Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: What YECs believe!

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    ... Hi, Robert. Yeah, just trying to find the time! I do have to say that it irks me to waste my time simply pointing out the OBVIOUS. I do NOT appreciate it.
    Message 1 of 24 , Jun 2, 2003
      --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #1337):
      > Todd, thanks for posting those quotes. I recall you mentioned you
      > were going to do that and I was wondering if there was just too
      > much going on to get it done.

      Hi, Robert.

      Yeah, just trying to find the time!

      I do have to say that it irks me to waste my time simply pointing out
      the OBVIOUS. I do NOT appreciate it. It's why I hate the SILLY
      RHETORICAL GAMES!

      >
      > A couple caught my particular attention:
      >
      >> http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1999/r&r9908a.htm
      >> by young earth creationist and COC member Bert Thompson
      >>
      >> "A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical
      >> record indicates that the Cosmos was created in six
      >> days only a few thousand years ago."
      >
      > I was not using that for purposes of formulating the "GRAS", but
      > it is nice that at least Bert and I do not seem to have any
      > trouble understanding the "preciseness" of the term "few thousand
      > years".
      [snip]

      I thought that was interesting, too, since even I have never used the
      phrase "few thousand years" but have stuck with six thousand or ten
      thousand or "several thousand" years.

      Regards,
      Todd Greene
    • Michael
      [I would like to point out to Michael in particular though that his claim earlier that Henry Morris did not advocate the six to ten thousand year timeframe is
      Message 2 of 24 , Jun 2, 2003
        [I would like to point out to Michael in
        particular though that his claim earlier that Henry Morris did not
        advocate the six to ten thousand year timeframe is flatly incorrect.
        It is a matter of fact that Henry Morris has advocated the six to ten
        thousand year timeframe since at least the early 1940s (when he
        walked out of the American Scientific Affiliation after J. Laurence
        Kulp explained a number of critical flaws in the George McCready
        Price YEC "geology" that Morris followed at the time and then went on
        to advocate in the book *The Genesis Flood*).]

        He also points out in his books that origins cannot be proven by either
        side. Are you saying that because one entertains a theoretical model and
        tests his hypothesis, this is inherently evil just because you think your
        evidence is stronger than his (regardless whether it is or not)?

        Now, since in the outset he states that the age of the earth cannot be
        scientifically proven for either side, he seems to be more honest with the
        facts that what I am reading. You seem to affirm that there is definite
        facts that prove the mile is at least this long. What I have read of Mr.
        Morris, he has been about presenting the theoretical model, while at the
        same time bolding telling you that this is not fact and cannot be
        scientifically proven. That is dealing with the evidence with more
        integrity than what I see in science text books that boldly tell us that
        such and such a rock is over 4 billion years old as if it were gospel truth
        and fact.

        V/r

        Michael
      • rlbaty50
        ... From my casual observations over time, it seems to me that what you are talking about, Michael, is the common ploy by the YEC movement leaders to suggest
        Message 3 of 24 , Jun 3, 2003
          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <dokimadzo@c...>
          wrote, in part:

          > He (Morris) also points out in his books
          > that origins cannot be proven by either
          > side. Are you saying that. . . this is
          > inherently evil just because you think your
          > evidence is stronger than his (regardless
          > whether it is or not)?
          >
          > Now, since in the outset he states that the
          > age of the earth cannot be scientifically
          > proven for either side, he seems to be more
          > honest with the facts. . .

          From my casual observations over time, it seems to me that what you
          are talking about, Michael, is the common ploy by the YEC movement
          leaders to suggest that because science is such as it is that the YEC
          claims are on equal footing.

          That origins cannot be "proven" by either side, or that the age of
          the earth cannot be "proven" down to the year, month, day, hour,
          minute and second is no basis upon which to give the YEC claims equal
          standing with legitimate science.

          It is not a matter of thinking the YEC claims have been falsified
          (the evidence from legitimate science is actually stronger), it has
          been falsified.

          If you are now wanting to move from your billion year age down to
          500,000, that's OK with me. You are not going to be in the class of
          folk commonly known as YEC to whom the GRAS is addressed.

