Gordon,
I have to be brief on this occasion, but here are my responses to
your comments:
(1) Clearly, as a YEC and one who accepts the Bible as 'revealed
truth', I do have a wider
target, as you rightly suggest.
(2) If Psalm 104 is not post-edenic how, for example, do you account
for the reference to
'ships' in verse 26?
(3) I make no distinction between 'a geographically global flood' and
'an anthropologically
global flood'; for me, they are one and the same. In my understanding
of the situation then
prevailing the latter demanded the former.
Sincerely,
Vernon
gordon brown wrote:
> Vernon,
>
> You seem to have misunderstood my comments. I was trying to point out
> errors in your logic. Just because evolutionists need to believe
> Statement A does not imply that anyone who believes Statement A must be an
> evolutionist, but that is what you have done repeatedly. For example,
> belief in an old earth occurred well before Darwin, and even today many
> who hold such a view are not Darwinists. I ignored your point about
> the evolutionist's dilemma because my whole point was that much of what
> you were attacking was derived independently of an evolutionary agenda and
> is widely held among people who are not evolutionists. Thus although you
> claim to be attacking evolution, you actually have a much wider target.
>
> As for your claim that Psalm 104 is post-edenic, have you read the whole
> psalm? Have you noticed the references to God making things? Have you
> noticed the structural parallel to Genesis 1?
>
> In discussing the flood, it appears that you make no distinction between a
> geographically global flood and an anthropologically global flood.
>
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 06 2002 - 22:17:25 EDT