[geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoia
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:33:03 +1000
Neville,
As for Paul "winning his case," I say according to him as the evidence is
presented. without the benefit of Divine revelation.
As regards trees and all plants, are you saying or just suggesting Noah took on
board a whole range of seeds, for the entire globe?
Additionally I would say that the neither the flood nor any other world
castrophe has anything to do with for or against evolution, other than the
effect it had on species survival.
but the point you miss about the tree is that it must be post-Flood. As regards
a specific tree, I did not check your story, and was not commenting on it
specifically, but merely asking the questions.. sorry if I mislead you there.
I do tend to mix subjects in a single discourse. Such as is the subject line
above..
I think the Bible leaves a lot to conjecture. It jumps from Adam to cain and
Abel , yet we know whole tribes or villages have already been formed by the
context of fields of crops and other sociological inferences such as wives for
the men as just an example. Technical details of the flood likewise, are
missing and open to conjecture and common sense. Did Noah take every species,
or only those that God sent? .
Does it matter?
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:14 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoia
Philip,
As for Paul "winning his case," I don't know, but the point you miss about
the tree is that it must be post-Flood. The Garden of Eden has nothing to do
with it.
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:46:41 +1000
Quick interjection for Neville. and note I am speaking evolution per se,
not specifically organic evolution. Phil.
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 12:16 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoia
Dear Philip,
I agree with Jack that organic evolution is not a viable alternative to
creation. Not in any way, shape or form.
See my subsequent explanation to Jack. Viability does not mean actual
...viable adjective
"able to work as intended or able to succeed:"
However, I want to pick up on the second thing you said, "the world has
existed no more than 10,000 years and probably less." Are you questioning the
Genesis record that allows us to estimate ~6,000 years for the age of the
universe? No I am not. I am merely using a nominal 10k as the upper limit
because differing researchers have no concensus .. You will note I have
mentioned 7,000 years.. Estimates vary.
In relation to this, I recall that someone resigned from ICR because of
the ages of some trees, as determined from their growth rings. Does anyone else
remember this and, if so, can they supply some meat on the bones, please?
Although I did once use the example of a 1000 year old tree in the garden of
Eden to support my contention that God created age, and not hollow trees, such
is just a minor point when one considers the sand in the rivers, the cliffs of
the gorge, the volcanoes raised from the sea, the light from far away galaxies,
et al which He created during the 6 days of creation. If you and Paul by some
means were transported to the world on the 7th day, I am sure you would both be
in complete agreement about the marvellous age of the world and the universe
encompassing it.. With you possessing revelation, and Paul not,
scientifically, based on observation, Paul still wins his case. Philip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: 27/09/2007
5:00 PM
Other related posts:
