From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Sat Oct 04 2003 - 04:53:38 EDT
Woodmarappe and other leading YECs who have made many many distortions have
been criticised hundreds of times over the last 40 years by competent
scientists of all faiths but they will not retract, apologise or correct
their errors. That is not a Christian or honest attitude.
I could easily go through Wood's list and itemise each one - assuming I had
access to the journals cited. That would take me about a week and it would
be a bit like trying to persuade Bin Laden to stop terrorism by itemising
the suffer he has caused. This has been done many times by Morton,
Schimmerich and Wiens who you simply dismiss as 6th grade. When you add the
number of scientists outside the ASA fratenity there are a lot agianst you.
It is clear to me that no evidence biblical or scientific could possibly
convince you so I will sign off.
Your whole attitude renders the Body of Christ asunder
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "allenroy" <allenroy@peoplepc.com>
To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: RATE
>
>
> Michael Roberts wrote:
>
> > You asked me once before. It would take too long to itemise all his
misquotes.
> > As I said I gave up at 100.
>
> Right. And so we're just to believe your assertion and not believe
> Woodmorappe. He has hundreds of quotes and you got zip. I didn't ask for
ALL
> his mis-quotes, just the 100 you say you found. No documentation, no
evidence,
> nothing to say.
>
> > On the Talk Origins site Steve Schimmerich - an evangelical Geologist
who has
> > taught for Wheaton College has a discussion of Woodmarappe, though that
is not
> > his real name and some of the correspondence between them.
>
> I was the go-between between Schimmerich's email list and Woodmorappe at
that
> time. I wasn't impressed with Schimmerich then and certainly not now.
>
> > As I said when he retracts his distortions and Austin stops doing the
same
> > then I will be willing to listen. Until then I have my doubts about
their
> > competence and their sincerity.
>
> You have no evidence, just assertions. Why should I take you seriously?
>
> > Suggestion of apparent age of the earth are abhorrent as if God did that
then
> > he is a liar and unworthy of worship. Period.
>
> Not at all.
>
> It seems to me that we can define "Old Earth" or the "appearance of age"
to
> meant a complete and balanced environmental system with all it's parts and
> cycles in place. In other words, there would be mature vegetation and
animals,
> blossoms and fruit. etc.
>
> With this definition I see 8 possibilities:
> 1. God creates a world and much later in time, when the world and it's
> ecosystem were indeed old, he then creates the first humans, then:
> a. If God did not communicate to the humans about the age of the
biosphere,
> but created them with an artificial memory of previous existence, having
no
> knowledge that they had been created but 5 seconds ago, they would then
believe
> that the biosphere was old. Would such an artificial memory be ethical?
> b. If God did not communicate to the humans about the age of the
biosphere,
> and not having an artificial memory of a previous existence, they would
then be
> free to arrive at their own conclusions as to the age of the biosphere.
What
> God actually did is irrelevant.
> c. If God communicated (assuming they had no artificial memory) that
the
> biosphere was old, then He would be teaching truth and be trustworthy.
> d. If God communicated (assuming they had no artificial memory) that
the
> biosphere was young though appearing old, then He would not be teaching
truth.
> 2. God creates a complete, balance environmental system with the
appearance of
> age in just a few earth rotations and at the same time He created the
first
> humans, then:
> a. If God did not communicate to the humans about the age of the
biosphere,
> but created them with an artificial memory of previous existence, having
no
> knowledge that they had been created but 5 seconds ago, they would then
believe
> that the biosphere was old. Would such an artificial memory be ethical?
> b. If God did not communicate to the humans about the age of the
biosphere,
> and not having an artificial memory of a previous existence, they would
then be
> free to arrive at their own conclusions as to the age of the biosphere.
What
> God actually did is irrelevant.
> c. If God communicated (assuming they had no artificial memory) that
the
> biosphere was old, then He would not be teaching truth.
> d. If God communicated (assuming they had no artificial memory) that
the
> biosphere was young though appearing old, then He would be teaching truth.
>
> Has God communicated with us? Has he told us truth? It seems to me that
the
> Biblical record, i.e. God's communication to us, gives us option 2d.
>
> I curious, is it possible to create a fully functioning biosphere that
looks
> young? Can a balanced ecosystem be created to appear young?
>
> Allen
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 04 2003 - 04:51:42 EDT