Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!hou2g!stekas
From: stekas@hou2g.UUCP (J.STEKAS)
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.origins
Subject: Re: Scientific Creation != Biblical Creation
Message-ID: <224@hou2g.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Apr-84 17:19:20 EST
Article-I.D.: hou2g.224
Posted: Fri Apr  6 17:19:20 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Apr-84 06:16:02 EST
References: <970@qubix.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 17

>  As we don't get it enough from the media, there seem to be more on the
>  net perpet[ru]ating the idea that scientific creation is the same as
>  Biblical creation. IT ISN'T!
>
>				The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford

Does that mean that "scientific" creation is inconsistent with the Bible?
COULD it be inconsistent with the Bible? Is it CONCEIVABLE that God did not
create man in his own generic image?  Is there anyplace where creation
"scientists" have turned up inconsistencies with the Bible or has their
work just given Bible toting "scientists" keener insights into His generic
plan?

                            " ... and the word was God,
                                      and it was generic. "

                                          Jim