>
>Nick Douglas wrote to Mark Bloss about Creationism
 ND> You said that dinosaur bones are "concrete evidence" that the earth
 ND> is very old -- millions. I'll keep this reply brief for those of you
 ND> who aren't interested. What evidence is there of the impossibility of
 ND> fossilization in less than one million years? In less than any given
 ND> amount of time? The Genesis flood provided the means for immediate
 ND> immersion of dead animals' bodies. God created the world in *seven
 ND> days*, did He not? God created Adam and Eve in His *own image*, did he
 ND> not? I find it hard to accept your go-between way of meshing evolution
 ND> and Christianity. I don't mean to sound harsh, though. Can we take
 ND> this conversation into e-mail before people start flaming me? Nick
 ND> Douglas, firm creationist and Christian 
 Don't worry about the flames - let'em burn in their own misery - I say.
 It is not a go-between to accept scientific evidence _and_ accept the Word
 too.  Didn't the Catholic Pope make a huge mistake by banning Copernicus?
 When we used to think, Christians that is, that the Sun circled the Earth
 and we were the center of the universe?  Anything contradicting that
 was Heresy against the Truth, and people were burned at the stake as
 witches if they held such a contrary view of the cosmos.  Real physical
 scientific evidence _proved_ the Church didn't know the Truth after all.
 Now we all accept it, that the Earth circles the Sun.  We don't consider
 anything else.  But at that time the Church held a dogmatic view, a 
 literal view, of the Word of God, and could not see that the Word did 
 not contradict Copernicus after all!  
 
 The most learned scholars of the Holy Writ will almost invariably hold
 a non-dogmatic rule concerning the age of the Earth and how many eons
 God took to create it.  There certainly are the literalists who contend
 that when the Genesis account uses the term "day" it is literally a 
 24 hour period of time - but there is very strong evidence that the
 Genesis account is a parable - and not to be taken literally.  Besides
 this, the term "day" in the original Hebrew is as easily translated
 as "age".  We still DO use the term day in this manner to-"day"!  "In 
 the day of King Tut." for example.  King Tut didn't rule just a 24 hour
 period of time, it is used as a _period_ of time.  It is this rule
 which governs my interpretation of the Genesis account.  After all,
 why would God be in such a hurry to get it done in 6 days and why
 should He need to rest since He never gets tired?  And why would
 the Genesis account in 2:4 use the term "day" to refer to the
 _entire_ period of creation "week"?  See also Joel 3:18, Acts 2:20,
 John 16:23, when 'that day' appears to refer to the entire Christian
 age.  See also 2 Tim. 1:12, and Ps.90:4 and, 2 Pet 3:8.
 
 Notice also a most peculiar thing:  The Genesis account uses the 
 phrase "and there was evening and there was morning, a first day" 
 "...second day" etc - but it was not until the 4th day that God 
 made the Sun and the moon! (Gen 1:14ff) Therefore there could not
 have been a morning or an evening on the first three days.  Here,
 morning and evening refer to the "ending" of one age, and the 
 "beginning" of a new age, and can be interpreted this way, solving 
 this apparent "contradiction".  It is peculiar to me that literalists 
 will do marvelous acrobatics to get around this, when the most logical
 interpretation solves the apparent anomaly forthwith!  And to boot,
 makes accepting scientific evidence concerning the age of the Earth,
 and the universe in general, and all the other marvelous things
 the scientific method has produced for us - much more palatable
 to the believer, and not the other way 'round.  To hold to an 
 entirely parochial view is the compromise - not the contrary.
 It is good practice to learn by the scientific method instead - 
 so we can find out the True nature of nature - and thus by that - 
 the true nature of God.  Never forgetting for one moment that it 
 is _us_ that interpret reality - but God who made it what it already 
 is.  When we discover it, then we are closer to the knowledge which 
 God has.  If we ignore it - we will languish in ignorance in a dark 
 age of superstition and dogma, simultaneously alienating every truth-
 seeker in creation.  I simply hope the dogmatic never regain the power
 they had during the day of the inquisition, when people were forced
 to believe a lie, or die.
 
 Mark, firm Christian, a believer in the resurrection, not that
 that's so important for you to know.  It is enough that *I* believe it 
 and live accordingly.  With warm regards.
 
 Flamers, please respect our conversation and temper your judgement with
 the benefit of the knowledge that none of us is perfect.  Thank you.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
... "God not only plays dice, he throws them where we can't see them."
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------