Why I post, or Yes, you can be a Christian and accept evolution!

[bshaw96]

Well perhaps you should learn the details .

Evolution says that apes and humans came from a common ancestor rather that a monkey gave birth to a human.

Well, I never actually thought a monkey birthed a human, but thanks for clearing that up for my "simple little mind", hehe . As for needing to learn the details, why? If God leads me to study evolution, sure, I will. But all He's leading me to study right now is the Bible.

 

[Vance]

Well, I never actually thought a monkey birthed a human, but thanks for clearing that up for my "simple little mind", hehe . As for needing to learn the details, why? If God leads me to study evolution, sure, I will. But all He's leading me to study right now is the Bible.

And that is wonderful. I think the point is that you might want to refrain from coming to conclusions about things like evolution without having looked into it thoroughly. If you don't have the time or interest to study it in more detail (and there are LOTS of things I don't have such time for!!), that is very understandable, but then I am not sure it makes sense to make statements about whether it is correct or not.

P.S. make sure to read my signature line. Many think that they HAVE studied up on evolution just by accepting what Creationists tell them about it.

 

[notto]

Came across this on talk origins.

Looks like Vance is right!

You CAN be a Chrsitian (even a conservative one) and accept evolution!

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-olivet31.html

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

This is an interesting quote from that article;

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]According to a Gallup poll released last month, only one third of Americans regard Darwin's theory of evolution as well supported by empirical evidence; 45 percent believe God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago.[/font] [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Usually, the defense of evolution comes from scientists. But Colling has another motivation.[/font]

So the defenders are the ones who have been 'educated' in how the processes should work, and the ones whose career prospects often hinge upon towing the 'evolution' line.

I certainly grant that Colling is quite courageous to hold the line that he does in the workplace that he has.

It interesting that those not indocrinated in the scientific acadaemia still by and large reject evolution as the most likely interpretation of evidence.

I also reject the idea that this is just an American statistic as well. I expect the numbers would be lower in Europe that is becoming very devoid of faith, but in Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania I would expect that you would get similar numbers.

 

[Vance]

It is not a matter of those indoctrinated in academia, it is those who have reviewed the evidence in sufficient detail. It does not surprise me in the least that in America the numbers accepting evolution are so low.

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

Like I said, I don't think America's figures are radically different, to world at large. I think they would be different to Europe, but not elsewhere.

It is not so much about having looked at the evidence in detail so much as being told over and over again what the evidence means by those held out to be authorities in their fields. And they may well be authorities, but they have trained, sitting under the teachings of other authorities who have told them what the evidence means.

I certainly concede that evolution is a very well constructed, thought out interpretation of physical evidence. We would expect no less from the body of scholars that have contributed to the current theory.

I submit however at the end of the day it is still just that, an interpretation of evidence. Interestingly it is not the only interpretation. One alternative 'Creation' seems to be more widely accepted amongst those that have not been 'schooled' in how the evidence 'should be' interpreted.

You may choose to believe what you will, but as for me, I will believe what God has declared through Moses.

 

[Vance]

Your whole approach is that the scientists and others who are educated in the area just accept what they are told rather than reaching conclusions on their own. This is very faulty because those who tend to become aware of the evidence are those who are used to making up their own minds about things, not just blindly following. Scientists are, by nature, skeptics and challengers of accepted knowledge. They INSIST on the evidence being convincing.

And those, like myself, who have studied the matter in great detail, but who STARTED with the assumption of YEC'ism, were obviously not just toeing the party line. The evidence is just THERE and it is overwhelmingly convincing to everyone OTHER than those with fixed agendas they must adhere to.

The point is that the majority of Americans have little or no exposure to the evidence for an old earth and for evolutionary development. So, without such exposure, they MUST follow someone else's lead, usually what they have been raised to believe or what their "leaders", whether religious leaders, parents, etc, are telling them. One thing for sure is that without having reviewed the evidence, the one impossible thing for them to do is make an INFORMED decision.

There is little doubt in my mind (make that NO doubt) that if everyone reviewed the evidence on their own, objectively and skeptically, we would have well over 90% accepting evolution as a very likely explanation for our current diversity, and definitely the best explanation going.

