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!floyd!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!hou2g!stekas
From: stekas@hou2g.UUCP (J.STEKAS)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Scientific Creation != Biblical Creation
Message-ID: <233@hou2g.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Apr-84 17:43:41 EST
Article-I.D.: hou2g.233
Posted: Tue Apr 10 17:43:41 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Apr-84 07:20:52 EST
References: <970@qubix.UUCP> <224@hou2g.UUCP>, <978@qubix.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 11

In response to my question, "COULD it be inconsistent with the Bible?",
Larry Bickford replies -

   A scientific model for creation *could* be formed, yet not be consistent
   with the Bible. It would have to explain the data consistently and
   simply, with as few secondary assumptions as possible [Razor d'Occam].

To this I must ask if it is coincidence that we have yet to see a Creation
theory which is not consistant with the Bible (Arkansas interpretation)?

                                                      Jim