Debunking Glenn Morton

Covering the best debate in the history of T-Web:
I start it off with a charge: I would like to introduce you to what the "real" YECs really think. Come on man, don't be a punk you know you want a piece of this. So come on chump, lets take it to the wrestling ring!

The only thing I see thats flat right now is Glenn Morton's world.....and its gonna have the life stomped out of it pretty soon!

And quite frankly, I'm really sick and tired of this bogus Creationistic flat earth parade you've got going on right now!

So tell you what.......I've got the day off tomorrow. What do you say to taking those chicken wings of yours and flying this way sometime around 11:00 a.m.?

Glenn Morton: Given that I published 30 yec items, I think I know what real YECs believe. I also know some really dingie flat-earthers as well. But, if you want a debate, please be specific.
Me: Would love to, lets do it in the wrestling ring though. And unfortunately, it can't be at this time, for I have to go to work.

And I'm from Virginia. We're going to see how to mesh our schedules here.

I'll elude to some of the problems with your argument though. You give all of these examples of like one person from 1840, one person from 1930, one person from 1935, one person from 1940, one person from 1950, one person from 1960, they seem to keep increasing in #. All of a sudden by 1985, we have like a whole SLEW of Scientists turning to Creationism and Intelligent Design. Thats the problem. The conclusion within your argument does not follow the opinion that you have provided.

So its a false analogy within your argument and the evidence within your article does not follow the conclusion you have made.

Do you see the slightest bit of a problem with your argument? It appears that the premise follows from the evidence that you have provided that over the years, more and more Scientists have become Creationists!

It also follows that it hasn't been until recently that Creationists have been able to make the claim that Evolution will collapse within the next 20 years. We have NOT heard that from anybody except for William Dembski and a few others.

So you have given me no reason to believe in your conclusion on the matter.

When will it become apparent that this is happening?

HAHAHA! I just got done with a debate on Intelligent Design with a bunch of Evolutionists on this matter.

The thread I shall provide here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/s...ead.php?t=82974

As far as explicitly addressing your claim here, its just over exaggerating the point that Creationists have been trying to make over the years. All they have basically stated is that more Scientists have become Creationists. So you are basically false represented them here. It does not follow that the imminent conclusion is that 200 years ago, those assertions were made. But I'll definitely say one thing. They are being made now, and with good reason!

The only thing these other Scientists have laid claims to is that Evolution has holes and that Scientists are turning away from it. Okay, so tell us something that we don't already know. Of course Scientists turned away from Evolution back then, and they continue to do so today. No big deal. You're trying to create a soap opera out of nothing here. Good job equivocating the Creationistic position.

Your argument as a whole, is what we like to call a strawman. Its really awful sir.

So at least 3 different logical fallacies I could point out offhand, and I'm not even looking at it indepth. Its just a sorry sad piece of literature sir.

Start it up and we'll continue it there. I'll be happy to engage, and am enthusiastic about it as well. However at this time, I'm off to work.

God bless,

Casey Powell

Glenn Morton: Yeshuamarine has challenged my web page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

While I am not entirely sure what he finds so objectionable, this is what he gave me in the The Earth is Flat in Zion, Illinois thread.

Quote: Originally posted by YeshuaMarine
I'll elude to some of the problems with your argument though. You give all of these examples of like one person from 1840, one person from 1930, one person from 1935, one person from 1940, one person from 1950, one person from 1960, they seem to keep increasing in #. All of a sudden by 1985, we have like a whole SLEW of Scientists turning to Creationism and Intelligent Design. Thats the problem. The conclusion within your argument does not follow the opinion that you have provided.

First off, you need to know that you dind't 'elude' to my problems, you 'alluded' to them.

Now that the grammar lesson is over, your argument here seems to be that because I have more examples of the claims for the imminent demise of evolution, it must mean that we have a whole slew of scientists turning to creation.

Well, that assumes that the people making the charge are scientists. I will define a scientist as someone who has written and published original research in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Engineering is not per se pure science, so I am a bit reluctant to include them as scientists, especially as they are not really working in areas relevant to the question. Hydrodynamical engineering is not exactly on the front lines of paleontology, biology, chemistry or evolutionary cosmology.

I am also reluctant to include Grant R. Jeffreys, Ralph Muncaster, Scott Huse because they are preachers

Secondly, for your argument to be true one must show that creationists make a larger percentage of total scientists today than they did 50 or 200 years ago. The absolute numbers of scientists in the world has exploded in the post world war II era and that means that there will be more scientists of all viewpoints. But absolute numbers are not important because for my argument to be wrong, one must show that a larger percentage of scientists are now becoming creationists.


Quote:
So its a false analogy within your argument and the evidence within your article does not follow the conclusion you have made.