          I think we noted earlier the need for a glossary here because of the
          tendency of some to use the same terms as others but with different
          meanings. I guess we need to add "YEC" to the list so that folks
          will know when you use the term and apply it to yourself you are
          talking about something different from that class of folks popularly
          known as "YEC".

          So far, we've got you down as agreeing with the GRAS as both valid
          and sound! If not, you really should come up with some for-real YEC
          evidence to talk about (I suggested the moon-dust promotion as
          popularized by Bert Thompson, Ph.D., Henry Morris, et al) or
          something substantive to convince us you don't really believe the
          empirical evidence is sufficient to falsify the YEC claims.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • lipscombgene
          ... of ... Gene: If he s willing to allow the earth to be 500,000 years old, then he s really wasting everyone s time with all these arguments, because since
          Message 4 of 24 , Jun 3, 2003
            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@w...> wrote:
            > If you are now wanting to move from your billion year age down to
            > 500,000, that's OK with me. You are not going to be in the class
            of
            > folk commonly known as YEC to whom the GRAS is addressed.

            Gene: If he's willing to allow the earth to be 500,000 years old,
            then he's really wasting everyone's time with all these arguments,
            because since every YEC I've ever met will not allow the genealogies
            of Genesis to be stretched enough to allow Adam/Eve to be longer than
            6000-10000 years ago.

            If you allow the earth to be much more than 10000 years old, then
            welcome to the Old Earth Creationist club. You're a member, because
            the YEC club will throw you out.

            You can't be a member of the YEC club if you don't hold to the 6000-
            10000 year old earth/universe.

            Period.

            All discussions of whether the earth is 500,000 or 4.6 billion years
            old are simply discussions among "friends" over how to measure the
            age, and are not YEC vs. everyone else.

            Unless, of course, you are REALLY trying to do nothing other than
            play extreme word games like our erstwhile friend Matt likes to do.

            That is a terrible time waster in itself.

            Gene
          • rlbaty50
            ... Take it easy on Matt now! I am hopeful we will hear more about his efforts with James on the logic issues. I am hopeful that the two of them are down to
            Message 5 of 24 , Jun 3, 2003
              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "lipscombgene"
              <genewright143@h...> wrote, in part:

              > Unless, of course, you (Michael) are REALLY
              > trying to do nothing other than play extreme
              > word games like our erstwhile friend Matt
              > likes to do.

              Take it easy on Matt now! I am hopeful we will hear more about his
              efforts with James on the logic issues. I am hopeful that the two of
              them are down to all seriousness and no word games in their efforts
              to resolve James' logic problems and the problem with that stunt
              involving the secret witness.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty
            • mathewmaury
              ... I feel affined to my colleague James. His drive and passion would enhance the quality of the interlocution here. Even if he does not discuss with Todd or
              Message 6 of 24 , Jun 4, 2003
                --- Robert reported that James wrote:
                > I no longer discuss this with either
                > of you (Todd & Robert).

                I feel affined to my colleague James. His drive and passion
                would enhance the quality of the interlocution here. Even if
                he does not discuss with Todd or Robert, there are others
                here whom he might find interesting! But as drive is often
                antipodean to patience, Robert's quote above leads me to
                conclude that his patience may be gone and he will be
                driving elsewhere.

                James and I did correspond privately. Any who wish private
                correspondence with me may find my email address at the link
                below:

                http://profiles.yahoo.com/mathewmaury

                There has been published speculation about my leaving this
                list. My social conscience would likely require announcing
                this myself were that to occur. I have no current plans to
                leave voluntarily before this list is removed by the
                authorities. But as elife sometimes conflicts with other
                obligations and I may remain quiescent for extended periods.
              • rlbaty50
                ... I would hope that neither you or James would leave this little place, whether or not your engage in further discussions. It may be that others will take
                Message 7 of 24 , Jun 4, 2003
                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "mathewmaury"
                  <sqi7o0hh02@s...> wrote, in part:

                  > James and I did correspond privately. Any who
                  > wish private correspondence with me may find my
                  > email address at the link below:

                  > There has been published speculation about my leaving this
                  > list.

