Re: I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG

Hey Glenn,

I really am not trying to provoke you, even though that seems easy. I agree that
that debates herein are often just a means of exchanging views. I feel the same
way myself. However, since the world has access to these posts, maybe some would
be better conducted offline. And I am glad that you have swayed some people to
agree with you -- although your previous posts said that nobody ever listens.

I am still taking about the plain vanilla Christian in the pew (not the nutcakes
that you like to bring up) and how to address THEM.

I repeat from my first post the quote from Jack Haas' letter:

“The young-earth message has bitten very deeply into the evangelical
culture, and people trust this message. What will it take to show people
believingly that the young-earth view is not the only possible one
without undermining the Christianity of those who hold that position?”

Note the words "not the only possible one" and "without undermining". That, it
seems to me, is quite contrary to your fundamental philosophy and that often
stated here on this list. What is said is that we must OPPOSE the young earth
view because it is "WRONG"! So I ask of you: Would you support that proposed
activity (to bring such a message to the evangelical churches) of the LEC or
would you not?

A few responses to your questions below.

I think that I exceeded my posting quota -- if my non-reply to Michael is
counted.

Must reply to others offline I guess.

Walt

Glenn Morton wrote:

>
> Live with it seems to be one of your favorite stock phrases. I would
> respectfully submit it is one of those 'I am right and you are wrong'(hence
> forth shortened to IARAYAW) type of statements you are decrying in others.

The pastor in my church used the phase "live with it" to describe an event that
was going to happen. I though it was cute and used it here. I searched my past
email for the phase and cannot find it.

> I also note that you ignored the part of my last note where I had
> specifically stated that my technique was different 8 years ago. Why did
> you ignore that? My experience was that it didn't work. And so far, I
> haven't seen anything from you (other than a claim) that it works.

I was not going to go into detail but I will answer your direct questions. This
is interesting. _Your_ "experience" is that it did not work. But _my_ experience
that it has gets downgraded to a mere "claim". Hmmm.

Ever consider that what works for one person might not work for another? I cannot
speak for all but I do not think that you can either.

>
>
> Not only does it not work but it
> > undoubtedly drives
> > people away. All of your ridiculing comments about polka dot
> > skies appear on
> > these posts for all to see.
>
> That is not a ridiculing account. There literally are some YECs who believe
> that the sun goes round the earth. They are rare, I grant. But for me to
> treat such a view as if there is the chance of the proverbial snowball of
> it being correct, would be utter foolishness. The polkadot sky comment is
> merely there to illustrate the FACT, bare FACT (I know this is an IARAYAW
> statement), but there are some things which fall into that category. Are we
> to act as if crazy idea out there has merit? Sorry, I can't agree.

Agreed. But it is not proper to oppose all YECs by comparing them to the extreme
loonies.

>
>
> Do you really consider that to be effective
> > salesmanship Glenn? I think that your numerous attacks do nothing
> > but drive
> > people away from science and polarizes them even further. You
> > prove that with
> > your own illustrations above.
>
> On another list I have convinced at least 2 yecs in the last 2 months to
> change to OE creationism. One was a 25 year supporter of ICR. What I do is
> not without some return, but I would gladly do anything different for a
> higher rate of return.
>
> As to my relationship with individual YECs, in general, I have a pretty good
> relationship. I would say that Bill Payne is a good friend. He and I have
> debated (with my take no prisoners' style) but I still like him, and he
> seems to still like me from the personal correspondance. I can say the same
> thing about several YECs on TW. This is no different than M.Roberts and I
> or G. Murphy and I arguing our cases with enthusiasm on certain issues. But
> when the fur quits flying we still can be friends. I think you don't
> understand some of the dynamics.
>
> >
> > I went to great pains to have ASA listed as a link on my Church's
> > web site. It
> > accidentally got removed and I am now wondering how hard I should
> > try to get it
> > back. The recent posts wanting to get ASA to become officially
> > opposed to YEC
> > instead of welcoming all as Christians is appalling to me.
>
> Would you be opposed to the ASA taking an official stand against Gerardus De
> Bouw's or Malcolm Bowden's form of YEC?

My problem is with ASA taking an official stand against YEC, which I thought was
proposed. That would include millions of Christians, not the handful of
fruitcakes that you like to bring up (below).

>
>
> Gerardus De Bouw http://www.geocentricity.com/aboutgeocentricity.htm
> Malcom Bowden
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bowdenmalcolm/geocexpl.htm
>
> Where would you draw a line, if indeed you would?
>
> Should we take a stand against Baugh's weird views?
> "The voice of God (whether by direct vocal intervention or by indirect
> vibrational disruption) at microwave energy level penetrated the great water
> reservoir beneath the earth's granite crust. With microwave's unique effect
> on water, this agitated medium rapidly disrupted the planet's subterranean
> structure which housed the designed nuclear reactors and internal
> foundations."
> "The violent heated waters ruptured the granite crust and sent hot jets of
> steam upward through the thin firmament suspended above the earth. This
> action opened channel windows in the crystalline canopy and caused its
> collapse. The mass fell as liquid rain in the temperate zones and dropped as
> ice at the poles. Subsequent expulsion of water and chemical elements from
> earth's disrupted interior saturated the surface floods and trapped living
> organisms as fossils in sedimentary deposits."
> http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html
>
> How deep do you think microwaves can penetrate the earth?
>
> Should we not say Baugh is wrong that a living Pterosaur can exist inside
> solid rock for several thousand years--alive?
>
> "The article refers to the last of the great pterodactyls, the flying
> dinosaurs of the Mesozoic era. The record states that in France, some
> workmen, in the winter of 1856, while working on a partially completed
> railway tunnel between St. Dizey and the Nancy lines, came across something
> unusual. In the tunnel, they had broken and removed a huge boulder of
> Jurassic limestone, which precedes the Cretaceous by several million years.
> After they had broken the limestone, stumbling out of the tunnel towards
> them was a creature which fluttered its wings, croaked, and collapsed dead
> at their feet. this creature had a wingspan of ten feet, seven inches, with
> four legs joined by a membrane like a bat. What should have been feet were
> long talons. The mouth was arrayed with sharp teeth. The skin was black,
> leathery, oily, and thick. Local students of paleontology immediately
> identified this creature as being a pterodactyl." ~ Carl Baugh, Panorama of
> Creation, (Oklahoma City: Southwest Radio Church, 1989), p. 20
>
> Naw, to say he is wrong would drive him away.

--
===================================
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)
===================================