From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Tue Oct 28 2003 - 14:24:23 EST
"D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
> 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?
Was it by somebody who gets his livelihood from this voodoo science as in my
last suggestion?
Walt
===================================
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 : Tue Oct 28 2003 - 14:28:18 EST