BrianB said:

What about if we make "biblical" conclusions based on our own understanding, and if that understanding is not rooted in the truths of Scripture?  Our conclusions will also be fundamentally flawed and we cannot trust our conclusions because the foundation of our understanding will have come from our own imaginations.

How is that different from what you claim for scientific conclusions?

Many people have flawed interpretations of Scripture, Brian. That's obvious. There are also flawed interpretations in the field of science, to be sure. Unregenerate men will misinterpret anything, because their own selfish motives will be their central agenda.

What you seem to want, though, is for me to forsake the scriptural interpretations of REGENERATE men in favor of interpretations within science of the UNREGENERATE, when doing so allows for a more "impirical" observation of the evidence. That's not going to happen.

If I look across the room and see a mirror, then I look away and look back, and it's still showing my reflection, how do I know whether my belief that:

"The mirror reflects my image so that I can see myself."

is or is not "rooted in the truths of Scripture"?

First, this topic is not addressing the interpretation of observable facts. It is addressing creation. The only way you could observe this is if Creation was created again and you were around to watch. It's convenient for you -- but quite unreasonable -- to compare "scientific" conclusions about a reflection in a mirror to "scientific" conclusions about how creation occurred.

What in the world does that mean anyway?  What do you mean that something is "rooted in the truths of Scripture"? Looks like it might be just pious-sounding language to re-assert the position that should be proven, not just asserted.

An approach to interpreting general revelation (creation) that is rooted in the truths of scripture is one that allows the facts communicated in Scripture to guide us in our understanding of general revelation. It allows us to "wait out" coming to any "scientific" conclusions that require us to twist or ignore obvious Scriptural conclusions. How many obsolete viewpoints of secular scientists on the issue of creation would we have been spared having been taught to our children in school if the arrogance of scientists had been overcome by quiet patience?

If what you say in your post is true, then we cannot trust man to make objective observations of Scripture either, because corruption of the human heart will rule out an objective observation.

We certainly cannot trust any man's interpretation of scripture to be 100% correct, but where Scripture is obvious, there is no need to trust an interpretation. How much easier to trust a godly man who interprets the simple passages of the Creation Account over an atheist scientist who determines that evolution is factual? On what evidence, other than man's desire to be godless, was evolution conceived? Okay... how about divinely-guided evolution? "Oh, you just wait, you Christian, until we find that missing link!"

I'd rather have to walk among the land-mines of errors of biblical interpretation than to tread among the nukes of secular science, especially when it is speaking to creation.

What is more difficult for me to have the right understanding of, that the bottle top to my Gatorade bottle is orange, or the nature of the tribulation and millenium?

Here you are, once again, comparing the ability to detect the simple with the ability to discern how creation occurred. Besides, what does the tribulation and millenium have to do with creation? Or the color of a bottle, for that matter? The Genesis account is not a man's prophetic dream. And I hope the color of a Gatorade bottle does not lead one to conclude that a prehistoric ice age was caused by a meteor striking the earth.

What is more difficult for me to have the right understanding of, that solid water (ice) is less dense than room-temperature liquid water, or whether or not we should baptize infants?

Whether or not we should baptize infants is a trivial matter compared to the truth both side of this view support: we need the covering and forgiveness of God, and His commands should be obeyed. That is a scriptural truth that the presbyterian and babtist will take with them as they interpret their world. This makes much more sense that deciding that infants should not be baptized because room-temperature water has a different density than ice.

The problem here with you and others is that, while you will give lip-service to the idea that you are not an infallible interpreter, that's all it is.  Lip-service.  You automatically assume that you're interpretation of Scripture is going to be more accurate than your observation of the natural world.  Sorry, but that's just not abiding by what you say you believe.

Of course it is. The plain things of scripture are very plain. And the plain things of scripture are important foundations to our thinking as we interpret the world around us. If you believe in God, and if you believe that the Bible is Divinely inspired, then there seems to me to be no reason to debate this any further.

You _assume_ in your mind that you have direct access to "the unchanging Word of God" when in fact you do not.  You have direct access to your own interpretation, but that interpretation could be wrong.

The only assumption I have is that God did not waste His time when He gave us the Bible. I assume that He is right when He says that His Word is a lamp unto our feet. We don't need to agree on the tribulation or even infant baptism to put us on a more accurate path to interpreting the Grand Canyon, the age of the Earth, or human origins. It is just as obvious as the nose on our faces that we should begin with what He has told us and then move carefully into the realm of human speculation and interpretation. It does not require debate. It just requires obedience.