From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 23:25:43 EDT
There is a problem with quoting a man a century back on evolution and
day-age. At that time there was no hint of a Big Bang, but there was,
thanks to Rutherford, a brief period for the earth's existence. In the
current situation, the day-age interpretation is connected to OEC, with a
very limited amount of evolution after the genus or family was introduced
by creation. If you have recent citations that read differently, I'd like
to hear them.
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:14:58 -0600 (MDT) gordon brown
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
> There are a number of different interpretations of the days of
> besides the YEC consecutive 24 hour periods interpretation
> literary framework, days of revelation, intermittent days, et al). I
> think that OEC and TE are so narrowly defined that all OECs or all
> must use the same interpretation. The following is a pair of quotes
> Science and Christian Faith by James Orr in the Fundamentals that
> to endorse both TE and day-age.
> "There is no violence done to the narrative in substituting in
> "aeonic" days--vast cosmic periods--for "days" on our narrower
> sun-measured scale."
> ""Evolution", in short, is coming to be recognized as but a new name
> However, the problems that you mentioned in holding to both a TE
> and a day-age position should also be problems for holding both an
> OEC and
> a day-age position.
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 14 2003 - 23:31:24 EDT