Aah, now I understand a few things. Thanks for the correction and sorry
about ascribing things to you which were not yours. That is a problem
jumping into the middle of a conversation. I must admit, I was a bit
bemused by your 'change'. :-)
>From: John W Burgeson [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 1:53 PM
>Subject: Re: Dick Fischer deserves a hearing
>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 - 15:56:35 EST