                  I would hope that neither you or James would leave this little place,
                  whether or not your engage in further discussions. It may be that
                  others will take up the "debate" over the "GRAS", though I have
                  noticed that James' recommended Religiousdebates list has yet to post
                  my note over there. My past experience with that list suggests they
                  may not like James' suggestion and observations. We will continue to
                  monitor that site for the interest that James indicated may be there.

                  In as much as you mentioned your private efforts with James to the
                  list, I figured that it would be nice to get you or James to offer a
                  follow-up on the details of that.

                  I can understand why you may not want to do so under the
                  circumstances. I can understand why James may not want to do so.
                  The inference I draw is that James comes down on the wrong side of
                  the issues under consideration and because of that you do not want to
                  add to his problems by discussing your failure to help him in your
                  private efforts.

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty
                • mathewmaury
                  ... The private correspondence between James and myself was quite felicitous for both parties. That I publish no summary here is not meant to imply anything
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jun 4, 2003
                    --- rlbaty50 wrote:

                    > The inference I draw ...

                    The private correspondence between James and myself was quite
                    felicitous
                    for both parties. That I publish no summary here is not meant to imply
                    anything other than a respect for privacy.
                  • rlbaty50
                    ... I can imagine that was, indeed, the case. However, we might still opine the reasons for James failure to himself disclose the assistance you provided or
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jun 4, 2003
                      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "mathewmaury"
                      <sqi7o0hh02@s...> wrote:

                      > The private correspondence between James and
                      > myself was quite felicitous for both parties.

                      I can imagine that was, indeed, the case.

                      However, we might still opine the reasons for James' failure to
                      himself disclose the assistance you provided or otherwise meet his
                      public obligations regarding the logic issues raised by him in these
                      discussions. (After all, he does keep telling folks how he knows why
                      I am not bugging academics for input on the "GRAS")

                      In any case, it would be nice to hear your take on the various logic
                      issues which I have sought to address, other than that "preciseness"
                      ruse that grieved poor James so much.

                      I did good on all that, right? Right!

                      I've even got my own secret expert witness (though folks observant
                      will recognize the source as one I have given in other discussions of
                      such things). Like, James simply ran away from trying to match his
                      secret witness to my own.

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty
                    • mathewmaury
                      ... The recent logic discussions on this list have been a worthwhile exercise in whetting thinking skills. Both sides of the discussion have benefitted from
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jun 4, 2003
                        --- rlbaty wrote:
                        > In any case, it would be nice to hear your take on the
                        > various logic issues which I have sought to address, other
                        > than that "preciseness" ruse that grieved poor James so
                        > much.

                        The recent logic discussions on this list have been a
                        worthwhile exercise in whetting thinking skills. Both sides
                        of the discussion have benefitted from this. GRAS is a
                        worthy battlefield.

                        Is the argument superbly formed and precise enough to pass
                        muster by professors in formal logic? Maybe not. But Robert
                        likes it. It expresses his belief. It is nice and short. It
                        has a formidible reputation. It has a catchy name. I did not
                        care for the argument much at first, but it kind of grows on
                        a fellow.

                        What good is it to pick on the form when the argument itself
                        is understandable by all parties? I paraphrase the essential
                        kernel roughly as 'Things appear old, so they are old.' In
                        no way does my paraphrase have the grace of GRAS, but it
                        gleans the gist.

                        Any evidence (of age in this case) must be interpreted and
                        must be reconciled with other evidence. Rules of
                        interpretation must be developed. Where assumptions are
                        made, they should be openly stated. Theories and hypotheses
                        must be formed and tested where possible. The evidence
                        should be qualified.

                        Strict religionists may say 'no fair using science'. Those
                        of the scientific faith may say 'no fair considering
                        miracles'. It is difficult to agree on the conclusion when
                        the rules for each side are different.

