Jim has challenged,
<< Paul Seely writes
It is not just Day 4 that does not fit. See
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF6-97Seely.html#The Bible
and
Science
Paul, I have read that. And you make some good points (I especially like
the one about the fruit trees). And I guess that you just got yourself some
publicity. But please step up to the plate, and stop hiding behind a
previous paper. What's your biggest beef with the reconciliation between
Genesis One and Science? Bring it on. Let's get it out in the open where
everyone can look at it. If you dare. -Jim
>>
Howard's books and my articles (the one above and others referenced in it)
show why concordism does not work. If you really want to know why it does not
work, the answers are there in more detail than can be offered in an email
discussion. If you want to bring up a particular issue you do not think has
been sufficiently dealt with, that might lead to a fruitful discussion.
I do not have a "biggest beef." The whole concordist enterprise is hoaky. It
only works in terms of generalizations. The minute a concordist gives details
of time, place, etc, the "harmonization" crashes and burns if closely
examined.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 04:19:29 EST