I would disagree, see above

Quote:
Do you see the slightest bit of a problem with your argument? It appears that the premise follows from the evidence that you have provided that over the years, more and more Scientists have become Creationists!

Don't be so sure of that. Just because I have more easy access to more modrn works doesn't mean that there is a trend in conversions. It really is hard to buy old YEC books because no one preserves them. No one thinks them worth keeping.



Quote:
It also follows that it hasn't been until recently that Creationists have been able to make the claim that Evolution will collapse within the next 20 years. We have NOT heard that from anybody except for William Dembski and a few others.

Oh, so having a time element in the collapse is important? Exactly why? We have been hearing that more and more are abandoning modern science/evolution/big bang for a long long time. I see no evidence of it.


Quote:
So you have given me no reason to believe in your conclusion on the matter.

When will it become apparent that this is happening?

HAHAHA! I just got done with a debate on Intelligent Design with a bunch of Evolutionists on this matter.



I am so lucky that the man who just destroyed all belief in evolution is speaking with me. Doesn't that sound a wee bit arrogant?
I address his whines, moans groans and complaints here:
Casey Powell: Quote: Originally posted by grmorton
Yeshuamarine has challenged my web page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

While I am not entirely sure what he finds so objectionable, this is what he gave me in the The Earth is Flat in Zion, Illinois thread.



First off, you need to know that you dind't 'elude' to my problems, you 'alluded' to them.

Now that the grammar lesson is over, your argument here seems to be that because I have more examples of the claims for the imminent demise of evolution, it must mean that we have a whole slew of scientists turning to creation.

Blah blah blah..... lol" alt="" src="images/smilies/lol.gif" border=0
Well, that assumes that the people making the charge are scientists. I will define a scientist as someone who has written and published original research in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Engineering is not per se pure science, so I am a bit reluctant to include them as scientists, especially as they are not really working in areas relevant to the question. Hydrodynamical engineering is not exactly on the front lines of paleontology, biology, chemistry or evolutionary cosmology.

I am also reluctant to include Grant R. Jeffreys, Ralph Muncaster, Scott Huse because they are preachers

Secondly, for your argument to be true one must show that creationists make a larger percentage of total scientists today than they did 50 or 200 years ago. The absolute numbers of scientists in the world has exploded in the post world war II era and that means that there will be more scientists of all viewpoints. But absolute numbers are not important because for my argument to be wrong, one must show that a larger percentage of scientists are now becoming creationists.

No we don't either....all we have to do is show that more and more Scientists are becoming Creationists. Please provide more evidence, otherwise your argument still is as goofy as it was before.


I would disagree, see above



Don't be so sure of that. Just because I have more easy access to more modrn works doesn't mean that there is a trend in conversions. It really is hard to buy old YEC books because no one preserves them. No one thinks them worth keeping.


Excuses excuses.....the trends still don't lie.


Oh, so having a time element in the collapse is important? Exactly why? We have been hearing that more and more are abandoning modern science/evolution/big bang for a long long time. I see no evidence of it.

They are abandoning them more and more, just look at your evidence.


I am so lucky that the man who just destroyed all belief in evolution is speaking with me. Doesn't that sound a wee bit arrogant?

HAHA! No, just truthful thats all. It was not I, Evolution has been dead for years.

Glenn Morton responded: Quote: Originally posted by YeshuaMarine
[Blah blah blah.....

Mockery is not an intelligent argument. If all you wanted was to mock,you didn't need a new thread to say the unintelligent blather in the above.

Quote:
No we don't either....all we have to do is show that more and more Scientists are becoming Creationists. Please provide more evidence, otherwise your argument still is as goofy as it was before.

Well, why don't you cite five non-religious scientists who have rejected evolution?


Quote:
Excuses excuses.....the trends still don't lie.


Quote:
They are abandoning them more and more, just look at your evidence.


If this is the extent of your evidence, I don't see any.

I respond: Quote: Originally posted by grmorton
Mockery is not an intelligent argument. If all you wanted was to mock,you didn't need a new thread to say the unintelligent blather in the above.

Well....providing irrelevant arguments is not so intelligent either. So I equate the blah blah blah to the information you provided on the grammar lesson. Thats all.
Well, why don't you cite five non-religious scientists who have rejected evolution?

I shall do that, no problem.

Jobe Martin is one.

Tom DeRosa is another.

A rather popular one is Antony Flew.

How about Dr. Henry Morris? Or how about Dr. Kent Hovind, Dr. Jason Lisle, Dr. Terry Mortenson, Dr. Jobe Martin, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati?

How about these guys?

Roger Oakland is another one.

And for a further list of Evolutionists who have become Creationists, please refer to: http://www.creationists.org/switch.html





If this is the extent of your evidence, I don't see any.

