Re: the saddest statement

George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Wed, 25 Aug 1999 20:46:22 -0400

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: mortongr@flash.net: "Re: St. Basil's 400AD view of the Days of proclamation"
Previous message: George Murphy: "Re: St. Basil's 400AD view of the Days of proclamation"
Maybe in reply to: mortongr@flash.net: "the saddest statement"

mortongr@flash.net wrote:
.....................
> Yes I can. PC has God creating species by fiat, thousands, or millions, of
> times during the phanerozoic. YEt each creation went extinct. This implies
> that God created failure after failure. A type of PC that does not have a
> fumbling god is one in which God creates, but animals don't go extinct. In
> that PC God is good enough to get it right the first time. But of course,
> the data doesn't support such a view leaving the one in which God keeps
> creating animals that can't survive, over and over and over.

I agree with you in favor of TE over against PC, but consider this a
questionable argument. It assumes that we know God's purpose in creating each
species & God's standard of success for them.

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

Next message: mortongr@flash.net: "Re: St. Basil's 400AD view of the Days of proclamation"
Previous message: George Murphy: "Re: St. Basil's 400AD view of the Days of proclamation"
Maybe in reply to: mortongr@flash.net: "the saddest statement"