Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------E2F06DED17B92ADA26E3CDF4"
--------------E2F06DED17B92ADA26E3CDF4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Vernon Jenkins wrote:
Regarding the creation: clearly, as an ex nihilo event, it surely
merits the title miracle and, further can be justly regarded as a sign
of God's supreme abilities. You appear to associate me with traditional
YEC when you say, " Instead they're continually coming up with arguments
to try to show that there's scientific evidence for a young earth &
universe, a procedure that would make no sense if the ages were only
apparent." No. My approach is rather to believe God's Word to be
revelation - and to draw from it information that appears to have been
overlooked in the general stampede to embrace evolution.
.................................................................
Finally, let me refer to your most recent post to me headed, "apparent
age RIP" (strangely at odds with your earlier views, quoted above!). It
concerned my reference to the possible implications following the
discovery of variabilty in what had hitherto been considered a
rock-solid constant, viz fine structure. While the variation may be
small, would you not agree that it raises general doubts about man's
understanding of natural processes - and underlines the folly of placing
one's faith in the theories currently in fashion?
It is easy to see the inconsistency between your 2 paragraphs
above. In the 1st you disavow the "traditional YEC" view I describe and
in the 2d again appeal to it.
I note that you fail to respond to the 1st & major point in my
earlier post which I repeat below. You may or may not choose to. In
any case I will not be saying anymore on the topic of apparent agegeorge
murphy wrote:
>>
>>
>>.............................................................................
>>
>> 1. There is ample evidence that the 4th Gospel is set in
>> the early 1st
>> century in Palestine, & thus that the wedding at Cana took place
>> around A.D. 30. (I
>> waive for the time being any questions about the historicity of
>> Jn.2.) I.e., we know
>> the age of the wine which was made from water. We know no such
>> thing for the things
>> created in Gen.1. In fact the whole debate is about how to date the
>> heavens & the
>> earth, plants & animals of the past, &c, questions that involve the
>> interpretation of
>> the Genesis text and of later parts of the Bible which might link it
>> with known
>> historical events. Thus the two situations are not analogous.
>>
>
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
--------------E2F06DED17B92ADA26E3CDF4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
--------------E2F06DED17B92ADA26E3CDF4--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Mon May 27 2002 - 22:46:47 EDT
<html>
Vernon Jenkins wrote:
<p>Regarding the creation: clearly, as an <i>ex nihilo</i> event,
it surely merits the title <i>miracle</i> and, further can be justly regarded
as a <i>sign</i> of God's supreme abilities. You appear to associate me
with traditional YEC when you say, " Instead they're continually coming
up with arguments to try to show that there's scientific evidence for a
young earth & universe, a procedure that would make no sense if the
ages were only apparent." No. My approach is rather to believe God's Word
to be revelation - and to draw from it information that appears to have
been overlooked in the general stampede to embrace evolution.
<br>.................................................................
<br>Finally, let me refer to your most recent post to me headed, "apparent
age RIP" (strangely at odds with your earlier views, quoted above!). It
concerned my reference to the possible implications following the discovery
of variabilty in what had hitherto been considered a rock-solid constant,
viz fine structure. While the variation may be small, would you not agree
that it raises general doubts about man's understanding of natural processes
- and underlines the folly of placing one's faith in the theories currently
in fashion?
<br>
<br> It is easy to see the
inconsistency
between your 2 paragraphs above. In the 1st you disavow the "traditional
YEC" view I describe and in the 2d again appeal to it.
<br> I note that you fail to
respond to the 1st & major point in my earlier post which I repeat
below. You may or may not choose to. In any case I will not
be saying anymore on the topic of apparent agegeorge murphy wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
.............................................................................
<p> 1. There is ample evidence
that the 4th Gospel is set in the early 1st
<br>century in Palestine, & thus that the wedding at Cana took place
around A.D. 30. (I
<br>waive for the time being any questions about the historicity of
Jn.2.)
I.e., we know
<br>the age of the wine which was made from water. We know no such
thing for the things
<br>created in Gen.1. In fact the whole debate is about how to date
the heavens & the
<br>earth, plants & animals of the past, &c, questions that involve
the interpretation of
<br>the Genesis text and of later parts of the Bible which might link it
with known
<br>historical events. Thus the two situations are not analogous.
<br> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
Shalom,
<br>
George
<p>George L. Murphy
<br><A HREF="http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/">http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/>
<br>"The Science-Theology Interface"</html>