>Glenn wrote:
>
><<If you say that there was no farming for 40000 years after man's creation,
>then the Bible is clearly wrong to say that Cain and Abel farmed. >>
>
>Of course I never said anything like this, but this struck me as very
curious
>
I never said you said that. I said "IF you say..." This is a logical IF
showing the conclusion of that phrase. . I put what you say in quotations
to make it clear what I am quoting. This is not in quotations.
You wrote:
>1. Glenn says he believes the Bible, exactly as written.
I have never said I "believe the Bible, exactly as written" That may or may
not be true, but I do not believe I can derive science from the Psalms. But
when a passage appears historical like Genesis 4, I think we should examine
and see if there is a way to make it historical. If we can make it
historical are you suggesting that we shouldn't?
>2. Glenn says there can be no recent creation because, e.g., there is no
>evidence of farming during this time period he cites.
No, I was showing that under the standard you, yourself raised, namely, that
I could not use gaps in the archaeological record, that your own theory
would suffer. If I am not to be allowed to assume that homo habilis can
exist prior to the very first fossilized example I can not see why you should
be allowed to assume the existence of farming prior to the very first
archaeological evidence. Fairness seems to constrain us one way or the
other, but not gaps for your view and none for mine. What you seem to be
suggesting is a "Heads I win; tails you lose" proposition.
>3. so Glenn's answer is that Cain and Abel did their farming over 5.5
million
>years ago.
Yes, Because I can explain the flood and my science of geology by doing so.
I see no room for a flood as described in the Bible within your view.
Riverine floods do not match the Biblical data. And if I do not have to
match the Biblical data then I can easily say "The Elves did it" As I
mentioned in another post, the best of all possible apologetics would explain
everything. Geology has never been able to be harmonized with the scripture;
the claims of ICR notwithstanding. I feel that the best of all apologetics
would not only incorporate all Biblical events, but would also incorporate
the data from all sciences. Once again, if we find a way to do that, are we
to say " No thank you, we don't want the scientific data supporting the
Bible?" This truly seems to be an odd response for Christianity to make.
You wrote:
>Does anyone else find this as curious as I?
What I find curious is that Christians don't seem to want science to support
their posiiton. Weird.
glenn