>><< I do not understand then if the evidence is all irrelevant (since Early
Genesis transcends history), why you continually cited the Cambrian Explosion
as being evidence of God's creation, and the explosion of human artifacts as
being evidence of God creating mankind (I believe it was you who started the
thread "human explosion").>>
Jim Bell replied:
>>The evidence cited is evidence for sudden creation. Why is that so
difficult to understand? I see similar phenomena in the creation of the
cosmos, animal phyla and man <<
I wrote:
>><<And when I started citing observational archaeological evidence and
asking questions of your position you suddenly didn't believe in any data.>>
Jim replied:
>>No, my position was that I though[t] your standard was wrong, your
application of the data misapplied to Scripture. That's what I've been
saying, not ignoring or "not believing" in data. It is your theology I don't
agree with.<<
It appears to me that when the evidence fits your view (sudden appearances,
etc) you can use it, when it doesn't fit your view then MY theology is wrong.
I understand that the sudden appearance of certain things in the
archaeological record are used by creationists as evidence of creation. That
is not currently the issue. Why should that data be relevant to the issue of
how the earth got here, and the evidence that physically modern men were here
doing typically modern things prior to when you say spiritual man was created
have no relevancy to the issue?
What I am looking for is an objective rule with which I can know when
evidence is relevant and when it is not. I can't figure out the rules of
your view. And right now it looks extremely inconsistent to me. You don't
tell me why sudden creation data is O.K. but not sudden creation data isn't
O.K. Once again I am bewildered. Maybe I am hopelessly rigid, but I do like
rules of how to play the game. I see none here.
You said that you have not been ignoring data and that you feel my use of
data was misapplied to early genesis because my theology is wrong. Why is
your use of the Cambrian Explosion a correct use of data? To merely say as
you did above,"The evidence cited is evidence for sudden creation."
tells me nothing. I can construct a sentence which parallels this with
equally little explanation for the evidence I cite. "The evidence cited is
evidence for ancient human activity" So now. How do we tell who is correct
here? This is a very serious quiestion. There must be objective rules
whereby two people can agree (under those rules) that one set of data is
allowed and the other isn't. This does not necessarily imply that both will
agree that those are the correct rules which should be used. But we ought to
be able to express our rules.
I wrote:
>><< I also find it very, very curious, that since you believe that Genesis
"transcends history (the limited view)" I fail to see why any of this matters
to you. Any evidence one presents to you can have absolutely no effect on
your view as it is immune from any refutation. >>
Jim Replied:
>>The evidence that should be cited is theological. <<
Sorry, the Cambrian Explosion is not theological and neither is the "sudden
appearance of human artifacts in the fossil record." These are scientific
evidence not theological. Or did I miss something when I read Augustine and
Aquinas?
You wrote:
>>I agree we have reached an impasse, but Gordie and others want to see the
theological discussion continue, so feel free to jump in anytime you have a
question or comment. <<
I know that I am well known for my reticence. Thanks for the encouragement.
:-)
glenn