Re: I wasn't "discounting" Glenn's story or his questions

Who said I took a literalist view of Genesis? I do believe that in some
sense Genesis is true. But it is not necessarily strict scientific
truth. there are other kinds of truth.

--Bill Yates

Roger G. Olson wrote:

> Yes, "drivel" is pretty strong, and I stand by that term. That's why I
> took the effort to post the response. It's so easy for fideists to ignore
> evidence selectively for an ancient Cosmos and evolution with this
> childishly simplistic response that "we will find out all about it in
> Heaven."
>
> We're on Earth now, and I believe God is not a deceiver and allows us to
> ascertain what we are able to within our present technological state about
> nature. All we are now able to ascertain about nature points to a
> billions year old Earth and Cosmos, change in the biosphere over time, and
> no consistent evidence for a global flood.
>
> Surely, you are not positing a deceiver god? That's would be the
> conclusion I would come to from the evidence available at present. It
> points consistently to an other than literal reading of Genesis 1-11. Why
> would God want to trick us poor slobs who have taken the time and effort
> to learn some science>
>
> Roger
>
>
>>Roger--
>>
>>"Drivel" is pretty strong. Moorad did not say that we will know all
>>about nature in this lifetime, or ever here on Earth. One day we
>>believers will be in Heaven. There are going to be a lot of bruised
>>foreheads as we hit our hands to our heads as we say, "Oh! So that's how
>>you did it, God!"
>>
>>Blessings,
>>
>>--Bill Yates
>>
>>Roger G. Olson wrote:
>>
>>(quote from Moorad)
>>
>>>>Experimental sciences are quite definite and the conclusions from
>>>>them are unavoidable. However, there are areas of science, e.g.,
>>>>historical sciences, where the issues are not as clear cut. **** It is
>>>>my
>>>>belief that the day we know all about nature we will find that there
>>>>is no contradiction between Scripture and the findings of science. ****
>>>>Of
>>>>course, how we can extrapolate from what we know about science to the
>>>>nonphysical and how we can extrapolate from the nonphysical to the
>>>>physical is not easy and leads to speculative thinking, which I
>>>>consider a waste of time.
>>>>
>>>>Do I deny the inerrancy of scripture and take Genesis non literally as
>>>>well? Am I like Lewis a conservative with a liberal tinge? You decide.
>>>>
>>>>Moorad
>>>>
>>
>>>The day we know all about nature? What are you talking about? This is
>>>an
>>>incredible hedge. The statement between the asterisks is basically
>>>"Science hasn't caught up with the Bible yet." This is an embarassingly
>>>fideistic attitude. I thought we were trying to get beyond this kind of
>>>drivel on this Listserve?
>>>
>>>Roger
>>
>>--
>>--Bill Yates
>>--mailto:billyates@billyates.com
>>--http://www.billyates.com
>>--CD Reviewer, Webmaster, Roots66.com
>>--Editor, WorldVillage.com's Believer's Weekly
>>--Theron Services: Web Design, Editing, Writing
>>
>
>
>

-- 
--Bill Yates
--mailto:billyates@billyates.com
--http://www.billyates.com
--CD Reviewer, Webmaster, Roots66.com
--Editor, WorldVillage.com's Believer's Weekly
--Theron Services: Web Design, Editing, Writing