The fact that almost every CHRISTIAN scientist in the relevant fields (who are most likely to have reviewed the evidence in detail) accepts this fact is an important point. And even those who do not accept the current theory of evolution, like the ID scientists, STILL accept an old earth, and development of the species, including humans over billions of years. Now THESE guys are obviously not being influenced by the "establishment", but they still have concluded that everything science has concluded is true, except for one thing: that evolution could have happened without intelligent guidance.

 

[California Tim]

There is little doubt in my mind (make that NO doubt) that if everyone reviewed the evidence on their own, objectively and skeptically, we would have well over 90% accepting evolution as a very likely explanation for our current diversity, and definitely the best explanation going.

It is continually assumed and this entire argument predicated on the absolute reliability of the methods of computation regarding dating. Of course if I were interpreting the fossil record with a table that defined the strata layers at X years of age, I would have to conceed that the earth is indeed billions of years old. If I were handed a chart that documented the rate of movement of the tectonic plates over the last 50 years and had to use a table of measurement that declared the rate of movement was forever a constant - again I would have to conceed the evidence supports and old earth. If I were handed the fossilized remains of a repitilian-like creature that apparently had feathers, and was handed a chart that promoted the progression of the species as presumed indisputable fact, I'd have to conclude that this fossil proved speciation and thus macro-evolution would be indisputable.

But the problem is that the charts and tables used to verify and evaluate this evidence is not above reproach. It is seldom questioned, however, as we just jump right into the arguments as though the data was reliable. You and many other TE'ists here have rightly acknowledged that science doesn't predict, but observes was is - it doesn't make something true, it just observes a condition. Science can produce mountains of fossil evidence, but ream after ream of pro-evolutionary argument does little more than acknowledge an infinitesmal overall knowledge of the process, and produces monumental gaps that must be bridged by wild speculation. The truth is, science observes much, but knows little of the grand scheme of the universe. If one - only one supernatural event is thrown into the historical mixture, the entire process of evaluation and dating is hopelessly skewed and unreliable - thus the overwhelming disdain for the concept of the Biblical flood by evolutionists. Often times they spend as much time and energy trying to disprove that as they do trying to prove evolution. Perhaps it's because they know the ramifications on their dating systems and theories if it were demonstrated to be true.

So, saying that given a chance to objectively review the evidence would naturally lead to an evolutionary conclusion could ONLY happen if the faulty tables and formulas used totally exempted the possibility of a supernatural disturbence along the way. Instead we'd have to accept what we see now as a blip on a long line of uniformitarianism. It's like saying - given the chance to go to Berkeley University, most graduates would end up leaning towards liberalism. It's a redundant conclusion.

 

[Vance]

To address the dating issue first:

The fact that dating methods are not perfect does not mean they are not usually accurate. The known issues in the dating methods are just that, known, and are taken into consideration. Further, it is not just one dating method, but many different methods that all substantially agree when they can be used to date the same events or objects. Dating is not an exact science, but it is actually very reliable. This is not just hit and miss guesswork, but a variety of techniques developed and refined over decades, and used by scientists in a wide variety of fields. So far, the ONLY group who finds them unreliable overall is the group which holds a pre-existing, and unchangeable, belief that the dating results MUST be wrong: the Young Earth Creationists. Nobody without such a strong motivation to discard these results has any real problem with them. Even other Creationists have come to accept that the dating techniques can be relied up most of the time. See this site for a good discussion by a Creationist scientist who is an ardent ANTI-EVOLUTIONIST:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue07/index.shtml#dynamics_of_dating

Here is an excerpt:

Radiometric dating has proven reliable from relatively short timescales of seconds, minutes, days, and years (calibrated with laboratory clocks), to a few thousand years (cross-calibrated with other reliable age indicators), to many millions of years (cross-comparison performed between dating methods). Some people question whether data from so far in the past can be credible. But trusting dating methods is similar to trusting other events of history. Why do people believe Abraham Lincoln lived? An extremely elaborate scheme would be required to fabricate his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, false quotations, and many other things. In short, to believe he existed seems far more reasonable than to believe his existence was feigned. The situation with radiometric dating is similar, only examination of rock data rather than of historical records reveals the story. Multiple corroborations of radiometric dating make a very strong case for its validity.

