[geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoia

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: 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. 



    -----Original Message-----
    From: jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
    Sent: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:50:20 +0100

    Dear Philip,
    Of course I'm biased, but not against true science.

    I don't understand your comment below. Your sure its a viable alternative? 
It's not a viable alternative! If it were there would be no point in discussing 

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: philip madsen 
      To: geocentrism list 

      Not me. I am absolutely certain that evolution is a viable alternative as 
to how we arrived today. I just happen to know with certainty that it did not 
happen that way, and that the world has existed no more than 10,000 years and 
probably less. 


  Get Free 5GB Email – Check out spam free email with many cool features!
  Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out more!


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.31/1031 - Release Date: 26/09/2007 
12:12 PM

Other related posts: