At 10:09 AM 08/13/1999 -0600, John W. Burgeson wrote:
>OK, Glenn. With the additional evidence of a citation in another book by
>Nelson, et. al. your claim of "saddest" is bolstered. I still don't see
>the need for a superlative here, however. That means no other statement
>in all the many words written on this funny subject are "sadder." Not by
>Sagan, not by Morris, not by Dawkins, not by (gasp) Glenn Morton hiss
>self 20 years ago! < G >
I must admit I wrote some pretty sad stuff back then. Some may think I am
still doing it. I could probably enter some bad bad junk in a contest.
Actually, Burgy, what I find so sad is the conflict I know exists in them.
I felt that conflict for many years before I finally gave up on YEC. As a
YEC one wonders why God didn't do things in a way that would make it more
evident that the earth is young. Everyone wants to be thought of as an
inteligent individual, yet one knows deep down that there are some pretty
weird people on your side of the issue and you are arguing against the
weirdos as well as the the evolutionists. The more intelligent YECs like
Nelson and Reynolds, KNOW that they are often lumped into the same class as
Walter Brown or Gerardus de Bouw who believes in a heliocentric universe or
Carl Baugh who writes gibberish like this:
"There is a special word that scientists have conceptualized which speaks
of this particular fact. It is the word anisotropy. This means that as
you observe the physical creation and the complexity of life from the
amoeba through tiny amphibians, reptiles, avian creatures (the birds of the
air), and other complicated life forms, you observe that man is the
repertoire of the physical creation." ~ Carl Baugh, Panorama of Creation,
(Oklahoma City: Southwest Radio Church, 1989), p. 3
"First of all, the trilobites of this early Cambrian period of the Mesozoic
era appear immediately." ~ Carl Baugh, Panorama of Creation, (Oklahoma
City: Southwest Radio Church, 1989), p. 19.
and my absolute favorite Baughism:
"In a 1982 Reader's Digest publication, "The Mysteries of the Unexplained,"
it was related that a century ago, a very phenomenal thing occurred. If
this record is correct, and having so many other anomalies, we certainly do
not doubt this account (also, it was related in a verifiable publication),
this means it is absolutely impossible for evolution to be the explanation
of how life forms got here.
"The article refers to the last of the great pterodactyls, the flying
dinosaurs of the Mesozoic era. The record states that in France, some
workmen, in the winter of 1856, while working on a partially completed
railway tunnel between St. Dizey and the Nancy lines, came across something
unusual. In the tunnel, they had broken and removed a huge boulder of
Jurassic limestone, which precedes the Cretaceous by several million years.
After they had broken the limestone, stumbling out of the tunnel towards
them was a creature which fluttered its wings, croaked, and collapsed dead
at their feet. this creature had a wingspan of ten feet, seven inches, with
four legs joined by a membrane like a bat. What should have been feet were
long talons. The mouth was arrayed with sharp teeth. The skin was black,
leathery, oily, and thick. Local students of paleontology immediately
identified this creature as being a pterodactyl." ~ Carl Baugh, Panorama of
Creation, (Oklahoma City: Southwest Radio Church, 1989), p. 20
This knowledge, that some people lump them in with Baugh, eats on them in a
way that you can't imagine. I know only because it ate on me when I was a
YEC.
>
>Cut your claim back to "it is sad" and I'll have no problem with it, as
>your deeply felt opinion. To some extent, of course, I clearly think
>Nelson's claim is true. Hardly a universal claim, of course; he, too,
>has used overkill. IMHO of course.
I amend my statement to "very sad". It is no longer the saddest
statement--some of mine might have been sadder.
>As you know, I am not a YEC; never have been, although at one time I did
>consider part of that claim, at least, as a viable option. But I see no
>reason they, and their successors, should not continue to try to support
>it as long as they wish to. It is their call.
Sure then can call it and they are calling it. But I have a right and
maybe a duty to raise the question of how long is enough. They personally
only have about 70 years or so.
I wrote:
> Sorry
>Burgy, I find this all very, very sad, hypocritic and blind.
>----------------
>I understand. I suspect it is because, at least in part, you yourself
>were once a YEC and now you have "seen the light."
>
Exactly. And I know the internal turmoil they are undergoing.
