Re: [asa] Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not Billions)_Part 2

Pim wrote:

---
Looking back it may indeed be hard to believe, however, soon after my
mother's death, I was an easy victim. Heck, I had a MS in Physics and
still I accepted their 'science', at least for a while.
---
Now that's a very interesting and honest admission. I am sorry about the
death of your mother, and can well understand the effect of grief.  I had no
idea that for a while you were once persuaded by YEC science.  That puts you
in the same boat as me - when struggling to complete a part-time PhD and
trying to cope with a full time job as well, I too was an "easy victim",
during the stress of wondering if I'd ever complete the PhD (PS, I did).
But I prefer to use the description "wishful thinking" than "dishonesty".  I
don't consider that I was being a deliberate liar when I was into YEC-ism,
and I'm sure you don't think you were being an outright liar either.  I
attempt to have dialogue with plenty of my acquaintances who are YEC, and
they don't strike me as liars.
Granted, "wishful thinking" is indeed self-deception, and a form of
dishonesty - but it is not one that is often apparent to the person
suffering from the delusion.  When I was in the grip of that delusion, I
found myself thinking "I don't care what those awful people on the ASA list
are saying - I'm still going to believe it's true".  It was only thinking
about what I'd just said that made me realise that I was compromising my own
integrity.
Maybe, just maybe, I could  be persuaded that the "in your face" approach of
people like Michael Roberts of challenging people about supporting
organisations that support lies, is the right one.  I seem to have just
argued the case that this indirectly jolted me out of my position.  But it
was not without a considerable degree of anger towards those who seek to
ridicule other's, albeit misguided beliefs. And this is why I always
challenge such behaviour when I see it on the list & get subjected to
further ridicule as a result.  (St. Iain etc).  So be it - Wayne's motto of
proceeding by grace seems more up my street.
Anyway, my take on it is "wishful thinking" - a kind of self-delusion,
rather than deliberate dishonesty.  On several occasions, Michael Roberts
has said that Henry Morris (?) stated once that it was OK to lie for the
purposes of the Kingdom.  I'd be very grateful if Michael can actually give
me the definitive reference and quotation of where Morris said this, because
it would be very useful to show this quote "from the horse's mouth" to any
YEC friends that I still try and dialogue with.  However, I can't use it as
an argument if it's just hearsay, which, until I have hard evidence to the
contrary, is all it is. After all, it may be wishful thinking to suppose
that Morris actually said this, when perhaps, in context, he meant something
quite different.
The reference, please, Michael, if you have it.
Iain
On 9/30/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Looking back it may indeed be hard to believe, however, soon after my
> mother's death, I was an easy victim. Heck, I had a MS in Physics and
> still I accepted their 'science', at least for a while.
>
> On 9/29/07, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Pim,
> >
> > It is hard for me to imagine you being such a helpless and defenseless
> > victim of YECism that you were in need of "saving". :)
> >
> > John
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> > Behalf Of PvM
> > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:36 PM
> > To: Michael Roberts
> > Cc: George Murphy; asa@calvin.edu; Steven M Smith
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not
> Billions)_Part 2
> >
> > It was the dishonesty which saved me from YECism. It's a similar level
> > of dishonesty which should be a cure for many an ID proponent as well.
> >
> >
> > On 9/28/07, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I find I agree with George. When I first read YEC stuff on radiometric
> age
> > > dating in 1971 I was appalled at their misrepresentation, nothing has
> > > changed in the following 36 years and YEC writers on radiometric
> > age-dating
> > > still misrepresent and continue to use untruthful arguments which have
> > been
> > > criticised many many times.
> > >
> > > Is that honest?
> > >
> > > However I have valeued the contributions of Steve and others
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: George Murphy
> > > To: asa@calvin.edu ; Steven M Smith
> > > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 10:07 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not
> Billions)_Part
> > 2
> > >
> > >
> > > You ignore the fact that in addition to increased decay rates during
> the
> > > creation week there were also changes in various reaction cross
> sections.
> > > In particular, the reaction N14 + n --> C12 + H3 was greatly favored
> > > relative to N14 + n --> C14 + p.  The tritium produced by the former
> > > reaction of course decayed quite quickly.
> > >
> > > <Turning off sarcasm generator>
> > >
> > > I appreciate the knowledgeable analysis of the RATE claims by Steve &
> > others
> > > here but the whole thing is quite sad because we know that Baumgardner
> et
> > al
> > > are possessed of invincible ignorance in this area & short of a
> genuine
> > > conversion experience will never be convinced that their whole program
> is
> > > spurious.
> > >
> > > Shalom
> > > George
> > > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Steven M Smith
> > > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 3:40 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not
> Billions)_Part
> > 2
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > David Campbell wrote in response to Jon Tandy ...
> > > (http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200709/0616.html)
> > >
> > > >> On another subject, does anyone has any technical response
> > > >> to Baumgardner's comment on the "excess carbon may have
> > > >> diluted the C14 in the pre-flood  world such that the initial
> C14/C12
> > > >> ratio would be a lot smaller; perhaps by  a factor of 100 - 500
> > > >> times" ? This sounds to me like pure hand-waving,  like "theory"
> > > >> in the common sense of "speculation" rather than the scientific
> > > >> sense of the word, simply to make a rhetorical argument that
> > > >> agrees with what the audience wants to hear, i.e., that a 5000 year
> > > >> old earth might have some scientific plausibility. Does anyone
> > > >> know what he's talking about, and what (if any) basis it has in
> fact
> > > >> or evidence?
> > > >
> > > > This would work only if the excess carbon was supplied by a
> > > > source depleted in 14C, e.g., a large reservoir of carbon that
> > > > was over 50000 years old at the time.
> > >
> > > Excellent point.  As I understood it, Baumgardner inferred that the
> > original
> > > primordial carbon was essentially carbon 'dead' at
> Creation.  Therefore in
> > > his scenario, all of the C14 before the flood had been formed by
> > atmospheric
> > > processes between Creation & the Flood.  This, however, ignores their
> own
> > > proposal that there was a tremendous amount of accelerated nuclear
> decay
> > > ('AND') during the first part of the creation week.  This 'AND' would
> have
> > > produced a huge flux of neutrons that would have reacted with any
> > available
> > > nitrogen-14 to produce a lot of C14.  Using their proposal, I would
> > predict
> > > that C14 rates would be higher before the Flood.
> > > ..........................
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.