Article by Clayton on the fossil record

[XR0391]

I ran into an interesting article by John Clayton on comparing the fossil record to what it says in Genesis. Since the site it is from is pretty well known, I'm sure some of you have read it. However, if you haven't and want to check it out, though it is pretty lengthy:

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/GodsRevelationInHisRocksAndInHisWord/GodsRevelationInHisRocksAndInHisWord.html

I'm wondering what loopholes are in his explaination. It seems well thought-out and researched to me. Any thoughts?

Added: If it's too long for you to read at the moment, at least glance at the "The History of Creation According to the Bible and the Fossils" section for his main proposol on origins.

If you're going to take the short way:
Asah is explained to mean "formed from something already existing, made'
Bara is explained to mean "create from nothing"

 

[rmwilliamsll]

thanks for the link, i had not read this essay before.

the author is OEC in particular he is progressive creationist, PC.

imho, this is actually a stable and reasonable position for Christians. It gives science it's due and treats general revelation as it should be, a book from God for us to read. And yet tries remain as faithful to a careful reading of Gen 1-5 as possible.

it's a good essay, the best part is the physics student whose parents told him not to study science, this is a big problem in the conservative church.

 

[gluadys]

For the most part, I like it. Only two quibbles.

It is a shame he used the outdated "Tree of Life" that he did. There are better ones that show transitions and the possibility of transitions better.

Also, he scoffs at the possibility of transition from cold-blooded to warm-blooded life forms, but new discoveries have rendered that objection obsolete. He may have written the article before this was known, but it is another indication that nature is more creative than our imagination.

 

[jereth]

the author is OEC in particular he is progressive creationist, PC.

imho, this is actually a stable and reasonable position for Christians. It gives science it's due and treats general revelation as it should be, a book from God for us to read. And yet tries remain as faithful to a careful reading of Gen 1-5 as possible.

I agree, it's a shame this forum lumps YECs and OECs together. I personally think OECism has much more in common with TEism than with YECism.

 

[Assyrian]

OEC seem to be divided on the issue. You have OECs like Hugh Ross who devote their time and energy trying to convince YECs of the error of the Y. Other OECs line up very strongly with YEC to argue against evolution, though I don't understand why someone who accepts the age of the earth should have such a problem with God using evolution. It seems to be a very deep seated gut reaction.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I agree, it's a shame this forum lumps YECs and OECs together. I personally think OECism has much more in common with TEism than with YECism.

the great dividing wall is actually supernaturalism vs naturalism and this puts the majority of TE's on the same side as OEC and YEC.

the problem is that this discussion often gets sidetracked into the issue of if God uses supernatural or natural means most of the time in order to create new life forms. the division into God's activity in either creation or providence, this makes the division between YEC/OEC and TE.

however the discussion itself seems to concentrate on the issue of the continuity of humans with the rest of creation via common descent. or Adam's unique creation from the ground. in this way YEC and OEC's line up opposed to even the most conservative TE.

 

[jereth]

the great dividing wall is actually supernaturalism vs naturalism and this puts the majority of TE's on the same side as OEC and YEC.

the problem is that this discussion often gets sidetracked into the issue of if God uses supernatural or natural means most of the time in order to create new life forms. the division into God's activity in either creation or providence, this makes the division between YEC/OEC and TE.

however the discussion itself seems to concentrate on the issue of the continuity of humans with the rest of creation via common descent. or Adam's unique creation from the ground. in this way YEC and OEC's line up opposed to even the most conservative TE.

This is certainly true; however, in my own mind the age of the earth is a far more radical dividing line. To accept that the earth is not 6K years old represents an acceptance of basic indisputable science -- like newton's laws, atomic theory, the particle nature of light. OTOH it takes a little more "faith" (*) to accept common descent. I am sympathetic to the "deep seated gut reaction" Assyrian mentioned.

Organised YECism (as represented by AiG, ICR, etc.) certainly regards OECism as a slightly less evil brother of TEism. Judging by their treatment of Hugh Ross et al they would not join hands with OECism in fellowship.


(*) I'm referring to "faith" that the biological scientists aren't lying to us when they tell us that common descent is consistent with the observed evidence