Jim Bell wrote:
>>The problem is that Glenn has calcified around a single view of Scripture.
That being so, his conclusions are perhaps inevitable.<<
and
>>That being so, there is no reason to "reject" anything. There is no need,
either, to posit things like a 5.5 million year old Noah in order to make a
theory work (e.g., "That's the only way to harmonize the data").
That leaves the scientific data to be taken at face value. One is free to
look at the entire record and just take it as it is. This is freedom indeed!
And what I see there is a suddenly appearing modern man. This accords well
with the Cambrian explosion and the explosion that brought about the cosmos.
All frustrate naturalistic attempts at explanation, leaving the door open to
another Possibility.<<
Wait half a second here. Jim you are advocating that spirtual man arose
40-50,000 years ago. This hypothesis has consequences. They are that if the
Scriptural account has any historical value at all, then we should find
evidence of cities, tents and farming at that time. We find tents in the
archaeological record PRIOR to that time but cities farming metallrgy are
found thousands of years later. Thus the observational data we have does not
support your view. So why should I believe what you say about man arising
when the data (since you don't believe in any gaps in the archaeological
record) does not go with you on this? How can we offer our children a view
and tell them that it is correct when observationally according to the rules
you laid down (no gaps) it isn't! Are we free to propose whatever we want to
say about the world in order to advance our apologetic? As usual, you have
chosen to ignore the problems with your own view. Rather than try to explain
WHY the data does not falsify your view, you simply move on to other issues.
This is not very scientific nor is it really holding up a good intellectual
standard. Since you have chosen to ignore the observational data, I will ask
the group rather than to you..
Is a christian, in developing an apologetical view allowed to ignore
observational data? In other words are Christians allowed to advocate
apologetical views regardless of what the data says? How much observational
data can be ignored? If we are free to ignore any and all observations, what
if any are the limitations upon our speculations? Can we say that nothing, no
fact, will stand in the way of our belief? Is the only acceptable
explanation one which is not "naturalistic" and thus not subject to
falsifiability?
I wish some one other than Jim would respond to this, because Jim won't ever
answer scientific objections raised against his views. If Jim would simply
tell me how the Bible teaches that Cain the first farmer was 40,000 years
later than Adam I would not have that complaint. Without substantive
responses it is difficult to see how anything other than agreeing with Jim is
acceptable to him.
glenn