To: bondserv; Dataman
Three things he wasn't: a biologist, a paleontologist, or a YEC. It's possible I could be mistaken on the last point but I doubt it.
To: VadeRetro
Three things he wasn't: a biologist, a paleontologist, or a YEC. It's possible I could be mistaken on the last point but I doubt it. Meaning what? That he wasn't qualified to comment on the issue? Then what qualifies you?
An honest man would say, yes WVB was a respectable, intelligent man who was also a creationist. But you, with superior intelligence no doubt, pass judgement on him and move on.
Just an observation.
19 posted on
02/07/2004 6:38:30 PM PST by
Dataman
To: VadeRetro
Three things he wasn't: a biologist, a paleontologist, or a YEC. It's possible I could be mistaken on the last point but I doubt it. Meaning what? That he wasn't qualified to comment on the issue? Then what qualifies you?
An honest man would say, yes WVB was a respectable, intelligent man who was also a creationist. But you, with superior intelligence no doubt, pass judgment on him and move on.
Just an observation.
20 posted on
02/07/2004 6:39:12 PM PST by
Dataman
To: VadeRetro
Three things he wasn't: a biologist, a paleontologist, or a YEC. It's possible I could be mistaken on the last point but I doubt itIs that analagous to asserting that only astrologers are qualified to comment on the validity of astrology?
141 posted on
02/09/2004 8:44:10 PM PST by
Huber
(Individuality, liberty, property-this is man.These 3 gifts from God precede all legislation-Bastiat)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson