Re: Why?/Re: Answersingenesis

From: M.B.Roberts (
Date: Sun Apr 08 2001 - 16:42:48 EDT

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: YEC Article"

    > With respect to taking quotes out of context, try any standard YEC book
    that has
    > references: Whitcomb and Morris "The Genesis Flood", John Morris "The
    > Earth", Roth "Origins". I have gone through all or some of these books
    > mis-citation seems the norm, not the exception. I am supply specific
    > if needed.
    > Jon
    > Jon's statement is entirely fair . I first read Gen Flud in 19971 at
    L'Abri under schaeffer. It did not take long to realise that the argument
    depends on mis-citation and that explains why YEC is such a hard nut to
    crack. Many Christians simply cannot believe that devout Christians could do
    such a dishonest thing and one is made to feel a cad for suggesting it. So
    YEC becomes almost irrefutable. The question is - Is this mis-citation
    deliberate or is it because they dont know what they are talking about.?

    Many will consider this inflammatory but 30years of reading YEC literature
    has convinced me it is one or the other. This is why I will seperate ID from
    YEC, the arguments of Behe Dembski and others have an integrity about them
    which does not send my blood pressure rising. However if ID wishes to be
    heard it must seperate itself from YEC as if they go to bed with YEC they
    will lose their virginity.

    Yet why is YEC so readily swallowed?

    Michael Roberts

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 08 2001 - 16:48:19 EDT