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

Proof that Morrowitz cannot comprehend what he reads?

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    In post #35841 on the Creationism list, Morrowitz quoted Todd Greene as ... http://www.dbts.edu/dbts/journals/2000/mccabe.pdf ... For reference, I give you
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 29, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In post #35841 on the Creationism list, Morrowitz quoted Todd Greene as
      writing:

      > In the final analysis, the figurative
      > understanding of the creation days
      > engenders more exegetical and
      > theological problems than it solves,
      > and is, therefore, indefensible when
      > viewed from the perspective of
      > Scripture's comprehensive message.

      Then Morrowitz writes in response:

      > That sounds as tedious as (Baty's)
      > "Goliath of GRAS".

      > The important facet of Greene's
      > post is: it demonstrates that
      > his sole aim is to whine and cackle
      > against Christ.

      > This "Creationist" Group name is a
      > farce, as it is solely pitched to weasel
      > and whine against Creation, and totally
      > to make a case for Evolution. If God
      > had included a 1988 Mazda hatchback
      > on the Ark...how would ANY of that
      > make a case for Evolution?

      To which Todd responds with:

      > As usual, Morrowitz didn't comprehend
      > the fact that I WAS QUOTING THE
      > YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST
      > Robert McCabe!

      > Those words are right from his article:

      > Literal Days in the Creation Week
      > by Robert V. McCabe
      > (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal,
      > Fall 2000)

      http://www.dbts.edu/dbts/journals/2000/mccabe.pdf

      > So, just as obviously, Morrowitz never
      > even looked at the article!

      > And just as usual Morrowitz NEVER
      > EVEN ADDRESSED THE POINT I
      > MADE which is that if McCabe is
      > correct then all this proves is that
      > the Bible teaches a mythical story
      > about the World being created just
      > several thousand years ago.

      > Morrowitz exemplifies the nonsense
      > nature of the young earth creationist
      > approach, which is why I like him
      > so well.

      For reference, I give you that undefeated "Goliath of GRAS" that
      Morrowitz purposely misrepresents. Here it is:

      > 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.

      I think Todd may well have proven the case that Morriwitz didn't
      understand Todd's previous post, or that he may have deliberately
      misrepresented it while clearly understanding it.

      We do have reason to believe that, in the case of the "Goliath of GRAS",
      Morrowitz knows full well that it is not what he represents it to be to
      others. It is, and he knows it, the logicaly valid statement of the
      falsification issue facing the "young-earth-creation-science" movement.

      Morrowitz cannot face the "Goliath" (i.e., rebut Todd's affirmative
      evidentiary claim that there really is conclusive empirical evidence
      that some things are substantially older than a few thousand years).
      Morrowitz cannot find anyone else to rebut Todd's affirmative.

      Morrowitz can and does comprehend the "Goliath", as do all serious
      students of the issue facing the "young-earth, creation-science"
      movement.

      Morrowitz is no "David"!
      Morrowitz can't find a "David"!
      Still no "David"!

      One thing is clearly comprehended; my "Goliath" remains undefeated!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.