At 11:52 PM 4/28/98 -0600, Bill Payne wrote:
>Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>> I am curious. And if this is the case, why
>> do you think the young-earther's have not discussed this object in any of
>> their books over the past 11 years?
>
>I think you know the answer to that one. :-) Have you found anything
>to reconcile the ring-diameter discrepancies?
2 comments. No I haven't. It will take me a week or so to get this new
computer into shape so I am not doing a lot of looking for things right now.
Second, I know what you are saying about why the young-earther's don't talk
about SN1987. But let me point something out that doesn't apply to you, but
is very sad. Christians are called to the highest moral standard. That
should constrain us to talk about data that goes against our position and
to admit it when we are demonstrated to be wrong. It saddens me that I
don't see those traits among many of the published apologists! What I see
is the same argument continued for years after it has been disproven and/or
pointed out to the individual. In my opinion, that is not only sloppy
research, it is morally incorrect to continue to repeat the argument after
it has been shown to be erroneous.
Example: solar shrinking (disproven in 1981/82) continues to be published.
see:
~Dennis R. Peterson, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, (South
Lake Tahoe:Creation Resource Foundation, 1990)p. 43
Paul Ackerman, Its a Young World After All, (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1986) p. 55
Henry M. Morris, Creation and the
Modern Christian, (El Cajon, California: Master Book Publishers,
1985), p. 227
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm