RE: Dick Fischer deserves a hearing

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Mon Dec 31 2001 - 23:54:35 EST

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Creation Theories"

    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'. :-)

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: John W Burgeson []
    >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
    >offering a
    >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