What evidence would convince you?

[mark kennedy]

What evidence would convince you of the opposite side of the argument? If you're a YEC, what would convince you of evolution?

It would require a genetic mechanism for the evolution of the human brain.

I was drifting to a TE perspective for months when I stumbled onto the evolution of the human brain topic. The genetic basis for the expansion of the human brain from that of an ape does not exist. If someone could convince me that it did indeed exist I would reconsider YEC, if not abandon it entirely.

 

[Assyrian]

These examples certainly don't demand that we take any another Bible passage figuratively. And note that I'm not necessarily agreeing that these passages are literal - I'm just saying that "day" in Genesis 1 isn't necessarily figurative just because some other verses might be. Several of the days in Gen. 1 were explicitely "evening and morning".

No it doesn't demand we take the days figuratively, but the simple fact that God does speak figuratively about days should make us open to the possibility that he was speaking figuratively about creation days too.

Is there any reason a figurative day should not have its 'evening' and 'morning'? After all evening and morning are used figuratively too.

I just read Genesis 2 and didn't even see a different account of Creation, much less a different order. What I see in Gen. 2 is some filling in of details of Gen. 1. Nor do I see in Job 38 what you say is in there.

You say the stars weren't created until 'a fourth day', yet in Job 38 we have 'the evening stars singing for joy' when the foundations of the earth were laid. (That would be day one, wouldn't it?) How can you have 'morning stars', metaphorical or otherwise, if there were no stars at the time, and never had been?

As for Gen 1 and 2, simply read the accounts.
Gen 1:11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit
Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Gen 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man
Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.
Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens
Gen 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman

The order is completely different.

You're saying Jesus was not telling of a principle about ever-important belief and faith? I beg to differ.

True it was a very important principle. But it was to trust, even if we do not see any evidence, not to believe in things the evidence shows us aren't true. The bible has much greater respect for reality and truth.

The key word is "evidence". Evidence is not proof. If it were, then only the prevailing side in our courts of law would ever have any evidence to show, and they would only need a single exhibit. IOW, evidence can always be improperly interpreted.

It depends on the type of evidence. If Peter and John had found Jesus' body in the tomb, you would never have been able to convince them to have faith in the resurrection.

 

[Deamiter]

It would require a genetic mechanism for the evolution of the human brain.

I was drifting to a TE perspective for months when I stumbled onto the evolution of the human brain topic. The genetic basis for the expansion of the human brain from that of an ape does not exist. If someone could convince me that it did indeed exist I would reconsider YEC, if not abandon it entirely.

Are you still denying that there has been quite a gradual progression from the size of early hominid brains to those of modern humans? It seems rather disingenuous to consistantly claim that the lack of knowledge of which gene lead to an increase in brain size is evidence against such a gene -- especially when understanding of genes and their combined effect on traits is still so incomplete.

Your assertion that such an increase in brain size is impossible is absolutely unsupported by evidence. There IS evidence of homonid fossils in progressively newer geological layers with progressively larger brain cavities. There is no sudden jump in brain size as you seem to claim. Even if you reject the rather considerable evidence for the dating of these geological layers, the presence of a clear and gradual progression from early hominids to homo sapiens sapiens at least shows that increase of brain size over time is a fact -- within the many different hominid populations even if you reject the evolution of one from another.

Homo habilis was called the handy man because tools were found with his fossil remains. This species existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. The brain size in earlier fossil specimens was about 500cc but rose to 800cc toward the end of the species life period. The species brain shape shows evidence that some speech had developed. Habilis was about 5' tall and weighed about 100 pounds. Some scientists believe that habilis is not a separate species and should be carried either as a later Australopithecine or an early Homo erectus. It is possible that early examples are in one species group and later examples in the other.

Homo erectus lived between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. It was a successful species for a million and a half years. Early examples had a 900cc brain size on the average. The brain grew steadily during its reign. Toward the end its brain was almost the same size as modern man, at about 1200cc. The species definitely had speech. Erectus developed tools, weapons and fire and learned to cook his food. He traveled out of Africa into China and Southeast Asia and developed clothing for northern climates. He turned to hunting for his food. Only his head and face differed from modern man. Like habilis, the face had massive jaws with huge molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull. Though proportioned the same, he was sturdier in build and much stronger than the modern human.

Homo sapiens (archaic) provides the bridge between erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens during the period 200,000 to 500,000 years ago. Many skulls have been found with features intermediate between the two. Brain averaged about 1200cc and speech was indicated. Skulls are more rounded and with smaller features. Molars and brow ridges are smaller. The skeleton shows a stronger build than modern human but was well proportioned.

