From: John Burgeson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Sep 28 2002 - 15:11:35 EDT
Jay writes, in part: "On one side there is a lack of skepticism about
radioisotope and stratigraphic dating techniques as well as fossil record
interpretation. On the other side there is a similar dismissive attitude
about the same hypotheses and a lack of skepticism about certain biblical
interpretations. The shrill voices on both sides ... ."
>From the above, I perceive that you see about the same amount of credibility
from ICR and AIG as you do from the scientific community.
All I can recommend to you if you really believe this is to go to AIG and
ICR with the hard questions. Ask them for their explanations of the
recognized scientific data, or if they reject that data, on what basis they
I went deep into this in the late 80s -- even attended a week-long seminar
by ICR. I gave them every benefit of the doubt. I entertained Gish, Ham and
Morris at lunch and quizzed them. I like them. But they sell snake oil. They
do great harm to the cause of Christ whenever some young person, steeped in
their theology (derived from the SDA) and mesmerized by their pseudoscience
finds his way into any one of the many internet chat groups (I help run one
on Compuserve) and gets literally chopped to pieces. Or worse -- goes to
college and finds out his "science" is a joke. At that point, as friend
Glenn has documemented, he tosses Christianity over the side.
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 28 2002 - 15:11:36 EDT