Re: [Fwd: Re: Yet more denigrating of Apologists (was Why?)]

Bill Payne (
Fri, 24 Apr 1998 20:36:19 -0600

Ed Brayton wrote:

> When I saw the message from you, I assumed that it was a response to my
> list of Kent Hovind whoppers, or a response to my request that you ask
> Hovind to participate in a written defense of those and other claims. I
> was disappointed.

So sorry. :-(

> As for this particular thread, I'm not sure why you
> pointed us to it since the subject of the dispute that you quoted
> between Ron and I was whether geology was just an "opinion" and,
> therefore, only as valid as any other "opinion".

I thought you were discussing geological evidence for the flood. If you
follow the discussion between Glenn and me, you will see that the
empirical data regarding depositional environments is subject to various
interpretations, which may be antithetical to one another. Glenn has
his opinion, and I have mine. I would say that our opinions are not
equally valid, though. The opinion (interpretation) which makes the
most relaxed fit with the available data is the one which is more
valid. And arguments based upon data are subject to change as
additional data becomes available.