[geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoia

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:33:03 +1000

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 

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? 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Neville Jones 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:14 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoia


  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.



    -----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: