Evolutionism vs the Gospel

Bob,

"Lets be honest -- we ALREADY have it. AS shown on the thread dedicated to Evolution's appeal to junk science."

I don't know where you get your facts brother - well I'm glad you're at least satisfied with them!

 

Guys, is keeping this thread open going to be fruitful or not? There's already a number of people who would like to see these CvE threads stopped. I'm not one of them, but drawing negative attention to the threads by useless bickering isn't going to help convince people that they should continue.
Gina

 

The Bible really DOES use the creationist model that the evolutionist here ACCUSE it of using!</font>[/QUOTE]BobRyan, are you willing to affirm the literal, plain meaning of this passage? It says everything in the heavens, earth and sea were made in six days. The stars are in the heavens (see Genesis 15:5, Nehemiah 9:6 and Psalm 8:3 for just three passages among many that confirm this). They are mentioned on day four of Genesis 1 after the creation of the two great lights.

So, can you come out and say, without dodging, that you believe Exodus 20:11 when it says that "all that is in" the heavens, including the stars, were created in six days? I know Gup and most other YECs would have no trouble agreeing with this, but so far you've seemed to skirt this issue, or to redefine the verse to be only talking about the creation of living things.

 

Gina,

The bickering here is less than in the "versions" forum. It's a viable topic!

 

BobRyan, with all that dodging I didn't quite catch that. Did you just say that you don't think the stars are part of God's creation that he made in six literal days, contrary to Exodus 20:11?

Out of curiosity, what kind of gap theory do you espouse, and what do you think was all included in God's first creation?

 

Bob,

"I don't know that adults here will change their minds - but perhaps the creationists will be better equipped to inform their children and perhaps the evolutionists will be better able to see the "trade" they have made."

Hopefully so. That's reasonable. The last thing I would ever want to do is hurt someone's faith.

I would say also that I am not a professed "evolutionist" Evolution is a theoretical system which, if true, would accomodate alot of what we see. Based on science it seems likely but not proved. I am however an "old earth" advocate.

Your last post seems like you at least seem to see what I'm saying, even if you disagree with it. I'll put it another way. I've always been analytically minded - this is probably part of why I gravitated towards the sciences.

I am concerned, based on my own experiences and those of many people I know that the YEC case will be unsatisfying for many with a mindset similar to my own. I understand that to you evolution and old earth science seems like junk science - believe me I wish it did to me as well! ( Consider yourself blessed that God has given you such strong faith.) But even as a new zealous Christian years ago I could not make myself believe the YEC arguments.

I recall my ex-brother in law, a very bright man, who attended Liberty U and graduated first in his class with a degree in undergraduate biblical studies. When he went for graduate studies later he realized that the science and philosophy he had been taught were not exactly correct. He said he realized that it was just all built on lies.

Of course that's his fault. But I'm concerned that those with similar science-friendly minds might be troubled by many of the same questions. By my estimation, and that of 99+% of biologists and chemists, the evidence favors an old earth. And a young student with similar mental faculties will (I believe) likely come to the same conclusion. This is why I assert that we must be honest in addressing what science shows us. I personally feel that an appeal to scripture as a higher authority is a more consistent stance for opposing OECism - because (I think) labelling it junk science will hurt your credibility in the eyes of those students who may tend to think otherwise.

 

I agree that it's a very viable topic, and everyone generally behaves in a very commendable way. My point is to not let the naysayers have any excuse, nothing to point to and say "this is part of why this topic shouldn't be allowed on the board."

Otay, continue on. It's looking better already anyhow.

Gina

 

You are correct. Biblical evidence is FAR more valuable and true, and revealing than anything I have ever seen in scientific evidence. Scientific evidence changes from day to day, but the Word of God never changes.

Keep in mind that while I do advocate the position that a purely secular science will lead unequivocally to evolution, we do not live in a purely secular or purely natural world. Therefore it is INCORRECT (albeit natually logical) to arrive at the conclusion of evolution. Science has made the mistake of ignoring evidence that does not seem to be entirely naturalistic. Therefore science alone is unable to arrive at the truth. Science MUST be mixed with, and measured by, scripture in order to become accurate. Otherwise it's like trying someone in court without hearing one side of the argument. If you only look at the NATURAL evidence, and ignore the spritual and supernatural, your conclusions will all be wrong, and you will have built your model, in this case evolution, upon an incomplete examination of the facts.

