Sent: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:46:41 +1000Quick interjection for Neville. and note I am speaking evolution per se, not specifically organic evolution. Phil.----- Original Message -----From: Neville JonesSent: Friday, September 28, 2007 12:16 AMSubject: [geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoiaDear 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.