home school evolution questions

quote:

---

I once read a book called "Revolution: the Story of the Early Church" by Gene Edwards. In it, he takes note of the slowness which which the offices of the early church evolved.

---

I have several issues with this account, as you portray it. First off, the information needed to draw up such a chain of events doesn't exist. There isn't any real evidence of what went on in the very early church, say from inception to 70 or 100 years into the process. And secondly, the church was a chaotic mess of rival sects from the earliest periods we do know about, so this neat process is just plain false.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Actually I hardly portrayed any chain of events, unless you are addressing Gene Edwards' book and not what I said.

---

The book as you summarized it. I was talking about the Edwards book, though talking to you.This is off topic so I'm going to drop it. If you want, we can take it up in another thread.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I believe in a young earth, because this is what the Bible teaches. I know many people say the Bible isn’t literal, but if the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, how can we trust it on anything, even on things like You shall not murder.

---

I'm confused. In other threads, you appear to no be a biblical literalist.

quote:

---

The Bible says, On the first day... and On the second day..., etc. Therefore, I believe that those things happened on those days.

---

Then you have some interesting problems with chronology, such as light ( Gen. 1:3 ) being created prior to the sun ( Gen. 1:16 ). Day and Night are also created independently of the Sun ( Gen. 1:5 ) -- the same day as the creation of light, day one. Yet the Sun, our orbit about which is responsible for day and night, does not show up until day four.Plus, the order of creation in Gen 1 varies slightly from the order of creation in Gen 2. Most notably, in Gen 1, man is created on day six after everything else. In Gen 2, man ( Gen 2:6 ) is created after the plants of the field ( Gen 2:5 ), but before the beasts of the field and fowl of the air ( Gen 2:19 ).Gen 1 lists seven days of creation. Gen 2 states "in the day" ( Gen. 2:4 )-- day singular, not plural. It is the same word used in Gen 1 to describe each of the various seven days of creation. I asked a Rabbi if the Hebrew YOWM could be used to mean "a length of time greater than a literal day, such as a week" and he looked at me like I was insane.

quote:

---

Also, I believe the creation week happened approximately 6000 years ago. The Bible says Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born, and it gives Seth’s age when Enos was born. Why would it give years if it didn’t want you to know the time elapsed?

---

Why would it give a chronology that contradicts all external evidence? That is the important question. My answer to your question is that the authors were repeating a tradition but didn't really have any idea if it were literally true. Numerous mythologies include a mythological chronology or the world. The Bible is no different.

quote:

---

If the Bible doesn’t mean what it says when it gives dates and times, then it’s whole authority is undermined, for who knows where it’s literal and where it’s not?

---

Agreed. But again, I am confused. Understanding this point as you do, your objection to the title of "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy" thread makes no sense. You state in post #1 of that thread: It seems that on the one hand you are arguing for inerrancy -- the Biblical timeline -- while on the other hand you are arguing that it isn't relevant. "What if the Bible contains messages from God and a lot of scientific errors--and plain ol' contradictions..."

quote:

---

Evolutionists offer evidence for an old earth, but it is notoriously unreliable. Their strongest evidence is the geologic column, which they say shows a succession of fossils.

---

I wouldn't call this the strongest evidence for an old earth, though it certainly is evidence. It is virtually impossible to account for the geological column within a 6000 year time frame, without resorting to magic. The strongest single bit of evidence, I think, is radioactive decay which has been shown to be very constant. There are quite a few threads related to these subjects so I am not going to go into details here.BTW, your understanding of how the geo-col is constructed is seriously flawed. What you present is the typical creationist misrepresentation of the process. There is an enormous amount of checking and cross-cmoparison that your scenario glosses over. Layers can be dated. Some fossils can be dated. But there are threads devoted to this topic...

quote:

---

Proof of this is found in polystrate fossils, which are fossils large enough to cross several supposed layers.

---

I've yet to see good evidence of these 'polystrate fossils.' Perhaps you have some? Also consider that trees can send roots through thousands of years of sediment. The deepest recorded root system is of a wild fig in Africa, with roots at a depth of 400 feet. That is a lot of years. Burrowing animals burrow through a great many years as well. Even earthworms make it to many meters deep. These could produce 'polystrate fossils' but they do creationists no good. Also consider what would happen if an animal were buried, exposed years later by erosion and then reburied. Instant 'polystrate fossil' but hardly proof of the creationist position.

quote:

---

Of course, we have all heard how unreliable radiometric dating is. It must be so. It is based on the presumption that radioactive decay rates have been constant throughout history. Many such assumptions are made by science.

---

Yes, we have all heard that, but done properly it isn't true. There are forty or more radiodecay methods and they all agree with one another to within a few percent. These methods mess with dates gained from non-radiodecay methods such as tree rings, varves and ice cores.
Evidence from astronomy also suggests that decay rates are constant over billions of years.

quote:

---

The Bible lets us know, however, that life was much different before the flood. Men regularly lived to 900 years, and animals did not each other. Who can know how different the earth must have been at that time?

---

The 900 year lifespan has no evidence to support it, so arguments that hinge on the idea are useless.Nor has the Flood any evidence in its favor either.

quote:

---

This also properly explains the giant fossils that are found. Why aren’t those species alive today? They are! They are simply not as large.

---

Then why don't dinosaur fossils look like giant versions of modern species? This is like taking a spear and an m-16 and calling them the same.

quote:

---

Thanks for any help you can offer.

---

I hope you meant that. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

John, you have posted earlier in this topic string, yet now you are responding to message 1. Have you totally lost track of what has transpired in this topic string?

---

I don't remember how I arrived back at post #1, but it struck me that there were some things that hadn't been addressed. Maybe I could have phrased things a bit less directly... I also find TL interesting enough to quiz about his opinions, especially concerning his view of the Bible, but he can respond or not as he feels appropriate.Why adminnemouseus? Have I done something that requires policing?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 02-21-2003]

quote:

---

It was helpful, however, to get a full-fledged, point-by-point response, in a typical debate forum format.. I will show it to my class. I never did get one earlier.

---

Well, good. I hope some of it does help.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com