From: Jim Armstrong (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 13:10:17 EDT
In fairness, I guess if I were to respond to the third item of my own
post a few minutes ago, I might enquire: what then do you make of the
limited symbols and relationships of mathematics representing in any
adequate way the functionings of the universe?! JimA
Jim Armstrong wrote:
> 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
> 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"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 13:12:32 EDT