I've read some of the article but not enough to have a very clear idea of it. Just wondering what you'll all say about it.
It seems that we are running into the same basic problems that your other posts have. You think that phrases which start with "I consider" or "I picture" somehow have the same weight as evidence from the real world. If I said, "I consider the moon to be made of green cheese," will this magically turn the moon into green cheese?
When you start to use these phrases, just stop and go back to square one. Keep working on it until you have phrases that start with, "This evidence demonstrates", or "the evidence is consistent with this mechanism".
To get back to your post, what evidence supports your stories?
I don't have a position on the view I referenced, thought perhaps others here might. The point is mainly that the view presented earlier in this thread as the creationist view isn't representative. If nobody has an opinion then nobody has an opinion, but the creationist view appears to be something other than previously presented.
What I am saying is that we would prefer to see some scientific theories based on evidence, not "views". You know what they say about elbows and assholes? Everyone has them. The same for views. What we are interested in is the evidence, not what some creationists website professes as their beliefs.
The turn of science to antibiblical assertions put Bible believers in a difficult position. Having always admired science, and thinking it a gift from God, many scrambled to accommodate their beliefs to what the scientists were saying.
It isn't about scientists making announcements from up above. It is the EVIDENCE that contradicts your bible-based beliefs. It is reality itself that contradicts you.
I appreciate that they didn't have the time, and it wasn't their calling either, to try to answer the claims of science, but a strong stand on the Bible against the science they couldn't understand might have served us all better in the end.
Why is it that you have to deny reality in order to "stand on the Bible"?
Actually the evidence is just as much on the side of creationist interpretations as evolutionist and old earth interpretations.
In order for this to be true, the creationist interpretations would need to be falsifiable, and they aren't. When any evidence will support your claims, then you don't have any evidence. As you have shown time and again, no evidence will ever change your mind. Your creationist position is a dogmatic one, not a falsifiable one. When you hold to a dogmatic position, you have no right to claim that the evidence is on your side.
Even more, how do you determine which interpretation is right? They can't all be right, can they? Just pointing out that there are mutliple interpretations does not tell us which one is right.
Since the evidence IS open to interpretation and really doesn't support your conclusions as you think it does. Evidence such as the fossils for instance, the strata for instance, junk DNA even, mutations too. All a matter of how they are interpreted.
What type of evidence, as it relates to asteroids, would we have to find in order to change your mind?
Not missing this at all. Of course some interpretations are wrong, that's the whole point.
So how would you know if your interpretation is wrong? What evidence, if found, would falsify your interpretation with respect to asteroids?
I've simply pointed out that the establishment interpretations of the unknowable past . . .
First you were saying that we just have different interpretations. Now you are saying that we aren't allowed to interpret the facts at all. Which is it?
Can we reconstruct the past using evidence found in the present? Yes or no?
And I believe that at least some of the opposing creationist interpretations are the correct ones, but I can't prove those either.
I would be happy if you at least tried to demonstrate that the interpretations are consistent with the facts we do have. If you can't do that, then what good are those interpretations? Even worse, if you can't show that the interpretation is falsifiable, then it isn't even an interpretation.
But as HBD said, I don't have an unobservable past to deal with, I have an observed past that tells me when some things happened so I can place the Flood in history for instance while secular science ignores all the evidence for it and goes on making up stuff that has NO verification whatever.