On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 14:00:55 +0000 glenn morton <mortongr@flash.net>
writes:
>Actually Bill, I can document that I was open to YEC. I published 20+
>papers and one book advocating it in the early 1980s. Do you have any
>equal
>documentary evidence that you are open to a non-global flood view of
>the
>world? If anyone has a claim to having an open mind about these
>things, I
>do, because I have been on both sides of this issue during my life.
>I
>proved my open mindedness when I changed views. But I haven't seen
>any
>evidence of a similar openness by you.
You shifted tenses on me, you sly hombre. You said "...I _was_ open to
YEC...in the early 1980s", then you ask me "...that you _are_ open..." I
like that, nice and subtle. :-)
If your question is "Have I ever believed the conventional view of
geology?", then, yes, when I was going through college in the 60s and
early 70s I bought into the entire naturalistic world view, including
becoming agnostic. I not only believed it, I lived it. Jesus had to
reach pretty far down into the sewer to get to me. When my wife
occasionally tells our children, or more recently our son-in-law, some of
what I used to be like, invariably their response is that they cannot
imagine such things about me. As you know, Glenn, Jesus really does
change lives.
Since becoming a Christian, I have wandered back and forth between OEC
and YEC maybe half a dozen times. You only changed views once; therefore
I must be six times more open-minded than you.
If your question is "Am I open _now_ to a non-global flood view of the
world?", I would say that you and I are probably about equally
closed-minded - you prefer the non-global flood, I prefer the global
flood. I guess the main difference between the two of us is the way we
react to contrary data. I tend to shrug my shoulders and ignore it.
You, at least in our recent altercation over that four-letter C word (bet
you thought I was going to say COAL), reacted to me and not to the data.
I don't do any better by ignoring what you present; my only point is that
I think we are both pretty well set in our models.
At least I have the satisfaction of knowing that I am right. :-)
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 26 2000 - 21:53:33 EST