From: John Burgeson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Dec 18 2002 - 17:22:38 EST
>>That may be, but the experts who study that area for a living are in
rejection of the hypothesis. That alone should make one sit up and take
There are three postures one may take, of course.
1. The Black Sea theory (that it sparked the flood legends) is correct.
2. The theory may, or may not, be correct.
3. The theory is incorrect.
And, of course, one may have the posture 1.01, or 1.99, or 2.01, or 2.99,
or, indeed any posture at all inbetween the extremes above.
"Sitting up," (how else to address the PC god?), I only claim that my own
position is probably about 1.75. I'd guess yours to be at 2.99 or so. The
fact that you are a lot more the expert in this area than me, and that I
highly respect your expertise, keeps me from being about a 2.00.
John W. Burgeson (Burgy)
>From: "Glenn Morton" <email@example.com>
>To: "John Burgeson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: RE: Noah not in the Black Sea
>Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 20:09:31 -0000
> >It is a most interesting concept to discuss. I was impressed recently by
> >Dick Fischer's listing of parallel accounts betwwen Genesis and other
> >non-biblical sources. I continue to be uninterested theologically whether
> >the Noah flood ever happened but as a scientific possibility it does have
> >some intellectual appeal. Dick's list makes me take its possibility more
> >seriously than before. So did the Black & Pittman book. Your arguments
> >against it are good -- bit they do not represent "smoking guns."
>That may be, but the experts who study that area for a living are in
>rejection of the hypothesis. That alone should make one sit up and take
>for lots of creation/evolution information
>personal stories of struggle
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 19 2002 - 01:48:19 EST