Are you saying that the reason God used the ark was that He had to, having
no other means at his disposal to preserve or recreate the creatures in
question?
He could not have done anything else (like, e.g., evolving a whole new
set-o-critters, or creating more ex nihilo, or...)?
So that the ark proves, or strongly suggests, or clearly hints, that . . .
what?
I don't see an argument here. What am I missing?
--John
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Chitwood [mailto:chitw@flash.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 4:47 PM
To: John E. Rylander; Calvin Evolution Reflector
Subject: Re: evolution-digest V1 #930
>>>Let the LAND produce animals after their kind." Entirely different
meaning. REad the sentence!<<<
This makes me wonder why God had the animals enter the ark, both male and
female. HE could have let the 'land' take care of the animal population
problem..
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net