1. Radiometric dates agree with astronomical timescales.5 In astronomy, decay rate constancy can be tested easily by studying stars at varying distances. Since these distances represent different light travel times (hence different astronomical eras), astronomers can observe whether or not decay rates were slower or faster at different eras. Their research reveals constancy, and constancy confirms established radiometric dates.
2. Vast amounts of evidence for the reliability of dating have appeared in periodicals such as Science, Nature, and specific geology journals. In 1999 alone, more than a thousand papers published on radiometric dating essentially agreed on a very old age for Earth.
3. Most rocks are, for practical purposes, closed systems. Some doubters have tried to dismiss geologic dating by saying that no rocks are completely closed systems (i.e., rocks are not isolated from their surroundings and as a result have lost or gained some isotopes used for dating). From an extremely technical perspective this point may be true—perhaps one atom out of a trillion has leaked out of nearly all rocks—but such a change makes an unmeasurably small change in the result. Many books written over the past forty years detail the precise conditions under which dating mechanisms work.
4. The presence of only two quantities in the exponent of the equation, half-life and time, make equations for radiometric decay extremely simple. No evidence in the past century suggests that decay rates might slow down over time, leading to incorrect dates. The following argument makes such an idea meaningless in terms of “apparent” but false ages: Based on the equation, in order for ages to appear longer than actual, all half-lives would have to change in sync with each other. Since different dating methods all produce agreement, all of the half-lives must have slowed. Such an occurrence would be as if time itself slowed down.
5. A misconception exists that radiometric dating is based on index fossils with dates assigned long before radioactivity was discovered. In truth, radiometric dating is based on the half-lives of radioactive isotopes measured over the last forty to eighty years. Fossils do not calibrate them. Radiometric dating is most often used on igneous rocks while fossils are found in sedimentary rocks.
6. Decay rates have been directly measured over the last fifty to eighty years. In some cases, a batch of pure parent material is weighed, then set aside for a long time. The resulting daughter material can then be weighed. Often, radioactive decays can be detected more easily by the energy bursts each decay gives off. For this detection, a batch of the pure parent material is carefully weighed and then put in front of a Geiger counter (or gamma-ray detector), which counts the number of decays over a long time period.
7. If decay rates were poorly known, dates could be inaccurate. However, most decay rates used for dating rocks are known to within about 2 percent accuracy. Uncertainties are only slightly higher on rhenium (5%), lutetium (3%), and beryllium (3%).6 Such small uncertainties provide no reason to dismiss radiometric dating. Whether a rock is 100 million years old or 102 million years old makes little difference.
8. Since exponents are used in the dating equations, some people believe that a small error in the half-lives could lead to very large errors in the dates. In reality, a half-life off by 2 percent, leads only to a 2 percent error in the date.
9. Some individuals have suggested that a small change in the nuclear forces might have accelerated nuclear clocks during a certain period just a few thousand years ago, causing spuriously old radiometric dates. Since methods date rocks from the time of their formation, such a change of nuclear forces would have to have occurred after Earth (and the rocks) were formed. To make a difference, the half-lives would require shortening from several billion years down to several thousand years—a factor of at least a million. Such a shortening would cause large physical effects. For example, Earth is heated substantially by radioactive decay. If that decay is sped up by a factor of a million or so, the tremendous heat pulse would easily melt the whole planet, including the rocks in question.
10. Some people suggest that the “full-life” (the time at which all of the parent is gone) should be measured rather than the half-life (the time when half of it is gone). Unlike sand in an hourglass, which drops at a constant rate independent of how much is remaining, the number of radioactive decays is proportional to the amount of parent remaining. Figure 2 shows how after two half-lives, ½ x ½ = ¼ is left, and so on. After 10 half-lives there is 2-10 = 0.098% remaining. Scientists sometimes instead use the term “mean life,” that is, the average life of a parent atom. The mean life is always 1/ln(2) = 1.44 times the half-life. Most people more easily understand half-life.
11. Subjecting rocks used in dating methods to heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and strong chemical reactions that could be experienced on Earth or other planets yields no significant change in radioactive decay rates.
12. Claims of unreliability have been made based on the inaccurate dating of a rock from the Mount Saint Helens eruption (1980). The dating lab reported it as several million years old. Does this mean radiometric dating can't be trusted? Not when proper procedures are observed. Radiometric dating can be "tricked" if a single dating method is improperly used on a sample. Anyone can move the hands on a clock to indicate the time incorrectly. Likewise, people actively looking for incorrect radiometric dates can find them. However, multiple dating methods used together on igneous rocks are typically trustworthy.
13. Some people propose that since radiogenic helium and argon continue to escape from Earth’s interior, Earth must be young. However, the radioactive parent isotopes, uranium and potassium, have very long half-lives, as shown in Table 1. These parents still exist and still produce helium and argon in abundance in Earth’s interior. Further, a time lag exists between the production of daughter products and their escape (or degassing). If Earth were geologically young, very little helium and argon would have been produced by now. What does the evidence show? Researchers have compared the amount of argon in the atmosphere to the amount expected from decay of potassium over 4.6 billion years, and they find consistency.
    ​
14. Unsubstantiated speculation can produce the idea that only nontheists and others who dismiss the inerrancy of the Bible give credence to radiometric dating techniques. However, the roots of the scientific age can be traced to the idea that God’s creation is testable, trustable, and worthy of systematic study. The key concept of such study details God’s revelation of Himself, not only through the Bible (special revelation) but also through creation (general revelation). A great number of other Christians recognize with conviction that radiometric dating substantiates evidence that God created Earth billions, not thousands, of years ago. Many Christians work in the field of radiometric dating.

