Ok people; why can't we just agree that evolution was the way God created
everything? ;-)
Don Harrington
Sr. Systems Analyst
Facilities Applications Support
Shared Services Group
The Boeing Company
P.O. Box 3707 M/C 2R-32
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
(v) 206-544-5679 (f) 206-544-5788 (p) 206-797-6360
The opinions expressed in this e-mail reflect those of the sender. They do
not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Boeing Company unless
specifically stated otherwise.
-----Original Message-----
From: Guy HPTraderOnline [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 10:49 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Global Warming Called 'Fairy Tale'
Extend creation out as many days or years as you want. How long would
plants (created on day 3) survive until sunlight (day 4) came along?
Guy Avenell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Barnes" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Global Warming Called 'Fairy Tale'
> >From the shortened comments below I have one question. Who's
> watch/clock/calendar are we using here?
>
> I tend to agree with the 4004 BC (give or take a few
days/weeks/months...).
> But in terms of the 'creation of this world' a 'day' doesn't necessarily
> mean 24 hours; again who's timetable are we using. Carbon dating uses a
> time piece, for lack of a better definition, so the elements that make up
> the earth could be billions of years old.
> The Aztecs (I believe it was the Aztec race) had a better calendar than
we
> use today so should we use their method of time measurement?
>
> Ooopssss, that's more than 1 question, sorry.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 4:21 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Global Warming Called 'Fairy Tale'
>
> As for taking Bishop Ussher's work seriously, I wrote, in a discussion
about
> the anticipated end of the world based on Ussher's dating of creation:
>
> In all fairness to the Archbishop, his work on chronology based on the
> genealogies is still highly respected, as are other of his works, both
> sacred and secular, and those who accept the historicity of the
> genealogies tend to accept his work. I actually beg to differ, based on
> evidence of the occasional minor character being omitted from the
> genealogies (If you REALLY want to know, email me), but, since I accept
> the historicity of the text, I believe 4004 BC is closer than 4.5
> billion years.
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
