Re: My daughter is a YEC

From: Jim Armstrong (
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 13:10:17 EDT

  • Next message: Darryl Maddox: "Re: My daughter is a YEC"

    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 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
    > breath....
    > JimA
    > 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 - 13:12:32 EDT