RE: [asa] Time: God vs. Science

Man has the capacity of destroy biological life and all. Accordingly,
the effect of man would be paramount if we proceed with that destruction
since I believe no life would ensue afterwards.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of philtill@aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 5:34 AM
To: dfsiemensjr@juno.com; rjschn39@bellsouth.net
Cc: pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Time: God vs. Science

 I think Mark Twain used a similar argument, that the duration of the
earth and its biological record compared to the duration of man shows
that man is totally negligible in the big picture. I think it was he
who also said that the thin layer of paint on top of the Eiffel Tower
isn't the reason the entire tower exists. But one of the fallacies in
these arguments is that they presume to know how long man will endure.
If man lasts eternally, then everything reverses: it is the duration of
biology on the Earth that becomes negligible relative to the duration of
man, and not vice versa.

Of course an even better answer is that God certainly have any need to
measure the value of something by how long it endures in time. That is
simply reflecting human limitations upon God.

Phil Metzger

Orlando

 
-----Original Message-----
From: dfsiemensjr@juno.com
To: rjschn39@bellsouth.net
Cc: pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Time: God vs. Science

Bob,

Taking a cue from Augustine, God wouldn't have taken 6 days either. One
alternative to instant creation is that God's salvific purpose in
creation is best met through a long development. Otherwise, he created
the world in such a way as to deliberately mislead honest investigators,
or he couldn't get if right at the start and had to experiment (like the
automotive engineers during the 70s, for example), or, as in process
theology, he is limited in power or tied to the universe and has to try
to persuade the "physical" creation to come along.

Dave

On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 22:42:30 -0500 "Robert Schneider"
<rjschn39@bellsouth.net
<javascript:parent.ComposeTo('rjschn39@bellsouth.net',%20'');> > writes:

        Pim quotes Dawkins, as follows:

        <quote>DAWKINS: I think that's a tremendous cop-out. If God
wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that
he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10
billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4
billion years until you got human beings capable of worshipping and
sinning and all the other things religious people are interested
in.</quote>

        Bob: Oddly, this sounds a lot like an argument that Henry Morris
used against evolution: God would not wait around for billions of years
for human beings to evolve. I'm confident that God has already answered
Morris's. Perhaps some day Dawkins will hear it too, after he has gotten
over the shock of meeting God.

________________________________

size=2 width="100%" align=center>

Check out the new AOL
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redi
r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom%2Fnewaol> . Most comprehensive set of
free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality
videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 6 10:40:44 2006