Conor wrote: > Personally, I'm not convinced that the seven > days of creation are meant to be taken literally.
I tend to think they are to be taken literally, primarily because of the emphasis on evening and morning, but also because the first creation account appears to be an empirical, chronological style description in comparison to the second creation account. Conor wrote: > Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, > or a strict creationist. I'm still waiting for a third > option, which seems to be slow in coming. If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth, then you are a creationist. How he did that becomes secondary. For a pure scientist, God did not create. The scientist has no creationist option at all. Evolution is the only option. Creationist models can incorporate evolutionary components, and should, but scientifically oriented evolutionary models cannot and do not incorporate any creationist components. I think your attitude of waiting for a third option is simply that gnawing feeling that something is amiss with the purely scientific explanation of natural laws and evolution explaining it all. My sense is that the earth and universe is old, but life on earth is of relatively recent origin. 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.
