1. Nature is a double-talker - quantum physics, energy/matter,
double-edged swords
in many relationships. Paradox/ ambiguity.
2. There are numerous practical inconsistencies, or scientists wouldn't
have jobs.
There are 4 kinds of logic in "expert systems" and perhaps some of
these should
be considered in these debates.
3. The nuance of interpretations are restricted to just the experts.
What makes us
feel whole and wholesome is what governs.
4. There is no universal timeless language in nature. People do get
inspirations
from the collective unconscious as far as naming goes, but I don't
call that an accident
of evolution.
5. Calling us to convergence on a more refined ( sophisticated ) and
complete ( in
coverage of data ) is one way things go, but there is divergent
thinking and processes
as well. I agree there is never complete comprehension except
perhaps amongst
geniuses. There are levels/layers, a few patterns, generational
variation in language,
and new nomenclature for totally new stuff ( mimic existing ).
6. As far as human endeavors go :
Trends pointing out new directions illustrate what INTERESTS us.
History records our GOALS.
Tradition records our EXPERIENCE
Agendas record our SKILLS in organizing/contructing reality
Beliefs record our VALUES
Culture records our TALENTS finding expression
The government has condensed occupational information related to the
above
into a list of 106 jobs with 1200 subspecialties amongst them all, to
cover the
predominant required tasks in our civilization.
Now how many species are there?
Jim Armstrong wrote:
I rather doubt that the nature of nature is to be double-tongued.
Creation speaks those things constantly and consistently over time.
Though we may nuance the interpretations over time, the voice perseveres
nontheless, speaking the same universal timeless language undeterred,
always calling us to convergence on a more refined and more complete
(though never truly comprehensive) understanding.
The latter statements cannot be made about the human kind. Culture,
trend, agenda, belief, history and tradition are among the many factors
that shape the ideas that are held and expressed at any given time --
far, FAR exceeds any range of interpretations of what nature has to say
about its history, processes, and creator.
I would suggest you have given satan too much credit, and done it in an
area where your case is the weakest.
Vernon Jenkins wrote:
Thanks for these geological 'proofs' of an old earth and evolution. But,
as a Christian, I suggest your approach to these matters has been lax
and far too simplistic. Let me explain: you should have learned from the
Book of Job (1:6-12; 2:1-7), from the events leading up to the death of
Ahab, King of Israel (1Kings 22), and from Paul's words of warning (Eph.
6: 10-18) that we live our earthly lives against a backdrop of
considerable supernatural activity. In the wisdom of God, the deceiver -
and enemy of our souls - Satan, is sometimes allowed to exercise
considerable power on earth (such as providing those _decoys_ you have
listed). Now it should be clear to all believers of the Gospel that
evolution sits _extremely awkwardly_ with the Scriptures, and there can
be little doubt that all attempts to harmonise the two have resulted in
serious distortions of the Word of God - something that the Apostle
Peter expressly warns against (2Pet.3:15-16). Undoubtedly, this
situation - and the confusion it has engendered - represent a coup for
Satan! It also explains why this 'Theory' is different from _all others_
in that, when challenged, its adherents tend to become testy and
hostile, and those unable to accept it are subjected to duress of one
kind or another.
Glenn, I put it to you that 'Theory of Evolution' is better described as
the 'Theory of Satanic Deception'.
Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Glenn Morton <mailto:glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: 'Vernon Jenkins' <mailto:vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> ; 'Don
Winterstein' <mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com> ; 'Walter Hicks'
<mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
Cc: 'asa' <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 11:47 AM
Subject: RE: Genesis 1:1 - a standing miracle
DW : Overwhelming scientific evidence compels us to
conclude the world is much older than 10,000 years.
VJ: If the evidence is indeed as rock-solid as you
suggest then why do many reputable scientists continue to think
otherwise?
Vernon, I guess it is time to point you to some web
pages which show pictures of Geology. If the earth is less than 10 kyr,
then the geologic column must be deposited quite rapidly or created in
place. That means you have either a God who makes up animals who never
lived and thus is deceptive, or you have to beleive in a global flood.
There are lots of problems with that. We can't post pictures to this
list so I will point you to my web page on geology which has links to
lots of pictures in geology which show exactly why the geology was not
deposited in one year. The site is
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geology.htm
The reasons for this included
burrows in all levels of the geologic column,
dried out mudcracks and desert deposits on all levels of
the geologic column,
foot prints and trails on all levels of the geologic
column,
erosion of very hard rocks (like 35 km of hard igneous
rock eroded in Scotland).
buried river channels
buried canyons
plants growing in many levels of the geologic column
too many animals for a single biosphere to have been
killed in a flood
evidence of normal activities, like animals going to the
bathroom over a long period of time--otherwise you have to assume they
all took a dump at once.
Take a look and explain the geology, Vernon. this is the
stuff which the YEC leadership never wants the laity to see. And there
are pictures for it all. The reason why people still believe in a young
earth is because they won't look at geology.
Received on Fri Jul 30 19:02:31 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jul 30 2004 - 19:02:33 EDT