From: George Murphy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Sep 19 2003 - 18:23:21 EDT
Walter Hicks wrote:
> It seems to me, Josh, that one has to allow for the fact Ken Ham probably
> represents the majority opinion among Christians. Not to expect to him to speak
> and voice his opinion would be a total waste of time (IMO). If you have counter
> points to raise, then the proper response would be to have someone (with a
> different viewpoint) invited to speak at your church.
> I never read anything by Ham so I do not now if he is one of the VooDoo Science
> crowd. If he is one who just claims a world with the history built in, then I
> maintain there is nothing to distinuish that from what most scientists believe.
This last statement is incorrect. Most scientists believe that the events of
the past which they study were things that really happened.
In fact though Ham does not take the apparent age route. He simply argues -
with a good deal fo ridicule and rhetoric - that the putative evidence for the age of
the earth & evolution is wrong. He is neither a scientist nor a theologian but a
George L. Murphy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 19 2003 - 18:24:19 EDT