From: Fivefree@aol.com
Date: Sun Oct 12 2003 - 07:23:32 EDT
In a message dated 10/10/2003 10:42:11 AM Mountain Standard Time,
glennmorton@entouch.net writes:
>
>TO GM: My point with this was that OE is far from perfect. Many holes, many
>Mysteries.
This is rich. You want me to back up what I say with sources or you will
'have problems' with me. I see no sources cited or even what those
Mysteries are. You are not doing what you require of me.
> Are there some which contradict the age of the earth? I have never seen
>any.
>
>TO GM: Part of my point is when you wholeheartedly embrace science
>as taught
>then you develop a tight paradigm that makes it hard to perceive things
>outside of a preconditioned response. Alfred Wegener. The name
>mean anything
>to you?
For your info, again, I am the one who changed paradigm. I changed from a
committed publishing YEC to a theistic evolutionist (almost became an
atheist because of the crisis of faith). It is amazing in the face of that
major change, that I get preached to about not thinking out of the box. I
have been in both boxes. I am not sure you have.
>As to my anger at YEC, I admit I am.
>
>TO GM: Oh yes you are.
He, I admitted it what is your problem? You have a bit of an annoying
approach you know?
You ought to see yours from my side!! I was agreeing with you. It is hard to
be civil to you with your attitude. You are a survivor in the energy business,
I don't think you have this attitude in the workplace or you wouldn't have
survived. Try to show that same 'office' attitude here.
>They didn't tell me anything that was true about geology if what they told
>me differed from conventional views. I
>wasted 20 years of my life on that nonsense. And they are
>winning--misleading the unsuspecting.
>
>TO GM: I've heard much commiseration on this list about that. The vast
>majority of Christians believe in a quick, divine creation. The Bible
>plainly says that.
No, the Bible actually doesn't say that. That is an interpretation of the
Scripture. It MIGHT say that. But it doesn't say it unequivocally. Consider
the famous verse
And God said Let there be light and it was so
In Hebrew there is no punctuation. does that verse mean
And God said: "Let there be light and it was so"
Which means that God said the "and it was so" part? Seems kind of a strange
way to speak.
Or does the verse say:
And God said: "Let there be light." And it was so.?
If it is this who wrote the 'and it was so' part.
The Bible clearly does NOT say
And God said: "Let there be light" And it was so IMMEDIATELY.
The word 'immediately' simply isn't in the Scripture. The Bible says God
created the light, but it doesn't say how, it doesn't even say WHEN in
relation to the time that God spoke.
I hope this comes through (below)
`rAa-yhiy>w: rAa yhiy> ~yhil{a/ rm,aYOw
that the Bible teaches a quick creation that is
simply false.
Several lines above you stated it MIGHT mean day (in its regular sense) and
now you say 'a quick creation is simply false.'
Where is the word quick, or immediate or any of that in the
Scripture.
So, if it doesn't say quick then it wasn't, is that what your saying?
You are going to probably talk about the meaning of day in Genesis 1. It
might mean 24 hour periods but that is hard to do when the day appears
before the sun, when day is used in other contexts throughout scripture, and
when, if Genesis 1 is an account of the planning of the Universe which is
what I believe, then the 'day' is merely a way for the writer to attempt to
convey what happened in the time before there was actually any
time---pre-eternity past.
My understanding of day on scripture (besides 2Peter) usually means a day (24
hrs) or a short time frame as in 'the day of the Lord', a period of judgement
or a future time for a certain event to happen. ALL days in Genesis 1 have
anumber after them. Day 1, Day 2, etc.
So, the Bible doesn't teach one view. There are many possibilities but you
and the YECs focus only on one possibility without even acknowledging the
existence of the others.
You seem to be the one who is saying their is only one way to interpret this/
these verses. And you have to admit that is the plain sense of the verses.
Thus, one must ask, who is incapable of thinking outside of their own
paradigm?
I admit that it could be the meaning of all of Gen.1.
Do you think it is possible they have a sense (a
>spiritual sense) that perhaps these things are right and are uncomfortable
>about OE? Could they maybe be correct and others are wrong due to the bias
>of their training? Just a thought. Or it could be somewhere in the middle.
>The only thing for sure is God does not lie and he never, ever deceives the
>simple in heart.
