No, I wasn't (Because evolution takes a long time and it is more efficient
to save the
animals the LAND had already brought forth! What is so difficult about
that? ) This is your post, Glenn
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Glenn R. Morton <grmorton@waymark.net>
> To: Ron Chitwood <chitw@flash.net>; EVOLUTION@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Glenn wrote:
> Date: Saturday, May 30, 1998 3:19 PM
>
> At 06:18 AM 5/30/98 -0500, Ron Chitwood wrote:
> >>>>>Who says God must be efficient? Where does it say that in the
> >Bible?<<<<
> >
> >Non sequitur again. The Bible doesn't say it, you said it.
>
> Actually you were the one who raised efficiency as an argument against
> evolution. On Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 02:12:43 -0500
>
> you wrote:
>
> >>It would be more 'efficient', by the way, for God to create immediately
to
> >>begin with rather than ooze through the slow, inefficient,
> >>macroevolutionary, hit-or-miss process you apparently think HE did,
> >>wouldn't it?
>
> I was merely asking what is the theological basis for using efficiency as
a
> way to determine what God did. I don't find a requirement that God be
> efficient as you seem to be arguing.
>
>
> >Both of these people assume macroevolution to be true and base their
> >descriptions of embyology on it.
>
> Maybe they have looked at the evidence and CONCLUDED that evolution is
> true. They didn't wake up one morning and decide 'I think I will assume
> evolution for the rest of my life'.
>
>
> It is precisely like what was written in
> >medieval times assuming geocentrism to be true and basing their
> >descriptions of the heavens on that. Now don't attempt to deflect that
by
> >saying 'Christianity taught that'. That is irrelevant. The point being
> >that the assumption is wrong in the 1st place.
>
> Actually I agree here. It is PRECISELY like what the medieval's did.
But
> they didn't assume geocentrism either. The ancient peoples looked at the
> evidence before their eyes and saw the sun moving. They didn't feel
their
> own motion so they believed that they were stationary. When they moved
in
> a cart, they felt motion, jerks and stops etc. Since there was none of
> that when planted on the ground, they used this observational data to
draw
> the conclusion they did. it was quite reasonable.
>
> Only when subsequent observational data contradicted the common sense
view
> were they forced into heliocentrism. The only thing Christians did wrong
> was to resist observational evidence. Prior to the astronomical data, it
> was quite reasonable to believe in geocentrism, just like prior to the
> latter half of last century when the data became available, it was
> reasonable to believe that animals didn't evolve. It is no longer so
> reasonable to fight against evolution any more than it is reasonable to
> fight against heliocentrism.
>
> >
> >
> >Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
> > and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
> >Ron Chitwood
> >chitw@flash.net
> >
> >----------
> >
> >
> >
> glenn
>
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> & lots of creation/evolution information
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm