Dan,

I have read Newton believed that Ussher used 4,000 years before 4 BC (Herod the Great's Death)in calculating the time of the Creation (not only geneologies. Yet, I do recall Newton actually saying that he personally maintained the idea. Can you please provide an academic reference or an .edu link? I suspect geology would have been in its infancy.

George

It was certainly not my intention to 'mock' the Gospels but rather to make a point about the nature of miracles. It is very difficult for us to detach ourselves from our scientific worldview which is what is needed to understand the nature of the miracle stories in the Bible. The New Testament is written from within a still strongly mythopoeic culture that simply does not have any comprehension of what we call natural laws. In the terms current to the writers these stories violate no natural laws. They illustrate Jesus' authority over the whole of creation as they understood it. That is why I make the point about the Greek word, 'semeion', which is usually translated 'miracle' with, to us, connotations of magic whereas the Greek emphasises the nature of the events as signs to be interpreted. My point really is that projecting our scientific predisposition back into ancient near eastern texts by applying our understanding of what constitutes a 'violation' of natural laws is simply anachronistic and unhelpful to any faithful reading of Scripture.

As for my use of the female pronoun, surely if 'gender is not the issue' then it matters little whether I use the masculine or feminine form. Rather, to insist on the use of the masculine pronoun would be to make gender an issue. I do not insist on the use of the feminine pronoun but at different times use both precisely in order to avoid persistent gender specificity. Unfortunately English lacks an androgenous pronoun and the neuter 'it' doesn't really work, does it.

Dan,

Above: Should read "do not recall Newton" my fingers sometimes slip-up and lag behind my thoughts.

Waterboy, If there is a "He" then why not a "She" as well ?

Why not a Partnership to "wind the clock up " and so get us on an amazing journey - whether you believe in Gods or not .

Jim

Sounds like your 'theological' tastes would run more to something like the Greek pantheon. Now there's a much racier tale or two.

Dan,

<<More striking is to ask how quick his critics might be to throw an accusation of irrationality at these two: Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), who formulated the laws of planetary motion, calculated a creation date of 3992 BC, or Isaac Newton (1643–1727), who vigorously defended a creation of about 4,000 BC.>>

The era in which the scientists you mentioned lived (heck, you even included the years they were alive as if to show how silly your own argument is), invalidates your entire point. No one would accuse them of being irrational because they had no way of knowing any better.

Hang on... didn’t I already cover this here... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121498 ?

Yep, I did. Sheesh, Dan, you need some new material!

I’ll hold off from mentioning how it makes you come across though. I think I’ve proven my point now.

<<The flip side would be that if the true age was any fraction of that unimaginably large number then many would be saying that there wouldn’t have been enough time for evolution to take place. Either way, both young earth creationists and Darwinians are being pushed towards boundaries in their thinking.>>

14 billion is a boundary of thought? Then how can you even begin to grasp the concept of, or know anything about a God that is supposed to be infinitely bigger?

Ever heard of a trillion?

<<In all of the times I’ve ever seen you post anything, it’s only ever been in response to one of my posts. While this is a little flattering in a way, I really think you should get out more.>>

I’ve responded to many others, but in a way, I guess you should be flattered to a small degree. After all, I don’t often bother with a couple of other Creationists on this forum, mainly because their writing style reflects the lunacy of Creationism. You, on the other hand, can actually spell.

But I guess what keeps me posting is that you sound so serious in your posts (as if Creationism was really serious business), that it’s fun to systematically tear them down.

Continued...