We agree that God doesn't lie. But if YEC is correct, then the Lord created
a world in which he implanted memories onto the fabric of the universe of
events which never happened.
Are they 'memories' or could perhaps evidences be misunderstood? And again, I
have no general theory of creation, no detailed explanation of all natural
processes that you all seem to demand, just a reading of Gods Word. And I am
good at that.
To me, that is a type of lie which only God could do.
But we already established He doesn't lie. Never has never will.
If the universe is young, then galaxies collided which didn'texist when they
were supposed to collide. You might ask if the speed of light could have
changed. That was exactly the approach I took as a YEC.
So you try to develope a patchwork quilt of exceptions to the physical world
to make observations conform to the Bible..
All my articles in CRSQ were arguing from that perspective. But it won't
work. If you change c, the speed of light, to solve that problem,
then all atoms
become radioactive. If all carbon in our bodies is decaying to helium, it is
hard to live.
>
>Just because some are incorrect (or all) that doesn't mean that
>the topic is
>also wrong.
>
>I just got up and estimated the number of YEC books on my book case about 3
>feet from where I sit. I have read someing thing like 500 YEC books. They
>all say the same thing. They are all wrong. thus, the topic is also wrong.
>
>TO GM: I guess I should be impressed. I'd be more impressed if you had 4
>hour per day prayer life. Imagine the things God might reveal to you if you
>did. By the way, do you know Jesus' voice in a personal way?
If hearing Jesus' voice in a perfect way means I will have no faults, then
no I don't.
No it doesn't. It means you hear his voice. "My sheep know me and they hear
my voice". Greek for voice is phonos (phonograph). You have to KNOW Him. Like
you know your wife or a friend. It a personal thing. The LXX says from
Proverbs "wisdom and Knowledge come for the presence of the Lord". If
you got into
his presence and were quite and calm I know HE would lead you into an
understanding and clearing up of dome things. He was there you know.
He's quite familiar
with what went on.
But if hearing Jesus's voice in a personal way means I believe
in him as my Lord and Savior, and commune with him daily, then yes.
I don't know if we are saying the same thing. Communig means a communication
going back and forth. If this is so then you would have firm answers to your
searchings.
One can't claim that anger is always wrong.
Why don't you ease up on this list for a while and do a word study on anger.
I think you'll be surprised. You've been in the war a long time, take a little
R&R.
Jesus was angry at the temple moneychangers.
I don't think so. Jesus was angry at the Sin of the moneychangers, not the
individuals. I f you read it carefully you'll see his anger was under control.
Whether my anger at YEC is right or wrong I won't judge.
I don't know I'm not God. But anger does cloud judgement and discernment for
any human, especially in spiritual matters.
No man is a good judge of himself.
Boy isn't that the truth!!
As to prayer, I will assure you that I pray for this area almost on a minute
by minute basis. And I will tell you, it was one night when I was praying
hard about the effects of the failure of YEC and I was severely struggling
about the faith, that the thought of how to put it all together literally
jumped into my mind. I have never had an experience like that before or
since. I will not claim it was God for that would be highly presumptuous on
my part.
But you see if know God and his voice you will know, without a doubt.
I get really tired of people who claim 'God told me this' or God told me
that, when what they were told was clearly not of God.
Lots and lots of flesh around in this kind of discussion.
As I said, no man is a judge for himself. That being said, I have done what I
beleive to
be God's will in my life. Results are not up to me but ot him. And as I have
recently learned, life is very, very short (and may be probabilisitically
shorter for me) I will do what I can do to argue against the nonsense
which YECs
tie to the infallible word of God
and then claim that anyone who disagrees with them is not christian.
You can tell right here that it is not of God. How ridiculous.
I will fight that tooth and nail. don't care much aobut what people think of
me.
>
>To answer the above. You misunderstand my comment. I'm not saying that they
>are right I am saying that God is right. Blunt and clumsy attempts to
>explain creation by some are just that. Maybe liars, frauds, and some maybe
>not. You weren't, were you?
When I was a YEC, yes I was a liar. I knew in my heart of hearts that what I
was spouting couldn't be true. I hear rumors of several famous YECs feeling
the same way. But you can't admit that you are so wrong. The hardest thing I
ever did was admit publically that I was no longer a YEC, that I had been
utterly wrong in my beliefs. Everthing I did in the first 44 years of my
life was burnt up like hay and stubble. If you have never experienced
something like that, then you have no concept of what the change out of YEC
was like--how painful, how devastating, how humiliating.
