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

"Goliath of GRAS": still waiting for "David"! Dr. Lisle - no "David"!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    ... Morrowitz s spelling has been corrected! ... Morrowitz is no David ! He s got no stones! To date, by default, Todd s affirmative on the evidence issue
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 2, 2005
      Morrowitz most recently wrote to the Creationism list, in relevant part:

      > No longer Baty shopping around
      > his "Goliath of GRAS"

      Morrowitz's spelling has been corrected!

      Here for reference is the as yet undefeated "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.


      Morrowitz is no "David"! He's got no stones!

      To date, by default, Todd's affirmative on the evidence issue stands as
      the logically valid and sound refutation of the position taken by the
      "young-earth, creation-science" movement.

      Interestingly enough, the Indianapolis paper today has an extensive
      article on the Dover trial, with comments by West of the Discovery
      Institute, Belovsky of Notre Dame, and Lisle of the Creation Science
      Museum in Cincinnati.

      The lead-in states:

      > We asked experts on intelligent
      > design, evolution and creationism
      > to help us understand the
      > differences and the impact the
      > court case could have on public
      > life.

      Hey, wasn't Lisle one of the folks Chris Sharp and I tried to engage on
      the Creation Mega-Conference site and was cut off; like, Lisle and that
      other promoter didn't seem to really want to "handle the truth" and so
      cut off Chris and myself?

      Anyway, Lisle supposes he is a "David", but he appears to be stoneless
      as well. In his treatise he writes, in relevant part:

      > The scientific evidence is also
      > very consistent with the biblical
      > timescale of thousands of years.

      > The Earth's magnetic field is
      > one example. . .If the Earth were
      > really billions of years old, the
      > magnetic field should have
      > decayed to virtually nothing
      > ages ago; yet it is still strong.

      > Certain forms of radioactive
      > decay refute the long-age
      > view of the Earth.

      > A radioactive form of carbon,
      > 14C, has been found in "ancient"
      > diamonds. But 14C decays in
      > a few thousand years so it
      > can't be that old.

      > Mount St. Helens eruption
      > produced many layers of new
      > rocks and formed a large
      > canyon, proving that these
      > things can happen very
      > quickly.

      > The Indianapolis Star
      > Focus, Section E
      > Page E1 - E5
      > Jason Lisle, Ph.D.

      (Buff Scott, Jr., the alleged reformer, must be proud that the Mount St.
      Helens falsehoods are still being promoted)

      Anyway, despite Morrowitz's effort to discount my "Goliath of GRAS", it
      is still the argument facing the "young-earth, creation-science"
      movement. Everyone the issue is seriously considered, you will find my
      "Goliath"; explicitly or implicitly being debated.

      Morrowitz simply can't "handle the truth", and he can't be "David". So,
      as others have more ably noted, he's all but substance.

      I have to give him credit though, for baiting Baty. I did happen to see
      his post and went to the trouble to respond.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      P.S. West of the Discovery Institute wrote, in part:

      > As modest as Dover's policy is, I
      > oppose such efforts to require
      > intelligent design. . .

      He then goes on, in part, to explain that he thinks the government
      should not prohibit voluntary discussions of intelligent design, and
      that that is what the ACLU position is. I don't know about the ACLU
      position, but I suspect the Dover case won't being dealing with
      voluntary discussions of intelligent design in science classes or
      elsewhere.

      I suspect there are a lot of constitutionally protected voluntary
      discussions of intelligent design, creationism, astrology, UFO's and
      lots of other such things in science classes as well as elsewhere. I
      wouldn't expect to be the ACLU trying to put an end to such.

      #############################
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.