Dick wrote:
>Do you notice how you grab hold of every new anthropological finding
>that surfaces, and thus far nothing corroborates your position? No
>biblical, scientific or historical evidence supports your hypothesis,
>and yet you lob grenades at mine. When do you sit down and
>reevaluate, and change your mind? When does that happen?
Dick, I actually changed my mind from YEC to evolution. That is historically
documented in the papers I have published.
(http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/publi.htm Papers before 1993 are
YEC papers). Where is the documentation that you have ever re-evaluated your
position? What papers did you publish with a worldview you no longer accept?
I await this with eagerness cause I don't think it exists. If you demand
this of others without demanding it of yourself, it is described by a word
which begins with H.
And I notice that you ignore the fact that animals were sacrificed long
prior to when you wanted them to be and you claimed that only the sacrifice
of farm animals was evidence of spirituality
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200204/0476.html. That view seems a bit
strange.
>Let's say it like you meant it. You don't believe the ark made it to
>the biblical landing site designated in Scripture. Then don't hassle
>those of us who try to work it out within biblical constraints.
The Bible says the Mountains of Ararat. It doesn't describe a single
mountain. It describes a chain. The chain you are speaking of goes east
right down to Adana, Turkey which is where I said the Ark landed. Water
flooding into the Mediterranean would push it in that direction. What we
see in the archeological record is the re-population of the earth. How much
of today's technology would you and 8 of your friends be able to pass on to
the next generation? Not much. If you can't understand geology, how do you
expect to pass on knowledge to them of how to find iron ore, find coal, and
make iron. Do you know how to split rock? To quarry rock?
If there was a catastrophe with only a handful of surviviors left the
technology would take a long time to replenish. Even 4000 people are too
few to maintain technology. The Tasmanians had only 24 items of technology
when they were found in 1802. They used to make bone tools when they first
arrived on Tasmania but they forgot how about 3500 years ago. They used to
fish for food, but they forgot how. Too little mental stimulation and
technology is lost. With only 8 people technology would be lost for a long,
long time.
As I said, I don't think you will actually remember any of what I said next
time because you never have in the past.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Dick Fischer
>Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 4:53 PM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: RE: Noahic Covenant
>
>
>
>Hi Glenn, you wrote:
>
>>Dick, I liked your story, doesn't apply, though.
>
>Or, "I won't apply that to myself" in Mortonspeak.
>
>>If you understood the fossil record you would understand that a gap of 3
>>million years is nothing when it comes to the time between fossilization
>>events for rare species.
>
>I understand it well enough to know that you think you understand it
>well enough that you think you can make those kinds of statements,
>and we won't understand it. For a creature that has only been on
>earth 6 million years (hominids), it is pretty irrelevant that a gap
>of 25 million years might exist between fossils of sharks which
>predated dinosaurs. How many photographs would exist of the average
>50 year-old man versus a six month-old child?
>
>>H. erectus was not created 2 million years ago, he
>>was on earth before then but left no or only rare fossils.
>
>
>>As to when the oldest boat was, we absolutely know that the
>oldest boat was
>>800,000 years ago, because mankind crossed the ocean at that point.
>
>Okay, all you need is another 4.7 million years, or roughly 5 times
>further back in time than what you have. Is that not seen as a
>limiting factor? A boat able to float for a year with a family of
>eight and a bunch of animals and stuff to feed them - the technology
>for that over 5 million years ago? Who are you kidding?
>
>>Questions for you Dick. Do you still think that the very first H. erectus
>>fossil was the very first H. erectus?
>
>It is highly unlikely that the first representative of any new
>species born into the world was also the first to fossilize. (That
>was a trick question, wasn't it?)
>
>>Do you still think I hold that Australopithecus built the boat? (Hint: I
>>don't)
>
>Can I have another hint?
>
>>Do you still think I have the ark crawl to your landing site? (Hint: I
>>don't)
>
You
>refuse to consider the method of apology I advocate on the basis of a
>flaw that you admit right here exists in your own method! Is this
>not hypocrisy?
>
>>Do I think you will remember this next time we discuss it? (Hint: I doubt
>>it You like your caricature too much)
>
>Glenn, don't ask me what you think. It's tough enough just knowing
>what I think.
>
>Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orislol.com
>ÏThe Answer we should have known about 150 years agoÓ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 27 2002 - 11:44:29 EDT