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

From: Josh Bembenek (
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 09:46:39 EDT

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: It happened!!"

    My time defending YEC has come to an end, it was fruitful for a bit. Glenn,
    it's not surprising that you can convince me that YEC isn't the right
    position, since I don't hold to it. You seem to confuse that fact
    repeatedly. Mixed responses follow.

    >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
    >to do is educate you about Stokes law, Reynolds numbers and other fluid
    >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
    >for you, that is what then.

    -You are bringing up something that we have not considered before, and I
    don't know all the ways YECs explain this. I have nothing to say on it.

    >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.

    -It makes a big difference TO YOU.

    >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
    >to retract that charge or demonstrate where I said that.

    -Basically by saying that other views are forcing the bible into a fallacy,
    you say the same thing. You did not use the wording I used, therefore I
    retract my statement with apology.

    >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
    >expert on YECs. Sorry.

    -So YECs really believe that the apparent age argument makes God a liar?
    Despite my lack of having spent years being a YEC, I think I can
    discriminate between your jumped conclusions and their claims.

    >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.
    >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.

    -You displayed wisdom here, good job. But you need something to support the
    fact that publishing YECs offer nothing but pseudoscience. Perhaps you
    could give us an account of their yearly spendings and demonstrate that
    nothing is given toward charities, etc.

    >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.

    Various arguments used by YECs are wrong wrong wrong. YECs are not wrong
    wrong wrong, because you cannot prove, as Howard would say, in the strictest
    logical sense of the word, it.

    >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.

    -O.K. Good job.

    > 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?

    -My feeling that YEC is not completely bogus has nothing to do with standard
    or unstandard practices of individual YECs. This has nothing to do with the
    conversation, and boils down to ad hominem.

    >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.

    -Closed minds shut tighter, dangerous behavior to me.

    >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.

    -This is a display of omniscience. I don't believe in your omniscience.

    >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.

    -Great. Keep it up.

    >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.

    -I was speaking directly to the fact that you decided that since I am taking
    a particular line of reasoning in our discussion, that I do not take any
    effort to change the minds of YECs. This is a wrong conclusion to jump to,
    and you continually jump to conclusions about my attitude, efforts,
    behaviour, and thinking which I have not stated anywhere. This is why the
    moniker JTCGlenn fits the situation.

    >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.
    >don't believe them. You may now say, "I stand corrected"

    -So how do you decide, when you observe something, whether it is true or
    not? This was the basis of my statement. I never claimed that you didn't
    read them, I was jumping to conclusions that, based upon your statement, if
    you ever read them (not making any claims about whether you have already)
    you would believe them.


    -My whole point is snipped and retorted with a short dismissal. I have
    nothing more to add, really.

    >Good grief. Where did I say someone must believe me as soon as I say it???

    -I never said that you said that, so no apology. But you acted as if the
    guy was insane not to believe what you showed him.

    >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.
    >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.

    -Again, you are presuming this is the accurate description of my approach.

    >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
    >with them'. I won't. I want to change the situation.

    -I never made any comments about what you should do with your
    post-YEC-atheist friends. I surely never said, literally or not, "to hell
    with them."

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

    -I'm trying to get myself aligned with the teachings of the bible, not
    invent "my own way." If you think I'm wrong, show me some scriptures and

    >As I observed with Richard Kouchoo, when you have the facts argue the
    >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!

    -Glenn, you're the only one I'd do this with 'cause I know your style and
    thought it wouldn't be offensive but would illustrate my point. If I have
    offended you, my apologies. I wasn't belittling you, but your arguments...
    this sounds familiar...

    And the greatest quote of the week:

    "Now I shall just do what you usually do: Simply "give you the last word "
    I hop on my horse and  ride off into the sunset to find more objective

    I'm on that horse as well.


    Frustrated with dial-up? Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month
    (depending on the local service providers in your area).

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 25 2003 - 09:46:48 EDT