MyChristianForumID said:
If the global flood were believed as literal it would affect interpretation of evidence. So scripture does have a bearing on scientific evidence.
And the people who proved that the flood was not global did believe it was literal. The evidence overwhelmed the bias of their pre-conceptions. Remember, the global extent of the flood was falsfied almost 200 years ago. Even most scientists then did start their research on the assumption that the bible was describing an actual event.
We were not there. Therefore we cannot be sure of this. We cannot validate any of the modern fossil dating techniques without a time machine.
That may be your opinion, but I think you need to show there is a basis for it.
The scientist must use his or her initial belief about the age and/or origin of the earth to arrive at a dating method.
You mean make an initial estimate of the age based on previously verified information, right?
My point is that Adam was created a fully grown man. Why do TEs not consider the possibility that the rocks and trees were created fully mature as well? The trees would need nutrient filled soil right away not later on. Why don't TEs consider the possibility that the distant light of stars was brought to earth instantly instead of over millions of years? A literal interpretation of the creation account can and does affect how you interpret evidence. How could it not?
These things have been considered and rejected because the evidence contradicts it. The evidence indicates that rocks and light not only have age, they also have history.
Tell me, do you think Adam was created with memories of his non-existant childhood? Do you think he was created with a scar from a childhood accident that never took place?
I agree that Jesus was a teacher and there is nothing wrong with saying that. But He is also God. Why would He not know it was a myth? And if He did, why would He use a myth to defend marriage? That wouldn't be very authoritative!!!
Even in his human frame of reference he was probably aware of the mythological aspect of the story. As God he would certainly know it was a myth.
Why on earth would he not use a myth he himself inspired to teach about marriage to defend marriage? What would make it any less authoritative? If God inspires a myth rather than a report, why is the myth less authoritative than the report?
Sounds to me that you have some prejudices about literary genre here. Why do you think God shares those prejudices? Or that Jesus did?
Thanks for spending the time to share this information. I am forced to wonder what evidence would cause these Christians to doubt the account of the global flood. There is lots of evidence to support it. Like mass graveyards of bones, and marine fossils on many mountain peaks, etc. It seems to me that based on the evidence a large number of animals died at the same time.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/global10.asp
None of the things you mention actually support a global flood. Mass graveyards support regional floods occurring in different places at different times. They did not all happen in the same year as the flood theory requires, but are sometimes separated from each other by millions of years.
Nor could the marine fossils in (not on) mountains have accumulated in a single year. It took many years for them to accumulate on ocean bottoms that were then slowly uplifted into mountains as tectonic plates moving toward each other squeezed them up above sea level. India is still moving into Asia and the Himalayas are still rising because of this movement. The rate at which they are rising has been measured and continues to be measured.
Do you believe Paul thought Adam was a myth? What makes you believe that Paul viewed Adam as a myth? Or do you believe he was ignorant of the facts?
I think that as an educated Jew, Paul would certainly be aware of Jewish mystical traditions about Adam. So he would not simply see Adam as a specific person who lived at a specific time. He might have believed that as well, but he would have an eye to Adam as a mystical figure as well as a literal figure. And he probably did not distinguish one from the other.
Ignorant of which facts? The geological facts that falsify the global extent of the flood. Of course he was ignorant of them. They only began to be gathered in the 17th century, and the implications were not appreciated until the late 18th/early 19th century. There is no possibility that Paul would know facts not discovered until more than 1500 years after his death.
Let me for a moment suppose that some parts of evolution theory are valid for explaining observed evidence. Why should I thus believe that the earth is old or came about because of evolution.
You shouldn't. Evolution is about biology and the history of genetic change. It is not about geology. You should believe the earth is old because of the geological evidence. This evidence does not derive from evolution.
The age of the earth is quite a separate issue from evolution. Both in the 19th century and today, there are many who accept the old age of the earth, but who reject evolution. So each has its own set of evidence and you check out the evidence for each on its own terms.
The changes that we are currently observing are more likely adaptation.
Adaptation is the outcome of evolution. You never have adaptation without evolution.
Yes they are. If all creatures survived then the most fit creatures would not dominate. If the most fit creatures do not dominate then the most fit will not prevail. If every offspring survives the most dominant might not be the fittest. Also there would be ridiculous problems with over population which would alter the observed results.
All creatures don't survive. In fact, eventually death claims every living being on earth. But death is not what makes for evolution. Death comes to the fit as to the unfit. There is no guarantee that the fittest will be among the survivors. Death is not the instrument that brings about evolution.
Evolution is brought about by reproduction and selection, not by death.