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

And those, like myself, who have studied the matter in great detail, but who STARTED with the assumption of YEC'ism, were obviously not just toeing the party line. The evidence is just THERE and it is overwhelmingly convincing to everyone OTHER than those with fixed agendas they must adhere to.
...
One thing for sure is that without having reviewed the evidence, the one impossible thing for them to do is make an INFORMED decision.

There is little doubt in my mind (make that NO doubt) that if everyone reviewed the evidence on their own, objectively and skeptically, we would have well over 90% accepting evolution as a very likely explanation for our current diversity, and definitely the best explanation going.

So this excellent science, and best explanation, and informed decisions are similar to this piece of scientific work and evolutionary propoganda;

One such “discovery” is worth reviewing. It received television coverage and was featured in National
Geographic. Scientists believed they had found a “walking whale.” This was supposed to be the missing link
between land mammals and whales.

This amazing discovery led paleontologist Daryl Domning to state, “We essentially have every stage now from the terrestrial animal to one that is fully aquatic.” Surely such an assertion would have sweeping effects through
evolution sciences.

The following month, in the November 2001 issue of National Geographic, incredibly impressive renderings
of this “walking whale” appeared in the article “Evolution of Whales.” It was now settled—the whale’s evolutionary path had been established, and the theory had been proven true.

Or had it?

All the hoopla came from the discovery of only a jaw and some skull fragments. And nothing else! From only parts of an ear bone and teeth, amazing rendering presented in
National Geographic were derived.

This could be compared to finding a scrap of metal, and then asserting that you can render the exact replica of the
building from which it came. This is beyond ridiculous!

Later, a skeleton of this same creature was discovered. With all the facts in place, it was obvious that this creature
did not swim—it was a running land animal. Of course, no correction was offered!

This is not the only example of data misused to fit within the theory of evolution. The vast number of misrepresentations has led to statements such as: “What the ‘record’ shows is nearly a century of fudging and finagling by scientists attempting to force various fossil morsels and fragments to conform to Darwin’s notions, all to no avail. Today the millions of fossils stand as a very visible, ever-present reminder of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution” (Jeremy Rifkin,
Algeny, p. 125).

So what was Domning's agenda?
What was National Geographics' agenda?

Was the agenda ever truth? I think not.

 

[Vance]

Continuing . . .

You talk about "evolutionists" arguing against the flood, as if a person who happens to both accept evolution and disagree with a global flood is, first and foremost, an "evolutionist" and the flood issue is an outflow of that belief. But we must remember that the age of the earth being vastly older than 6,000 years AND the conclusion that a global flood was contrary to the evidence occured before evolution was ever presented. These are independent conclusions, and held by people for independent reasons. The few real scientists in the relevant fields, in fact, who are doubtful of evolution very often still accept that the earth is billions of years old and that a global flood never happened. There is no need to conflate these issues.

As for your more general conclusion, the problem is that the conclusion of uniformitarianism is also a sensible conclusion based on the evidence. We have no reason whatsoever to believe that things happened differently in the past, and every reason to believe that once God created the world, the natural laws have worked the same ever since. The we don't just view the evidence from the past based on the assumption that nature has always worked the same way, the evidence from the past itself attests to the fact that nature has always worked the same way! Everything we have observed from the past reinforces this idea and NOTHING has argued to the contrary.

