Fw: Re: teaching evolution & creation science in public schools...

From: <bpayne15@juno.com>
Date: Sun Apr 03 2005 - 17:23:49 EDT

Michael,

First of all, I'm not arguing for a young earth. You are creating a straw man so you can get on your 'everyone who disagrees with me is stupid and dishonest' soapbox. Why don't you stick to the subject, Michael?

Second, how do you know the mountains in Britain were 40,000 ft high at one time? Did erosion begin only after the mountains reached 40,000 ft? Since you know how tall the British mountains once were, what was the rate of uplift? The rate of erosion?

Third, to ignore erosion, categorizing it as "a little unanswered niggle", is not consistent with good scholarship. There is a major problem with your "ON AVERAGE A MILLIMETRE OR FEW A YEAR" rate of uplift for the Himalayas, and you apparently don't have the guts to admit the possibility that you might not know everything. Erosion is not an "unanswered niggle". I ask you again, Michael, what is the rate of erosion in the Himalayas?

Fourth, as to what I do for the gospel, I attempt to love others as Christ loved the church. "And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother." (I John 4:21) You, on the other hand Michael, aren't exactly the epitome of love when you call your brothers stupid liars. How many times did Jesus use this type of abusive, abrasive language when addressing his children?

Bill

-- "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
Don't forget the mountains in Britain caused by the orogeny in the mid
Palaeozoic 400 my ago were some 40,000ft high so there is no problem with
the Himalaya.
Instead of pfaffing about with little details why not face the fact that the
earth is billions of years old and all those who say otherwise are either
stupid or dishonest.
It is easy to throw up a little"question" to cast doubt. But I await the day
when any YEC argument does not depend on misrepresentation or
misunderstanding and a naive belief that a little unanswered niggle destroys
the whole understanding of an ancient earth.
What good do you do for the Gospel?

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: <bpayne15@juno.com>
To: <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Cc: <bpayne15@juno.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: teaching evolution & creation science in public schools...

>
> Michael,
>
> You said the uplift rate of a mm or a few could produce the Himalayas in 5
> million yrs with no problem. Quoting you:
>
> "WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? THAT IS ONLY 5000 METRES OR 10000 METRES IN 5000000
> YEARS I.E ON AVERAGE A MILLIMETRE OR FEW A YEAR.AS EARTHQUAKES WILL GIVE A
> DISPLACEMENT OF METRES THERE IS NO PROBLEM."
>
> Being a geologist, I would think you would consider that erosion operates
> in concert with uplift, and the higher the uplift the greater the rate of
> erosion. Mt Everest is 8848 meters above sea level. Check out the view
> from Everest at: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030831.html
> Note that the mountain peaks and ridges are all sharp, indicating
> aggressive erosion by ice and snow.
>
> There is a problem with your answer. Would you care to rethink this and
> modify your response?
>
> Bill
>
> -- "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> Michael,
>>
>> What would you say is the rate of erosion in the Himalayas?
>>
>> Bill
> I haven't a clue. What is the relevance of that?
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
> Now includes pop-up blocker!
> Only $14.95/month -visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/month -visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!
Received on Sun Apr 3 17:25:55 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 17:25:55 EDT