 

[artybloke]

The difficulty comes when one uses scientific theory to try to determine history.

What else would one use? The economic conditions of Europe in the later half of the 19th century + God = the 1st World War? How does a historian test for the presence of God in a historical event? He can test the presence of religious ideas and how they might influence events, but not for the presence of divine transcendence itself.

History and science are academic disciplines that concern the natural world, and use natural tools to investigate it. From the standpoint of faith, we may well be able to see the presence of God in history; but from a purely scientific and historical point of view, there is no way to test for that presence. If there is no way to test for it, there is no way that science can deal with it.

And if we could test for the presence of "God" in history we wouldn't be finding the Creator God. We would be finding something that is a natural phenomenon - that is, a created thing (or being.)

Any scientist - Christian or otherwise - who introduces God into an equation - is going beyond the scope of their subject. God is not a "thing" to be investigated in that way.

Ask yourself - seriously - in what way would God manifest himself in ways that a scientist using purely scientific (observable, testable, repeatable) means?

Many good scientists do see the presence of God in the universe - through faith - but they don't find God by looking through a microscope and pointing out which bit is God and which isn't. To the eyes of faith, it's all God's handiwork.

 

[kenneth558]

No it doesn't demand we take the days figuratively, but the simple fact that God does speak figuratively about days should make us open to the possibility that he was speaking figuratively about creation days too.

Is there any reason a figurative day should not have its 'evening' and 'morning'? After all evening and morning are used figuratively too.

Yes, there is a reason to not get figurative if we aren't forced to. It's because God would have been lying in both Genesis and Exodus 20:11 if it took Him more or less than six literal days. Yes, there is also figurative meaning (actually establishing a pattern) to the six days work and one day rest as we find out from the instructions in the Law to give the land rest every seventh year. But that does NOT make the six days false, it makes them true.

You say the stars weren't created until 'a fourth day', yet in Job 38 we have 'the evening stars singing for joy' when the foundations of the earth were laid. (That would be day one, wouldn't it?) How can you have 'morning stars', metaphorical or otherwise, if there were no stars at the time, and never had been?

The corner stone of the foundations of the earth is not defined well enough for us to say that this is a contradiction of the order of the Genesis account.

As for Gen 1 and 2, simply read the accounts.
Gen 1:11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit
Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Gen 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man
Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.
Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens
Gen 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman

The order is completely different.

There is nothing whatsoever that compels an intelligent person to conclude anything other than that Gen 2:5-9 and Gen 2:15-22 took place on the sixth day. Are you saying that because God planted the Garden of Eden on day six that He could not have created plants outside the garden before day six?

True it was a very important principle. But it was to trust, even if we do not see any evidence, not to believe in things the evidence shows us aren't true. The bible has much greater respect for reality and truth.


It depends on the type of evidence. If Peter and John had found Jesus' body in the tomb, you would never have been able to convince them to have faith in the resurrection.

You'll have finish making your point here. It seems to be a hanging thought that I don't necessarily follow through to the same conclusion you do.

 

[ebia]

Yes, there is a reason to not get figurative if we aren't forced to.

So what is it?

It's because God would have been lying in both Genesis and Exodus 20:11 if it took Him more or less than six literal days.

If the text is figurative or a non literal story, then it isn't a lie. This isn't a reason to not take it figuratively, it's a problem if you don't.

Note that there isn't some default state for texts that says they are literal unless proved otherwise. Such an idea is a peculiarity of modern culture.

Yes, there is also figurative meaning (actually establishing a pattern) to the six days work and one day rest as we find out from the instructions in the Law to give the land rest every seventh year. But that does NOT make the six days false, it makes them true.

You are quite right - it's in that sense they are true; days in a story to set a pattern for us.

 

[artybloke]

Yes, there is a reason to not get figurative if we aren't forced to. It's because God would have been lying in both Genesis and Exodus 20:11 if it took Him more or less than six literal days.

a) What has God got to do with it? God didn't write anything, the authors of the text wrote it.

b) Could you please explain to me why a figurative text is a lie? So far nobody has been able to give me a satisfactory reason why something that is figurative, metaphorical or otherwise non-factual is automatically a lie. This implicates every single poet who has ever lived - including King David - as a liar. And every novelist, every user of illustrative tales (including people who use parables) because if the only kind of truth is factual truth then everything else "must" be a lie.

This is scientism taken to its nth degree, materialist to boot, and a kind of hyper modernism that even the most rationalist materialist would baulk at. Congratulations. You have just added fuel to the atheists' fire.

