Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?

From: Vernon Jenkins <>
Date: Fri Aug 03 2007 - 12:13:03 EDT

Seekers of Truth,

Congratulations, Michael! It's a pity that your adherence to the inquisitiveness that is expected of a scientist doesn't match your zeal for internet sleuthing! Am I to understand that Peter's association with Dr Andrew Snelling is to be regarded as a _cardinal sin_? Instead of breathing out fire and brimstone like Saul of old, why not focus your attention on finding acceptable answers to the following:

He who assembled the opening verse of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures assembled a short, meaningful and foundational sentence of Hebrew - and placed it in the most prominent of all positions. Some centuries later the same meaningful sentence acquired equally meaningful numeric features and geometries. Today - if we are so inclined - we may witness and appreciate these remarkable wonders. Today - if we are prepared to lay aside our imaginations and fear for our reputations - we may assimilate these truths and see our Creator in an entirely new light. Clearly, many in this forum are reluctant to do that - and that includes people like yourself who have the added responsibility of presenting _truth_ to the common people - preferring to carry on as if nothing has changed; preferring to live with a 'skeleton' too large to fit into any 'cupboard'! Why not resolve to grasp this nettle now? - and wrestle with what the Lord has provided over recent years for our reasoned consideration? (And, while you're about it, you might try and persuade George to do the same!).

You might both begin by considering what this must mean for our attitude to God's Word. Is a liberal, swashbuckling, 'higher critical', approach still valid? Shouldn't the level of our debates rise to accomodate such new, potentially paradigm-changing, information? For example, should your continuing rant against YEC and ID command respect anymore? Are the revealed glimpses of what is actually happening in the courts of heaven - affecting the destiny of each one of us - still to be regarded as 'gloss' rather than _matters of fact_ and the basis of _sound teaching_ (Job 1:6-12, 2:1-6)? [If you believe these revelations are for any other purpose than our instruction, please tell me what that other purpose might be]. In his earthly ministry, Jesus described Satan as 'the father of lies'. Clearly, _in God's Wisdom_, he is sometmes empowered to act in accordance with his true nature. While we may not fully understand this, that is the biblical teaching. For myself, I see that suffering is a necessary part of our earthly condition - that in the economy of God, the devil is the supernatural agent responsible for all the _necessary_ suffering and misinformation.

Ultimately, out of love for his child, a human father will chastise him - thus causing him to suffer. Likewise, when man is found to have 'a heart that is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked' (Jer.17:9) - the Lord's assessment of fallen man! - what _must_ be the appropriate way forward in His preparing a soul for heaven?

Let me say, finally, that I am intrigued that Iain (who has first-hand knowledge of the biblical phenomena alluded to earlier) apparently failed to challenge his atheist colleagues with these mathematical certainties. I am at a complete loss to understand why, for he himself wrote in November 2005,

" But in general, there appear to be three interpretations of the facts:

(1) The pattern is a complete coincidence.
(2) The pattern is deliberate and was put there by the human authors.
(3) The pattern is deliberate and is intentional Divine action for some purpose. "

In the same email, he dismisses option 1. In a later communication, he dismisses option 2, as follows:

"One of the reasons I don't subscribe to option (2) is that I've seen deliberate examples where humans have tried to do "gematriac poems" where each line summed to a biblical number total like 2300. This was a popular thing to do in the 18th Century. The resultant "poems" were largely meaningless doggerel, barely qualifying as literature, and the distortions of spelling, grammar, and meaning that the writers had to resort to to get the right target were very obvious. Contrast that with the obvious meaning and relevance of texts such as John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1, and you'll see why I'm skeptical of option (2). But in the interests of scientific fairness,
one ought to include it."

Since then, the volume of evidence supporting the view that these are genuine supernatural phenomena has grown. So whatever happened?


PS - for Michael: I still can't understand why Andrew Snelling's "3. There is evidence that nuclear decay rates were grossly accelerated during a recent catastrophic episode or episodes (radiohalos, discordant ages and helium diffusion)." had you _rolling in the aisles_. Would you mind explaining? - so that we can all join in the merriment!


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Aug 3 12:13:56 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 03 2007 - 12:13:56 EDT