Glenn wrote: "A friend pointed me to Burgy's post and asked my opinion on
it, so I decided to up this on the ASA board. Burgy says that Seely and
Van Till didn't deal
with Dick's research. I will deal with the archaeology of the technology
which he uses to date the time when Adam lived. Conclusion--his research
sloppy. Burgy is correct that Dick deserves a hearing, as does anyone
suggestion or viewpoint. But one can't, as Burgy suggests, simply
the rejections which have been based on theological points."
Glenn -- I think it was Wally, not I, who made those points. The idea
that Adam, as characterized in early Genesis, is a literal person, does
not seem very likely to me -- probably because of my faith background.
Arguments that he was a literal human always seem to me to be missing the
place of the Genesis accounts, as well as not really very important. One
needs to be much more a literalist than I to even take such arguments
seriously, let alone ascribe to them any credibility.
Have a great 2002, my friend.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 31 2001 - 11:08:47 EST