Actually, all you did was point out a naturalistic perception of the text. No where did you show me where the Bible calls itself allegorical... no where did you show me where the Bible says that it's words weren't true. No where did you present any BIBLICAL evidence to back up your claims or your case whatsoever. In fact, all you did is point at a supernaturally influenced "actual event" and say "this even could not have happened naturally". Well, we agree... it was not a natural event. It was an event that was directly influenced by the Supernatural, therefore your science hasn't got the ability to judge it's probability. Moreover, we have shown you repeatedly how the whole of scripture supports the supernatural event as having literally happened. You come, yet again, without a single piece of evidence on your side and expect us to throw away an entire Bible full of evidence against you. It's not going to happen. You have zero evidence... we have an insurmountable cache of evidence... this has been demonstrated time and time again in this discussion, yet you continue to hold to your position on the hopes that we will ignore the Biblical evidence and do as you do and focus, not on the scripture, but on the world and on a humanistic interpretation of the natural.

The smoller/temple paper is not intended to be a support of Humphrey's cosmology, but in fact it does support the very theories Humphreys has been talking about for a decade. The main poits of such is that the universe has a center and an edge... current thought on the "Big Bang" is the opposite. Unwittingly (perhaps), this paper lends much credibility to Humphrey's model. Yet again, we see science being lead by creationists science toward truth. Your call for me to withdraw my assertion is from ignorance. However, your ability to search the internet to find any instance where atheists and non-christians argued with me is commendable. By the way - ... the guy I was arguing with on the YouDebate forum didn't believe the Bible either - so it seems you guys have something in common beyond the fact that you are arguing with me.

No, I cannot find anyone who hates God and disagrees with evolution.... imagine that. Everyone who hates God agrees with evolution. Interesting how we have found those who claim to love God on this board, yet disbelieve the scirpture. I guess it's true what they say - one bad apple will spoil the whole barrel, but one good apple in barrel of rotten ones has no effect.

In another thread perhaps, but in this thread the WORD OF GOD is supreme. Therefore the onus is upton you to show us from scripture - something no evolutionist here has yet done - evidence that suggests otherwise. I have shown you, for example, how Genesis 1 is literal and true. How Noah's Flood is literal and true. How Jesus and Paul quote them as such. Yet you still do not believe.

For example, I showed you how the bible supports our view of entropy -

Isa 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

We showed how death entered the world because of Sin in Genesis 3, Romans 5, and 1Cor 15. Yet you still do not believe the Word of God is true. We showed you how the days in Genesis 1 are literal, and can mean nothing else both by the context and by grammatical rules... yet you do not the Bible is true.

Trust me, Charles - I hear this and uderstand what you are saying completely. Now hear me -

The major discovery you make next week in the natural is insignificant in comparrision to the SCRIPTURE we have right now here today. The SCRIPTURE tells us that it was a literal six day creation ~ 6000 years ago. We have repeatedly demonstrated that. Yet, our critics have yet to show us even one verse that denies it.

Irrespective of the discovery you make a week or a year or ten years from now, the scripture remains the same. It is ultimate and absolute truth. I would recommend that you discover what IT says before you are swayed by what the world says. What the world has to say changes on a daily basis. What the Bible says is true now and forevermore. In 10,000 years when we have advanced so far beyond our current imaginations, the Bible will still be true. God's Word can never fail. It is pure in it's entirety.

What you are communicating by saying that "
We could make a major discovery next week - one which would cast doubt on all of evolution's framework. I'd be open to the possibility!" is that you choose to believe the physical evidence of science ABOVE the Bible, and if that physical evidence allows me to, I will believe the Word... but if it doesn't I am ok with believing only the portions of the Word that effect my salvation.

I am also a christian, and I tell you today that the EVIDENCE much more greatly favors a young earth. There is physical evidence to support it (who's interpretation is admittedly in it's infancy) however the GREATER and MORE SUBSTANCIAL evidence is in the Bible. The entire Bible supports a young earth, and this evidence FAR EXCEEDS any evidence we can naturally observe here on earth. I have shown you this evidence... do you believe what the Bible says or do you not?

Because the Bible shows us this evidence clearly and overwhelmingly, then, regardless of the appearant nature of our physical, natural evidence, our interpretation of such evidence must be flawed. Therefore, we need to re-examine our interpretation of the PHYSICAL evidence in light of what the overwhelming Biblical evidence demonstrates clearly - that the earth is young. Therefore, when science presents data that contradicts the Word, it is not the Word of God that must be questioned, but the scientific interpretation of the evidence that is in jeopardy.

