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

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon Jan 19 2004 - 08:35:17 EST

After well over 30 years I have yet to come across any substantive
scientific argument of any value from YECs. Occasionally they dig up a tiny
truffle, which never means what they claim.

Glenn is right about D Tyler and the theology web. DT whom I have known for
decades simply wont read the evidence he fails to see in the rocks. I do not
know how Glenn has the patience to continue with these arguments

Also YECs dont want their work peer reviewed as they know it is not
scientific

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "wallyshoes" <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
Cc: "William Hamilton" <whamilton51@comcast.net>; "John W Burgeson"
<jwburgeson@juno.com>; <e-lists@blinne.org>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 9:09 PM
Subject: RE: Grand Canyon Tears America Apart in Battle Between Science and
Faith

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wallyshoes [mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com]
> > 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
> http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17495
> http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17273
>
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17370http://www.
> theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16637
> http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15028
> http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15407
> http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13849
>
> 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 http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199802/0193.html
>
> See this admission to this person who also argued a young-earth position
> often:
>
> ****begin
> >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,
> G.
> >>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
> replacement
> >>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: grmorton@mail.isource.net (Glenn Morton)
> Subject: Re: Proof of Subduction (long)
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> X-Attachments:
>
> 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.
> The
> fish didn't come from Africa it came from Asia. "
>
> Take a look at http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199701/0245.html
> 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
> it.
>
> And miracle of miracles, I actually admitted once that Dick Fischer was
> correct, because he was!
> **begin***
> 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: GRMorton@gnn.com (Glenn Morton)
> To: dfischer@mnsinc.com,asa@calvin.edu
> 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.
> ****end***
>
>
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
> I'll
> > 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
> bad.
>
>
> >
> > 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 Mon Jan 19 08:42:36 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 19 2004 - 08:42:38 EST