Re: A word of appreciation

From: Sheila Wilson <sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wed Sep 29 2004 - 09:16:59 EDT

Vernon,
 
Unfortunately, I have never seen any mathematical certainty about the age of the earth nor do I see any mathematical certainty in your essays. I probabilities that could be just as true with other significant works. Have you ever considered doing the same analysis on Shakespeare or Hawking? Having a control set would be a great test of your theories.
 
Sheila
 

Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> wrote:
Well spoken, Sheila!
 
It is clear that Michael fails to distinguish between a widely-held view of earth history (based upon certain disputed assumptions and deductions) and mathematical certainty. This is a serious weakness which he would do well to put right.
 
Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com
  
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Sheila Wilson
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: A word of appreciation

As a geologist, I absolutely agree with your assessment of the earth's age. Unfortunately, mankind's assessment of things has been very wrong in the past. The bottom line is we don't know but, given our knowledge of the evidence, we believe the earth is 4.6 billion years old. We must not forget our fallibility - that will cause us to make the same mistake as young earth creationists.
 
Sheila
 

Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
Can scientists afford to ignore the unsolicited sign that the earth is 4.6 by old and every attempt to disprove it has been found to be false and mischievous. He surely intends us to sit up, take notice and together consider what its implications might be.
 
Michael who accepts the Babylonian maths in Genesis
----- Original Message -----
From: Vernon Jenkins
To: Sheila Wilson ; Michael Roberts
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: A word of appreciation

Hi Sheila,
 
You said "... my salvation is not dependent upon my beliefs in the age of the earth or numerical solutions or probabilities but solely on my relationship with God through Jesus Christ." Of course, I agree with you. However, I believe that those Christians having a scientific background cannot afford to ignore the unsolicited 'sign' that has now appeared at the very portal of God's Word. For, having placed it there, He surely intends us to sit up, take notice and together consider what its implications might be.
 
Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Sheila Wilson
To: Michael Roberts
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: A word of appreciation

Stymied Michael,
 
As a co-infidel, I agree with you and will add that my salvation is not dependent upon my beliefs in the age of the earth or numerical solutions or probabilities but solely on my relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Debate on most of these subjects is fun and interesting but not critical to my salvation.
 
Saved by Grace Sheila
 

sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net

Sheila McGinty Wilson
sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net

Sheila McGinty Wilson
sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net
Received on Wed Sep 29 10:59:18 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 29 2004 - 10:59:20 EDT