I think Bob's objection to evolution as "Junk Science" is analogus to what our view would be of a Judge who convicts a person without hearing their case.

The 'junk' part of the science is that it is wholisticly natural and does not take all variables into consideration. It only takes those variables that can produce the outcome it desires. For example, you can't take all naturalistic variables and expect the result to pronounce a supernatural conclusion. This is what is meant by "Junk Science". It specifically ignores any evidence that disagrees with it's pre-determined conclusions and pre-suppositions.

It is interesting to note that this is also EXACTLY what YEC do. We take the Bible and what it says as our pre-supposition and our 'predetermined conclusion' and work the science backward from THE ANSWER (God's Word).

The ironic thing is that we recognize that we are working from pre-suppositions (from what the Bible - absolute truth - has to say), and evolutionists... especially christian evolutionists... refuse to acknowledge that fact. Indeed you are working from a pre-supporition, it's just that it's someone else's presupposition. It is the pre-supposition of humanism... that the world evolved naturally without supernatural influence.

The purpose of this thread and the science thread is to get you folks to see that. There are OTHER possibilities out there... including the ones the Bible says are true.

BobRyan: Sure!

BobRyan: True enough.

</font>[/QUOTE]I think he gave you a pretty direct answer there.

Moreover, lets look at Genesis 1:

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

Clearly God created the stars as well.

That has to be the fairest, most even way of approaching the situation I have seen yet of an Old Earther. In the society of the USA, this balanced approach of Tolerance for both positions is valued. While both sides may certainly appriciate your kindness, and unwillingness to offend, (which we should all do) I would submit that God has not called us to be a people of tolerance for untruth.

Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Tolerance for people is one thing... but tolerance for 'ideas' is another. We are not to be tolerant of evil or unrighteousness, or of false doctrine.

And who do you think created your mind to be analytical? Would that you were given a gift by God so that you could draw nearer to him and glorify HIM instead of those who hate Him. If God did give you an analytical mind, and God did create the world in six days as His Word says He did, then shouldn't you be using that analytical mind to defend the Word, rather than man's ideas?

I have tried to show you in this conversation how your focus has not been the word. Even in this last statement, you continue to focus on the science of creationism. Let me tell you something... believing the science is far easier when you FIRST AND FOREMOST believe the Word. Once you realize this, you will naturally gravitate towards the science... HOWEVER - KEEP IN MIND THAT IT'S NOT ABOUT THE SCIENCE. IT IS ABOUT THE SCRIPTURE. YOU MUST FIRST BELIEVE THAT. You don't have to believe YEC arguments... but I do emplore you that you believe the scripture with entirety and sincerity. Once you do this, the rest will fall into place.

You see, you continue to look at the evidence with your evolutionary googles on. With these glasses, things are distored. Your statement makes clear that you look at YEC evidence with the same glasses on. However, it is my intention that you not focus on changing what you believe about what you see... but change the way you look at what you see to begin with!! If you put on your Bible Glasses, you will see the world as God intended you to see it... not as natural man and natural science sees it.

You MUST realize that YEC SCIENCE is evangelism more than it is strict science. We are in the business of showing how the physical evidence confirms scripture. We are in the business of changing people's "perscriptions" for their eyeware. While we are extremely concerned with the Truth, and our science is what the Bible says is true... those who are not christians cannot see this until they take off the blinders and put on the Bible's glasses.

You see, we have to take a fallen, corrupt world that no longer demonstrates the beauty of majesty of God's creation and show how it is a result of the marvelous creation described in Genesis and the FALL of Adam. In doing this, we not only show the truth regarding science and the origin of man... but we also show people the truth of Jesus... how he came to save us from this corrupted and dying world full of sin and death.

Our science is true... but you must be able to assume (by faith) that the Bible is true and that "secular humanism" is not true in order to see that. You must be able to factor the supernatural with the natural in your science to arrive at the correct conclusion.

One point of YEC is to show that there is enough physical evidence supporting the YEC position to at least consider it as a possibility. However in oder to fully consider it as a possibility, you must entertain the idea that the Bible is absolute and true... because this is the foundational principle of YEC.

Once you do become convinced that the Bible is true, and that YEC evidence makes sense in the physical world as well as with the Bible, then you get pretty excited. Suddenly, the world opens up to you and things you were sure weren't possible before suddenly are not only possible, but you can't believe that you ever thought anything else.

Let me setup this hypothetical situation. Lets say that a math professor at university gave his students a very very complex problem work out. He told the class that he himself had solved this problem and he would be very pleased if any of his students could do the same.