 

[chris777]

That he lied, to us, because we were too "un evolved" or whatever the intellectual phrasing would be.

Either the Bible is true or it isn't.

either it is vain imaginings,
or much of scientific theory is.

leaven,

what does it do?

And no I am not asking "scientificly"

 

[theFijian]

That he lied, to us, because we were too "un evolved" or whatever the intellectual phrasing would be.

What are you trying to say here? it makes little sense.

 

[artybloke]

either it is vain imaginings,

Again with the insults against poets and artists! Why is a story, a poem, a myth, a song, a parable, a metaphor, all of which the Bible is full of, "vain imaginings?"

Why?

Why are fundamentalists so afraid of the imagination? Maybe because it's immune to the usual demagoguery of the average fundamentalist preacher? Maybe because it can imagine a better, freer and more emotionally mature world than the bleak black & white world of the average literalist? Maybe because it isn't in thrall to a modernist worldview?

Why, again, is using Adam & Eve as a figurative type rather than literal history, a lie? Why can't you answer this question?

 

[TwinCrier]

What evidence would convince you of the opposite side of the argument? If you're a YEC, what would convince you of evolution?

Since my belief in YEC is based on what God has lead me to believe, I would have to have God redirect me to evolution Himself. There is no evidence science could manufactuer to convince me. So far, pictures of rocks that are claimed to be millions of years old hasn't done it for me. Yup, if God told me flat out, "Hey, I was wrong before, I changed my mind, I really used evolution, I was just kidding about all that bible stuff." then Iwould be an evolutionist. Nothing less will do it.

 

[laptoppop]

a) What has God got to do with it? God didn't write anything, the authors of the text wrote it.

This is one of the prime differences in scriptural interpretation methodologies.
NASB:
2Pe 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is {a matter} of one's own interpretation, 2Pe 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Yes, men wrote it down. But the conservative interpretation is that God directed it -- that the word of God is "God Breathed" (II Tim 3:16-17)

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yes, men wrote it down. But the conservative interpretation is that God directed it -- that the word of God is "God Breathed" (II Tim 3:16-17)


divine dictation is not the only "conservative" possible interpretation. men wrote it, using their background, their experiences, their culture to do so, but God directed the work so that they are NOT merely the words of men, but the very words that God desired to write as Scripture. It is similiar to the Protestant idea of the Lord's Supper, the true body of Christ is experienced but the bread remains bread. The true words of God are there in the Scripture but they outwardly and to the senses remain the words of men.

 

[Mallon]

Since my belief in YEC is based on what God has lead me to believe, I would have to have God redirect me to evolution Himself. There is no evidence science could manufactuer to convince me.

TwinCrier, I have to ask, then, if you feel this same way about all matters. Does God literally have to come down to you and whisper the answer into your ear before you form an understanding of something? Do you think that the brains that God gave us are incapable of making informed conclusions about the world apart from divine inspiration? Myself, I think God wants us to make use of His guidance and our brains to unravel the mysteries of the world, as told by what is coming to be one of my favourite scriptures:

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

 

[chris777]

Again with the insults against poets and artists! Why is a story, a poem, a myth, a song, a parable, a metaphor, all of which the Bible is full of, "vain imaginings?"

Why?

I am an artist.

Why are fundamentalists so afraid of the imagination?

some people realize it is not in mans sinfulnature to know when to quit, the tower of babel comes to mind, not to mention all the biblical verses against all of mankinds crafty dreams and ideas.

Maybe because it's immune to the usual demagoguery of the average fundamentalist preacher? Maybe because it can imagine a better, freer and more emotionally mature world than the bleak black & white world of the average literalist? Maybe because it isn't in thrall to a modernist worldview?

I used to be that way dreaming and believing that the world could be a better place is only we the people in and of it could unite, and or do some great works, or whatever. Then I realized that we are too corrupted, and that any REAL lasting permanent change has to come from God, because we are incapapble of it ourselves.

Why, again, is using Adam & Eve as a figurative type rather than literal history, a lie? Why can't you answer this question?

