tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post144057054415800289..comments2023-09-17T08:45:50.720-04:00Comments on Stuff Out Loud: The Bible Teaches …Larryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-32852457881420846992009-10-06T19:41:19.032-04:002009-10-06T19:41:19.032-04:00Thanks for the post--working through some of this ...Thanks for the post--working through some of this at present. Particularly interested in your reaction to the following post (and lengthy discussion):<br /><br />http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/christians-evolution-young-earth-creationism/#comment-25326<br /><br />http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/imonk-101-to-be-or-not-to-be-or-why-im-not-a-young-earth-creationistAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-59103582964615118312009-10-06T08:14:46.032-04:002009-10-06T08:14:46.032-04:00Thanks for responding, Dr. Mariottini. I welcome y...Thanks for responding, Dr. Mariottini. I welcome your interaction.<br /><br />I agree with you about the image of God in man setting them apart from animals, but in an evolutionary scheme, that becomes somewhat difficult since one is forced to determine (or simply assert) at what point that image was "injected" into the beast. It would lead to a huge jump in abilities, personality, intellect, etc. The evolutionary scheme, as I understand it, never gives any indication of that. <br /><br />I do think the 6000 year issue is somewhat of a straw man. Young Earth Creationism (YEC) doesn't depend on that number, and in fact, I think most studied YEC's would reject that number. It could be higher, perhaps by tens of thousands of years. But evolution or OEC needs millions, and even then it is not really enough. The difference between OEC/evolution and YEC is not a number, but a process, I think.<br /><br />The evolutionary scheme is so deeply flawed methodologically and presuppositionally that I wonder how anyone can take it seriously. I know people do take it seriously, but it boggles my mind. To put pre-historic man, dinosaurs, and a billions of years old sun in the same category seems difficult as well. I don't think those things are of the same type of issue to group them together.<br /><br />The hard data (i.e., what we actually know as opposed to theorize about) is certainly open to different explanations. Evolution hardly wins the day, and it seems that many are rejecting evolution because it has so many great flaws.<br /><br />To the main point of my response to your post, whatever the case may be about beast becoming man, Gen 2:7 does not seem say that. I still wonder how you appeal to Gen 2:7 as proof that beast became man. That makes no sense to me, and I have never heard anyone (until now) make that argument. <br /><br />Gen 2:7 says that God created man out of the dust of the ground. That seems to record for us a direct creation by God. Is that incorrect? <br /><br />I saw your (very interesting) post today on Moses and his wife or wives (you are on my blog reader) and you said that you were sure that Josephus would never create a fictional account of Moses' wife. I wonder how the corresponds to your view of the scriptural records? Do you allow for fictional accounts in the Scripture? I guess the big question here is where you fall in the inerrancy debate?<br /><br />Again, thanks for responding. I appreciate the kind interaction.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-40193633464772725052009-10-05T13:32:37.314-04:002009-10-05T13:32:37.314-04:00Larry,
Thank you for addressing some of the issue...Larry,<br /><br />Thank you for addressing some of the issues I raised in my post about Ardi. I do not want to respond to every issue you discussed in your post. Let me only mention this:<br /><br />I believe that human beings are a special creation of God since they are created in God’s image and likeness. No animal is that special because only humans are said to be created in God’s image, and I firmly believe that.<br /><br />But I also believe that the earth is older than 6,000 years and that there were pre-historic beings that were different than the man God created in Genesis. Since there is much evidence for evolution, Christians make a mistake to deny it. You called it “concordism.” We can called it by any other name but the fact remains the same. How can we explain Neanderthals living at the same time with modern humans?<br /><br />In my post, what I was trying to say is this: what separates Neanderthals from modern humans is the spirit that human beings possess and this is the work of God. When the article said there was no missing link, I tried to say that the missing link, when the Neanderthals (the beast) became human, was the work of God in placing God’s spirit in man.<br /><br />Now, if you deny that evolution is a myth, then nothing I wrote will make sense. However, if you believe in pre-historic man, dinosaurs, and that our sun is billions of years old, then you have to find a way to explain these things in light of God’s Word. And by the way, I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.<br /><br />Claude MariottiniDr. Claude Mariottinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08022725291281227401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-44804754478804866212009-10-03T23:08:13.249-04:002009-10-03T23:08:13.249-04:00Larry,
Let me give a quick follow-up. A friend of...Larry,<br /><br />Let me give a quick follow-up. A friend of mine, Dave Coppedge with his Creation Evolution Headlines, has a great response to the Ardi-hype with some key links at the end. Some of what you say is coordinate with Dave's great conclusion: How can uniformitarians prove their dates without assuming evolution? To see his take, go to http://creationsafaris.com/crev200910.htm#20091002aBob McCabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13300483729626755704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-90034294511850138702009-10-03T22:29:19.497-04:002009-10-03T22:29:19.497-04:00In my opinion, you hit the nail on the head when y...In my opinion, you hit the nail on the head when you suggest that this interpretation of Ardi depends on a uniformitarian worldview. Time magazine had an article on Ardi back in 2001. In response to Time's article, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, from Creation Ministries International, wrote a helpful response. His response is still relevant to National Geographic's article and he shows that this is another example of evolutionary indoctrination: http://creation.com/times-alleged-ape-man-trips-up-againBob McCabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13300483729626755704noreply@blogger.com