So some of the students get together and start working on this problem. However, lets say the professor goes over to a couple of students and tells them something about the answer. Lets say he tells them that the answer has to be in a certain range.

The students working on the problem, knowing it's in a certain range start eliminating variables that do not cause the answer to fall within that range. Other students come over to check their progress and tell them that they are WAY off... that they believe they have arrived at the solution and that it is very different from the direction they are heading. The students who had heard from the professor the range in which to look would indeed hold to their method regardless of what everyone else thought because of ONE THING - they believed the professor when he told them about the answer! Maybe it doesn't make sense to them... maybe they don't know WHY.... but they know that they ARE on the right track regardless of what the other groups tell them. Why? Because the ONE WHO KNOWS THE ANSWER told them something and they believed him.

In the same way, God gave us information about our world in the scripture. Through science, we are working on discovering all the answers. We know that we are on the right track because we believe THE CREATOR's words and work to arrive at an answer that co-incides with the information He has given us about the answer. We may not always know exactly what or why... but were know we are headed in the right direction. When all is said and done, we will have come closer to the truth... closer to RIGHT answer. Others may have more logical explainations for their work... but we will be right.

 

You are correct. Biblical evidence is FAR more valuable and true, and revealing than anything I have ever seen in scientific evidence. Scientific evidence changes from day to day, but the Word of God never changes.

Keep in mind that while I do advocate the position that a purely secular science will lead unequivocally to evolution, we do not live in a purely secular or purely natural world. Therefore it is INCORRECT (albeit natually logical) to arrive at the conclusion of evolution. Science has made the mistake of ignoring evidence that does not seem to be entirely naturalistic. Therefore science alone is unable to arrive at the truth. Science MUST be mixed with, and measured by, scripture in order to become accurate. Otherwise it's like trying someone in court without hearing one side of the argument. If you only look at the NATURAL evidence, and ignore the spritual and supernatural, your conclusions will all be wrong, and you will have built your model, in this case evolution, upon an incomplete examination of the facts.

Actually, all you did was point out a naturalistic perception of the text. No where did you show me where the Bible calls itself allegorical... no where did you show me where the Bible says that it's words weren't true. No where did you present any BIBLICAL evidence to back up your claims or your case whatsoever. In fact, all you did is point at a supernaturally influenced "actual event" and say "this even could not have happened naturally". Well, we agree... it was not a natural event. It was an event that was directly influenced by the Supernatural, therefore your science hasn't got the ability to judge it's probability. Moreover, we have shown you repeatedly how the whole of scripture supports the supernatural event as having literally happened. You come, yet again, without a single piece of evidence on your side and expect us to throw away an entire Bible full of evidence against you. It's not going to happen. You have zero evidence... we have an insurmountable cache of evidence... this has been demonstrated time and time again in this discussion, yet you continue to hold to your position on the hopes that we will ignore the Biblical evidence and do as you do and focus, not on the scripture, but on the world and on a humanistic interpretation of the natural.

The smoller/temple paper is not intended to be a support of Humphrey's cosmology, but in fact it does support the very theories Humphreys has been talking about for a decade. The main poits of such is that the universe has a center and an edge... current thought on the "Big Bang" is the opposite. Unwittingly (perhaps), this paper lends much credibility to Humphrey's model. Yet again, we see science being lead by creationists science toward truth. Your call for me to withdraw my assertion is from ignorance. However, your ability to search the internet to find any instance where atheists and non-christians argued with me is commendable. By the way - ... the guy I was arguing with on the YouDebate forum didn't believe the Bible either - so it seems you guys have something in common beyond the fact that you are arguing with me.

No, I cannot find anyone who hates God and disagrees with evolution.... imagine that. Everyone who hates God agrees with evolution. Interesting how we have found those who claim to love God on this board, yet disbelieve the scirpture. I guess it's true what they say - one bad apple will spoil the whole barrel, but one good apple in barrel of rotten ones has no effect.

In another thread perhaps, but in this thread the WORD OF GOD is supreme. Therefore the onus is upton you to show us from scripture - something no evolutionist here has yet done - evidence that suggests otherwise. I have shown you, for example, how Genesis 1 is literal and true. How Noah's Flood is literal and true. How Jesus and Paul quote them as such. Yet you still do not believe.

