this is the first time I post to this group and so I will introduce
me at the beginning. I am German student of physics at the university of
Stuttgart(Southwest of Germany). I believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and
Saviour and that the bible is the word of God. Thus I am very interested
in the creation/evolution topic.
My English may sometimes be not correct, please tell me in a friendly
tone.
Oliver Beck
On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Glenn Morton wrote:
> Dennis (with two n's) Durst admonished us to get back on the high road. I am
> most certain willing to do that. But I want you to note something that
> frustrates me to absolutely no end. Yesterday I posted an item about a news
> story on an extremely significant find from Australia. What was the reaction
> here among those who do not like the evolutionary paradigm or do not like my
> views?
>
> Silence, absolutely perfect silence!!!!
>
> There is no response from the anti-evolutionists to anything that they can not
> find an answer for.
Here is one.But you should give more time to respond.For example,I can
only mail from university,which is closed the weekend.
> Thus the answer of choice becomes an collective ignoring
> of the data. We look the other way because if we do, we can justify holding
> onto our cherished beliefs rather than actually dealing with the data.
>
You accuse others of ignoring the data, but what you cite aren't data, but
data with interpretations. If somebody is saying (on the basis of geology)
something has happened thus long ago, it's always an interpretation. It's
a historical statement which comes from interpreting the data. What you
can really measure or observe are the fossils in the layer ,the isotopic
composition of the material and so on.
I am not going to say that in this case the relative dating is false.As I
know(please correct me when I'm false) most dating is done by looking at
the fossils found in the strata(boostraigraphy). If this was the case in
this dating I don't see any new problem, there is only the old one with
the long ages.
As to the relative order of findings, this suits very good to the view I
have:homo erectus,neanderthals and homo sapiens are all humans, as we are.
As created as the image of God.Thus it's very natural to find them having
made art.
>[deleted]
>
> What is the response to the Australian monolith? Does the art work imply that
> they are human?
See above.
> Are they covered by the blood of Christ?
If I have understood your article right,the had a heathen
religion.Thus I would say no.
> What is our > response to be if the 176,000 year for the occupation of
Australia holds up? > It means that anatomically non-modern humans had
boats that far back and boat > building is a HUMAN activity. > See above.
As christians we are not obliged to have an answer for every human theory
contradicting the word of God.The apostle Paul didn't offer scientific
facts to the Greek 'scientific' community on the Areopag but announced the
judgment and the resurection of Christ(Acts 17,16-34).But as a scientist I
should examine the scientific facts and theories concerning this issue,
but this does not mean that we can give an answer for everything.
>[deleted]
> Dennis, I am afraid that in some sense I must agree with Denis (one n), not
> necessarily in the specifics but in general: Christians are NOT engaging in
> the high road in the area of creation/evolution. We selectively choose what
> we will read, we selectively choose what we will believe. Evidence and data
> have nothing to do with our belief.
Are evidence and data restricted to scientific findings? Does not faith
rest on the fact of the resurrection witnessed by at least three hundred
witnesses? I think that's the best proof you can have in history: The word
of them that have seen it.
> We christians are timid rabbits who
> prefer to live in a world in which the facts are those we imagine them to be,
> rather than in a world with the facts as the ARE! This may be good policy to
> retain an unvarying theological viewpoint, but it is a massive self-delusion
> in which we parade around like the emporer with no clothes. The louder we
> proclaim that our science is good, the more we can delude ourselves that we
> are clothed. In point of fact, we are naked.
It's partially right . We don't have much evidence for the young earth
history the bible presents. But the creation by God's direct intervention
is fully witnessed by nature .We don't know any creating process,only
improving processes.
> If we ignore the australian finds, then we don't have to change our viewpoint.
> If we ignore the primary scientific literature, we don't have to deal with
> the difficult issues that the scientists deal with on a daily basis. What
> changed me from a YEC to a TE was that daily I had to deal with the geologic
> data which literally screamed "OLD EARTH". A person's honesty will allow the
> intentional ignoring of evidence for only so long. Eventually one must say,
> "We Christians are wrong in the way we harmonize science and the Scripture."
Can you tell me this geologic data which are so loud. :-)
> To close, Dennis (two n's) the high road DEMANDS an honesty with what the
> facts are. And to achieve that, the high road DEMANDS that one read the
> primary literature (not Christian apologetical stuff), to know what the facts
> actually are! The high road DEMANDS that one protect himself from fraudulent
> claims by Christian apologists of all stripes. An example:Hugh Ross in the
> latest Facts & Faith says that modern anthropology teaches that modern man
> spread from Mesopotamia to Africa, Asia and Europe, starting about 33,000
> years ago. If you hadn't read the primary literature you would have no way of
> knowing that what Ross is saying is pure, unadulterated buffalo chips. And
> because of what he writes, lots of Christians will now repeat these false
> things and look really stupid to those who know anthropology.
What we need is honesty,that's right.The 'creationist' 'research' is to
often a very poor one. That's what was also said in the closing lecture of
the last Int. Conf. on Creat. .