Re: Rennie's Rant

From: Jay Willingham (jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jul 18 2002 - 00:59:16 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Rennie's Rant and ICR geologic garbage"

    Jon,

    I tried to interlineate my responses below by starting each with "Jon" and
    ending with "Jay".

    This may be too unwieldy. Sorry.

    Jay
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jonathan Clarke" <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
    To: "Jay Willingham" <jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com>
    Cc: <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 7:48 PM
    Subject: Re: Rennie's Rant

    > Jay
    >
    > The heart of Michael's comment was "Creationists do the cause of the
    Gospel
    > incredible damage."
    >
    > I would strongly support this, based on my own experience. You have not
    > addressed this.

    Jon, Yes I did. I said both sides do themselves damage. Vituperative and
    ad hominem attacks in debate are self defeating. Jay
    >
    > You wrote:
    >
    > "The problem I have encountered with many scientists is their complete
    refusal
    > to admit that their theories or hypothesis are not facts. They cling to
    them
    > with great faith but seem to be unable to deal with genuine challenges to
    > numerous assumptions."
    >
    > Since we are talking about YEC, please give specific examples with respect
    to
    > fundamental geological principles, particular in the area of stratigraphy,
    > sedimentology, palaeontology.

    Jon, I was talking about Rennie, SA and National Geo. How about assumptions
    regarding time and processes over time cutting across all of them. Jay
    >
    > You wrote:
    >
    > "We believe our modern science is infallible."
    >
    > YEC does not challenge is not modern science, i.e. the latest
    controversial
    > hypothesis, but understandings that have mostly been established for
    centuries
    > and repeatedly tested and verified over that period. Basic stratigraphy
    was
    > established by Steno in the mid 17th century, longer than Newton's laws.
    The
    > great age of the earth was recognised by the mid 18th century by people
    such as
    > Lhwyd, somewhat before Linnaeus revolutionised taxonomy. Biostratigraphy
    was
    > established in the early 19th century by Cuvier and others, in the same
    time
    > frame that the foundations of thermodynamics were laid. Organic evolution
    in the
    > general sense (descent with modification) was accepted my most people
    (including
    > many evangelicals) from the late 19th century, before Maxwell's work on
    > electro-magnetism. Radiometric dating was first used in 1913, and is
    better
    > established than the photoelectric effect.

    Jon, There are those and other theories that involve assumptions, again,
    about time and natural process rates over time.
    >
    > Which "postulates" of YEC would you have no trouble defending?

    Jon, Give me a list of postulates and I will let you know. As I recall my
    post dealt specifically with Hoesch's piece as a contrast to Rennie's, not
    YEC as an abstraction or group. This list has shown me that, reasonable
    men differ within the macroevolution and YEC camps. Jay
    >
    > Jon
    >
    >
    > --
    > "It is not easy to see how the more extreme forms of nationalism can long
    > survive when men have seen the earth as a pale crescent dwindling against
    the
    > stars, until at last they look for it in vain".
    >
    > Arthur C. Clarke
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 18 2002 - 01:34:50 EDT