Re: Dr Jonathan Sarfati

   The analysis you offer is helpful - except that you appear not to have factored in _all_ the evidence (now freely available) that impinges on the matter of origins. You really must move with the times, be more flexible in your outlook and allow a little light to dawn.

  I was pointing out that before we can discuss the evolution of any species or life form we must have the histroical sequence of them worked out and that indicates an ancient earth with inverts a long time before fish, then millions of years and amphibians and so on up to humans who have been here rather more than 10,000 years.
  Because they had no grasp of the fossil records the evolutionary ideas of Lamarck and E Darwin failed in 1800 and a sucessful argument as in C Darwin had to await and was based on the sequence in the fossil record.
  IF and it is a big if geologists have got their dates wrong then put forward your case.

  Ignoring the age of the earth as IDers do aor denying it like YECs means that there can be no sensible discussion except inane prattlings about chance and design.

  But, concerning Dr Sarfati, I am intrigued to know why you and Roger (possibly others) are so enraged with him. Perhaps you could put it in a nutshell for me - or, otherwise, direct me to appropriate points in the archive.
  Just look up some of his nasty comments about Glenn for a start on Theology web which their so-called moderators don't criticise.

  Lastly there is a difference of north and south welsh

  Michael;.

   Thanks.

  Vernon
  www.otherbiblecode.com

  PS Your Welsh appears to be worse than mine! 'Thank you very much' is surely 'diolch _yn_ fawr'. Whatever would your old Welsh churchwarden say if he knew? But, be assured - my lips are sealed. V
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Michael Roberts
    Cc: asa@calvin.edu
    Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 7:47 AM
    Subject: Re: Dr Jonathan Sarfati

    Vernon, I am awfully sorry, old chap. I am afraid I am unable to see how AIG's unique brand of vitriol and bigotry as shown by dear Socrates and frequently directed at Glenn and Burgy among many many others can have the slightest connection with the Gospel of love and truth found in Jesus Christ.

    It seems that to be rational and responsible is to accept all the nonsense poured forth by YECs who twist and distort and misrepresent they discuss. I attempt to show how YEC is neither rational nor responsible nor even honest. But it is very hard for anyone to persuade YECs that they might even be wrong.

    I would point out that you have often pulled out the super-spiritual card on this list on those who are sensible enough not to buy into your YEC views or Mosaic maths (is Mosaic math better for those who can't spell)

    Please put your house in order.

    Michael
Received on Sun Jun 20 12:48:25 2004