                        The so-called creation scientists are more vulnerable. They
                        say 'science proves the miracles'. They are an easy target.
                        When an minor example of their science is demonstrated as
                        flawed (e.g. moondust) then their whole paradigm is held to
                        ridicule. They must overcome a higher standard in the
                        public's eye because they dare meddle in the realm of 'real
                        science'.

                        Argumentation is a funny thing. One person may lose an
                        argument and still be right. Another may win an argument and
                        still be wrong. Arguments do not determine right or wrong.
                        They are a means to discover truth. God is real. The
                        universe is real. We are real. The truth is out there.

                        Does GRAS reveal unknown truth? I do not believe it is meant
                        to do so. It is an argument meant to change minds and
                        persuade those who may be wavering on the issue. Is it
                        effective? I hope not.
                      • rlbaty@webtv.net
                        I appreciate the sentiments, mathewmaury . ... I rather like to think of it as a way of reducing what Tom Warren (Ph.D. - Philosophy) has repeatedly referred
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jun 4, 2003
                          I appreciate the sentiments, "mathewmaury".

                          I thought only for now to comment on this that you said:

                          > It (GRAS) is an argument meant
                          > to change minds and persuade
                          > those who may be wavering on
                          > the issue.

                          > Is it effective?

                          > I hope not.

                          I rather like to think of it as a way of reducing what Tom Warren (Ph.D.
                          - Philosophy) has repeatedly referred to as being able to reduce 400
                          pages of what might easily confuse the very elect down to a 3-line
                          syllogism that everybody can understand (my paraphrase).

                          I don't know if it will change anybody's mind.

                          Rather, I think it a place to refer to often in order to see more
                          clearly what the issue is all about.

                          I think you put your finger on it rather well in your commentary. If
                          only we could get James and his secret witness to admit to the same.

                          Sincerely,
                          Robert Baty
                        • rlbaty50
                          ... Well, we are still waiting for the GRAS to officially pass muster on that score. The Goliath of GRAS paces back and forth here, awaiting the davidic
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jun 5, 2003
                            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "mathewmaury"
                            <sqi7o0hh02@s...> wrote, in part:
                            >
                            > Is the argument superbly formed and precise
                            > enough to pass muster by professors in formal
                            > logic? Maybe not.

                            Well, we are still waiting for the "GRAS" to officially pass muster
                            on that score. The "Goliath of GRAS" paces back and forth here,
                            awaiting the davidic professors to come out and take their best
                            shots, or to join his merry little band.

                            The thought occurred to me that Chad (our member here) is on campus
                            at one of the prestigious universities in Abilene.

                            It may be that he will eventually take James up on his suggestion and
                            get one or more of the professors down there to comment and/or
                            discuss the validity of the "GRAS" in its proper historical context.

                            How about that prospect, Chad?

                            I've copied the "GRAS" following my name below for quick reference.

                            Sincerely,
                            Robert Baty

                            #############################

                            Major premise:

                            If God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six
                            days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days
                            occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical evidence
                            that things are actually much older than a few thousand years, then
                            the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

                            Minor premise:

                            God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six days,
                            is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few
                            thousand years ago, and there is empirical evidence that things are
                            actually much older than a few thousand years.

                            Conclusion:

                            The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.
                          • Chad Longley
                            ... ...snip... Probably not at this time. Frankly, I think the Math Department (the obvious place to find an individual highly versed in logic) is tired of
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jun 5, 2003
                              ...snip...

                              > The thought occurred to me that Chad (our member here) is on campus
                              > at one of the prestigious universities in Abilene.
                              >
                              > It may be that he will eventually take James up on his suggestion and
                              > get one or more of the professors down there to comment and/or
                              > discuss the validity of the "GRAS" in its proper historical context.
                              >
                              > How about that prospect, Chad?
                              >

                              ...snip...


