Re: Kerkut

Yes, I am familiar with what you are saying. I think that Genesis 2:4 is the transition betwen the figurative, and the historical narrative.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Glenn Morton
  To: jack syme ; ASA ; Dick Fischer
  Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 10:24 PM
  Subject: RE: Kerkut

    -----Original Message-----
    From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of jack syme
    Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 12:48 AM
    To: ASA; Dick Fischer
    Subject: 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.

    GRM: I view Genesis 1 as the pre-planning for the universe. The 'and it was so" after so many of the verses is not what God said but what the Biblical narrator said. By viewing Genesis 1 in this fashion, Genesis 2, the supposed second account of creation is really several billion years later at the time when mankind was created. Thus, the'evidence' supporting YEC, could be merely the wrong conclusion coupled with the fact that Theologians seem to never think out of hte box.
Received on Sat Feb 7 00:07:55 2004