From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Oct 30 2003 - 06:39:30 EST
Ted Davis wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> Back to Paul Nelson. Is he any better than a biblical flat-earther who
> believes the earth is flat because of the only reasonable interpretation of
> Gen 1 6-8, Ex20, 4 and Isaiah 40 22? I cant see how he can accept biblical
> arguments for a young earth unless he goes for a flat earth as well. (Please
> no khug-khugging!)
>
> No, Michael, as you fully realize, Paul Nelson does not believe in a flat
> earth. Now let me deal with what I believe is the *real* question here: how
> can he accept a young earth? The answer, for Paul, is *not* scientific--he
> admits (unlike most YEC people) that the scientific evidence does not favor
> a YEC position. The answer is *moral* and *theological*, driven partly of
> course by scriptural concerns but also by moral concerns. He cannot
> reconcile millions of years of suffering and death in the animal kingdom,
> with the love of God. I've often said, that this is the driving force
> behind YEC; Paul is a perfect example of why I have said this.
How then do they reconcile thousands of years of animal suffering and death.
What did they ever do wrong? Could s good God allow His own son to suuffer pain
and death?
It is pain and suffering that causes many peole to be atheists (so they say).
The world is what it is. Are you suggesting that YEC is just a form of denial?
Walt
.--
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 30 2003 - 06:41:12 EST