Want Some Answers ???


Hi David,

I still think your words about Morris were unfair. Your latest email changes nothing. Calling him (or his comments)
pathetic goes too far. I see your excuse but there is nothing in it.

>>Thanks, Mark, for your comments. I'll read them with interest, but I thought you would be interested in not misrepresenting the BB theory. It seems to me that you aren't all that keen to be accurate and factual.<<

You know that's not true, I'm always "keen" :) to be accurate and factual. But I suppose anyone who believes the bible (as written) is not "accurate and factual" to you. Your animosity to Morris, AiG (and me) is for no good reason.

>>On first reading, I see such a misrepresentation is your sentence below. I only need one theorist's name to disprove it and I can name two or three. PCW Davies, who I don't think is a Christian at all, has come round to thinking the opposite to what you say. H Ross is another. R Jastrow (nonChristian) could be another.<<

You have not "disproved it", I didn't make 'misrepresentation'. You disagree, for the sake of disagreeing. And not reading carefully. I wrote, "BB theorists strongly reject all suggestions of any intelligent direction." The main authorities of BB are atheistic evolutionists. They argue millions of years of natural processes before life could occur on earth. Those who mix God and naturalism are so few you only name three. As I said, the learned in the secular world, with some justification mock those who hold to Progressive Creationism they see inconsistencies.

>>Other misreps are that evolution forces the BB theory, or that biological evolutionists like the theory. If so, then H Ross is a liar. I'm not pushing the BB theory at all for I don't know it; I'm only pushing that people who talk about their careful accuracy should be accurate about it, instead of inventing fairy ideas of their own about it.<<

You say you are not "not pushing the BB theory", yeah right. You say one thing then the opposite. You say you "don't know it" yet correct any who differ with it. Why defend it, least its "misrepresented"? Christians are not 'inventing fairy ideas' about it, the fairy ideas come from BB theorists. You are critical of the wrong people for wrong reasons.

And accuracy is not your concern, it doesn't matter what creationists (or the bible) says you reject them. Your heroes Ross and Numbers are faultless but Morris never right. In fact, the only thing certain, you are against six day creationists whatever they say. As I said, many excellent Christians and professional scientists are not convinced by BB theory. If Christians accept it, there are huge problems accepting the creation account in Genesis.

>>I do know, however, that the expansion of the Universe, in the days when I was a Uni student, was a forceful and factual evidence from Science of a BEGINNING, and it started to crumble the scientific world of evolution. The evidence is more striking today, according to Ross. Is he a liar on this too? Yours sincerely David<<

The BB was always the theory of people explaining the universe with natural processes without God. AiG has done more to "crumble the scientific world of evolution" than the BB theory has ever done. They encourage Christians to trust the bible from the first verse. BB theory encourages doubt and unbelief. And with you, it becomes "human opinion.... mixed with the Bible and pushed as Gospel Fact". The end result is unbelief.