RE: Report on the YEC seminar in Durango, 9-2003

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Tue Sep 23 2003 - 21:15:16 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Subject: RE: Report on the YEC seminar in Durango, 9-2003"

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Josh Bembenek []
    >Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 9:43 AM
    >Subject: RE: Report on the YEC seminar in Durango, 9-2003
    >-My answer is that you have way too much confidence in what you think the
    >data means. It could mean a purple elephant is responsible for
    >creation, I
    >don't think that's reasonable but you can't disprove it. If someone isn't
    >convinced by your evidence and magic bullets, what then?

    Sorry, Josh, but given the above answer, you really don't understand
    turbulent flow do you. If you find that unconvincing, the only thing to try
    to do is educate you about Stokes law, Reynolds numbers and other fluid flow
    information. By indicating that you don't find this convincing, you are
    saying that you could take a jar of multi-colored sand grains, all of the
    same density and size, fill the jar with water, shake and have each color
    separate out. If you believe that, if a YEC believes that, then I feel sorry
    for you, that is what then.

    >-Yeah, so what? Jesus created wine that was better than the wine they
    >brought out the first time (not the custom at the time so people remarked
    >about it.) Do you think better wine is younger? He sure is a liar to
    >produce wine from water that had spices and flavors that
    >superceded that of
    >the wine brought out first. Aw heck, Christianity is wrong!

    No, that reasoning doesn't apply. He let the people see him make it. That
    makes a big difference. he didn't set things up so they would think it was
    old wine, but that is what the YEC claim he did with the earth.

    >Glenn, I don't
    >think you are unreasonable to think what you do, but I don't agree
    >that your
    >view is the only sanctioned view of real truth. (Hence neither is mine,
    >since its the same as yours.)

    When have I ever said my view was the only sanctioned one. Please point me
    to that statement or withdraw the charge. It is erroneous. Do I argue for
    my position with zeal? Yes, but it isn't the only sanctioned view. You need
    to retract that charge or demonstrate where I said that.

    >-Glenn, do you remember the diatribe thread? I really despise
    >inductions of
    >an argument formed in the mind of a critic and used to refute someone's
    >position. None of your deductions are requisite from the beliefs
    >of a YEC,
    >even if you think they are required.

    As I have said before, I think I have a pretty good idea of their thinking
    since I was among them for 40% of my life. I would not dispute with you
    about the mindset of Mormons--you are an expert there not me. But you are no
    expert on YECs. Sorry.

    >>Most YECs think they are spirit-filled and look where it has gotten them!
    >>They are reviled NOT for being Christians, but for being silly.
    >-Maybe about the small issue of science. I bet alot of hungry people are
    >being fed, alot of orphans are adopted, alot of widows are cared
    >for, etc.

    Mostly by people who don't spend time arguing false science. Those who are
    feeding the poor are feeding the poor, not writing silly pseudoscientific
    books. When I went to China, I even had a well known author ask me to take
    his books to China. I thought he was crazy. I took the 4 spiritual laws. The
    last thing the Chinese needed was to get into the anti-evolution business
    before they became christians. So, I don't think those publishing YECs are
    feeding the poor. They are too busy railing against science.

    >The fruit of the spirit isn't "accurate understanding of the formational
    >economy of the universe." You are elevating scientific knowledge to
    >something that it is not.

    No, I can't prove what is true in science. Science doesn't work that way.
    But I can prove what is wrong. YECs are wrong wrong, wrong.

    >>Shouldn't we try to help them out of that situation? Someone
    >>helped me--several someones. The ones who did the most to help were those
    >>who shocked me into thinking--those who told me bluntly how stupid I was.
    >-Yeah, give them the book "Three Views on Creation and Evolution,"
    >don't go
    >around calling them liars and saying that they make the bible false.

    Whatever happened to ethics among Christians? Whose job should it be to
    clean our act up--the atheists???? I don't think so. We should call our
    brothers to accunt.

     I know so many of the leaders who have bogus 'college' degrees, claiming
    Ph.D's when they never attended an accredited university. Do you condone
    such behavior?

    You give them that book. I wouldn't. They will read Paul Nelson's part and
    ignore what is said in the other two parts because those other two fellows
    aren't as 'Christian' as Paul and John Reynolds. That is what they will
    think, whether or not you believe me. Paul is a good friend of mine. I like
    him a lot and we have debated things. He likes me. But we both know that we
    will go after the data with zeal. So, before you claim that I don't like or
    hate YECs, I don't. They are wrong, I am trying what I can to change their
    mind. If you go back 8 years on this list and the old evolution list and see
    how I dealt with them then, I was different than now. Treating their views
    with 'respect' makes them think their views are respectable, which they

    >-Your view of their beliefs is not their beliefs. I strongly suggest that
    >they consider being open to what science may tell us in the future and to
    >not simply regard all scientific information as irrelevant.

    That is their big out. They think the science of the future will save their
    cookies. It won't. They are too wrong for that to happen.

