>>So Glenn's statement that Ramm "will always be right"
>>was, well, wrong.
>
>
>Dick, I hate to be picky but you place in quotations the
>words "will always be right". I never said that in the
>post you quoted. Can you point that place out to me? What
>I said was that Ramm went "out of his way
>to point out that it is unlikely that evidence for his
>flood will be found. Verification is avoided."
>
>This is quite a different statement with an entirely
>different meaning from the one you have mistakenly
>attributed to me. If you are going to place something in
>quotations, please make sure that it IS a quotation.
Dear Glenn,
Please let us focus on what I said that corroborates a recent,
local flood. Those are the points I want to establish, not who
said what. By your acting as if I committed some offense deflects
from the message.
However, since you did ask, this is EXACTLY what you said on
Sat, 13 Apr 1996:
"This is why Ramm says of his view of the flood,
'...we would not expect to find any specific evidence of
it...' Ramm, The Christian View of Science and
Scripture, p. 163.
In this way he is protected from any contradictory
observation; he will always be right."
Perhaps I made a bad assumption, and if that is true, I
sincerely ask your forgiveness. But since you said "he
will always be right," and the only quote you provided
was that Ramm said, "we would not expect to find any
specific evidence of it," that you were saying he was right
about what he said.
But the point I wanted to make is that Ramm's knowledge was
limited, just as mine is, and I presume yours is too. The
"specific evidence" which Ramm thought would never come,
emerged in profusion almost immediately after Ramm published
his book.
Dick Fischer
*****************************************************************
* *
* THE ORIGINS SOLUTION *
* *
* An Answer in the Creation - Evolution Debate *
* *
* Web page - http://www.orisol.com *
* *
*****************************************************************