Oh I can anwser it easy for you, the bible was not written to be figurative, it was written to be literal, sure their are some allusions, and the parables, but the vast majority, is literal, and their are many verses to back that up.
My reply about Jesus is a specific example, he says the pentatech was written by moses, he affirms the flood, he affirms the genesis account. If he was who he said he was, would he not know that they were "figurative" yet he makes NO effort to say that they are anything but LITERAL FACT.
and repeatedly directs us back to the scriptures since we have strayed, with the TEACHINGS OF MEN, which is what this so called "enlightened" theology and secularized belief is.
The Greeks seek knowledge, and the Jews seek signs.
Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.
and how many "greeks" do you know that fear the Lord?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Oh I can anwser it easy for you, the bible was not written to be figurative, it was written to be literal, sure their are some allusions, and the parables, but the vast majority, is literal, and their are many verses to back that up.


could you give a few of these many verses that tell us to use a literal modern scientific historical hermeneutic?

btw, this idea originates with Luther, the preference for the literal, as a reaction to the overallegoricallization of the medieval church. Before Luther the clear teaching of hermeneutics was the four-fold way, of which the literal was the least important.

 

[chris777]

TwinCrier, I have to ask, then, if you feel this same way about all matters. Does God literally have to come down to you and whisper the answer into your ear before you form an understanding of something?

is the scripture not clear? It has been relied upon for several thousand years, yet modern science is maby 200is years old and we are expected to rely upon it? Look into the roots, and formation of science itself, who exactly formed it, who exactly put fourth its doctrines, and methodologies. since when did any house not built by God ever last?

Do you think that the brains that God gave us are incapable of making informed conclusions about the world apart from divine inspiration?

Using that rationality one could get into all manner of sin, because "god made them that way"
We are told not to rely on our own understanding, and scientific rational and the resulting atheistic/evolutinary thought is a result of relying on the very brainpower we now posess, God said in Genesis that we are capable of just about anything.
Evolutionary thought is not too far deviant from reincarnation, the results of both processes if you extend them out to their logical conclusions is that man will become god. a very dangerous sinful idea. what was it satan used on Eve. Quite literally the oldest trick in the book still works even today, in our enlightened society.

We arent as smart as we think we are. Einstein, and many of the mega brains if you combined them into one with the internets databases, all the books in the world, do you really think they have the substance of the knowledge of how 1 atom is formed and stays coherent?
Lets face it atomic colliders, atom smashers, they are extremely primative, in that they have to destroy something to create , or learn about it.
Knowledge is now a source of pride, and what does the bible say about pride?

Myself, I think God wants us to make use of His guidance and our brains to unravel the mysteries of the world, as told by what is coming to be one of my favourite scriptures:

I used to think the world would never end until after we as mankind discovered all the secrets of the universe.
the problem is we will never make it on our own, and it goes against prophetic scriptures.

 

[jereth]

It is similiar to the Protestant idea of the Lord's Supper, the true body of Christ is experienced but the bread remains bread. The true words of God are there in the Scripture but they outwardly and to the senses remain the words of men.

Jesus Christ is the supreme example of how the Word can be human and divine at the same time. Jesus looked like a man, spoke like a man, ate like a man, slept like a man, coughed like a man, sneezed like a man, probably even belched like a man. To all appearances he was (and still is) human. Yet he is also God the Son.

Similarly, the Scriptures are a fully human work as well as a fully divine work. The overwhelming majority of Scripture was written by men who did not realise God was speaking through their writings -- Genesis included.

My reply about Jesus is a specific example, he says the pentatech was written by moses, he affirms the flood, he affirms the genesis account. If he was who he said he was, would he not know that they were "figurative" yet he makes NO effort to say that they are anything but LITERAL FACT.

Jesus never said "the pentateuch" was "written by Moses". He simply referred to The Law as "Moses", as was customary in those times.

Jesus affirmed the flood, but never said it was a global flood.

Jesus affirmed the spiritual and moral truth of the Genesis account, but he never claimed it is a historical record. Not once does Jesus (or any other New TEstament writer) mention a literal 6 day creation week.

Please be careful that you don't put things into Jesus' mouth which he never said.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Knowledge is now a source of pride, and what does the bible say about pride?


my experience with the truely brilliant and wise is not that they are prideful at all, but rather impressed at the complexity of the world are quiet, unassuming and modest. It is those who aren't quite smart enough to catch this vision that are prideful inspite of their obvious fraility, mortality and ignorance.

 

[TwinCrier]

TwinCrier, I have to ask, then, if you feel this same way about all matters. Does God literally have to come down to you and whisper the answer into your ear before you form an understanding of something? Do you think that the brains that God gave us are incapable of making informed conclusions about the world apart from divine inspiration? Myself, I think God wants us to make use of His guidance and our brains to unravel the mysteries of the world, as told by what is coming to be one of my favourite scriptures:

No, God doesn't HAVE to whisper the answer in my ear (sometimes He SHOWS me the answer) but since God has already whispered in my ear in that still, small voice that Creation is as literal as can be, I won't be changing my mind, unless He repents of the previous conclusion He gave me. I'm not holding my breath though.