>Who do you work for, Dick Morris? (Cheap shot!).
Definitely, but I deserved it.
No, you're free not to
>comment. But could it be that you, like I, find Glenn's ultiimate position the
>very definition of fanciful?
If you remember, Glenn proposed his scenario as a means of reconciling the
geological data with Scripture. He came up with a solution that does that,
but, as you have emphatically pointed out, implies some conclusions that
seem fanciful to a number of people. However, I'm not convinced that the
way to deal with Glenn's scenario is to reject it because it violates some
unprovable views we hold about what ought to have been, but rather to put
it on the table as one model, complete with flaws, which may sauggest a
better model, or whose flaws may be correctible, or may only be apparent.
I think that throwing cold water on it because it doesn't match some
preconceived images is premature.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)