Re: Kerkut

The things you claim here I would agree with, homo sapiens being connected to the phyletic tree of life, but I would call myself a day age creationist. Mainly in the sense of saying I think that this fits with what the bible says, I dont really mean to imply anything about evolution in that.

But, imo, the main problem, like I said before, is the age of the Earth. I think that there is more biblical evidence to support their views, than any other time that the Bible and science clashed in the past, (flat earth, heliocentrism), and now (denying evolution.) But it is the denial of the Old Earth, when there is so much science around that contradicts that view, that is making the evangelical world look bad, and imo is an embarrassment.

So as far as apologetics goes who cares about how God created? The scientist will point to evolution and say, there is no God it was all chance, and the Christian will say well, maybe God did it that way, or might even say that the scientist is a fool, but honestly would have no other better explanation. But the YEC emphatically says the Earth is young, the Bible says so, and everyone else looks at him, scoffs, and says, well what other nonsense is in that book?
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dick Fischer
  To: ASA
  Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 10:42 PM
  Subject: Re: Kerkut

  Jack Syme wrote:

    For this reason, I think that we should be supporting any of the Old
    earthers, and if Dick doesnt like Ross' view because Ross is a progessive
    creationist, and Dick is an evolutionist, well so be it. But, at least Ross
    is out there fighting with the YEC'ers trying to prove that both the Bible,
    and science can agree on an old creation.

  Depends on what we perceive the problem to be. If the problem is simply: Is the earth young or old? Well, it's old. Hugh Ross wins, Henry Morris loses. But if the problem is: Is biological evolution true? ("True" at least as it pertains to Homo sapiens being connected to the phyletic tree of life.) Ross and Morris both lose. What's to chose between two unworkable methods of apology? Does flunking your course in biology with a 68 give you bragging rights over someone who gets a 52?

  For the record, I do take issue with some of the aspects of evolutionary theory. Pure chance as a mechanism for genetic drift is a possible explanation, but I believe we have overlooked the possible effects of environmental impact as a causal factor whereby organisms make necessary, adaptive, genetic modifications. But that's just me.

  Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
  Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
  www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Fri Feb 6 01:49:28 2004