Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:53:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
571 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Low wrote:
>
> What Larry meant was because Creationism explains everything, it really
> explains nothing. "Tigers look like lions" -- God's plan; "Dinosaurs don't
> graze on grassy plains all over the world any more" -- God's plan; "Plant
> chlorophyll has DNA like some bacteria that photosynthesise for themselves"
> -- God's plan. It's good to know it's God's plan, but it doesn't tell us
> anything more than that. There are biological questions we don't know the
> answer to (because we aren't God), but we can better understand the work of
> God by being open to the way the universe actually works. We can't properly
> glory in the Creation if we restrict ourselves to the limited scientific
> understanding of three thousand years ago, as recorded in Genesis.
Before you assume that I am going to answer a question by simply stating
"God's Plan" (which I agree is a cop-out if used as a response to every
question), why don't you ask one.
I will say, however, that you may insert "God's Plan" in front of any
response I give because I believe that it is.
Show me any piece of scientific evidence you wish that shows how the
Biblical Creation record in Genesis 1 and 2 is flawed.
You continue to say things like:
"we can better understand the work of God by being open to the way the
universe actually works."
What is it about the way the Universe works (scientifically, not
philisophically) that doesn't support the plain and simple record of how
God created it.
--
-TiM
NB, CA
http://echofx.itgo.com
t_c_c@yahoo.com
3ch0fx
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) I can't. That's the whole point. Because the Genesis creation story can be twisted to explain everything in the world, and because it is irrefutable as God's word, it can't be subjected to the same analysis as a scientific theory. (...) Here's (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) What Larry meant was because Creationism explains everything, it really explains nothing. "Tigers look like lions" -- God's plan; "Dinosaurs don't graze on grassy plains all over the world any more" -- God's plan; "Plant chlorophyll has DNA (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
