RE: Grand Canyon Tears America Apart in Battle Between Science and Faith

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Sun Jan 18 2004 - 16:09:33 EST

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wallyshoes []
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 10:51 AM

> Actually, Glenn, you misrepresent this. There were many responses
> to your post
> on "Unconformity, Structural deformation Present problems for flood"

No, Wally, I don't misrepresent that. The only person on that particular
thread who responds (and I might add just about the only YEC who does
respond to any of my posts) is David Tyler. The other responses (if you had
chosen to actually read them) were from evolutionists. Just counting
responses isn't the point, here Walter. It is YEC responses. David Tyler
(interestingly) claims not to be a YEC because he believes the earth is 8000
years old rather than 6000. woop de doo!

go look at the lack of YEC (and I mean young-earth responses) to

And I could show more. The YECs simply don't show up except occasionally to
say they beleive the Bible.

> Let's get serious. Who on this list is open mended and listens to
> the arguments
> of the YECs and concedes any point whatsoever to them?

I have. Because they have occasionally caught me in factual error. The
following is a note I sent to a YEC when discussion salt removal from the
ocean. I won't say who, but it is a YEC

"I got the article today. YOu were correct and I was wrong about
the process of salt removal being an MOR process. It appears
that this was a back arc phenomenon. If such a process is
removing salt also, then one must wonder why the ocean is not
more fresh. One might actually see the creationists someday turn
the argument around and say that God created so much salt in the
ocean and the fact that it is still there proves that the earth
is young."

Walter, I have a track record of admitting errors publically when the error
is factually based.

See this admission to this person who also argued a young-earth position

>CS>I have NEVER said that Neanderthals could not have interbred with modern
>>humans (e.g. see Stringer & Gamble pp. 72, 193; Stringer, C.B. 1992
>>Replacement, continuity and the origin of Homo sapiens. In G. Brauer and
>>F.H. Smith (eds) Continuity or replacement? Controversies in the evolution
>>of Homo sapiens. Balkema: Rotterdam, pp. 9-24; Stringer, C.B. and Brauer,
>>1994 Methods, Misreading, and Bias, American Anthropologist 96: 416-424),
>>but did want to see good evidence for it having occurred on any detectable
>>scale. However, the mitochondrial DNA results of Cann, Stoneking & Wilson
>>ten years ago certainly suggested there COULD have been complete
>>of archaic humans by "Out of Africa" moderns.

GM>I do stand corrected here. Stringer does allow some interbreeding. My
>apologies to Dr. Stringer.

Thanks to Glenn for this correction.

****end of Note from Stephen Jones*****

do you know who Walter Brown is? He is a YEC guy who thinks the earth had
huge caverns underneath the granite which were filled with water. The water
came out and flooded the earth. I admitted an error to him publically on a
list serve he ran at the time:

 Sun Aug 17 13:07:21 1997
To: Creation@creation
From: (Glenn Morton)
Subject: Re: Proof of Subduction (long)

 Dear Walt,
I erroneously wrote:

>>The only anomaly is the faster Velocity along the East coast of the
>>US which may be due to deep, cool roots of the Appalachian mountains.
I was wrong. This is part of the subducting plate which was cut off when
North America covered the subduction zone.
**end of note extract to Walter Brown ****

This I wrote to another YEC who caught me claiming the wrong thing about
where a fish arose it was on the old evolution reflector--a sister list to
the ASA:

"I am sorry Jim. I was wrong. I hadn't read the article in several years.
fish didn't come from Africa it came from Asia. "

Take a look at
I admit I screwed up. This was in response to Burgy but I don't care if a
person is young or old earth if they find me in error, I will try to correct

And miracle of miracles, I actually admitted once that Dick Fischer was
correct, because he was!
 Sat Jun 08 09:13:45 1996
X-State: 3
X-Total-length: 12713
X-Mailer: GNNmessenger 1.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 09:13:45
From: (Glenn Morton)
Subject: Re: Geology, Fossils and Genesis

Dick wrote:
>Glenn, you'd be a lot more fun to talk to if you didn't mix in this
>element of ridicule. Perhaps I'm just sensitive, but please try to
>watch that.
I apologize. You are correct and I was wrong there. I will not make any
excuses. I hope you will forgive me.

The other thing I don't do is go silent. I doubt you could find five people
here who would back you up that when YECs present arguments to me that I go
silent. I present data to back up what I say. So, are you willing to admit
you were wrong about both the fact that we go silent when faced with YEC
evidence and that we don't acknowledge our errors?

If there
> is any one point
> that has been conceded to a YEC please tell me what it is.

See above! And quit making such assumptions about people. Will you retract
your false charges?

> bet that I get
> no reply -- that the scientific people on this list "go silent"
> like a YEC --
> or else post a lot of excuses why that would be a bad idea.

You are wrong on this account as well. Will you admit it?

> It takes 2 people to make a war. in this war, the YECs are one
> and those who
> think like Glenn Morton are the others.

When two mutually incompatible views collide, the truth is NOT somewhere in
the middle. There is no way not to have some conflict. And conflict isn't

> Now I happen to have fruitful discussions without several in my
> Church. If I
> spoke like people on this list do, then there would be no dialog
> --- just 2
> monologs. (or just one monolog as there is on this list).
> Disgusting IMO.

And so are your false claims about those like me on this list claiming,
without doing any research whatsoever that we never acknowledge error to
YECs. Such lack of research and sterotypical complaints are not very useful
and they are not worth the bandwidth they used being spread around. And you
were wrong that no one would reply to this note, you were wrong that I go
silent when faced with YEC arguments. Do you have the guts to retract these
false claims?

And do you have the guts to cease making assumptions about what you think I
will and won't do in the future?
Received on Sun Jan 18 16:09:51 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jan 18 2004 - 16:09:52 EST