From: Jim Armstrong (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 12:54:19 EDT
One might respond by asking why he wasted his time...no...breath 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
...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
>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