From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Tue Oct 28 2003 - 13:31:34 EST
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:41:23 -0500 Walter Hicks
<wallyshoes@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>
> Michael Roberts wrote:
>
> >
> > As you know so many YECs why cant you mention anyone except Gish?
> Do I take
> > it that others falsify deliberately?
>
> I would suggest 2 things, Michael:
>
> 1.) Never attribute to malice what simple stupidity can explain ;)
>
> 2.) Realize that they believe that they are reading a book that is
> literally
> telling them what God has done. Therefore, that trumps any science
> book that
> you have. Even Morris (possibly) is simply attempting to reinterpret
> science
> such that it conforms to his interpretation of the Bible. Stupid
> perhaps, but
> not an intentional falsification.
>
> At least those are possible outlooks. The only reason for falsifying
> things
> would be that their livelihood depended upon this voodoo science.
>
>
> Walt
>
I see a problem with your explanation. Why would they misquote and
misrepresent sources, and present contradictory ad hoc explanations for
various phenomena, if they are merely stupid and honest? For example, I
read a claim in their journal some years back that explained the
bristlecone pines ring series and the C-14 agreement and adjustment by
double rings some years and a nearby nova producing lots of C-14--making
them fit the Flood some 4 millennia back. More recent counts carry the
tree ring sequence back another millennia or two, so that there would
have to be three rings most years. The "added production" of radio-carbon
does not match the requirements, nor is there any astronomical evidence
for the remains of the postulated nova. Further, there is no evidence
that the half-life of C-14 changes--whether measured empirically or
calculated from physical theory. Is this stupid, ignorant or perverse?
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 28 2003 - 13:55:53 EST