                              Probably not at this time. Frankly, I think the Math Department (the
                              obvious place to find an individual highly versed in logic) is tired of
                              seeing me around. I am trying to graduate from that department and I would
                              just assume not pester anyone at this time. :-)

                              For what it's worth, I have studied a bit on formal logic. I like the fact
                              that GRAS is short and to the point, and I respect its meaning. However, I
                              do see where James is having a problem with point 'c'. It is crystal clear
                              to me; I understand that the 6k-10k idea comes from following genealogies.
                              Back in my YEC days I did similar calculations myself, bought the Apparent
                              Age concept, and swept all disagreeing data under the rug.

                              Anyway, James is wanting to play word games with point 'c'. If it were
                              written in there somehow where the 6k-10k interpretation comes from, I don't
                              think James or anyone else could have grounds to complain -- except that
                              they don't like it. Concerning the conclusion, I would agree that it is
                              vague, but it is not required to be otherwise. A logical proof often shows
                              what something *is not* (i.e.: interpretation is incorrect) instead of
                              stating precisely what something *is*.

                              I have no professional credentials or letters following my name making my
                              opinion "gospel truth," but thems me thoughts.


                              -- Chad Longley


                              BTW: As soon as I finish up some end-of-the-fiscal-year stuff, I plan to dig
                              around a bit into the tax-exempt housing allowance thing. I have a few
                              questions first that I will ask at a later time.
                            • rlbaty50
                              ... That is the beauty of GRAS ! Common-sense doesn t require any credentials or letters following ones name. It is short, sweet, and to the point that all
                              Message 14 of 24 , Jun 5, 2003
                                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Chad Longley <mcl98e@a...>
                                wrote, in part:

                                > I have no professional credentials or letters
                                > following my name, but thems me thoughts.

                                > BTW: As soon as I finish up some end-of-the-
                                > fiscal-year stuff, I plan to dig around a bit
                                > into the tax-exempt housing allowance thing.
                                > I have a few questions first that I will ask
                                > at a later time.

                                That is the beauty of "GRAS"! Common-sense doesn't require any
                                credentials or letters following ones name. It is short, sweet, and
                                to the point that all can see what the fuss is about; James' efforts
                                notwithstanding.

                                As to the "BTW", I look forward to your further consideration of the
                                matter. I'll be glad to tell you what I know about whatever
                                questions you may have; when you get around to asking them.

                                Sincerely,
                                Robert Baty
                              • Todd S. Greene
                                Hi, Michael. This is a simple matter. When it comes to religious proclamations, Henry Morris has strongly advocated six to ten thousand years. When it comes to
                                Message 15 of 24 , Jun 6, 2003
                                  Hi, Michael.

                                  This is a simple matter. When it comes to religious proclamations,
                                  Henry Morris has strongly advocated six to ten thousand years. When
                                  it comes to making public statements concerning their "scientific"
                                  position, he (and other young earth creationists) came up with this
                                  rhetorical front about models and not being able to prove either side
                                  for gaming purposes in the public, and political, forum. (This is
                                  why, for example, there was a standard edition of the book
                                  *Scientific Creationism*, complete with scriptural references, and
                                  then a public edition with scriptural references removed. YECs love
                                  to play games!) By the way, this rhetorical front has already been
                                  presented, and rejected, in a court of law, namely the Arkansas case
                                  in the early 1980s.

                                  The fact remains that GRAS represents the YEC position accurately.

                                  Tell you what, Michael, you produce statements by Henry Morris saying
                                  that a Christian believing in the antiquity of the world is
                                  compatible with the Bible, and I shall immediately acknowledge my
                                  error and correct it. However, I will point out here that I know and
                                  you know that you can't produce any such statements, because Henry
                                  Morris has always argued strongly to the contrary of this, for
                                  decades.

                                  You mention dealing with the evidence with integrity. In the 1940s in
                                  the American Scientific Affiliation, J. Laurence Kulp explained to
                                  Morris some specific errors of George McCready Price's ideas
                                  concerning geology (who Morris got his ideas from). Morris ignored
                                  these errors, walked out of the ASA, and continued to promote these
                                  erroneous ideas. It is by this kind of behavior (obstinately refusing
                                  to acknowledge and correct error, and then obstinately promoted these
                                  erroneous ideas) that people demonstrate their lack of integrity.

