From: Glenn Morton (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 21:43:18 EDT
>From: Michael Roberts [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 5:11 PM
>You must admit Glenn that these arguments are so funn y that you think they
>must be made in jest!
>Fossil teddy bears will keep me laughing for weeks.
They are funny.
>>From what we see on the news year the USA is inundated =every year when a
>hurricane arrives. As you say proof of another global flood.
>Can you explain the psychology of YEC how they can actuaaly bleieve this? I
>can see this for followers but not the leaders who surely must realise the
>flaws of what they say. I dont see how anyone can resist criticism so
>absolutely as I go back and check sources - even when you have a
>go at me!!
>Am I weak because I have a fear of being wrong?
>I am afraid I cannot explain the behaviour of leading creationists
>coming to the conclusion that they deliberately lie.
I think I can explain it. To them, the highest truth is what they read in
the Bible. I would agree with that. But, they then assume that they have
INTERPRETED the Bible infallibly. And that is where I and other YECs sin.
Humans are not infallible interpretors of Scripture. They will say that the
Holy spirit interprets it for them, but that too is, in my opinion, a sinful
assumption. To assume that we sinners listen perfectly to the HS is simply
crazy. The entire Bible testifies to how even the religious people try to
get out of what God is telling them to do and believe.
But once they assume that they have interpreted the Highest Truth perfectly,
then all else follows. They aren't lying when they say teddy bears were
fossilized. They truly believe it is possible (I would have) because there
was a huge pre-flood population and there will be evidence for the flood.
And the scientists who reject such evidence only do so because they don't
want to believe in the global flood or in the Bible. that is the way the
I would also add that
>some of their accusations are postively libellous, as in this
>Asserted that researchers get many
>>"wrong" answers, publish only those which agree.
And some of the things said about me were libelous and I had to threaten to
sue Ken Ham to get him to take a libelous statement off his web site. When
he gave in, I had just made an appointment with an attorney so I canceled
it. He basically was saying I was no longer a Christian. And when he
finally gave in, he had the gall to ask me why I would sue a brother in
Christ!!! What unbelievable gall.
>>Asserted that many researchers in radiometrics "deliberately lie."
This proves something I have always believed.
Most people believe others are like themselves.
In light of the above, isn't that a sad thing?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 25 2003 - 21:43:57 EDT