I admire your courage. I also understand a little better your replies. I have
never been in that kind of situation. The pain must have been enormous. Why
do you keep your YEC library then?
That is one reason few ever escape. Pride catches them in a trap. To admit
they are wrong means they have wasted their life. I refuse to waste my life
anymore. I also refuse to stay with error any more (note my correction to the
coal issue) Correct me any time.
But don't ask me to do your work.
I have never asked you to do my owrk. I have always asked to SEE your work
(or refernces).
>
>>I've read>>Morris and others. Some of it was good and some not so good.
>
>Tell me what is good in Morris. No generalities, lets get to
>specifics. That
>is where the rubber meets the road.
>
>TO GM: Again, you misunderstand. Paradigm. You assume I say one
>thing when I >didn't. I like some of the ICR monthly newsletters that come
out. The
>Bulletins. I do not collect them or can I recite them verbatim. I also liked
a video I saw by Steve Austin on Mt. St. Helens. Please do not do a personal
attack on him. I am have been talking generalities and concepts through this
whole thread.
But you demand of me sources and citations. That is simply put, a wee bit
hypocritical.
In response to your claims. I have gotten as specific as I can. I stated
above I do not save this things but I do read them.
As to Austin, can I attack his data? St. Hellens layering and erosion is the
layering and erosion of a single lithology formation. It is not at all like
the grand canyon. in which each layer is a different lithology.
True. But a decent amount of sediment was deposited in record time and has
consequently eroded with cliff faces that (the last time I looked) that are
vertical and appers to be as old as other areas of similar geology. And this
single lithoolgy also has bedding planes, coarse and fine clastics in separate
layers devided by fines. Al in all, a unit that could be interpreted as a
transgrssive/regressive sequence but was recorded on prime time TV. A
thought that
occurred to me is to check ona grain size analysis of it. What grain size
distribution does it have? Are you aware of any references on that?
Secondly, the volcanic ash which was eroded was very very soft. the rocks of
the Grand Canyon are very very hard. Don't think this is a personal attack on
Austin. It attacks his data.
I see many snide, personal comments on this list and am repelled by them. I
don't recall his comparisons of it to the Grand Canyon. I do recall his
comparisons to Yellowstone.
While the individual grains of ash are very hard, they are not bonded well
with the other particles. See
http://www.bosai.go.jp/ad/Jpn/report/abstract/re22/r22-6.html
Rocks with low bulk densites are not hard, in general. Tuff has densities of
between 1.7 and 2 g/cc.
>I've read some
>>geology good and some not so good. Are you open to investigating again or
>>are you one of the dogmatics? By the way, why didn't you respond
>>to the rest
>>of my email.?
>
>I didn't see anything worth responding to. Am I required to???? Or do you
>expect it? If there is something you think should be answered, ask.
>
>TO GM: Well, again they were brought up to show the uncertainties of the
>science. Paleozoic Dolomites, India's 'crash' into Eurasia, etc. And once
>again are you a dogmatic or are you open to new ideas?
Here are your supposed mysteries that you didn't cite any sources for.
>The 1940s AAPG issues I read where mountain chain formation was caused by
the slow >cooling of the earth and the planet was shriveling like a raisin.
State of
the art >science at that time.
It is no mystery that science changes. But YEC hasn't changed one bit since
the 1840s. I have studied many of those writers and they are all saying the
same things then as now. Shoot, Henry Morris didn't invent Hydrodynamic
sorting for the fossils. That was invented by earlier people (and Morris
didn't give them credite)
As a friend of mine once said, plagerism is not one of the gifts of the
Spirit.
