God or Archaeology

[Rick-Parker]

Q. How does the Bible explain the evolution of man that is Darwin inspired. Specifically, if God created Adam/Eve at a certain time frame which has been noted as only a few thousand years, how does the Bible explain the fact that archaeologists have uncovered human skulls that are millions of years old? This confuses me. I am at a lost to explain this to anyone who would ask me about it.

A. The Bible doesn

[udx]

I don't really like these type of lazy answers. If this type of answer is used for everything, there won't be a healthy questioning of the Bible for deeper understanding and revelation.

It is like answering a question that says "prove this is right", and you answer with, "it is right because so and so says it is right, he is famous and knowledgeable, never wrong in the past, so it must be". This answer itself does not have any value at all. You cannot use the item to prove it's own validity either.

Edited May 7, 2010 by udx

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't really like these type of lazy answers. If this type of answer is used for everything, there won't be a healthy questioning of the Bible for deeper understanding and revelation.

It is like answering a question that says "prove this is right", and you answer with, "it is right because so and so says it is right, he is famous and knowledgeable, never wrong in the past, so it must be". This answer itself does not have any value at all. You cannot use the item to prove it's own validity either.

That is not quite true.

Before Darwin, the Bible was the main source of understanding where life came from. Evolutionists demand that the status quo must be changed in favor of the evolutionary theory as being more plausible than the Bible. The side that calls for a change in the status quo bears the burden of proof.

To put it differently, the challenger in a court of law, has the burden of proof to overturn the presumption of innocence. If evolutionists cannot satisfy the burdern of proof, the Bible would be considered true by default.

[udx]

The thing is, this is not the court of law. The court of law is not science either, it is often determine by majority rule (the jury system). Nothing is innocent or correct by default. In science, everything has to stand on its own. To say something is correct because no other better theory is more valid is not science.

I don't really like these type of lazy answers. If this type of answer is used for everything, there won't be a healthy questioning of the Bible for deeper understanding and revelation.

It is like answering a question that says "prove this is right", and you answer with, "it is right because so and so says it is right, he is famous and knowledgeable, never wrong in the past, so it must be". This answer itself does not have any value at all. You cannot use the item to prove it's own validity either.

That is not quite true.

Before Darwin, the Bible was the main source of understanding where life came from. Evolutionists demand that the status quo must be changed in favor of the evolutionary theory as being more plausible than the Bible. The side that calls for a change in the status quo bears the burden of proof.

To put it differently, the challenger in a court of law, has the burden of proof to overturn the presumption of innocence. If evolutionists cannot satisfy the burdern of proof, the Bible would be considered true by default.

[Guest shiloh357]

The thing is, this is not the court of law. The court of law is not science either, it is often determine by majority rule (the jury system).

The rules of debate are universal. A court of law is just a convenient means of providing a point of reference for them that most people are familiar with.

Nothing is innocent or correct by default.

That is not the point. The point is that it is up to Evolution to prove that their claims hold more weight than the Bible's claims. If they cannot satisfy the burden of proof, they have no reason to disbelieve what the Bible says and no basis to claim that the Bible's claims are false or meritless.

In science, everything has to stand on its own. To say something is correct because no other better theory is more valid is not science.

Yes, but the Bible is not a book of science and makes no scientific claims, so it cannot be held to a scientific standard.

[udx]

Nowhere in my post I talk about evolution, please do not bring that in the muddle the point. I'm just saying that saying the Bible is inerrant because it says it is so, is not a very convincing argument. Bringing in secondary evidence that support the Bible statement is better way then the answer written in the OP.

The thing is, this is not the court of law. The court of law is not science either, it is often determine by majority rule (the jury system).

The rules of debate are universal. A court of law is just a convenient means of providing a point of reference for them that most people are familiar with.

Nothing is innocent or correct by default.

That is not the point. The point is that it is up to Evolution to prove that their claims hold more weight than the Bible's claims. If they cannot satisfy the burden of proof, they have no reason to disbelieve what the Bible says and no basis to claim that the Bible's claims are false or meritless.

In science, everything has to stand on its own. To say something is correct because no other better theory is more valid is not science.

Yes, but the Bible is not a book of science and makes no scientific claims, so it cannot be held to a scientific standard.

[nebula]

Genesis 1 was written from God's perspective, not man's.

Archaeology is written from man's perspective, not God's.

The way the Lord sees things is not the way man sees things; the way the Lord describes things is not the way man describes things.

[e lansing]

Q. How does the Bible explain the evolution of man that is Darwin inspired. Specifically, if God created Adam/Eve at a certain time frame which has been noted as only a few thousand years, how does the Bible explain the fact that archaeologists have uncovered human skulls that are millions of years old? This confuses me. I am at a lost to explain this to anyone who would ask me about it.

A. The Bible doesn

[Guest]

.... I'm just saying that saying the Bible is inerrant because it says it is so, is not a very convincing argument. Bringing in secondary evidence that support the Bible statement is better way then the answer written in the OP....

Au Contraire, Mon Fr

[Rick-Parker]

I don't really like these type of lazy answers. If this type of answer is used for everything, there won't be a healthy questioning of the Bible for deeper understanding and revelation.

It is like answering a question that says "prove this is right", and you answer with, "it is right because so and so says it is right, he is famous and knowledgeable, never wrong in the past, so it must be". This answer itself does not have any value at all. You cannot use the item to prove it's own validity either.

You're talking about discrediting (in my opinion) God's Word when you choose to believe man over God. If you believe in evolution, you are denying the veracity of God as He claims that the Scriptures are given by Him through the Holy Spirit.