HP3000-L Archives

May 2002, Week 3

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: OT: Global Warming Called 'Fairy Tale'
From:
Shawn Gordon <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Shawn Gordon <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 17 May 2002 19:16:10 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (53 lines) 
2nd Peter says "A day to god is as a thousand years to man" or something to
that affect.  So if you follow that, then the earth thing was 6,000 years
and not 6 days.  Plenty of time for beasties to run around and die.

At 04:34 PM 5/17/2002, Larry Barnes wrote:
> >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 *


Regards,

Shawn Gordon
President
theKompany.com
www.thekompany.com
949-713-3276

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

ATOM RSS1 RSS2