The bottom line is that it is the evidence which creates the conclusions, not the conclusions distorting the interpretation of the evidence. When the evidence, as a whole, comes to cause us to reconsider a previously held belief, scientists are fully willing to change that belief. This has been shown over and over.

And no, supernatural events would not change anything. Again, a supernatural event is outside nature, so it does not conflict with the natural laws or change the natural laws. It is an exception to the rule, you might say. The rule still holds. And yet again, the problem with the particular supernatural events like the flood and a recent creation that the YEC's have proposed, is not rejected because it is supernatural. Not in the least. It is rejected because there is specfic evidence that WOULD NOT BE THERE if the event had taken place. And there is a complete absence of evidence THAT WOULD BE THERE if it had taken place. In short, if there had been a global flood within the last 5,000 years, the earth would look and behave VERY differently than it does now.

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

So we have to accept it that Moses got it wrong about the Flood as well. How many chapters of Genesis are we supposed to ignore because of there irrelevance to reality.

Oh that's right is only allegorical. So Noah didn't really exist. He mustn't have had 3 real sons either, and there is no line of decent to Abraham. Please tell me at what point these people became REAL people and not symbolic charaters in a parable.

 

[Maccie]

Does any YEC here really and truly bother to read what Vance says so clearly? It seems to me that they just skip across it and regurgitate their rigid, closed-mind opinions which have been formed by years of listening to similar rigid closed-minded leaders.

Keep at it, Vance!

 

[Vance]

So we have to accept it that Moses got it wrong about the Flood as well. How many chapters of Genesis are we supposed to ignore because of there irrelevance to reality.

Oh that's right is only allegorical. So Noah didn't really exist. He mustn't have had 3 real sons either, and there is no line of decent to Abraham. Please tell me at what point these people became REAL people and not symbolic charaters in a parable.

I am a bit confused, because your response does not fit with the position I have been presenting.

1. I don't think the writer of Genesis, be it Moses or otherwise, got ANYTHING wrong.

2. I don't think we are meant to ignore ANYTHING in Scripture.

3. I don't think ANYTHING in Scripture is irrelevant.

4. I don't think all of Genesis is allegorical. I think much of the first few chapters tell of events and theological truths using figurative language and symbolism, as you do with other Scripture.

All of these are just strawmen versions of what I am saying.

I don't think we can know for sure exactly where the historical figures merge with the figurative figures, and since the ancients would not have worried about this, I don't see why we should either. There is also the possibility that they are, indeed, historical figures but that the events of their lives are not wholly historical and have been told in figurative language. This is VERY common in ancient near eastern literature.

Let me ask you, think about the Scripture YOU read figuratively and as written in symbolic language: do you find them less important, less valid or less God's message to us that we must heed and follow? Do you find them less true, in fact? Do you find that Scripture irrelevant and something you can ignore? Do you not give it the same value and importance as any Scripture you read as historically literal?

If you find such figurative Scripture valid and true, valuable and not to be ignored, then why do you presume that WE treat those Scriptures that WE read as figurative or symbolic any differently than you?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Like I said, I don't think America's figures are radically different, to world at large. I think they would be different to Europe, but not elsewhere.

It is not so much about having looked at the evidence in detail so much as being told over and over again what the evidence means by those held out to be authorities in their fields. And they may well be authorities, but they have trained, sitting under the teachings of other authorities who have told them what the evidence means.

I certainly concede that evolution is a very well constructed, thought out interpretation of physical evidence. We would expect no less from the body of scholars that have contributed to the current theory.

I submit however at the end of the day it is still just that, an interpretation of evidence. Interestingly it is not the only interpretation. One alternative 'Creation' seems to be more widely accepted amongst those that have not been 'schooled' in how the evidence 'should be' interpreted.

You may choose to believe what you will, but as for me, I will believe what God has declared through Moses.

I have often written in this forum about my ideas of 'nothing-butism', which is the metaphysical extension of science that proposes that the universe is 'nothing but' matter in motion. This author proposes another kind of 'nothing butism'-- the radical notion that scientific knowledge is 'nothing but' interpretation and all interpretations are equalling valid, or equalling invalid, depending.

