Message received from Lynn Hofland r.e. post #194 . . .
-------
Sorry for the delay in my response to your discussion concerning the article written by Najeeb Hasan in the San Jose Metro, April 20, 2005.
Yes, the quote was accurate. No, I am not suggesting that "the Bible alone should be the textbook used, for example, in biology classes". It is valid as reference material. As for studies in say biology, please consider the article (the whole article) that I wrote on the giraffe at http://www.stiffneck.org/GIRAFFE.html I did my research using many sources and the only time I referenced the Bible was when I found that those sources could not give me a "believable" answer as to the "beginnings of the giraffe". Also, as a student of scientific principle and progress, I find that there is no perceived or predictable biological mechanism that can account for the required biological changes needed to get to the physiology of a giraffe. I also find that the giraffe is not the exception - but the norm. In other words, no biological life known to man has a "fool-proof" answer for its existence, but with the Biblical reference we can "consider the possibility" that these varied and diverse lifeforms that we so enjoy may have a designer to be credited for their existence.
Thank you for your careful evaluation of these matters and I would be glad to continue to be a part of this. (You may post this)
Sincerely,
Lynn Hofland
Still insisting that the same word in the same context means two different things? I said to ping me when the English language no longer confuses you, but it doesn't look like that's happened yet.