>But Glenn, what I see you doing here is attacking the person, not the
>claim. And I don't have a lot of patience with that, so I decided to
>comment. You claim Nelson et al, above, of being hypocrites. That is
>something I find sad. Not "saddest" BTW. < G >
Maybe I am harsh here The 'this' in the above sentence refers to the
conflict between their words and actions. They say that YEC has no evidence
yet actively argue that people should become YECs. I will amend it to state
HIGHLY INCONSISTENT.
>
>I wrote: "Does it (Nelson's claim, amended to cover some, but not all,
>people) describe Glenn Morton?
Of course, I am a hypocrite on many issues. I do the things I told my
children not to do.
I don't know. Possibly. You & I have
>engaged in enough "chatter" over the past several years to lead me to
>consider it a possibility."
>
>You wrote:
>---------------------------------------------------------
>This comment amuses me. In fact it is laughable. To claim that I can't
>see
>beyond my training is ridiculous on the very face of it. I, who was a
>publishing young-earth creationist (20+ items for the CRSQ, one YEC book
>of
>my own, and one ghost-written for Josh McDowell. If I couldn't see
>beyond
>my training, I would never have changed sides. I changed sides because I
>finally saw what the YECs were doing to the Bible.
>----------------------------------------
>Sorry you laughed. I meant it seriously. Yes, you "changed sides." And I
>once (I am told) believed deeply in Santa Claus.
I simply don't see how you can claim that I couldn't see beyond my
training. I may be many things, intense, argumentative, irritating and
obnoxious, not to mention hypocritical, but one thing I have proved in my
life, I could see beyond my training in becoming a YEC and then see beyond
my YEC training in becoming a TE.
>
>Here is a question for you. What makes you espouse a variation of the TE
>position so assuredly as opposed to some variation of PC? Or is PC still
>a "live option" to you? If not, would you characterize the writings of
>some PCs (me, for instance) as also being "sad?" Is TE, to you, the only
>possibility left to consider?
TE is not the only possibility left to consider--atheism is. The reason I
espouse TE rather than PC is strictly theological. Both views predict the
same things but PC seems to require that God constantly fiddle with the
universe-always fixing things and changing things to acheive His goal. To
me that implies that God didn't do a very good of designing a system that
could reach the goal without further intervention. And I find PC to be
remarkably similar to the view of how the planets moved prior to Isaac
Newton. Some people beleived that God Himself pushed the planets around in
their orbits. This is Progressive orbital mechanics. Everytime the planet
strayed a bit off course, God would adjust it. Newton believed that God
must occasionally keep the planets on course:
"It opened the door, as Newton uneasily noted, to philospohe like
Descartes, 'feigning Hypothesis for explaining all things mechanically,'
These 'mechanick theists would end by eliminating God from His work and
overthrowing the chief argument for His existence: namely, the wise
adaption of the present frame of nature to the needs of living creatures,
especially man." ~ John C. Greene, The Death of Adam, (New York: Mentor
Books, 1961), p. 23
Today we know that progressive orbital mechanics isn't true.
>
>Finally, you wrote:
>--------------------------
>YEs we are all fallible humans. But I have evidence that I am willing to
>change when presented with new evidence. Do Paul Nelson and John Mark
>Reynolds exhibit this ability? Not yet. But I am hopeful that Paul
>might
>change some day. He is far too smart a person to continue to support the
>totally unsupportable.
>-----------------------------
>You again make a personal attack claim. If you'd change the "Not yet" in
>the above to "I have personally not seen any" it would be an acceptable
>claim, and not an attack. You are not God. You have not seen Nelson and
>Reynolds is every one of their life situations. You don't know, nor can
>you possibly know, enough to claim "not yet."
There is some truth to what you say. But, is it correct to admit that all
the evidence goes against your position but then argue that the position is
the only one that should be believed? And when data is presented to a
person that contradicts that persons beliefs, it does border on the
irrational to ignore that evidence. Before you say 'Aha, another ad
hominem' I want to point out that I was irrational when a YEC. I would
not say anything about Paul, that I would not EQUALLY or EVEN IN GREATER
MEASURE say about my time as a YEC. I ignored data by the bucket load in
order to remain a YEC. I REFUSED to change in the light of new and
contradictory evidence. I distrusted scientists and believed things that
are unbelievable. If I can't relate my experiences as a YEC and my change
from a YEC and relate them to what I see other, very intelligent YECs
doing, then my experience is for nought.
>
>Enough, my good friend. If I did not think a whole lot (good) of you I
>would not bother posting this over-long response!
THank you.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution