Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 - 13:18:09 EST

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "Apology"

    On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:28:16 -0000 "Jim Eisele" <>
    > << Please tell me where
    > science doesn't = Genesis One. >>
    > Paul, I have read that. And you make some good points (I especially
    > like
    > the one about the fruit trees). And I guess that you just got
    > yourself some
    > publicity. But please step up to the plate, and stop hiding behind
    > a
    > previous paper. What's your biggest beef with the reconciliation
    > between
    > Genesis One and Science? Bring it on. Let's get it out in the open
    > where
    > everyone can look at it. If you dare. -Jim
    First, let me present a conversational parable:
    A. Show me that stars are developing now.
    B. Here are IR plates of the Orion nebula showing . . .
    A. I don't accept plates. I can't see IR. I have to see stars forming
    B. First, your eyes aren't sensitive enough even in the visible spectrum.
    Second, stars don't form in the few minutes during which you can observe.
    A. See, you can't prove anything.

    Like A, you demand proof on your own terms, which are ridiculous. You
    will not accept anything not given in the last five minutes. This gives
    you "warrant" (unless i miss my guess) to claim that no one disproved
    your view, so it must be right. This is sophistry of the worst sort.

    IMO, the brethren have been more polite than warranted. I go by the
    scriptural exhortation: "Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will
    be wise in his own eyes" (Proverbs 26:5 NIV).

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 13:38:55 EST