Re: My daughter is a YEC

From: Jim Armstrong (
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 12:54:19 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Armstrong: "Re: My daughter is a YEC"

    One might respond by asking why he wasted his on the
    other 7x10^22 (give or take a few) stars.
    Isn't it the case that the credibility of scientific explanations is
    established by success in explaining the past and predicting the future.
    Else most haven't much validity in the present.
    Finally I'm struck again by the concept of using a limited set of
    symbols and vocabulary to represent in any adequate way what "God's
    Word" is.
    ...parry...thrust...wait a minute, I've gotta sit down and catch my

    Walter Hicks wrote:

    >Thanks for the response Darryl. Let me present another viewpoint which somewhat
    >bypasses this.
    >I heard John MacArthur present this viewpoint on the radio.
    >Science is fine for telling us the present. However, it cannot validly
    >extrapolate to the past and ignore God's Word. God created the Universe for man.
    >It says so in the Bible. If He he did so, why waste 15 billion years when it is
    >just as easy for Him to bring it into existence in 6 days as the Bible
    >proclaims? That does not dispute what science sees in an "apparent" history.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 12:56:28 EDT