Just ran across another one. Some 26 year old patent employee had the
temerity to challenge the experts when he came up with E=MC2.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Ron Chitwood <chitw@flash.net>
> To: EVOLUTION@calvin.edu; Glenn R. Morton <grmorton@waymark.net>
> Subject: Re: Glenn wrote:
> Date: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 4:59 PM
>
> >>> If one is to attempt a solution for the
> science/scriptural issues, one must be willing to read in a lot of fields
> and NOT dispute the experts in the various fields. I can't see how a
> layman can come in and tell the experts that they are wrong when the
expert
> has more info than the layman. <<<<
>
> Hmm. Seems to me I read somewhere of someone who was trained in Theology
> that had the gall to assume, against the experts of the time, that chance
> rather than God created. Perhaps you are right.
>
> Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
> and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
> Ron Chitwood
> chitw@flash.net
>
> ----------
> > From: Glenn R. Morton <grmorton@waymark.net>
> > To: Ron Chitwood <chitw@flash.net>; EVOLUTION@calvin.edu
> > Subject: Re: Glenn wrote:
> > Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 8:23 PM
> >
> > At 10:01 AM 5/26/98 -0500, Ron Chitwood wrote of Weidenreich's
> oppostition
> > to Piltdown:
> > >
> > >You are very well-read. I did not know that and I have read alot of
> > >literature on this. However, on any find there is usually opposition
> > >literature but that doesn't take the headlines. I think of Charles
> Oxnard
> > >and his opposition to believing 'Lucy" was anything other than just an
> > >extinct chimpanzee.
> > >
> > Thank you for the kind words. If one is to attempt a solution for the
> > science/scriptural issues, one must be willing to read in a lot of
fields
> > and NOT dispute the experts in the various fields. I can't see how a
> > layman can come in and tell the experts that they are wrong when the
> expert
> > has more info than the layman. One of the problems with the way
> Christians
> > have dealt with Science is that they tell the experts that they are
> wrong,
> > wrong, wrong, in spite of the fact that the Christian may have only
read
> > one or two books on a given topic. No wonder we are viewed poorly by
> > scientists. It is like me telling a brain surgeon that he shouldn't
cut
> in
> > a particular way!
> >
> > I would like to correct one thing. Oxnard didn't think
australopithecus
> > was a chimpanzee. He beleived it was something unique, different from
a
> > chimp and different from human. He says,
> >
> > "New views of some of these morphologies may mean that we now have to
> > envisage a range of functions for the fossils quite different from
those
> > seen in any present-day form, either human, ape or even monkey. This
> also
> > then allows us to include in our investigations all those pieces of
> > information which were ignored in prior attempts to make these fossils
> fit
> > the conventional picture (or if they were not ignored, they were
provided
> > with curious ad hoc arguments to suggest why they existed." ~ C. E.
> Oxnard,
> > "Human Fossils: The New Revolution," The Great Ideas Today, 1977,
> (Chicago:
> > Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1977), p. 97.
> >
> > It is best to try to correctly state someone's arguments.
> > glenn
> >
> > Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> > Foundation, Fall and Flood
> > & lots of creation/evolution information
> > http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm