First, Jim Bell wrote:
>> I'm not the one being personal here (I have
not called you "cowardly" or anything else). It's your views I want to
explore. <<
Jim,
I would like to sincerely apologize for calling your act "cowardly". I try
not to call names and when I slip up. I should correct it. I am responsible
to God for the way I behave and what I say to people. I apologize to you and
ask for your forgiveness.
Secondly, I would like to apologize to any member of the reflector who might
have been offended by either the content or tone of my post. I do feel that
what I said needed to be said, but maybe not in that tone. So I ask for your
forgiveness.
Thirdly, I would strongly urge that no one quit the reflector either because
of what I said or because of what was said about me.
Finally, I do need to address a few issues.
Jim wrote:
>> And it is quite unfair to allow such a reaction to pin the label "ugly" on
others of us who just want to discuss the issues.<<
and
>>You, Glenn, hold some controversial views, and do so knowingly. So you must
expect on occasion be held up to tough scrutiny.<<
and
>>But he can't expect to espouse his views (and denigrate those of others)
without reaction--and exploding in a written tantrum is no answer either. And
it is quite unfair to allow such a reaction to pin the label "ugly" on others
of us who just want to discuss the issues.<<
Jim, do not confuse what you did with "tough scrutiny" As anyone who has
watched me for very long knows, I am always willing to retract when I make an
error. Tough scrutiny usually involves citing data rather than calling
someone's view "unorthodox" or "indistinguisable from atheistic naturalism. "
You say I denigrate other's views. I don't. I cite data that contradicts
those views. That is what science is about. My dictionary defines denigrate
as "1. To blacken; 2. to blacken the name of; defame." This is what you
have done to my name. Anyone can cite any piece of evidence against my views
and if they are correct I will admit it. But how do I cite scientific
evidence against the charge of un-orthodox? I think you should re-think how
you argue.
In the case of Ashby Camp, who challenged what I was saying, he went to the
library looked at the original data and challenged me on the data. I
appreciated that. I learned a lot and hopefully Ashby did also. You have not
done that. I remember very few scientific references in your posts but lots
of accusations.
As to your statement that you "just want to discuss the issues", I find that
comical. You are the one who stated that you could not see any difference
between what I advocate and atheistic naturalism. Even Stephen Jones who
certainly is no fan of my views was kind enough to correct that fallacious
statement of yours. You also compared me to the LDS with little justification
and in the same post claimed I was un-orthodox. Thus I sincerely doubt you
really "just want to discuss the issues." I was not born yesterday.
I wrote:
Thus I renounce the view that God talks to the heathen under any
circumstances.>>
You replied:
This I can accept! This is fine. This is clear. At first, you fought back to
justify the view. Now, however, you "renounce" the view that God "talks to
the heathen." So we have come to agree. Isn't that a good thing? <<
It is only a good thing to agree, IF what we agree on is truth. If what we
agree on is wrong, then agreement is not a good thing. For example, it would
not be a good thing to agree that the Bible is untrue.
Jim wrote:
>> It's your views I want to explore.
Shall we get back to that?<<
No, Jim, I have made a decision that I am not going to respond to what you
say in the future. Sadly, I have not found much scientific substance in the
discussions between us. My goal is to find a way to fit the science into a
Biblical perspective. Your goal appears to be to stay with what you believe
rather than test the validity of what you have been taught by young earth
creationists or anti-evolutionists. Our purposes are too different to yield
a fruitful discussion. I really wish it weren't this way, but since it is,
it is best to go our separate ways and let the Lord someday judge us both.
glenn