Discussion of John MacKay's Views

I was enjoying reading through the thread yesterday, and would certainly like to see it kept open. I think your proposed title is very appropriate, as that is the inevitable and natural direction the thread was moving towards.I say inevitable because of this: A red rag to a few bulls around here, certainly.A Creationist to whom none of a sample of the world's top scientists can hold a candle must be a unique creature, and certainly worthy of a thread of his own with his name in the title.Let's go!Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

The words are fine, and I don't doubt that you personally find Mr. MacKay convincing, so no need to be sorry! Indeed, if those words lead to him joining a discussion here, then I, for one, am glad that you typed them. All I meant is that the words would be interestingly provocative to some. If you had done something wrong, would that be fair to other Celts?

About a week ago, when John MacKay was first mentioned on this thread, I googled him, found his website, and had a look around.I didn't find any scientific evidence against evolution, or for a young earth, but I did learn something that might upset all proud Scots. They didn't invent golf balls.First, I read this:(From creationresearch.net)

quote:

---

The Creation Research team of researchers travel the world to seek evidence (fossil and living), as part of our investigation of the worldwide consequences of Creation and the Flood.

---

I thought "great, evidence, that's what I want to see"I was immediately and strangely attracted to a link that said "Fossil Golf Balls" (wouldn't you be?)I arrived on this page:Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access DeniedAnd was informed: So now we know. Mackay is a long-time friend and colleague of Ken Ham, so a suggested addition to Ken's creation museum would be a scene with Adam and Eve playing golf, perhaps with a friendly dinosaur caddying, which, I think, would enhance the display enormously.I eagerly await the discovery of fossilized golf clubs, not to mention the first baseball. Edited by bluegenes, : Trivia!

The whole thing's odd. They don't seem to be claiming that it actually is a golf ball, but if not, what's the relevance to the biblical quote at the end?And anyway, why is this presented as one of about six sections under the description that I quoted?

quote:

---

The Creation Research team of researchers travel the world to seek evidence (fossil and living), as part of our investigation of the worldwide consequences of Creation and the Flood.

---

Golf ball or not, fossil or not, they're really scraping the barrel if that's one of their star exhibits showing "the worldwide consequences of Creation and the Flood".

It might be worth pointing out to Mr. MacKay that there are nearly 500 people on this site as I'm writing. I don't know how many people will have read the comments made by Dr. Adequate about MacKay's website since they were posted about 6 days ago, but it could be running into thousands already, and if we keep on drawing attention to the post, it will soon run into tens of thousands, far more than will turn up to see Mr. MacKay live over the next five years or so.It would be well worth Mr. MacKay defending himself here, if he's capable of doing so.If he doesn't, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that he cannot, not because he's too busy for such a potentially large audience, but because he's incapable of arguing his views on a forum where everything he says can be examined in detail.For those who haven't read it, here's Dr. Adequate's post.http://EvC Forum: Discussion of John MacKay's Views -->EvC Forum: Discussion of John MacKay's ViewsIf I was the author of a website which had been criticized in those terms on a busy , public forum, I'd certainly reply and defend myself. What kind of person wouldn't?Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.