"Ray's tentative explanation of the transport of fossils from the sea on to
the land during the Deluge was ingenious but hardly satisfactory. As he
himself must have realized, it could not explain the position of fossils
within strata. This was the deficiency that the physician John Woodward
(1665-1728) sought to make good, in his Essay toward a Natural History of
the Earth (1695). . . . Without acknowledging his debt to Steno - though one
of his critics made it explicit - Woodward framed his theory around the
postulate that 11 fossiliferous strata had been laid down horizontally at
the time of the Deluge. The fossils they contained dated from the
ante-diluvian period. Together with all the materials of the Earth's
surface, they had been churned up into a kind of suspension at the time of
the Deluge. . . From this thick suspension these materials, and the fossils,
had then settled out in order of their specific gravity, to form the
observed order of strata with their characteristic fossils. The strata had
subsequently collapsed into tilted positions, but in general the
post-diluvial world was one of order tranquillity." ~ Martin J. S. Rudwick,
The Meaning of Fossils, (New York: Neale Watson Academic Publications,
1976), p. 82
Thousands of feet of Dolomites in the early Paleozoic compared
>to other segments of the geologic column. Nobody knows why. Present
geologic thought
>might someday be thrown on its ear by some new revelation, maybe it is
trying to be
>right now but academic smothering and inertia is preventing it.
Oh yes we do. "The origin of dolomite has long remained one of the great
mysteries of
sedimentary geology. This is generally considered to be a replacement
process. The mystery of dolomitization has been heightened by the fact that
the mineral and the rock are so common and represent such an important part
of the geologic record. . . . However, as with many problems, real insight
into the dolomite being formed in association with a water that causes the
diagenetic change. It is now well established that dolomite is being formed
today in the supratidal flats of arid and semi-arid climates in association
with waters that have been evaporated to the stage of precipitation of
gypsum. The genetic significance of this association lies in the fact that
precipitation of gypsum causes a significant rise in the magnesium to
calcium ratio of the water, thus favoring the replacement of calcium
carbonate minerals by dolomite, and possibly some free growth of dolomite
cement." ~ Raymond C. Murray and Lloyd C. Pray, "Dolomitization and
Limestone Diagenesis-An Introduction", in Lloyd C. Pray and Raymond C.
Murray, editors, Dolomitization and Diagenesis , Special Publication 13,
(Tulsa: Soc. Econ. Paleontologists and Mineralogists, 1965), p. 2
Notice how long ago this was discovered. This hasn't been a mystery for
almost 40 years.
I used to have a copy of Pray & Murray. The PROCESS of Dolomitization is old
hat. But Why there are so many in the Lower Paleozoic and NOT in the upper and
Mesozoic is a question that was batted around quite often in SEPM journals.
The percolation of MG rich groundwaters are unique to the Lower Paleozoic and
not the rest of the geologic column? That was my question.
Anybody remember
>Alfred Wegener? Maybe plate tectonics isn't real after all, who knows. Can
it explain
>India breaking off from the super continent, drifting east and then taking
a hard
>left turn and ramming Eurasia? No, it can't.
Bernard type cells, can't. I will agree. but Plate tectonics appears to be
much more complex than simple Bernard type cells. It isn't any mystery.
Bernard cells can't be deeper than they are wide. Other processes occuring
deeper send up occasional burps of hot fluid which affects the motion of the
mantle and thus, any continents moving with them.
Yes, I'm familiar with the concept. But here (as you say YEC'ers do), a
convenient mechanism is imagined without any proof being found for
it. As some have
so aptly calculated for YEC continental drift, wouldn't the (somewhat abrupt)
change in direction (and momentum!) cause massive thrust faulting in
Australia as well as lower/upper plate volcanism and numerous flysch deposits?
If it can't explain that mechanism then
>it is an incomplete theory with flaws.
Like most theories of nature, nature is more complex than our math.
Exactly. The reasonings behind my challenges was maybe to subtle. I was
trying to show that the physics of geology is a complicated thing
with an immense
number of variables. Some of which are not understood. So it is (in my mind)
with creation studies. Modelling in an infant stage.
The fact that your geology is so far behind times makes you susceptible to
YEC nonsense as many of your statements show.
I hope I clarified some of my outdated geology questions. The Lord knows, I'm
not as smart as you. But I'm trying to see a little truth at a time. Not
trying to explain the whole universe at once. Perhaps it is insrutable and GOd
will not reveal what He did until its all over.
Here is wisdom sir, from the most brilliant man who ever lived:
Ecc. 8:17 'then I saw all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the
work that is done under the sun. For though a man labors to discover it, yet he
will not find it; moreover, though a wise man attempts to know it, he will not
be able to find it.'
Although to me you are after knowledge and not wisdom.
Jack Jackson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 12 2003 - 17:30:48 EDT