>I am just surprised that you would limit the inquiry to those with a
>competing model, as if they are the only one with credibility to ask
>questions about your conclusions. It also gives the perception that when
>really difficult answers are called for, one must take up the attack
>rather then responding.
>
>In our brief discussions, I have raised a number of observations that
>have some merit, only at this point to be told..."Stop criticising, get
>your own theory, and let's debate it instead of mine".
>
>So be it, but I would think that you would like to see your model honed
>to pefection.
I would be delighted to have you point out factual errors in my view. Others
have and I have even changed the book because of some of them. What you had
suggested was that I was using theories rather than data to fit my view
together. But you can't possibly know this. You wrote:
>These are not data. They are theories. Your model starts with two
>theories and develops a third. Its your call as to whether the result is
>bad or false by your own definition.
And prior to this you had believed Jim Bell's assertion about my belief in an
incipient humanity (remember? Jim thought that if I cited someone, I then had
to agree with everything they beleived. If they believed in an incipient
humanity then I must also. Really strange.). And because you have not done
enough homework, you believed him.
While I would never want to discourage questions, I must wonder if as you sit
in judgement on the various views out ther, if you have read enough, biology,
geology, astronomy, paleontology, anthropology etc. to know the details of the
major issues in creation/evolution. Your question about what the pseudogenes
are is a good question. I had to ask the same question once. But your
question is an indication that you need to learn more before you know who is
telling you the truth on these issues. Spend the time to do the study. And
read those who disagree with you. There are only two types of people who will
tell a person that they have bad breath. One who loves you and one who hates
you. Similarly, one sure source of the problems chrisitans have in their
apologetical schemes are those who are most vehemently opposed to us.
What set me off and caused me to ask you to tell us your view is that you
claim to be raising good points when you haven't even read the book. So you
really don't know what I use for documentation at all. You really don't know
if I am using "theories" instead of "data" as you say. I have been down the
same road with others that we are traversing now. If you really want to
understand the views rather than merely nit-pick; if you are really interested
in searching for the truth rather than a position to accept, then take the
time to understand a view in the form in which it is most coherently
presented. You can then look at my references and go to the library and try to
catch me in factual errors. I don't think this is too much to ask. What I have
observed is that those who are most vocal against the view are precisely those
who would never read something that disagrees with them.
Last week end, I said that the anthropological data has come very close to
confirming my prediction of some form of Homo living millions of years ago. Do
you know of any other creation view which even has a possibility of that
happening? I don't. We christians run from prediction like chickens in a
barnyard run from a hungry fox.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm