Re: heat problem

From: Diane Roy (Dianeroy@peoplepc.com)
Date: Mon Jul 31 2000 - 21:56:53 EDT

  • Next message: Wendee Holtcamp: "Fish Wars is online"

    It all comes down to how subtle you are. Morton is oh so subtle, Woodmorappe isn't.

      From: glenn morton
      To: Diane Roy
      Cc: asa@calvin.edu
      Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 1:05 PM
      Subject: Re: heat problem

      At 05:17 PM 7/31/00 -0700, Diane Roy wrote:
    > << Woodmorappe's book is as close as your local public or
      university
    >library. If they don't have it, they can interlibrary loan it. If you
      don't
    >>>
    > Then read Mortons review at:
    >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html
    > And then read Woodmrappe's response to Morton at:
    >http://www.users.bigpond.com/webfx/cyber/refute.htm

      Yeah, I would strongly suggest reading Woodmorappe's review so that people
      can see that he defends the names he calls me. Woodmorappe can't argue
      facts so he has to resort to name-calling. Instead of science we get
      vitriol. His first few lines are:
      ****
      Some commentators have called attention to Morton's (apparent) politeness.
      I have information which points to the contrary, but for the sake of
      discussion I will assume that it is true. But even then, politeness is no
      virtue when one is making irresponsible arguments. Remember, this is not a
      round-table debate on whether vanilla ice cream or chocolate ice cream are
      tastier. Morton is attacking the very Word of God. Like all compromising
      evangelicals, he is, in his book, subjecting Scripture to the most
      grotesque of contortions--all for the purpose of accommodating humanistic
      thought-processes and theories.

      The format of my reply is as follows. I first cite a bloc of Morton's
      statements, and then comment on them.

    >cited, attached to the citation are adjectives like "absurd", "naive",
    >"compromising", "abysmally ignorant", "sloppy", "reckless disregard",
    >"extremely inaccurate","misleading", "tomfoolery" and "intentionally
    >deceitful".

      Let us face the fact that most of the attacks on Noah's Ark have been so
      irresponsible and silly that they deserve such adjectives--and more.
      ****

      As I said, when a person runs out of rational arguments, they begin to call
      names.

      glenn

      Foundation, Fall and Flood
      Adam, Apes and Anthropology
      http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm

      Lots of information on creation/evolution



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 21:57:45 EDT