From: Jim Armstrong (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Dec 18 2002 - 01:02:49 EST
Dear no-longer-lurking Sheila -
Thinking for just a moment about what the actual process of man's (just
to take a particular example) creation might have looked like...
Might it have been a simple wasn't-there-a-moment-ago-but-is-now event?
Was there a flash? Or a Bang, considering the energy of formation
Or might there have been a slightly longer process of dust gathering,
swirling, coalescing, and transforming into the shape and function of
the finished creation?
Or did an amorphous clay shape rise from the earth, taking shape and
then transforming into the finished creation?
Perhaps it started with something more organic, nurtured, sculpted in
substance, complexity and function, layer by layer, until the final
Or could the right stuff have been put into creation's chemical retort
with just the right starting and sustaining conditions, so that a little
time was all that was required to move from there to "ooze", and then on
to the desired result (without being too fussy about exactly what "time"
might mean in this context)?
Which of these is wrong? Or right? If these all feel wrong, might you
venture another scenario as to how it might have happened?
It doesn't feel very comfortable to me to say, "I'm not sure how He did
it, but I'm absolutely sure how He didn't do it!"
Just a thought.
Jim Armstrong (also new to the thread)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
Behalf Of firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: Evolution wars
This seemed a rather lengthy answer to a simple question. I believe and
embrace creationism. The Bible clearly states that God created Man, not
amoebic ooze that became man over time. When someone asks me, which
first the chicken or the egg, I know the answer. God created every
Admittedly, I have never gone back to the original Hebrew to determine
word for man actually means "amoebic ooze that became man over time."
think we have the whole story? No, absolutely not. I don't have the
but I am confident in what the answer isn't.
And here I am, caught up in the evolution wars - no longer lurking!
Quoting Keith Miller <email@example.com>:
> > what is the general concensus here? do you all believe in
> > and are
> > you trying to interpret the Bible from a Darwinian perspective
> > would
> > be the next logical step) or do you embrace creationism or
> > else?
> > rich
> I don't have the time to respond in detail. However, the question
> above has a number of false assumptions and sets out the issue in
> conflict metaphor from the start.
> The proper questions to ask are: What is the best theological
> scholarship available regarding the hermenutics of the relevant
> biblical passages. How do we best interpret the scripture taken on
> own authority? What do the Biblical passages actually say? How
> they have been understood by the original hearers, in their
> linguistic, cultural and historical context? What was the message
> God was intending to communicate through the authors?
> A second set of appropriate questions center on: What is the reality
> of the physical universe in which we dwell? What is the current
> of the physical universe and what are the processes by which it
> operates? What is the history of this physical universe that can be
> reconstructed from the evidence accessible to our senses?
> There is nothing in the above that places the Bible and evolution (or
> any other scientific conception of the world) in necessary conflict.
> As God's image bearers I believe that God has given us the tools to
> understand his Creation, and thus to excercise proper stewardship
> it. Science is an expression of this God given commission to rule
> Creation as His appointed representatives.
This mail sent through GeoTEC Webmail: webmail.geotec.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Dec 18 2002 - 11:35:06 EST