Glenn criticizes Dick's sources
>Aaahhh, should it tell me that 4 people can be wrong at the same time? A
>list like that is useless as a measure of truth. To paraphrase and mangle
>Mark Twain, there are several billion Buddhists who agree that Buddhism is
>correct. Shouldn't that tell us something as well? Henry Morris, Jonathan
>Sarfatti, Ken Ham and Duane Gish all agree on the same thing also. Logic is
>logic, and the above argument doesn't contain it.
A) The four that you mentioned wouldn't last a week in our forum.
B) The Bible can be added to the list of sources.
It is time to begin to develop a quick list.
A. Archaeologic evidence
1. Simultaneous deposits.
2. Interpretation of these deposits by archaeologists as flood deposits.
3. Deposits in agreement with Bible (Septuagint) chronology.
B. Literary evidence
1. Gilgamesh epic
C. Biblical evidence
1. building cities
I really hate to have to say this. But, you are now regularly and
repeatedly failing to deal with the evidence. It wouldn't be so bad if
you weren't criticizing opposing viewpoints. But you continue to make your
quips. In my opinion, that type of attitude prolongs YEC. Your types of
arguments are "fresh bait" that they love to munch on. Please stop your
And one more thing. You have taken a position that strays very, very,
far from the Biblical text. ALL of the burden of proof is on your
shoulders now. I'd like to see you create a quick list of arguments for
your position. Then we can all look at it and see how much (if any)
Biblical support you have for straying from the Bible. We Christians
don't have anything in writing besides the Bible. When we publicly
disregard big (or even little) chunks of it, we chip (or even hammer)
away at its reputation. Is that really what you want to "accomplish"
with your ad hominem remarks?
Genesis in Question
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 20 2002 - 23:51:33 EDT