For example, I showed you how the bible supports our view of entropy -

Isa 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

We showed how death entered the world because of Sin in Genesis 3, Romans 5, and 1Cor 15. Yet you still do not believe the Word of God is true. We showed you how the days in Genesis 1 are literal, and can mean nothing else both by the context and by grammatical rules... yet you do not the Bible is true.

Trust me, Charles - I hear this and uderstand what you are saying completely. Now hear me -

The major discovery you make next week in the natural is insignificant in comparrision to the SCRIPTURE we have right now here today. The SCRIPTURE tells us that it was a literal six day creation ~ 6000 years ago. We have repeatedly demonstrated that. Yet, our critics have yet to show us even one verse that denies it.

Irrespective of the discovery you make a week or a year or ten years from now, the scripture remains the same. It is ultimate and absolute truth. I would recommend that you discover what IT says before you are swayed by what the world says. What the world has to say changes on a daily basis. What the Bible says is true now and forevermore. In 10,000 years when we have advanced so far beyond our current imaginations, the Bible will still be true. God's Word can never fail. It is pure in it's entirety.

What you are communicating by saying that "
We could make a major discovery next week - one which would cast doubt on all of evolution's framework. I'd be open to the possibility!" is that you choose to believe the physical evidence of science ABOVE the Bible, and if that physical evidence allows me to, I will believe the Word... but if it doesn't I am ok with believing only the portions of the Word that effect my salvation.

I am also a christian, and I tell you today that the EVIDENCE much more greatly favors a young earth. There is physical evidence to support it (who's interpretation is admittedly in it's infancy) however the GREATER and MORE SUBSTANCIAL evidence is in the Bible. The entire Bible supports a young earth, and this evidence FAR EXCEEDS any evidence we can naturally observe here on earth. I have shown you this evidence... do you believe what the Bible says or do you not?

Because the Bible shows us this evidence clearly and overwhelmingly, then, regardless of the appearant nature of our physical, natural evidence, our interpretation of such evidence must be flawed. Therefore, we need to re-examine our interpretation of the PHYSICAL evidence in light of what the overwhelming Biblical evidence demonstrates clearly - that the earth is young. Therefore, when science presents data that contradicts the Word, it is not the Word of God that must be questioned, but the scientific interpretation of the evidence that is in jeopardy.

I think Bob's objection to evolution as "Junk Science" is analogus to what our view would be of a Judge who convicts a person without hearing their case.

The 'junk' part of the science is that it is wholisticly natural and does not take all variables into consideration. It only takes those variables that can produce the outcome it desires. For example, you can't take all naturalistic variables and expect the result to pronounce a supernatural conclusion. This is what is meant by "Junk Science". It specifically ignores any evidence that disagrees with it's pre-determined conclusions and pre-suppositions.

It is interesting to note that this is also EXACTLY what YEC do. We take the Bible and what it says as our pre-supposition and our 'predetermined conclusion' and work the science backward from THE ANSWER (God's Word).

The ironic thing is that we recognize that we are working from pre-suppositions (from what the Bible - absolute truth - has to say), and evolutionists... especially christian evolutionists... refuse to acknowledge that fact. Indeed you are working from a pre-supporition, it's just that it's someone else's presupposition. It is the pre-supposition of humanism... that the world evolved naturally without supernatural influence.

The purpose of this thread and the science thread is to get you folks to see that. There are OTHER possibilities out there... including the ones the Bible says are true.

BobRyan: Sure!

BobRyan: True enough.

</font>[/QUOTE]I think he gave you a pretty direct answer there.

Moreover, lets look at Genesis 1:

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

Clearly God created the stars as well.

 

That has to be the fairest, most even way of approaching the situation I have seen yet of an Old Earther. In the society of the USA, this balanced approach of Tolerance for both positions is valued. While both sides may certainly appriciate your kindness, and unwillingness to offend, (which we should all do) I would submit that God has not called us to be a people of tolerance for untruth.

Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Tolerance for people is one thing... but tolerance for 'ideas' is another. We are not to be tolerant of evil or unrighteousness, or of false doctrine.

And who do you think created your mind to be analytical? Would that you were given a gift by God so that you could draw nearer to him and glorify HIM instead of those who hate Him. If God did give you an analytical mind, and God did create the world in six days as His Word says He did, then shouldn't you be using that analytical mind to defend the Word, rather than man's ideas?