What he doesn't allow for is the radical intersubjectivity of science. We do not each experience a fundamentally different reality, in short this is not a solipsistic world. It is God's world, and as creatures in the image of God we can experience the world, partially and incompletely, but still truely. Even the strict materialist like Dawkins Dennett and company can experience the world truely and say true things, despite their fundamental rebellion towards God.

But this solipsisism, all interpretations are equally valid, strikes at the very epistemological heart of a Christian worldview. This is the rose colored glasses that AiG and YECists are trying on, in order to try to deny the validity of a scientific epistemology, they would try this 'all interpretations are equally valid' and thus creationism ought to be taught side by side with science in the classroom --- notion. Without realizing how anti-Christian this is. It is God's world, and His interpretation is true and the closer someone's ideas are to His the better these ideas are. God's interpretation of the universe is out there and accessible to anyone who wants to study it. Does secular materialism cloud the unbelievers mind? Certainly, But is this sufficient explanation for a (15B vs 10K) 6 orders of magnitude error in the age of the universe? (between science and YECist) NO. What this blindness is sufficient to do is to allow the materialist not to give glory to the Creator for the good things in his life. Handling the data is trival compared to worship of the one who made you.

thus straining at gnats they swallow camels.

....

 

[Vance]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to rmwilliamsll again" Ugh!

This is exactly right. I think it is hard for many YEC's to accept the fact that an atheist might actually be closer to the truth about how God created the universe than they are (even though the atheist would never acknowledge God in the processes and timing they are explaining).

 

[gluadys]

See this site for a good discussion by a Creationist scientist who is an ardent ANTI-EVOLUTIONIST:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue07/index.shtml#dynamics_of_dating

Here is an excerpt:

[*]Unsubstantiated speculation can produce the idea that only nontheists and others who dismiss the inerrancy of the Bible give credence to radiometric dating techniques. However, the roots of the scientific age can be traced to the idea that God’s creation is testable, trustable, and worthy of systematic study. The key concept of such study details God’s revelation of Himself, not only through the Bible (special revelation) but also through creation (general revelation). A great number of other Christians recognize with conviction that radiometric dating substantiates evidence that God created Earth billions, not thousands, of years ago. Many Christians work in the field of radiometric dating.
[/list]

The bolded statement cannot be over-emphasized. Many commentators have noted that Christian belief provided the soil for modern science. It is not that other cultures were devoid of scientific knowledge and its practical applications. But for the most part their science did not develop into a systematic way of studying nature. And that can be traced to some key differences in their assumptions about nature.

The two great assumptions---both deeply rooted in Christian theological tradition--that made Europe rather than the more advanced civilizations of India for example, the seed-bed of science were:

1. God's creation is real.
2. God's creation is knowable.

There are many philosophies and theologies which dispute point 1. The whole Hindu/Buddhist complex is built on the notion that the world of everyday experience, of ordinary sensory experience, is not real. It is maya, illusion, a world of non-reality we are trapped in for lifetime after lifetime until we understand that it is not real and can then let go of it.

Plato's parable of the cave makes the same point. This world is a pale and confusing shadow of reality, not real in and of itself. The Gnostics picked up the same idea.

But Christianity has always held that God did not create an illusion when he created the universe. God risked giving the universe a reality of its own, dependant and contingent on God, yet also distinct and separate from God's own being. God is above and around and in the world, but God is not the world, nor is the world God.

Point 2 is just as important. Granting that the world is real is not enough. We must also grant that the world is knowable. Again, there are philosophical approaches which deny this. The best-known is that of Immanuel Kant, who makes a strong distinction between the phenomena which are perceived by our senses and the noumena or things as they really are in themselves. Can we know at all that what we sense has any connection to what is?

Logically, philosophically, there is no way to tell. But Christian theology says yes. God gave us senses and a reasoning mind in order that we should be able to know the world God created, and through them have an insight about the Creator as well. That we can have reliable knowledge of the world is the basis of general revelation. Without such reliable knowledge, general revelation could not exist, nor could anyone be held accountable in the judgment on the basis of general revelation, which Paul says is the case.

The creationist attack on science is largely an attack on point 2. It basically says that all human knowledge about the world is suspect because the fall has so corrupted our senses and our capacity to reason that they cannot be reliable guides. But this suspicion of our ordinary means of knowing effectively means there can be no general revelation. It also stands in contradiction to biblical injunctions to observe the world and to use our reason. Think of how often Jesus began a parable by pointing to a well-known natural phenomenon.