                                  Regards,
                                  Todd S. Greene
                                  http://www.creationism.cc/


                                  --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1348):
                                  >> I would like to point out to Michael in
                                  >> particular though that his claim earlier that Henry Morris did
                                  >> not advocate the six to ten thousand year timeframe is flatly
                                  >> incorrect. It is a matter of fact that Henry Morris has
                                  >> advocated the six to ten thousand year timeframe since at least
                                  >> the early 1940s (when he walked out of the American Scientific
                                  >> Affiliation after J. Laurence Kulp explained a number of
                                  >> critical flaws in the George McCready Price YEC "geology" that
                                  >> Morris followed at the time and then went on to advocate in the
                                  >> book *The Genesis Flood*).
                                  >
                                  > He also points out in his books that origins cannot be proven by
                                  > either side. Are you saying that because one entertains a
                                  > theoretical model and tests his hypothesis, this is inherently
                                  > evil just because you think your evidence is stronger than his
                                  > (regardless whether it is or not)?
                                  >
                                  > Now, since in the outset he states that the age of the earth
                                  > cannot be scientifically proven for either side, he seems to be
                                  > more honest with the facts that what I am reading. You seem to
                                  > affirm that there is definite facts that prove the mile is at
                                  > least this long. What I have read of Mr. Morris, he has been
                                  > about presenting the theoretical model, while at the same time
                                  > bolding telling you that this is not fact and cannot be
                                  > scientifically proven. That is dealing with the evidence with
                                  > more integrity than what I see in science text books that boldly
                                  > tell us that such and such a rock is over 4 billion years old as
                                  > if it were gospel truth and fact.
                                • rlbaty50
                                  ... For those who may have missed it, here is the GRAS, or as it is becoming more popularly known as, the Goliath of GRAS : ############################ Major
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Jun 6, 2003
                                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
                                    <greeneto@y...> wrote, in part:
                                    >
                                    > The fact remains that GRAS represents the YEC
                                    > position accurately.

                                    For those who may have missed it, here is the GRAS, or as it is
                                    becoming more popularly known as, the "Goliath of GRAS":

                                    ############################

                                    Major premise:

                                    If God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six
                                    days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days
                                    occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical evidence
                                    that things are actually much older than a few thousand years, then
                                    the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

                                    Minor premise:

                                    God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six days,
                                    is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few
                                    thousand years ago, and there is empirical evidence that things are
                                    actually much older than a few thousand years.

                                    Conclusion:

                                    The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

                                    ##############################

                                    Sincerely,
                                    Robert Baty
                                  • Michael
                                    Now, I wonder if you have
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Jun 7, 2003
                                      <<This is a simple matter. When it comes to religious proclamations,
                                      Henry Morris has strongly advocated six to ten thousand years.>>


                                      Now, I wonder if you have qualified this the same in the past. Have you?
                                      Be honest.

                                      Mr. Morris has advocated this position, but not based upon science, and I
                                      guess that is your point of gras.

                                      NAME JUST ONE SCIENTIST THAT HAS GOTTEN everything CORRECT! Will you?

                                      (This is not to say Mr. Morris is wrong)


                                      Your argument, it seems, that since he has said "so and so" is proven to be
                                      false, all he said must be along the same line!!!!

                                      Is that truly your argument?????

                                      V/r

                                      Michael
                                    • Todd S. Greene
                                      ... Hi, Michael. What are you talking about? Here is the link to my post that you are responding to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/1379
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Jun 8, 2003
                                        --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1388):
                                        >> This is a simple matter. When it comes to religious
                                        >> proclamations, Henry Morris has strongly advocated six to ten
                                        >> thousand years.
                                        >
                                        > Now, I wonder if you have qualified this the same in the past.
                                        > Have you? Be honest.

                                        Hi, Michael.

                                        What are you talking about? Here is the link to my post that you are
                                        responding to:

                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/1379

                                        I really don't like being taken out of context. This horse has been
                                        quite killed, and we are wasting our time continuing to beat it. You
                                        have pointed out absolutely nothing that controverts what I pointed
                                        out to you in that post.

