Fri Aug 30 16:49:56 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Aug 30 16:49:56 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA21270; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 16:47:42 -0400
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <322747F0.62BA@eee.org>
References: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 15:41:35 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Theology on this list (was: Re: Carbon dating (fwd))
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2072

On Fri, 30 Aug 1996, Jim Mendelson  wrote:

>James--I know that you believe or trust C14 test, and may JESUS CHRIST
>bless you for that.  But make sure when you give references like you do
>for these issues, tell us weather or not the books or magazines are bias
>or not.  I am a creationist and I would never use National Geographic
>for a reference, even though they use some good material.  They are 100%
>evolution, so how can a Christian use them as a reference.  Science
>magazine is another example.  I belong to a Creation board and 1000's of
>scientist's around the globe don't use C14 because it is so inacurrate.
>Put a scroll in a dark cold place, put another in the sun and wind and
>rain.  2000 years later, which has dated more?  Take care,

I find this post very disturbing. Please, folks, let's keep
theology off this list. As soon as that starts, our ability
to exchange information becomes badly damaged.

Jim Mendelson admits to being a creationist, and presumably thinks
those of us who are not to be less than perfect Christians. I admit
to believing in the law of conservation of mass-energy, and I freely
admit that I think those who believe otherwise are less than rational.
But I can exchange information with those people, as long as they
don't get obnoxious about it. The people on this list, be it
noted, come from all different denominations -- and normally don't
talk about it.

So please, let's *not* start in on theology. This list is devoted
to textual criticism. Let's keep the discussion on that topic.

Though I can't help one last comment. In this case, about
radiocarbon dating. Be it noted that even a creationist should
be able to accept C-14 dating, as long as the date is within the
last five thousand years or so. It's only *before* that that
problems come in.

After all, you must have some belief in science if you are using
a computer... and electric lights... and sterile bandages...
and automobiles... and telephones... and food grown with modern
farm machinery....

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back