RE: Letter from Reasons to Believe

Wayne wrote:

Putting the long disputed matter of concordance aside for
a moment..., when Hugh Ross talks about astronomy, he
basically knows what he's talking about. I remember
my initial impression of him was, "finally some evangelicals
are starting to talk some sense again."

But then I found out how he managed the issue of Adam,
and I sunk back into a hole somewhere. I can't figure
out why he is so rock stuck on this issue.
 
I'm sure it has something to do with the drinking water in California
flowing over loco weed in Arizona.
 
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:05 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Letter from Reasons to Believe
 
Maybe it is
the same bit as the creationists on humans being a
"unique creation". Yet since God is the alpha and the
omega, knower and creator of all things visible and
invisible, we already are, no matter _how_ we came about.

Evidently, this is generating a spin on Hugh's treatment of
fossil man.

His self confidence with astronomy issues has probably
paid off on a few occasions, but biology is far less clean
and clear. It seems much safer to say "we don't know what
this means", and not draw too much inference on it's
implications until we have a lot more to go on.

Maybe biologist learn to live with a very hard-to-do
research; where the possibilities are manifold. On
the other hand, biochemists may deal with problems
similar to those of physicists; where the possible
set of scenarios are few.

by Grace we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Wed May 24 20:48:04 2006