                                        I told you in that post: "you produce statements by Henry Morris
                                        saying that a Christian believing in the antiquity of the world is
                                        compatible with the Bible, and I shall immediately acknowledge my
                                        error and correct it. However, I will point out here that I know and
                                        you know that you can't produce any such statements, because Henry
                                        Morris has always argued strongly to the contrary of this, for
                                        decades."

                                        Produce the Morris statements, or give it up.

                                        Regards,
                                        Todd Greene


                                        >
                                        > Mr. Morris has advocated this position, but not based upon
                                        > science, and I guess that is your point of gras.
                                        >
                                        > NAME JUST ONE SCIENTIST THAT HAS GOTTEN everything CORRECT! Will
                                        > you?
                                        >
                                        > (This is not to say Mr. Morris is wrong)
                                        >
                                        > Your argument, it seems, that since he has said "so and so" is
                                        > proven to be false, all he said must be along the same line!!!!
                                        >
                                        > Is that truly your argument?????
                                      • Michael
                                        Mr. Greene, Can you quote Mr. Morris arguments where his beliefs are scientific? Huh? Or, is it based on
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Jun 8, 2003
                                          <<Produce the Morris statements, or give it up.>>

                                          Mr. Greene,

                                          Can you quote Mr. Morris' arguments where his beliefs are "scientific?"
                                          Huh? Or, is it based on what the Bible teaches?

                                          How can you say that scientific evidence proves that the earth is over
                                          100K years, or 4 billion years, or whatever? That is the issue between
                                          us. See?

                                          V/r

                                          Michael
                                        • Todd S. Greene
                                          ... [Todd Greene wrote,] Produce the Morris statements, or give it up. ... Hi, Michael. Gee, let s see, I already quoted Henry Morris (among many other YECs)
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Jun 10, 2003
                                            --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1402):
                                            [Todd Greene wrote,] "Produce the Morris statements, or give it up."
                                            >
                                            > Mr. Greene,
                                            >
                                            > Can you quote Mr. Morris' arguments where his beliefs are
                                            > "scientific?" Huh? Or, is it based on what the Bible teaches?
                                            >
                                            > How can you say that scientific evidence proves that the earth is
                                            > over 100K years, or 4 billion years, or whatever? That is the
                                            > issue between us. See?

                                            Hi, Michael.

                                            Gee, let's see, I already quoted Henry Morris (among many other YECs)
                                            in this post:

                                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/1335

                                            I realize you don't like to have your argument against GRAS be so
                                            thoroughly thrashed as that, but there you go.

                                            Again, in post #1379 I told you: "you produce statements by Henry
                                            Morris saying that a Christian believing in the antiquity of the
                                            world is compatible with the Bible, and I shall immediately
                                            acknowledge my error and correct it. However, I will point out here
                                            that I know and you know that you can't produce any such statements,
                                            because Henry Morris has always argued strongly to the contrary of
                                            this, for decades."

                                            My statement is correct, and that statement is substantiated by
                                            quotes of Morris himself. You, on the other hand, haven't quoted
                                            Morris about anything at all. We can't get you to substantiate any of
                                            your claims, even after much repetition in asking you to do so.

                                            The GRAS correctly represents the YEC position, with was the context
                                            of this being brought up in the first place, and Morris is simply one
                                            leading example of the YEC position, and his statements that I quoted
                                            thoroughly substantiate what is represented in the GRAS.

                                            This horse is quite dead, Michael. How much longer are you going to
                                            keep beating it?

                                            Regards,
                                            Todd S. Greene
                                            http://www.creationism.cc/
                                          • Michael
                                            In like manner, I also would like to see proof that GRAS, or, err
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Jun 14, 2003
                                              <<Well, we are still waiting for the "GRAS" to officially pass muster
                                              on that score.>>

                                              In like manner, I also would like to see "proof" that GRAS, or, err grasssss
                                              does, indeed, pass the official mustard.

                                              The math is still in Q. anyone care to join?
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.