    >Recently I have
    >been citing the radiometric dating of the Siloam Tunnel (posted here by
    >can't remember who) to just about everyone that talks to me on the issue.
    >But the point isn't to force them to abandon their faith, but to learn to
    >think critically about it and weed out the errors. As you testified, this
    >isn't going to happen in a day, it may take years and decades to convince
    >someone. Thus, I lay my kindness and gentle instruction out
    >there, and pray
    >for God to move their hearts. And mine too, if I'm wrong. And
    >the thing is
    >Glenn, regardless of what you believe, I'll wager my life on the fact that
    >something you believe is wrong. That's the nature of being a fallible

    Of course much of what I beleive is wrong. But the only things which can be
    demonstrated to be wrong are observationally related. Those who have known
    me on this and other lists for 10 years have watched me thank people time
    and time again for pointing out my factual errors. I am sure that I have
    not agreed with all correction. Michael Roberts keeps trying to get me over
    to his view of the 19th century creationists and I try to get him to mine.
    One of us is wrong that is sure but it might not be so easily demonstrated
    to the other. But don't think I am not eager for correction. I am. But you
    better have your facts lined up before you come to me with correction.

    >-I'm gonna nickname you jump-to-conclusions Glenn. JTCGlenn, I spend alot
    >of effort trying to educate people on the relevant issues. Coal deposits
    >and swamp material isn't the most important fact for a YEC to understand.
    >Neither is the rest of the barrage of magic bullet arguments you shoot off.

    Been called worse. One thing I have done Josh, is read, hundreds upon
    hundreds of books and articles trying to find the facts on things like
    geology, anthropology, physics, history. So, if you think they are
    conclusions jumped to, realize I have spent 30 years studying this issue--I
    bet you haven't spent 5. Can I be wrong? Of course but the conclusions I
    have reached were not easily or quickly jumped to. Say what you will.

    >-JTCGlenn, why is it that you trust what you observe in the bible? I pray
    >that you never read the Koran, the Bhagvad Ghita, the Book of Mormon, the
    >Lao Tzu, etc. because if you observe it, apparently you will believe it.
    >Consider the following scriptures:

    I have read the Koran, parts of the Bhagvad Ghita and all of the book of
    Mormon as well as Health and Science, Egyptian religion, the major
    philosophers, Homer, the Jewish cabalists and other books. You are wrong. I
    don't believe them. You may now say, "I stand corrected"

    >Who transforms our mind?

    If transforming our minds means we have to believe silly things like YEC
    then it seems to be a change in the wrong direction.

    >-And someday, later, when that final piece of evidence breaks the camels
    >back and he realizes that the earth must indeed be old, your seismic line
    >will have completed its work. This is not a futile situation, nor is your
    >friend wrong not to believe you as soon as you say it, or believe an
    >observation as soon as he observes it.

    Good grief. Where did I say someone must believe me as soon as I say it???
    Show me that statement. You make up lots of things don't you, Josh? I expect
    the honorable thing to do would be to either document that charge or
    withdraw it and apologize.

    >>No, they want to teach their terrible science to my grandchildren, they
    >>to exclude people like me from their churches and like Richard Kouchoo,
    >>claim I am not a christian. Thus it isn't quite as benign as you seem to
    >>mistakenly think.
    >-That is sad, I don't think the situation is benign. But I don't treat my
    >neighbor as I don't wish to be treated.

    Sorry, Josh, If I believe stupid things, I hope my friends will come to me
    and give me a good shake to try to pry me away from those stupid ideas. See
    you don't understand me as well as you think you do. I want people to argue
    me out of my silliness. I want to find the truth and one can't do that if
    all your friends merely give you Three Views on Creation/Evolution and then
    forget about you.

     And that includes using one
    >particular interpretation of Genesis to use as a measuring stick
    >of whether
    >folks are invalidating the bible or not.

    Josh, I have said many times on this list that my interpretation of
    Scripture may very well be wrong. I can understand why people wouldn't
    accept it. It is crazy, it is wierd, but it is the only concordistic
    interpretation that violates no scientific data. There is data which could
    verify it if it were found, but one can't count lack of data as evidence
    against a view. Before you respond to the above, be sure you understand
    exactly what I said.

    But one thing I do know is that observational data denys with tremendous
    force what YECs claim. They kick against the goads, and like Paul, think
    they are doing great things all the while they kill off other people's
    faith. I have many many atheist friends who are former beleivers but whom
    YEC views drove from the faith. I suppose you would say, literally, 'to hell
    with them'. I won't. I want to change the situation.

    >>God always uses humans. When was the last time you saw God sitting with a
    >>YEC or a Christian Scientist?
    >-And God has also instructed us humans how to go around doing
    >God's service.

    And you know that way and think everyone should follow your way. right?

    >-You should go with the spirit, JTCGlenn, not the data.

    As I observed with Richard Kouchoo, when you have the facts argue the facts,
    when you don't, change the subject and call names. Calling me the above is
    an example, I suppose of your 'gentle' way to deal with people? Good job.
    You are living what you preach. Hah!

    >Otherwise, it seems
    >that you are prey to being tossed around on the sea of unkown.
    >>But if what that God does proves him to be a deceiver by making Nature say
    >>what it shouldn't say, then God becomes untrustworthy.
    >-Only if we follow your mandated inferences wherever you think they should
    >Glenn, this is a great exercise. Since I will probably be meeting Ken Ham
    >relatively soon, defending his position can only help me have a better
    >understanding of where he's coming from. This way I'll be better prepared
    >with a response, or maybe with no response. Even a fool looks wise if he
    >says nothing right?

    No, He looks useless.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 23 2003 - 21:16:17 EDT