Glenn Morton - Why I left Young-earth Creationism

[FFT]

This is Glenn Morton's story. I suggest everyone read it.

It appeared that the more I questions I raised, the more they questioned my theological purity. When telling one friend of my difficulties with young-earth creationism and geology, he told me that I had obviously been brain-washed by my geology professors. When I told him that I had never taken a geology course, he then said I must be saying this in order to hold my job. Never would he consider that I might really believe the data. Since then this type of treatment has become expected from young-earthers. I have been called nearly everything under the sun but they don't deal with the data I present to them. Here is a list of what young-earthers have called me in response to my data: 'an apostate,'(Humphreys) 'a heretic'(Jim Bell although he later apologised like the gentleman he is) 'a compromiser'(Henry Morris) "absurd", "naive", "compromising", "abysmally ignorant", "sloppy", "reckless disregard", "extremely inaccurate", "misleading", "tomfoolery" and "intentionally deceitful"(John Woodmorappe) 'like your father, Satan' (Carl R. Froede--I am proud to have this one because Jesus was once said to have been of satan also.) 'your loyality and commitment to Jesus Christ is shaky or just not truly genuine' (John Baumgardner 12-24-99 [Merry Christmas]) "[I] have secretly entertained suspicions of a Trojan horse roaming behind the lines..." Royal Truman 12-28-99

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either.

[Unverified]

This is Glenn Morton's story. I suggest everyone read it.

It appeared that the more I questions I raised, the more they questioned my theological purity. When telling one friend of my difficulties with young-earth creationism and geology, he told me that I had obviously been brain-washed by my geology professors. When I told him that I had never taken a geology course, he then said I must be saying this in order to hold my job. Never would he consider that I might really believe the data. Since then this type of treatment has become expected from young-earthers. I have been called nearly everything under the sun but they don't deal with the data I present to them. Here is a list of what young-earthers have called me in response to my data: 'an apostate,'(Humphreys) 'a heretic'(Jim Bell although he later apologised like the gentleman he is) 'a compromiser'(Henry Morris) "absurd", "naive", "compromising", "abysmally ignorant", "sloppy", "reckless disregard", "extremely inaccurate", "misleading", "tomfoolery" and "intentionally deceitful"(John Woodmorappe) 'like your father, Satan' (Carl R. Froede--I am proud to have this one because Jesus was once said to have been of satan also.) 'your loyality and commitment to Jesus Christ is shaky or just not truly genuine' (John Baumgardner 12-24-99 [Merry Christmas]) "[I] have secretly entertained suspicions of a Trojan horse roaming behind the lines..." Royal Truman 12-28-99

[quote:5t39j4g9]But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either.

[/quote:5t39j4g9]

Glenn Morton is hardly a Scientist. He's got a Masters degree in an area in which you would not even consider to be Science, since its not Biologically related. Morton is a PseudoScientist who basically lacks many of the credentials necessary to be taken in the true Scientific world. Believe me, as a man holding two PhDS myself working as a Peer Review Director, most people who know of Glenn Morton consider him to be nothing more than a joke Scientifically.

From my worldview however, which considers All Scientific ventures to be Scientific, Glenn Morton is a man who after reviewing his *edit* seems to be out of touch with actual and true Science.

[P1234567890]

Glenn Morton is hardly a Scientist. He's got a Masters degree in an area in which you would not even consider to be Science, since its not Biologically related. Morton is a PseudoScientist who basically lacks many of the credentials necessary to be taken in the true Scientific world. Believe me, as a man holding two PhDS myself working as a Peer Review Director, most people who know of Glenn Morton consider him to be nothing more than a joke Scientifically.

I happen to agree that Morton isn't much of a scientist, but that does not mean that he's necessarily wrong. In fact, in this case he is right. Young Earth Creationism has nothing to do with science.

From my worldview however, which considers All Scientific ventures to be Scientific, Glenn Morton is a man who after reviewing his *edit* seems to be out of touch with actual and true Science.

It sounds like he isn't the only one...

[Unverified]

[quote=P1234567890]

Glenn Morton is hardly a Scientist. He's got a Masters degree in an area in which you would not even consider to be Science, since its not Biologically related. Morton is a PseudoScientist who basically lacks many of the credentials necessary to be taken in the true Scientific world. Believe me, as a man holding two PhDS myself working as a Peer Review Director, most people who know of Glenn Morton consider him to be nothing more than a joke Scientifically.