I have tried to show you in this conversation how your focus has not been the word. Even in this last statement, you continue to focus on the science of creationism. Let me tell you something... believing the science is far easier when you FIRST AND FOREMOST believe the Word. Once you realize this, you will naturally gravitate towards the science... HOWEVER - KEEP IN MIND THAT IT'S NOT ABOUT THE SCIENCE. IT IS ABOUT THE SCRIPTURE. YOU MUST FIRST BELIEVE THAT. You don't have to believe YEC arguments... but I do emplore you that you believe the scripture with entirety and sincerity. Once you do this, the rest will fall into place.

You see, you continue to look at the evidence with your evolutionary googles on. With these glasses, things are distored. Your statement makes clear that you look at YEC evidence with the same glasses on. However, it is my intention that you not focus on changing what you believe about what you see... but change the way you look at what you see to begin with!! If you put on your Bible Glasses, you will see the world as God intended you to see it... not as natural man and natural science sees it.

You MUST realize that YEC SCIENCE is evangelism more than it is strict science. We are in the business of showing how the physical evidence confirms scripture. We are in the business of changing people's "perscriptions" for their eyeware. While we are extremely concerned with the Truth, and our science is what the Bible says is true... those who are not christians cannot see this until they take off the blinders and put on the Bible's glasses.

You see, we have to take a fallen, corrupt world that no longer demonstrates the beauty of majesty of God's creation and show how it is a result of the marvelous creation described in Genesis and the FALL of Adam. In doing this, we not only show the truth regarding science and the origin of man... but we also show people the truth of Jesus... how he came to save us from this corrupted and dying world full of sin and death.

Our science is true... but you must be able to assume (by faith) that the Bible is true and that "secular humanism" is not true in order to see that. You must be able to factor the supernatural with the natural in your science to arrive at the correct conclusion.

One point of YEC is to show that there is enough physical evidence supporting the YEC position to at least consider it as a possibility. However in oder to fully consider it as a possibility, you must entertain the idea that the Bible is absolute and true... because this is the foundational principle of YEC.

Once you do become convinced that the Bible is true, and that YEC evidence makes sense in the physical world as well as with the Bible, then you get pretty excited. Suddenly, the world opens up to you and things you were sure weren't possible before suddenly are not only possible, but you can't believe that you ever thought anything else.

Let me setup this hypothetical situation. Lets say that a math professor at university gave his students a very very complex problem work out. He told the class that he himself had solved this problem and he would be very pleased if any of his students could do the same.

So some of the students get together and start working on this problem. However, lets say the professor goes over to a couple of students and tells them something about the answer. Lets say he tells them that the answer has to be in a certain range.

The students working on the problem, knowing it's in a certain range start eliminating variables that do not cause the answer to fall within that range. Other students come over to check their progress and tell them that they are WAY off... that they believe they have arrived at the solution and that it is very different from the direction they are heading. The students who had heard from the professor the range in which to look would indeed hold to their method regardless of what everyone else thought because of ONE THING - they believed the professor when he told them about the answer! Maybe it doesn't make sense to them... maybe they don't know WHY.... but they know that they ARE on the right track regardless of what the other groups tell them. Why? Because the ONE WHO KNOWS THE ANSWER told them something and they believed him.

In the same way, God gave us information about our world in the scripture. Through science, we are working on discovering all the answers. We know that we are on the right track because we believe THE CREATOR's words and work to arrive at an answer that co-incides with the information He has given us about the answer. We may not always know exactly what or why... but were know we are headed in the right direction. When all is said and done, we will have come closer to the truth... closer to RIGHT answer. Others may have more logical explainations for their work... but we will be right.

 

Merc, you have been remarkably silent in all this. I know that you are one of the primary proponents of the idea that God did not find us intelligent enough to tell us the truth in the Bible... perhaps you will answer Bob's question -

Are you willing to defend the notion that God only uses this creationist model in scripture because the people of Bible times were too stupid (and by that I mean "ignorant about evolutionism") to be told the truth? You know the "Truth being evolutionism".

 

sorry for the duplicate posting of that long one... I am trying out a new browser (firefox mozilla) and it didn't appear to go through the first time... so I broke it in half and re-posted.

 

Actually, Barbarian pointed out to you that the text itself says that it cannot be six literal days (something first pointed out by Augustine nearly 1600 years ago)

Wrong. Augustine, who was entirely convinced of God and the supremacy of scripture over science, pointed out that the text was inconsistent with literal days.

Nowhere did you show us where it says it is in all parts literal. So that argument crashes, too.

Neither did you. Fortunately no one here is arguing that they aren't true.

Nonsense. You've been shown a number of instances where the text itself tells you that it cannot be literal.

There's no point in denying what everyone has seen.