Well..the reason is, I don't need any. All of your evidence points to my argument. So I say, thanks Dr. Glenn Morton for providing me evidence to show the truth behind my point.
And I further go on to show: I'm glad you can read Mr. Lisle's mind and that you actually know EVERYTHING about his personal life...great job. Again, former Evolutionists converted into Creationists. No genetic fallacy of yours like that is going to uproot this argument, sorry Sylas.

And thanks for not even considering the oodles of other information I have provided concerning the issue.

This is pure nonsense. All of those Scientists are legit and all started out as Evolutionists and became Creationists. Sylas does not determine who is and who is not a Scientist....(sorry, wishful thinking there). Even if it was after they received their degrees or while they were in school, that is quite beside the point. You are just pulling junk out of your hat over these guys....why not provide some documentation as to where you received your evidence? Its quite irrelevant to the point, but hey....if you want to have a big mouth, you better back it up with facts. If not, you're not going to make it very far against me. And as such, if you don't, then we have no recourse but to equate your argument to the credibility of "The Darwin Code" and Charles Darwin's nonexistence and Evolution conspiracy out of Nazi Germany(see http://jesusjustforyou.blogspot.com). Here are a few more however just in case that wasn't enough evidence for you.

Dr Raymond V. Damadian - Inventor of the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)
Dr Raymond V. Damadian would probably be too humble to accept the title 'super-scientist' but the many people whose lives have been saved by the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanning technology he developed might think otherwise. Hailed as one of the greatest diagnostic breakthroughs ever, this technique, using advanced principles of physics and computing, lets doctors visualize many organs and their diseased parts without the risks of exploratory surgery or the radiation associated with traditional scanning methods. See http://answersingenesis.org/home/ar...s/v16n3_MRI.asp.



Dr. John R. Baumgardner (Geophysicist)
U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Dr. Baumgardner earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. Since 1984 he has been employed as a technical staff member at Los Alamos (New Mexico) National Laboratory. Also see Scientists Who Believe: An Interview with Dr. John Baumgardner, and Probing the Earth's Deep Places.


Dr Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist)
Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO’s top prize, the Chairman’s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research. See Interview with Dr Ian Macreadie.


Dr. Raymond Jones (Agricultural Scientist)
This, combined with Dr Jones' other achievements in improving the productivity of the tropical grazing industries, caused CSIRO chief Dr Elizabeth Heij to describe him as ‘one of the top few CSIRO scientists in Australia’. Among the awards he has received are the CSIRO Gold Medal for Research Excellence, and the Urrbrae Award, the latter in recognition of the practical significance of his work for the grazing industry. See Interview with Dr. Raymond Jones.


Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a 3-star NATO General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. His background is referenced in footnote #4 at Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net.


Dr. Robert Gentry (nuclear physicist)
Dr. Robert V. Gentry is a nuclear physicist who worked 13 years for the Oakridge National Laboratory as a guest scientist. During the time he worked there, he was recognized as the world's leading authority in his area of research. It is interesting to note that when he began his research, he was an evolutionist. Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced young earth creation scientist.

Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short - From (theistic) evolution to creation
For Prof himself, educated at Cambridge and brought up with his father's writings, theistic evolution (or its variant, progressive creationism) was the natural direction for him to take. His odyssey to being chairman of one of the most effective creation science outreach ministries in the world was overseen by the Lord's hand in countless ways, both large and small.


Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist)
Charlie Liebert’s idea of a good time back in New Jersey was to drink beer with a bunch of buddies and mock Billy Graham on television. A self-described “atheistic evolutionist,” Liebert would ridicule the fact that he and his friends were “sinners.”


Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)
"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."

"Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged." Dr. Gary Parker's testimony as to how he went from teaching evolution at the college level to being a leading spokesman for Biblical creationism. - See the full story at From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony


Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist)
While neither of the two links we have for Dr. Humphreys states that he was a former evolutionists and atheist, we know this to be true from a 1999 debate he participated in at Harvard University in which he stated these things. See this interview with Dr. Humphreys at: Creation in the Physics Lab.


Dr. Alan Galbraith (Watershed Science)
"I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude — what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about?" See Recovery from evolution (Alan Galbraith interview)


Dr. Donald Batten (Agriculturist)
As a young Christian in boarding high school I naively thought that 'science was facts' and tried to believe in evolution and the Bible by accepting the notion that 'God used evolution', days-are-ages, 'progressive creation', etc.


Dr. David Catchpoole (Plant Physiologist)
Until his mid-20s, David was an ardent evolutionistic atheist, but a personal crisis while working in Indonesia brought him to embrace Christianity. However, for a decade he struggled to reconcile popular evolutionary beliefs with the Bible...

http://www.creationists.org/switch.html

This was basically all there was to the argument. Glenn Morton had not one other competent thing to state after all of this information.
This shows how unreliable the information for Mr. Morton's More and More article and his anti-Creationistic behavior actually is.