Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Ken Ham Today on the fuss between 6,000 & 12,000 years!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    Daniel, Saying it doesn t make it so. If you were serious about your charges, I do wish you would make a more determined effort to justify them. Sincerely,
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Daniel,

      Saying it doesn't make it so.

      If you were serious about your charges, I do wish you would make a more determined effort to justify them.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
      "bucksburg" <bucksburg@...> wrote:

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

      > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29806
      > "bucksburg" <bucksburg@> wrote, in part:
      >
      > > Robert,
      > >
      > > You continue to mischaracterize Ham's argument
      > > when you use such language. The question of
      > > the journal article was the age of Adam, not
      > > the 'maximum age of stuff.'
      > >
      > > If you insist on using such language, then
      > > pleas stop using the title YEC and use YSC
      > > instead.
      >
      > Again, Daniel, I deny your charge.
      >
      > I think it's quite common knowledge that Ken Ham's, and young-earth
      creation-science promoters generally, operate under the premise that Adam was
      only about 6 days younger than the start of everything.
      >
      > That's the broader context in which my comments were made.
      >
      > So, in effect, any of their efforts regarding the time from now to Adam is an
      effort to establish the maximum age of everything.

      And this is an example of the Straw Man Fallacy.

      Daniel Buck

      --------------------------------------
      --------------------------------------
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.