From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Wed Oct 01 2003 - 14:02:26 EDT
Michael Roberts wrote:
> Surely the one thing the nonsense about magnetic
> field proves is that YECs are simply stupid and
> will pull any pseudo-scientific trick in the
> book to make their case. When I see it put
> forward I know that the writer is a bit short of
> neurons at the top of his spine. But how do you
> convince Joe Public as the writers are such good
> Christians and have Ph Ds Michael
Well, the first thing that you might try is to
stop insulting them by referring to all YECs as
"simply stupid" or other demeaning comments. Since
you meant Morris (and perhaps others at ICR) then
why not restrict your comments to them? My
daughter is a YEC as are many church members I
know. If asked how long the Earth's magnetic field
will last they would want want to know what in the
world am I talking about.
As usual, you malign an entire group, needlessly.
If you discovered that most blacks believed that
the earth is young, would refer to blacks as
stupid?
Walt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:Robert Schneider
> To: ASA ; Dick Fischer
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 1:51
> AM
> Subject: Re: Magnetic field energy
> loss
> Dick writes: In The Genesis
> Record, Morris makes his point about
> the flood ordering the fossil sequence
> found in sedimentary rocks. He then
> says:
>
> Man's perverse and depraved nature has
> somehow
> distorted both into a system of
> evolution and uniformity.I love it
> when YECs like Morris appeal to "man's
> perverse and depraved nature" to
> explain the source of such concepts as
> evolution and uniformity. Does it
> ever occur to them that the same
> argument could be turned against
> them? That it is their "perverse and
> depraved nature" that has led to their
> six-day 6000 year interpretation of
> Scripture and the "creation science"
> they have come up with to support it?
> I don't believe so; I'm merely
> pointing out that such a theological
> ad hominem argument is a double-edged
> sword. I cannot in good conscience not
> put the words "creation science" in
> quotation marks. A long retired
> professor from Southern Baptist
> Theological Seminary (back in the old
> days before the fundamentalists took
> it over and ruined it), once remarked
> about "scientific creationists" that
> "what they do is not science, and they
> don't understand creation." Bob
> Schneider
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:Dick Fischer
> To: ASA
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30,
> 2003 12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Magnetic field
> energy loss
> David wrote:
>
>
> > These illustrate a couple
> > of peculiarities common in
> > YEC (young-earth
> > creationism) arguments.
> > By admitting that
> > reversals have occurred,
> > Humphreys indirectly
> > admits that other YEC
> > advocates slander
> > conventional geologists in
> > denying the existence of
> > reversals. Internal
> > consistency is not a
> > concern.
> >
> > The second is an example
> > of the unjustified
> > uniformitarianism that is
> > popular as a base for YEC
> > arguments. Ironically,
> > the hypocritical and
> > illogical accusation of
> > uniformitarianism as
> > inherently atheistic is
> > also popular among YEC
> > advocates.
>
>
> In The Genesis Record,
> Morris makes his point about
> the flood ordering the
> fossil sequence found in
> sedimentary rocks. He then
> says:
>
> Man's perverse and depraved
> nature has somehow
> distorted both into a system
> of evolution and uniformity.
>
> "Uniformity" can be defined
> as a projected continuity.
> It is the assumption that
> the rates and processes we
> see today are the same as in
> the past. This is simply
> the most conservative stance
> you could take. The
> alternative is to assume
> that something (who knows
> what?) caused the rates or
> processes to change. Since
> we would not know whether
> the rates or processes
> changed up or down, the "no
> change" assumption is as
> middle-of-the-road as you
> can get.
>
> The precautions with taking
> a uniformitarian approach
> are that you must have a
> considerable number of
> established data points, and
> that you not try to
> extrapolate too far. The
> important thing to remember,
> though, is that what makes
> uniformity inherently good
> or bad, from a young earth
> creationist's point of view,
> is directly dependent on who
> uses it. If they use it -
> it's good; if evolutionists
> use it - it's bad!
>
> Dick Fischer - Genesis
> Proclaimed Association
> Finding Harmony in Bible,
> Science, and History
> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 14:02:01 EDT