How do you literal YECer's "defend" your position in light of such overwhelming evidence....

[gluadys]

That is hard to believe given that the story of Genesis is one long history -- and so also Exodus. The Bible reader will not have to read too very long before they begin to get the idea.

in Christ,

Bob

Now you are using your own interpretation as if it were an argument in favour of your conclusion. But the interpretation is what is debatable.

 

[BobRyan]

Now you are using your own interpretation as if it were an argument in favour of your conclusion. But the interpretation is what is debatable.

Which is where this irrefutable fact comes in --

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68192486"]Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

So then we have the Bible flatly refuting the by-faith-alone doctrine in evolutionism on the subject of origins.

It is then a simple choice as to which one - you may prefer to place your faith in. Dawkins, Provine, Meyer and almost every other atheist evolutionist freely agrees that this is an "either-or" issue - as do many Christians that accept the Bible account of origins in Gen 1:2-2:3

My not-so-well qualified opinion is that the author certainly intended the reader to understand "day" in the normal common sense and not as far-ahead-of-their-time representations of geological ages of which the author could know nothing.

.

indeed some details are so incredibly obvious - both sides agree to them.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

'Overwhemling evidence'. It's a common phrase among evolutionists. It is also a lie- entropy is the music of the universe, and evolution proposes, nonetheless, that it improves. That the universe is capable, physically, to produce sentient life. The fact is that the universe itself is directly against evolution.

 

[gluadys]

'Overwhemling evidence'. It's a common phrase among evolutionists. It is also a lie- entropy is the music of the universe, and evolution proposes, nonetheless, that it improves. That the universe is capable, physically, to produce sentient life. The fact is that the universe itself is directly against evolution.

It seems you know little of evolution and less of entropy. If God made the universe physically capable of producing sentient life, why would a Christian have a problem with that?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

It seems you know little of evolution and less of entropy. If God made the universe physically capable of producing sentient life, why would a Christian have a problem with that?

I have no real assertion of either a young or an old Earth. I think it is moot, and either would work just as well. But, I will openly challenge something as bold as an idea that we all came from a common ancestor. It is an extraordinary claim that doesn't really have extraordinary evidence. It falls back on itself. For example, there should be 70+ advanced civilizations in the Milky Way alone, yet as far as we've seen space is utterly and pitifully sterile.

 

[sfs]

I have no real assertion of either a young or an old Earth. I think it is moot, and either would work just as well. But, I will openly challenge something as bold as an idea that we all came from a common ancestor.

Feel free to challenge it -- it's backed up by a vast range of data from many fields of science.

It is an extraordinary claim that doesn't really have extraordinary evidence.

For some reason, scientists disagree with you. Who is more likely to understand the evidence better, do you think?

It falls back on itself. For example, there should be 70+ advanced civilizations in the Milky Way alone, yet as far as we've seen space is utterly and pitifully sterile.

Why?

 

[gluadys]

I have no real assertion of either a young or an old Earth. I think it is moot, and either would work just as well. But, I will openly challenge something as bold as an idea that we all came from a common ancestor. It is an extraordinary claim that doesn't really have extraordinary evidence. It falls back on itself. For example, there should be 70+ advanced civilizations in the Milky Way alone, yet as far as we've seen space is utterly and pitifully sterile.

Did you know that when Darwin finally published his theory, common ancestry was not seen as problematical at all. What biologists took a long time to accept was natural selection. Now we have non-scientists who claim to find no problem with natural selection and most of the rest of evolutionary theory, but have a huge problem with common descent.

Common descent is the logical consequence of speciation. But more to the point, common descent is supported, as sfs says, by vast range of data in many fields. So feel free to challenge it.