RE: I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wallyshoes [mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 11:17 AM

> You only say this Glenn, because you are convinced that "I AM
> RIGHT AND YOU ARE
> WRONG". They feel the same about you. For you to deny the
> "obvious" intent of
> scripture, only shows how you have been taken in by "Science" and
> deny the Word
> of God -- which should trump science any day. So long as you maintain this
> attitude, I predict that you will make limited progress (as you
> indicate below).

I will tell you over the years I have tried everything to reach
YECs--nothing really is effective. I have many friends who are YECs today
and over the years. I will not tell them they have a possibility of being
correct when they don't.

> How long do you have to declare war and loose before you decide
> to try another
> method?

I have tried other methods. When I first became an old-earther, I tried
dealing with my YEC
friends with great care and tenderness. I got back vitriol for the most
part(there are exceptions of course). Some people back then would even
comment on how polite I was to them--shoot even Woodmorappe was forced to
acknowledge how
polite I was. This is the first few lines from Woody's reply to my review of
his book:

}Some commentators have called attention to Morton's (apparent) politeness.
I have information
}which points to the contrary, but for the sake of discussion I will assume
that it is true.
}But even then, politeness is no virtue when one is making irresponsible
arguments. Remember,
}this is not a round-table debate on whether vanilla ice cream or chocolate
ice cream are
}tastier. Morton is attacking the very Word of God. Like all compromising
evangelicals, he is,
}in his book, subjecting Scripture to the most grotesque of contortions--all
for the purpose of
}accommodating humanistic thought-processes and theories.
}
}The format of my reply is as follows. I first cite a bloc of Morton's
statements, and then
}comment on them.
}
[these are the things Woody called me in his book--grm]
}>cited, attached to the citation are adjectives like "absurd", "naive",
}>"compromising", "abysmally ignorant", "sloppy", "reckless disregard",
}>"extremely inaccurate","misleading", "tomfoolery" and "intentionally
}>deceitful".
}
}Let us face the fact that most of the attacks on Noah's Ark have been so
irresponsible and
}silly that they deserve such adjectives--and more.

My story continues.
 After several years of this, I decided that treating their ideas with
'respect' which the ideas don't deserve, wasn't working. All through the
time, I tried laying out factual data, you know, A=B, B=C therefore A=C.
That didn't work either. Finally, I got to the point where I won't treat
their ideas as if they have merit. I have had a few more converts this way,
because the one thing YECs want is respect and that is the one thing modern
science denies them.

I am "laity" and I am working within my church to have
> the members
> recognize that that the YEC view is not the only acceptable view.
> Beating their
> heads in doesn't work, Glenn. (Notice that I took back that 3rd
> "n" that I gave
> you earlier. You are going to have to work hard to get it back.;)

Tsk, easy come easy go. Walt, I have worked this area now for 10 years
trying different things with different people. I know of no surefire method
to change a YECs mind. When A=B, B=C therefore A not equal to C is the
prevailing logic they use, it makes discourse difficult.

>
>
> > How you get them to believe what they don't want
> > to believe is a real mystery.
>
> A mystery to you indeed!. That is why I cited DeBono as good source.

Let me know when the YEC masses fall at your feet for the conversion
experience. I used to be more Debono-like.

>
> There is a better way and that is to stop trying to tell them that Science
> trumps the Bible (which is what they hear). Try instead to
> convince them that
> there is more than one way to interpret scripture. Look on the
> discussion as a
> process rather than an event that requires unconditional surrender.

I tried this a month an a half ago. I laid out why I believed that Genesis
was historically accurate and interpreted the Scripture in that fashion.
What I got for my efforts was to be called a heretic.

>
> Of course you cannot do that if you insist that YOUR way is the
> ONLY correct way
> and that they are hopelessly WRONG!

Walter, I wish you luck with your method but I think I have a wee bit more
experience with the YECs than you. It took 20 years for me to change, 15
years even AFTER I knew the data didn't support my YEC position. I am, to
my knowledge, the only published YEC who has ever ever changed. There is no
easy way to change a YEC.

>
> I think that the same applies to the "leaders". Have you ever tried?

Actually yes. John Woodmorappe above and Henry Morris as follows: I sat in
Henry Morris' office in 1980 discussing a YEC view, the vapor canopy. At
that time Henry beleived in the Canopy and Jody Dillow had done a Th.D
thesis (signed by Henry) which supposedly calculated the temperature of the
surface of the earth under such a thing. I had found a mathematical error in
Dillows Dallas Theological Th. D. thesis (kind of ridiculous to do math at a
seminary as none of the profs understood the math and Henry wanted the
canopy to be correct and wasn't really looking for errors).

I told Henry that the canopy would boil the surface of the earth. He said,
It is all there in Dillow's thesis for all to see. I said, I have looked
and Dillow made a math error. He said, the math is there for all to see. I
said, I looked and there is an error which, if corrected would make the
earth too hot for life. He said the same thing again, the math is there for
all to inspect. I told him, "How many idiots like me do you think there are
who will actually plow through the math? Henry didn't reply. A year later,
Jody admitted the error and changed the way he approached the problem.

Now, what this illustrates for me is that there was no regard for truth. No
regard for whether Dillow's math might be wrong. I was, at the time, a
young-earth creationist. All I was trying to get Henry to see was that
there might be a problem with Dillow's calcualtions.

Over the years, Walt, I have discoursed with several YEC leaders, Paul
Nelson, Steve Austin, Tas Walker, David Tyler, Jonathan Sarfati etc. With
the exception of Paul Nelson, I see the same disregard for truth and
ignoring of problems with them. So, Walter, I have tried. You haven't yet,
so it is easy for you to say my approach is wrong. If I ever found an
approach that would work, I would stick with it. So far I haven't found
one. If the YEC masses convert in response to your approach, let me know. I
will certainly be interested.

BTW, one is wrong is he asserts that the sky is pink with purple polkadots.
There is no other way to characterize it, there is no way to respect such an
assertion.
Received on Sat Dec 27 11:08:08 2003