Could be ............... but a 6000 year old earth? I don't know.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Creation & Evolution
It seems to me that ICR has some pretty valid SCIENTIFIC reasons for believing in a young Earth.
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John wrote:
> ... it doesn't take 24 hours to say
> "Let there be light."
But you are saying that day 1 was millions of years. Doesn't your argument
here discount your perspective more than mine?
It might not take 24 hours to SAY, "Let there be light," but I have no idea
how long a process it would be for light to come into being after saying it.
The Bible says, "and the evening and the morning were the first day."
Shouldn't I believe that? Why say "evening and morning" if not to convey to
me a length of time with which I am familiar?
John wrote:
> i d not defend evolution.
Why do you think each day was millions of years? Is there something in the
Bible that gives you some indication of this? It seems to me that the issue
of time has only come up with the development of evolutionary theory. It
seems to me that the only motivation for long time in Genesis i s to try and
accomodate evoluionary theory. Please show me where I am wrong in my
thinking here. What Biblical text leads you to believe that each day was
millions of years (as opposed to 1 day, 1 week, 1 year, 1 thousand years, 1
million years, 1 billion years, 1 trillion years, etc.).
John wrote:
> Day 3 we have the creation of greenery. but none
> of it had yet sprouted (Gen 2:5).
That is a very interesting viewpoint that I do not believe I have ever
heard. Did you come up with this on your own?
Apparently you do not view Genesis 1 & Genesis 2 as two different accounts.
I view them as two different accounts of the same creation event. Genesis 1
I view as the scientific / chronological account. Genesis 2 I view as the
architect's account, the blueprint of the mind of God giving us the
philosophical why of creation.
John wrote:
> God causes seedling growth only after he made man
> (6th day) and the sun (Gen 2:9)Seeds do not need
> sun , of course. No need, no problemo.
Genesis 1:11-13
(11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself,
upon the earth: and it was so.
(12) And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his
kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind:
and God saw that it was good.
(13) And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Genesis 2:4-6
(4) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
(5) And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb
of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon
the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
(6) But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of
the ground.
Genesis 1 definitely mentions grasses and herbs an d angiosperms (fruit
bearing trees), which themselves BEAR SEED. Seeds do not bear seeds
themselves. Rather, it is the mature plant that bears seed. It seems to me
that these two accounts are telling us that God did not create seeds and
cause them to grow, but rather he created the plants themselves, without
seeds, and created them to bear seeds.
Genesis 2 has God creating man before plants and animals. Genesis 1 has God
creating plants and animals before man. Why the opposite sequence? It
seems to me that Genesis 2 gives us the mind of God, showing us that in
God's mind, he was creating plants and animals for man, even though the
actual scientific sequence was in a different order. It would be like me
sharing a blueprint for building a house, and showing how I desire a pool
and courtyard to augment the house by being at the very center of the house.
When I actually build the house, I start with the pool and courtyard, and
then build the structure around it. Some might inte rpret this sequence to
mean that the house was built for the pool and courtyard, but my real
thinking is toward the house, with the pool and courtyard being
complimentary to the house.
So it seems to me that Genesis 2 is the blueprint, giving us the wisdom of
God's mind. Genesis 1 is the scientific and chronological account.
Physical observations of nature should confirm Genesis 1, but not
necessarily Genesis 2. Have you ever considered this perspective?
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
