Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3

From: PHSEELY@aol.com
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 - 22:06:36 EST

Next message: PHSEELY@aol.com: "Re: Meaning of "kind" (was Old-Earth Creationism)"

Previous message: Cmekve@aol.com: "Re: Why methodological naturalism?"
Maybe in reply to: Jim Eisele: "Genesis One that Fits, #3"
Next in thread: SteamDoc@aol.com: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Jim wrote,

<< Please tell me where
science doesn't = Genesis One. >>

Please tell me where it does.

It is not just Day 4 that does not fit. See
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF6-97Seely.html#The Bible and
Science

Paul

Next message: PHSEELY@aol.com: "Re: Meaning of "kind" (was Old-Earth Creationism)"
Previous message: Cmekve@aol.com: "Re: Why methodological naturalism?"
Maybe in reply to: Jim Eisele: "Genesis One that Fits, #3"
Next in thread: SteamDoc@aol.com: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 14 2002 - 22:06:55 EST