Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?

From: Vernon Jenkins <>
Date: Sat Aug 04 2007 - 16:08:30 EDT


Concerning your dealings with your atheist colleagues, you appear to be missing my point. What concerns me is that you didn't even _try_ to point them to objective evidence of supernatural cause and effect - an apologetic which, short of direct action by the Holy Spirit Himself, must be considered as powerful as any in the Christian's armoury - as your critique implies!

You challenge me to furnish 'concrete evidence' that this apologetic has brought - and is bringing - people to Christ. Clearly (as you must know!), I'm not in a position to do that. The Lord alone knows the score. However, the fact that I _try_ places me on a parallel with all faithful preachers of the Gospel. In your case, how can there be an assessment of fruits before and until the word is broadcast?

While it is true that you never went as far as claiming that this apologetic is intended to uphold a literal reading of the Genesis narratives, you may care to suggest what the _real_ reason might be. I look forward to hearing your views on this important matter. As I see it, all the evidence points to the fact that the biblical text is _self-authenticating_.


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Iain Strachan
  To: Vernon Jenkins
  Cc: Michael Roberts ; Merv ; ; Ted Davis ; Peter Loose
  Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 5:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?

  On 8/3/07, Vernon Jenkins <> wrote:
    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:

  The answer to that is pretty simple. I think Peter is being disingenuous by not being up-front about his evident YEC connections. I note that when I challenged him about some of the more ludicrous YEC absurdities ( where did all the poo go on the Ark - discussed by John Woodmorappe in his book "Noah's Ark - A feasibility Study"), that Peter just said that he'd not raised such issues. But nonetheless these are the issues propagated by YEC's and that get noticed by people who then use it as an excuse to say that Christianity is bunk. Therefore Michael is quite right to make it clear exactly where Peter is coming from.

    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.

  OK, Vernon, you tell me just how many atheists you know whom you've successfully challenged over the numerical structure of Gen 1:1, and how many have come to faith as a result of that challenge?

  I looked into the numerical structures you found and concluded that they were of deliberate intent and also, having looked wider into it, that it seemed unlikely that they were of deliberate human origin.

  However I NEVER went as far as you in claiming that this was some sort of proof that the Genesis narratives had to be interpreted literally.

  If you can show me concrete evidence that this is a powerful apologetic tool THAT HAS BROUGHT ATHEISTS TO CHRIST then I'll consider it. If you can't then you have no reason to be "intrigued" by the fact I haven't drawn attention to it. The answer is plain and evident. It's not meant for that.

  So here's the challenge for you Vernon. How many atheists have been converted by your numerical findings?


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Aug 4 16:09:10 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 04 2007 - 16:09:10 EDT