Concordism )
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 18:06:12 -0000
Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
Precedence: bulk
Stephen writes
>Why don't you tell us how YOU interpret Genesis 1 to be scientifically
>accurate...
Well, Stephen, I'm not a book writer. In the past I've referred
folks to the folks who have done the "hard work." But, I love a
discussion/debate as much as the next guy. So, here goes
A) There are real scientific events which chronologically match
up with the creation "days." The odds of the Genesis writer
guessing this accurately are extremely slim to none.
B) We all know God had something to do with Genesis One. If He
had said humans came before fish, that would close the book
on this discussion.
C) YEC is a scientific disaster. For that to be right, God would
have to be incredibly "deceptive." I prefer to look for alternate
interpretations.
>What about angiosperms?
Webster's seems to define them as plants with seeds, so I'll assume
that you are referring to Gen 1:12 "The earth brought forth vegetation,
plants yielding seed..."
FWIW, it makes the most sense to me to think of the creation days as
overlapping. Just as "your day" overlaps "your parent's day." Or,
a day marks the beginning, or "dawning" of a new phase of creation.
(I don't know if that answers your question).
>Is it on the same lines as Hugh Ross' Reason's to Believe
>scenario?
Hugh has his strengths and weaknesses. A quote on the inside cover
of The Genesis Question (1998), mentions that the book doesn't
provide a complete answer. I wasn't terribly impressed. We have
enough information now to do a better job.
Jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 26 2002 - 18:14:46 EDT