From: Jay Willingham (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Sep 28 2003 - 21:47:22 EDT
I believe the Bible to be inerrant and our perceptions of its errors to be
I believe we each have to respond to the spirit as we are led through study
and prayer and experience.
I also believe the references to ID and YEC folks on this list has been a
I was simply responding to those who denigrate the YEC position as
"nonsense" by asking for examples of this claimed nonsense. these "lies".
Thus far I have gotten two concrete responses.
One was that YEC folks often believe that God no longer orders the universe
and I agree that seems to me to be nonsensical.
Another had to do with the fragmentary evidence surrounding flagella. On
this subject I can see how reasonable folks can differ.
I was looking for other YEC and ID positions that are, according to many of
the members of this list "nonsensical", as "lies".
Previous posts have stated that their God would never put "evidence" here to
lead us astray or deceive us in our assumptions about origins and that
therefore YEC is nonsense. This I can disagree with because I believe it is
the height of pride to think we can figure everything God has done out until
he is ready to reveal it. I have repeated this position many times.
And Walt, I cannot remember whether you said YEC proponents were liars, and
I have no problem understanding how you can posit evolution as being the
hand of God over billions of years. I simply no longer believe that,
although I did at one time. As we all have said from time to time, we need
not fight over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or whether
Jesus owned the clothes he wore. Who really cares. I just do not like the
tone we have taken with ID and YEC.
Yep, puny man, that's me.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Hicks" <email@example.com>
To: "Jay Willingham" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: Darwinian and non-Darwinian (was Re: RFEP & ID)
> Jay Willingham wrote:
> > I have every right, indeed, I have the obligation to "test every
> And in what sprint do you falsely portray the beliefs of other Christians
> calling God's creation "random"?
> > The thing I use to test human theories about origins is scripture.
> You must mean your human theory that _you_ stated, not the one I hear
> on this list.
> > If your rather shrill response indicates you think I question your
> > then rest assured I do not. If you believe in the risen Christ and your
> > absolute need for his saving grace, I do not care if you believe 7 says
> > meant 70 million years, 10,000, or whatever. If it means you believe
> > scripture must bend to meet the current interpretations of the present
> > perceptive capacity of puny man,
> Am I then allowed to refer to _you_ as a "puny man" who thinks he can
> what the Spirit means in scripture? (And I could care less about your
> of my faith)
> > my original
> > post in this string simply pointed out that evolutionary theory follows
> > tortuous a course of reasoning as any.
> My complaint is with _your_ definition of evolutionary theory. It
> _is_ torturous when you when define it in such an atheistic manner, but it
> not appear to be what people on this list believe. You create a false
> and then "test it's spirits". That is pure, specious hogwash. It's not
> good debatemanship, let alone good theology. The spirit of those like
> does not need testing. Randomness is _his_ atheistic. idea, not what the
> Christians on this list have presented.. Why you swallow that atheistic
> then critique the belief of other Christians is beyond reason and common
> I did not say what my beliefs are nor how strongly I hold to them. In the
> have called for respect to those with views like yours and I think it
> a two way street -- not one you can present a ridiculous strawman, as if
> brothers and sisters in Christ really believed that garbage. If you show
> disrespect by misrepresenting their ideas then you certainly deserve to
> thrown back.
> Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 28 2003 - 21:47:24 EDT