>The attempts to answer this question should be made. At the same time, one
>should not be dogmatic on its answer. The important lesson for us to learn
>is to separate the essentials from non-essentials, the former has to do
>with our salvific knowledge with God, the latter is the area of
However, I would like to point out that for any given concept of what
happened, one can never prove a given scenario actually occurred, one can
disprove a given scenario (i.e. prove that the scenario is inconsistent with
observational data) For scenarios which have been disproven, one can be
quite dogmatic that they are disproven. I consider the YEC scenario quite
One can show that a given scenario is logically inconsistent with its own
assumptions. In such cases one can be quite dogmatic that they are
internally inconsistent with the expectations of the assumptions.
Any other treatment of inconsistent and observationally falsified views
leads to relativism in which any ol' theory is as good as the next.
Foundation, Fall and Flood