facts from both God's Bible and His creation. Even then, we must allow for the possibility that we might still be wrong. Perhaps the most important lesson we should learn from this is humility.

Take that Jerry Falwell!

------------------
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

"For example, a scientist must have faith in the actual facts concerning the universe in exactly the same sense that a theologian is expected to have faith in God's word, the Bible. The universe supplies evidence to support scientific theories; but what assurance does a scientist have that its evidence is valid - or that the universe will tell him the same story tomorrow? It is not difficult to imagine a universe with invalid evidence; most of us dream in one every night. A scientist's belief that the universe will tell him the truth must, in the final analysis, be taken on faith."

Hardly the same degree of faith here. If the Earth has ben spinning pleasantly in its orbit as far back as humans can recall, it is hardly "faith" to assume that it will continue to.

The descriptions of the gradiation of scientific "belief" from hypothesis to law leave a great deal to be desired, and the "green leaf" example is poor. A hypothesis is generally considered to be an "educated guess," implying at least SOME knowledge of the subject. What he starts with here, though, is more of a "wild guess."

At least he pokes a stick at the literalists by saying that a direct literal interpretation of scripture is probably invalid.

Sadly the entire idea behind this book's argument rests on a number of untested "hypotheses," not the least of which is the "God" theory. Find a way to test that, put it in writing, and get back to me.

I've read a good many books on "Scientific Creationism" and was never quite satisfied that the authors were being quite rigorous (in some cases, downright dishonest) with their logic. This far I am satisfied that this guy is doing his best to address all arguments logically, and from the basis that if scriptural interpretation disagrees with scientific observation, you need to examine both carefully. Both scientists and creationists should have their sensibilities offended by different passages of this book. And rightly so. Adhering to incorrect assumptions behooves neither the scientist nor the theologian.

I thank First of Two for his observations above. He posseses a keen mind and has well-developed ability to discern sh8 from shinola.

Now lets hear from some others.

(I expect to hear cries of "foul!" from the other end of the belief spectrum, as well. Sacred cows do not die easily.)

--Baloo

------------------
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

Although correct in substance, the big bang theory is often couched in terminology which assumes atheism. This, unfortunately, makes Christians reject it without even considering it logically. An atheist will attempt to present the moment of creation as if it were a completely "random accident" - one which, by "lucky coincidence," started a chain reaction of cause and effect that ultimately fell together into the Sistine Chapel and Marilyn Monroe among other wonders.

*L*

It's gratifying to read a biblical scolar who recognizes that Marilyn Monroe was a natural wonder.

------------------
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

For another, he doesn't discount the obvious facts in favor of dogmatic beliefs. That might be because he's actually studied the evidence for said facts, and not found any errors. Again, unlike many who do not actually conduct experiments of their own.

Plus, Gish hates him, and you can always judge a person by who their enemies are.

(Of course, hate is probably too strong a word. Ah well.)

------------------
"And much of Madness, and more of Sin, and Horror the soul of the plot."
--
The Conqueror Worm, by Edgar Allan Poe

The thing I like best about this (I'm a little over halfway through chapter 6) is that he doesn't ascribe evil intent on the scientists for believing the evidence, nor does he accuse them of engaging in a conspiracy to doctor the evidence for evolution or an old universe.

------------------
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

More importantly, we must remember that our goal is to lead atheists to Christ - not to drive them farther away! Every time a scientist has said (correctly) that some particular fossil was millions of years old, and we laughed at him, judging him to be a fool, we have actually driven him farther from salvation. Now we have come to find that we ourselves have been the fools; we have been rude fools too - laughing openly at men who told us the truth. Consider this too, we have laughed at men who knew they spoke the truth and then watched us laugh.

------------------
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

------------------
The main reason Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad girls live.
--George Carlin
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/