Science is open to new ideas, in fact that is what science is all about. That doesn't mean that just because an idea is new it should be accepted. Additionally, I think you'll find that these are actually old ideas.
Science looks at the evidence in order to determine the validity of ideas, hypotheses. If you have a scenario which physical evidence contradicts, you have to ask yourself if your scenario is really valid.
I understand what you mean when you say
The plain word of God? I mean that most people understand what someone else says based on the plain meaning of the speaker. I read the bible as if what was written were being spoken to me by a person on the street. I read in the plainest way. If that way is not the one that is intended by the text, then the person who objects to that intepretation is under obligation to give his own interpretation and the reasoning behind it.
I think you've misunderstood my question. I'm asking how do you know it
is the word of God. With all due respect, it doesn't matter that you read it as if it was being spoken to you by someone in the street, the fact is that it is
not being spoken to you by someone in the street. You're being given a written record of an oral record, told over centuries that you have no way of knowing the accuracy of. Tales can change in the telling, embellishments can be added and you end up having no way to tell what parts areoriginal and accurate and what parts may have been added on for effect.
I'm not saying the bible is a fairy tale, all I'm saying is that if the physical evidence contradicts a part of the bible, then that particular part of the bible is questionable. Many, many people have no difficulty in seeing stories like creation and the flood as myths, guesses and exaggerations, yet they accept Christianity.
You don't know anything about what happened personally and neither do I.
Exactly! However we can look at the physical evidence to get information as to what happened. If all the evidence is favourable to position A and contradicts position B, then position A is more likely to be correct. However, nothing in science is written in stone and if new evidence comes along which doesn't fit position A then science re-evaluates it's conclusions. That's the strength of science - it's self-correcting.
You said, in reply to jar
Things that scare you, or things that disturb your mental state of well being, are easy to ridicule.
There's something else that's easy to ridicule and that's some of the proposed scenarios put forward by some YECs and it's easy to ridicule them because they are ridiculous. In their efforts to find scientific support for creation or the flood, they come up with ideas which go against stuff we can see with our own eyes! They try to weave science into these scenarios, but their ignorance of science leads them to build models which defy physics or biology or plate tectonics etc, for example somewhere on this site is a claim that hanging big rocks on ropes from the ark would increase it's buoyancy, IIRC, as would cutting a hole from the deck right through the keel.
™ Version 4.2
(1)