On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:50:33 +0000 mortongr@flash.net wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Unfortunately I have learned the hard way not to "believe" Glenns'
>>assertions.
GM>Stephen, you haven't hardly believed a thing I said since you came on board
>5 years ago. According to you I am as nearly 100% wrong as a person can be.
This is simply not so. I have in the past paid tribute to Glenn's informative
posts and have learned a lot from them. For example, when I last left the
list, I paid special tribute to Glenn:
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199809/0362.html
Re: Farewell
Stephen Jones (sejones@ibm.net)
Mon, 21 Sep 1998 07:07:16 +0800
I have been a member of this list since early 1995 and continuously
subscribed for all but 4 months of that time. I believe the Lord led
me to the list and nothing that has happened has changed this
conviction.
But I am now a member of another Creation/Evolution list which is
much more rewarding, and I find I cannot keep up with both (and
keep my marriage and job!). I have been praying about my future on
this list and the recent set of posts critcising my quantity of replies I
take to be the answer. Regretfully I must therefore unsubscribe from
the Calvin Reflector. I doubt that I will return, but who knows? I will
answer any remaining message privately.
I wish to thank all those who increased my knowledge of the Creation/
Evolution issue, particularly Glenn.
[...]
------------------------------------------------------
That I think Glenn is wrong on *some* things does not mean that I think
he is wrong on *all* things.
>SJ>If Glenn has any *evidence* that: 1) a thrown pair of dice is a "non-linear
>>physical system"; and 2) that the non-linear component of air-friction on a
>>pair of dice in normal circumstances is of sufficient magnitude to render
>>such thrown dice unpredictable, I would request Glenn post it, with
>>references.
GM>FRAnkly, for you it isn't worth it. I have learned that if I go to the
>trouble to do something like this, you simply dismiss it. I don't want to
>perform for you anymore.
This is a *debate*. Glenn is not performing for me, and I am not
performing for Glenn. Glenn is entitled to make his claims and I am entitled
to ask him for his evidence. If Glenn declines to provide his evidence, then
that could either mean: 1) he has the evidence but for some unknown
reason declines to post it; or 2) he doesn't have the evidence and is just
blustering in the hope that no one will notice!
I would point out that whether thrown dice are non-linear is not a big issue
for me. Even if they are non-linear, they are still *caused*. And even if the
results are unpredictable to humans, that does not mean they are
unpredictable to God. But I would have liked to see the evidence that they
are unpredictable.
[...]
>SJ>No. I said "I do not *believe* it was evolution" (my change of emphasis). I
>>accept I could be wrong.
GM>CAn you point me to a single post where you said you were wrong?
First, the reason why I rarely have to admit I am wrong is that I try hard
not to exaggerate my claims and to back up everything I say with facts.
And to avoid verbal errors, I often use my opponents exact words. But I
do make mistakes-see my recent admission of error to Chris.
Glenn on the other hand, often makes exaggerated and even false claims
and has been found out to be wrong many times (although he will rarely
admit it). Glenn seems to think that rarely being wrong is a vice in me,
but being often wrong is a virtue in him!
Second, I don't know why Glenn keeps asking this. I have several times
over the years in answer to his charge, pointed to my big change from
denying common ancestry to accepting it:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://asa.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199505-10/0395.html
Re: Clarification of my Progressive Creationist position
Stephen Jones (sjones@iinet.com.au)
Wed, 28 Jun 95 21:24:48 EDT
ABSTRACT: This post is over 100 lines long. It represents a shift in
my position to a more consistent Progressive Creationist position. I
discuss important evidence supporting the reptilian jawbones-mammalian
earbones transition from Gould's "Eight Little Piggies". I now accept
this transition as fact, although I do not accept it happened by a 100%
natural process. If my personal intellectual journey is uninteresting
to you then send this to the bit bucket without reading on! <g>
[...]
I now think it is a wrong approach to deny transitional forms and
features. This however does not mean that every claimed transitional
form should be uncritically accepted. Terry has posted good evidence
that all primates (including man) have the same switched-off gene
that prevents them from synthesing vitamin C. This is good evidence
of common ancestry and I provisionally accept it, pending more
information.
[...]
So Glenn is partly right. The "apologetical books" who keep repeating
"how could an animal chew and hear while this was happening?", are
ignoring the evidence.
[...]
My future posts will endeavour to build this Progressive Creation
model of reality. I will accept the *proven* facts that evolutionists
unearth, including transitional fossils, but I will challenge their
100% naturalistic explanations.
[...]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After this admission of Glenn being right and me being wrong in denying
common ancestry, Glenn sent me a private message dated 28 Jun 1995
saying "I am truly humbled by your thanks. I know exactly how difficult a
paradigm shift like that is." Glenn could check his records and confirm that
what I say is true.
I must say I cannot remember Glenn making a comparable major admission
that he was wrong on my time on this Reflector.
GM>It is time to end this useless exchange. You can have the last word Stephen.
Glenn often finishes like this. It doesn't particularly worry me if he doesn't
read my replies, but if he doesn't then he will probably not discover my
rebuttal to his oft-repeated charge that I have never admitted I was wrong,
and then he probably trot it out again when the going gets tough!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"To say that there is a *complete consensus among scientists that evolution
has occurred* does not mean there is complete understanding of the
underlying mechanisms, or ways, in which evolution has occurred. Far
from it. While evolution is a fact, how it occurs will always be the subject
of debate. This is the fascination of science. To put it another way, there is
no dispute about the *fact* that evolution has occurred but there is dispute
among scientists about *how* it has occurred." (Price B., "The Creation
Science Controversy", Millennium Books: Sydney, 1990, p8. Emphasis in
original.)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------