"Goliath of GRAS": still waiting for "David"! Dr. Lisle - no "David"!
- Morrowitz most recently wrote to the Creationism list, in relevant part:
> No longer Baty shopping aroundMorrowitz's spelling has been corrected!
> his "Goliath of GRAS"
Here for reference is the as yet undefeated "Goliath of GRAS":
> Major premise:Morrowitz is no "David"! He's got no stones!
> 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.
> The interpretation of the text by
> some is wrong.
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 intelligentHey, wasn't Lisle one of the folks Chris Sharp and I tried to engage on
> design, evolution and creationism
> to help us understand the
> differences and the impact the
> court case could have on public
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(Buff Scott, Jr., the alleged reformer, must be proud that the Mount St.
> 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
> The Indianapolis Star
> Focus, Section E
> Page E1 - E5
> Jason Lisle, Ph.D.
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.
P.S. West of the Discovery Institute wrote, in part:
> As modest as Dover's policy is, IHe then goes on, in part, to explain that he thinks the government
> oppose such efforts to require
> intelligent design. . .
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
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.