Re: [M & B] Re: Two connected evidences
- Rick,And you understand how this works. You put up the correct references. They take it and correct the editions of their next book printing and the next and next. Fifteen years from now it looks like they never screwed up.There will be no acknowledgment of the mistake and no admission as to how they got the corrected references. I think your effort deserves better than that.Contact the most reputable (one that you think will be around the longest and sell the most books) of the YEC and offer to give the corrected reference as long as they attach a side comment as to the history of how it came about and who it came from with the standard life of the author plus 70 years. (Get it in writing). Then the truth will be at least attached with one of the YEC author or organization that can always be referenced (especially if part of the agreement is they file their book with the Library of Congress). When the other YEC authors start lifting the reference for their own books, you can't do anything about that but it will be on public record and not disappear if Robert's discussion group is not in existence 10, 20 or 30 years from now.RayFrom: w_w_c_l <w_w_c_l@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 9:01 PM
Subject: [M & B] Re: Two connected evidences
--- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg" <bucksburg@...> wrote:
> You are right, I'm not familiar with any of
> these names. But that's not the point. The
> point is that I asked Rick/Ray if he had
> confronted the errant publishers with this
> information. I'm waiting for an answer to
> that question.
This is the Maury_and_Baty list. The WHOLE THING
got started on account of a certain very influential
young-earth creationist Ph.D.'s unwillingness to
acknowledge and correct a simple error of fact.
I have put the information you are talking about
up on the Maury_and_Baty list for all the world to see.
Eric Hovind has the same access to it that you do.
Have YOU contacted Eric Hovind yet?
Type "Troy L. Pewe" + vollosovitch into your Google and
get to work.
Keep us informed of your progress.
> Well, I'm here, eager to hear about the inaccuracies.
> Especially I'd like to see the conversations with the
> YEC authors who refused to retract them.
I'd like to see them, too, but they're very rare. The
YEC authors are not ABOUT to try defending their work
in an open forum. This list is littered with their
One of the weightiest I've run across is John Baumgardner's
appearance on TheologyWeb:
And you see how that turned out.
Or for a small, local victory:
Happy Bert-day, Maury!
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
- Hey, Todd, I was hoping you would drop by! Now that I have
a decent internet connection I see you've been busy elsewhere.
(I hope you like my dog.)
> Well, to be honest, he's fighting a lost battle.Well, yeah, but in that context I wasn't speaking strictly of
> Lost over two hundred years ago. ;-)
geology... I was thinking more along the lines of Acts 5:39.
Are you familiar with the book I linked in that last message?
Title: History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
Author: Andrew Dickson White
There's some pretty good stuff in it, including a chapter on
astronomy. As I understand it, White's method of "conflict
thesis" is rather outdated in terms of historiography -- but
then again, so is creationism itself. It's pretty amazing to
see all these same excuses from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries
still parading around the internet as modern creation science.
Here's something from Chapter 7, about archaeology:
| In the last years of the sixteenth century Michael Mercati
| tried to prove that the "thunder-stones" were weapons or
| implements of early races of men; but from some cause his
| book was not published until the following century, when
| other thinkers had begun to take up the same idea, and
| then it had to contend with a theory far more accordant
| with theologic modes of reasoning in science. This was
| the theory of the learned Tollius, who in 1649 told the
| world that these chipped or smoothed stones were
| "generated in the sky by a fulgurous exhalation conglobed
| in a cloud by the circumposed humour."
| But about the beginning of the eighteenth century a fact
| of great importance was quietly established. In the year
| 1715 a large pointed weapon of black flint was found in
| contact with the bones of an elephant, in a gravel bed near
| Gray's Inn Lane, in London. The world in general paid no
| heed to this: if the attention of theologians was called
| to it, they dismissed it summarily with a reference to the
| Deluge of Noah; but the specimen was labelled, the
| circumstances regarding it were recorded, and both specimen
| and record carefully preserved.
Uh oh. I can see where *this* is going...
"Conglobed in a cloud by the circumposed humour" is pretty
humorous in itself!
And this book was published in 1896 -- the year radioactivity
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism