Uh...I think I may have sent part of this already. In the middle of typing
computer services called and I meant to send what I did to myself and go
back to it later. Jim Guinee
> From: "Rick Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: 5 theories of creationism?
>
> Ok, how about this contradiction:
>
> GEN 1:11-13 -- Describes the creation of plants, on the third day.
> GEN 1:14-19 -- Describes the creation of the Stars, the Sun and the Moon,
> on the fourth day.
>
> Are we to assume that plants (including, according to Genesis all herbs,
> fruits, etc.) were able to survive BEFORE the Sun existed (or that the
> Earth existed before the Sun and other stars, for that matter)?
No one would assume that...it is either wrong or there is some other
possibility.
In Genesis 2:5 it reads "Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and
no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain
upon the earth..." What can we take from that?
>> The more I think of the "ideal age" theory, the more intriguing
>> I find it.
>It's an ideal theory--it requires no proof (and, in fact, demonstrates
>that any "proof" which contradicts is, by its very aging a clear
>demonstration that the theory is right)
Yes, I've been well-informed by now that a sound background in the natural
sciences makes this theory seem pretty lame. Even the fundamentalist
author who described it (along with four other theories) stated it is untenable
because it contradicts science, ANd it contradicts scripture. So even the
fundamentalist can't hang on to it.
I should have clarified what I meant by "intrigued," and obviously should have
studied it more before I thought it was interesting that perhaps, if trees were
created, how old would they appear to be? How old would Adam have
appeared? Obviously questions that aren't worth pursuing too deeply...to me
>appeals to anyone who lacks
>scientific understanding, and carries superstition to the thought disorder
>stage.
Thanks, I feel better now
>Of course, the burden of proof doesn't rest with the scientists who date
>the materials--it rests with those who claim those dates are false because
>the materials were "planted" to test our faith, but they are so sold on
>their theory that they ignore this obvious fact.
I think you make a great point. It's better to try and find theological and
scientific explanations that agree, not to cling to beliefs (the shroud of Turin
might be appropriate here) especially if they contradict what appears to be
true.
>What they believe isn't
>really a theory, of course, instead it's the pale cry of the religious
>zealot whose irrational beliefs are in the process of being revealed to be
>scientifically absurd.
Out come the fangs!