Granted, how we use our senses and our minds is affected by the fall. Any one of us can become enamoured of our own ideas, and be puffed up with pride and egotism so that we cling to them blindly. But to say that is a general rule about all seekers of the truth about nature and about all the knowledge they have accumulated is a gross insult to the deep spirituality and humility of the many Christians who have worked to unlock the secrets of nature.

It also ignores the many safe-guards which logicians and philosophers and scientists have built up to avoid the pitfalls of egotism and fallacious reasoning.

And it reverses the basic Christian belief that God wants us to know the created world and receive its testimony to the glory of its Creator. Was the Psalmist wrong when he proclaimed "The heavens are telling the glory of God and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge."

God made a real world.
God wants us to know the world he made.
God has given us tools to make that knowledge possible.

This is the foundation of both general revelation and modern science.

 

[gluadys]

I see rmcwilliamsll and I were on the same wave-length, but he typed faster.

 

[Vance]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gluadys again."

Ugh again!

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

4. I don't think all of Genesis is allegorical. I think much of the first few chapters tell of events and theological truths using figurative language and symbolism, as you do with other Scripture.

All of these are just strawmen versions of what I am saying.

I don't think we can know for sure exactly where the historical figures merge with the figurative figures, and since the ancients would not have worried about this, I don't see why we should either. There is also the possibility that they are, indeed, historical figures but that the events of their lives are not wholly historical and have been told in figurative language. This is VERY common in ancient near eastern literature.

So your belief about evolution has taken you to the point of not knowing which people within a Hebrew geneology are real and which are fictious. Have you ever read about how fanatical the Hebrews were and are about their geneologies.

If Abraham was real, then who was his father, and grandfather. Are we told? Yes we are. If Shem was real then who was his father? Are we told? Yes, Noah.

Please openly provide proof, lexical or otherwise that the infomation provided about Noah is allegorical. Can you do this? What proofs lead you to this position?

Do you realise that Noah was alive for 58 years of Abraham's life. Do you think that Abraham might have been able to verirfy the stories of Noah by asking him directly?

Mat 24:34-40 ESV
(34) Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
(35) Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
(36) "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.
(37) As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
(38) For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark,
(39) and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
(40) Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left.

This passage is JESUS SPEAKING. Do you think HE was talking about a figurative Noah? Do you think HE was speaking about a past event that never happened? Was Jesus lying? Especially after saying "Truly, I say to you".
Was Jesus wrong?

Do you think he might have been speaking about a real flood event, that was known to the people as a real event, and would have been understood by them as real? At what point in history did the flood become 'figurative'.

By the way, please explain by what piece of scholarship I am supposed to know 'only from the text' that a piece of Scripture is figurative. Please provide examples.

Also which of the characters in Hebrews 11 are real and which are figurative. How do you tell the difference? Was the writer of Hebrews inspired by the Holy Spirit or not?

2Pe 2:3-7 GNB
(3) In their greed these false teachers will make a profit out of telling you made-up stories. For a long time now their Judge has been ready, and their Destroyer has been wide awake!
(4) God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell, where they are kept chained in darkness, waiting for the Day of Judgment.
(5) God did not spare the ancient world, but brought the flood on the world of godless people; the only ones he saved were Noah, who preached righteousness, and seven other people.
(6) God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying them with fire, and made them an example of what will happen to the godless.
(7) He rescued Lot, a good man, who was distressed by the immoral conduct of lawless people.

So was Enoch figurative? Noah? Lot?
Was the flood figurative? What about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? What textual rules prove this?

Was Peter not inspired by the Holy Spirit when writing this passage? Did he get it wrong? Do you think he might have been talking about a real event?

You see there is much more than just Genesis that leads a Christian believer to accept the reality of a global flood. The reason evolutionist so desperately want to call it false is that it explains a lot of things very logically that they would want us to believe that only evolution can explain. It also invalidates a lot of theories about geological formation.

Have you ever wondered why there is an ancient flood story in diverse cultures around the world. These cultures have only been discovered in the last few hundred years but their stories of ancient times have incredible similarity to a flood and to Babel. A common ancestry makes a lot of sense when you consider this evidence. All the way back to Noah.