6000 Years vs. Millions of Years

[1Cor6:11Man]

I have a question for you, Jukia.

Did you used to be a professing Christian at one time?

[Agape_CTL]

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, gave a keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, in 1981. In it , he explained his sudden

[kari21]

Jukia,

Do you believe in cosmic evolution as well?

[EricH]

Every person in this debate has chosen a base-line of truth. For those that chose science as that base-line, they are forced to conclude that Genesis is not literal because it does not agree with the base-line they have chosen. So they screen the Bible through the lens of scientific truth, and if there is a disparity, they side with science and adjust the Bible. For those that hold that the Bible is the final arbiter of truth, they will evaluate scientific findings in the light of what the Bible has to say about creation.

Nonsense. Look at the evidence through the lens of rationality. There is NO evidence that the earth is only several thousand years old, that the Noachian flood took place, etc. NONE. God gave you an intellect, use it.

God also provided truth. The scriptures also indicate that at times that truth will be at odds with what we are readily able to observe. Scripture tells us that our intellects (which are affected by sin) will not always be dependable. it is at those times that we need to decide if we are going to believe God, even when what is obervable tells us not to do so.

It again comes down to what we think is the ultimate source of truth. You have obviously made some decisions in this regard, and so have I.

[Ovedya]

Jukia,

Would you doubt the testimony of the man responsible for the foundational principals of legal evidence, Simon Greenleaf? I would think that, as a lawyer, you would appreciate reading his conclusions with regard to the resurrection of Christ, called "Testimony of the Evangelists." If Simon Greenleaf, whose unimpeachable work and character, concluded that evidence for the resurrection of Christ is real, then that certainly validates the Bible as an historically accurate book.

So the question is, do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead?

Simon Greenleaf is not the man responsible for the foundational principals of legal evidence. Evidence in the US came from British common law. It has developed through case law and statute. There is no ONE person responsible.

There are many of unimpeachable work and character who would not conclude that the resurrection is real. There is no reason for me to believe Greenleaf over anyone else.

So what you're telling me is that you simply prefer to believe the works of person's with whom you naturally agree. Frankly that's no better than Christians believing the Biblical account of Genesis because we prefer the Bible over science books.

With regard to Greenleaf, his treatise on Evidence was foundational in American Jurisprudence. That's simply a fact.

Another fact is that there is no credible work in existence disproving the resurrection of Christ. There are plenty that simply doubt the resurrection, but none that disprove the resurrection. Greenleaf's work has yet to be successfully impeached.

[1Cor6:11Man]

I appreciate the info Agape, and Ovedya. It is interesting.

But I think that maybe in this debate, something is lost. And I think it is this:

Evolution, if believed, may offer an intellectual reason for life. But begging your pardon, Jukia, humanity's issue is not intellectual, it's moral. And evolution cannot offer a satisfactory explanation for objective morality, moral duty, and the violence, hatred, greed, and the such. Not to mention the evil and hurtful things that you and I do to each other, in the grand scheme of things.

That is why, the natural logical outworking of evolutionary thinking, is violence, moral relativity, suicide, and evil. If everything is just evolving, than mankind has no set point of reference (to use a biological term) for morality. It's all relative. You are no more right or wrong than I am.

But if I were to take your wife, or daughter, and take a sword and cut them up into tiny bits (hypothetically speaking, of course), would you think I had done something wrong? Because in an evolutionary world-view, all I did was take a person out of the gene pool who could have contributed to it. But that still doesn't make it wrong.

But if I were to do that to your wife, or child, something deep within your person would resonate that I had done something wrong. And you had better find out why. Otherwise, you will live your life in cruelty, seeing everything as "tooth and claw."

Edited December 14, 2007 by 1Cor6:11Man

[1Cor6:11Man]

I think at this point, I must break away from this discussion. For one thing, my brain is fried, and I don't want to frustrate myself by responding without giving enough time to look at what has been shared. It's only fair.

However, so far as I have read, there is still no more evidence to suggest evolution as there is Intelligent Design.

Looking at the phylogenetic tree has been interesting. It's interesting how "genetic similarities" (ie, we all have eyes, or some have vertebre where others do not) is equated to common to ancestry. Which is about the same amount of proof, at least to me, that common design is evident. So really, I think I personally feel we must agree to disagree, at least for now.

I must say though, for an evolutionist, you at least have more to bring to the table than most I have heard.

But I think my last point still stands. Even if you continued to believe in evolution, you would still need to deal with greater issues that stem from that view-point (ie, morality, origin of the universe, probability of Universal cohesiveness, etc.) At least in a Theistic World-view, all of these are answered coherently.

But I must ask you also, have you been on any Islamic website asking these questions? Or any Buddhism websites? I mean, they have to answer these questions just as much a Christian does, right? Why is it the Christian that only gets these questions thrown into its face? Personally, I believe it is the overall general hostility the world has towards the True God of Creation. Otherwise, you'd been on other religious blogs as well, hammering them with the same questions as us.

[kari21]

Jukia,

Do you believe in cosmic evolution as well?

That is what the evidence seems to show.

Please tell me what you know about it.

[kari21]

So what you're telling me is that you simply prefer to believe the works of person's with whom you naturally agree. Frankly that's no better than Christians believing the Biblical account of Genesis because we prefer the Bible over science books.

No, I tend to believe the work of people who make sense.

These same people who teach that the universe created itself from nothing, by nothing, for nothing?

[kari21]

So what you're telling me is that you simply prefer to believe the works of person's with whom you naturally agree. Frankly that's no better than Christians believing the Biblical account of Genesis because we prefer the Bible over science books.

No, I tend to believe the work of people who make sense.

These same people who teach that the universe created itself from nothing, by nothing, for nothing?

Nice straw man argument.

I know of noone who says that.

But then how is it any different from some diety creating the entire universe in 6 days only a few 1000 years ago. Learn some science.

Oh? Then you really are not that familiar with Cosmology.

Instead of insulting me, answer my question.

Where did all the matter and energy that made up the singularity come from?