From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 17:00:08 EST
Well that creates a problem.
We must dismiss all classical writers eg Plato aristotle etc as of being of
no value as they were geocentrist and possibly did not believe the earth to
be old.
Homer is a load of rubbish becuase it is flat earth.
The Origin of Species is bunk because Darwin didnt accept genetic , DNA or
platetectonics
Shakespeare is bunk because he says the earth is only 6000 years old - he
may have been geocentrist as well
Bertarand Russell is wrong in his atheism cos he didnt accept plate
tectonics or the genetic basis of behaviour
David Hume cos he did not accept evolution or geological ages or the atomic
theory.
Can you really dismiss all these along with the Bible.
Every writer or thinker is a child of their time and thus expresses things
in the science and thought of their day. If this makes the Bible invalid,
then every other writing is invalid too.
One of the most stupid statements ever written was that of the
paleontologist GG simpson quoted approvingly by Dawkins in the Selfish
Gene that any attempt before 1859 to answer the question s What are we for?
Is there a meaning to life? etc etc are worthless.
How stupid can atheists get?
Think of all the literature Christian and non-christian which is worthless -
not to mention the American constitution!
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Eisele" <jeisele@starpower.net>
To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>;
<bnelson301@yahoo.com>; <jan@dekoning.ca>
Cc: <RFaussette@aol.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Does the Bible teach a flat earth?
> Hi Michael,
>
> >> After all, science has forced major reinterpretations of
> >> "God's Biblical truth."
>
> >Sorry Jim I know I am a bit thick but what major interpretations has
> >science forced on Biblical Truth?
>
> >Can please itemise each one ?
>
> >Happy New Year
> >and Happy epiphany
>
> Just when I thought we were (almost) all on the same page with
> science and the Bible :-) OK...
>
> 1. Young earth
> 2. Geocentrism
> 3. Flat earth
>
> Now are you going to make me get into a debate over how scientific
> and historical inaccuracies bring the credibility of the Bible into
> question? You know that I'll get bored without a big, juicy
> debate ;o)
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 19:47:35 EST