I happen to agree that Morton isn't much of a scientist, but that does not mean that he's necessarily wrong. In fact, in this case he is right. Young Earth Creationism has nothing to do with science.

From my worldview however, which considers All Scientific ventures to be Scientific, Glenn Morton is a man who after reviewing his *edit* seems to be out of touch with actual and true Science.

It sounds like he isn't the only one...[/quote:1pmin3i7]

Why not debate Professionally instead of attacking people's characters with ad hominems? If you agree to this, then I'll proceed in engaging with you.

Your affirmation of the consequent in the first statement doesn't impress me either.

[P1234567890]

Why not debate Professionally instead of attacking people's characters with ad hominems? If you agree to this, then I'll proceed in engaging with you.

It's not an ad hominem. You accused another person of being unscientific (in fact, I think the phrase you used was "a joke scientifically") and said that he was not in touch with true science. I simply pointed out that it doesn't seem like you are particularly in touch with true science either.

This is not an ad hominem attack or an insult. It is simply an objective fact. Being a Young Earth Creationist yourself, your views are considered to be extreme and *unscientific* by the entire mainstream scientific community. You are clearly not on the same page as mainstream science.

So don't jump the gun and accuse me of making ad hominems. I am a logician and I know what is and what is not a fallacious ad hominem attack. Many of the insults that Morton suffered (from FFT's post above), now those were ad hominems.

If you took what I said as an insult, then I apologize. That is not how it was meant.

[Unverified]

Why not debate Professionally instead of attacking people's characters with ad hominems? If you agree to this, then I'll proceed in engaging with you.

It's not an ad hominem. You accused another person of being unscientific (in fact, I think the phrase you used was "a joke scientifically") and said that he was not in touch with true science. I simply pointed out that it doesn't seem like you are particularly in touch with true science either.

This is not an ad hominem attack or an insult. It is simply an objective fact. Being a Young Earth Creationist yourself, your views are considered to be extreme and *unscientific* by the entire mainstream scientific community. You are clearly not on the same page as mainstream science.

So don't jump the gun and accuse me of making ad hominems. I am a logician and I know what is and what is not a fallacious ad hominem attack. Many of the insults that Morton suffered (from FFT's post above), now those were ad hominems.

If you took what I said as an insult, then I apologize. That is not how it was meant.

I said he was a joke based off of your worldview standards. You're misunderstanding my claims.

Actually, putting Morton in the realm of "victim" like behavior is basically his manipulated story coming to life. Morton is quite a manipulator. I've been involved with several of his writings for Peer Review...so I know better.

[Ana]

Glenn Morton is hardly a Scientist. He's got a Masters degree in an area in which you would not even consider to be Science, since its not Biologically related.

Sorry, but since when does a science have to be biology-related to be considered science?

How does physics not qualify as science? How does geology not qualify as a science? How about chemistry? These three sciences are not biology-related (or "biologically related" ), but they are definitely science nevertheless.

[Unverified]

Glenn Morton is hardly a Scientist. He's got a Masters degree in an area in which you would not even consider to be Science, since its not Biologically related.

Sorry, but since when does a science have to be biology-related to be considered science?

How does physics not qualify as science? How does geology not qualify as a science? How about chemistry? These three sciences are not biology-related (or "biologically related" ), but they are definitely science nevertheless.

I'm saying that Evolutionists only are concerned about Biology. I do consider all of the above to be Science related ventures. Evolutionists are too high on Biology to see the forests through the trees, as Biology is really one of the minor Sciences that is out there today.

[Ana]

I'm saying that Evolutionists only are concerned about Biology. I do consider all of the above to be Science related ventures. Evolutionists are too high on Biology to see the forests through the trees, as Biology is really one of the minor Sciences that is out there today.

Is that so? Who are you considering to be 'Evolutionists' - anybody who accepts evolution as true, or evolution scientists specifically?

[Unverified]

I'm saying that Evolutionists only are concerned about Biology. I do consider all of the above to be Science related ventures. Evolutionists are too high on Biology to see the forests through the trees, as Biology is really one of the minor Sciences that is out there today.

Is that so? Who are you considering to be 'Evolutionists' - anybody who accepts evolution as true, or evolution scientists specifically?

Ana, I've been in contact with Evolutionists for all of my Scientific career. Their arguments are truly as silly as I'm mentioning above unfortunately.