RE: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

Just a quick note:

"I don't go for the OEC position that it was a
> local flood, as the NT
> writers seem to think it was global."

I would question this...let's say for a moment that
there was a massive, but local flood which pretty much
wiped out everything in the general vicinity. The few
survivors see that everything they have ever
known--they're world, is basically in ruins. They
compose (whether orally or in writing) the flood story
as an expression of this and a means of understanding
why it happened (divine judgement). A thousand, two
thousand years go by. These stories are in the hands
of Paul and disciples...they have no idea about
geology or biology or even what the shape of the earth
is and how far it extends beyond the places they've
traveled...they see the expressions talking about the
"whole world" and "all flesh"--not having witnessed
the event or been in close chronological proximity to
the event, and having no "scientific" basis upon which
to question the idea of a "global" flood, they simply
read it in a straight-forward way, literally rather
than as figurative expressions.

Wouldn't you say that this is plausible, and that the
NT interpretation does not negate the possibility of a
massive, local flood?

In Christ,
Christine

--- "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi Gordon,
>
> I'm leaning towards the idea that they copied the
> flood story from
> another culture but changed it to be about judgment
> for sin.
>
> If the flood really happened, there would be
> universal evidence of it,
> which seems to be lacking. According to the
> Biblical story (most
> literally), all life was wiped-out except that which
> was on the ark.
> Also according to the Bible, it happened in the
> recent past (a few
> thousand years ago). Biologically, that doesn't
> sound possible... that
> all life forms today came from those on the ark. So
> there are two
> strikes against a Biblical global flood: geology and
> biology.
>
> I don't go for the OEC position that it was a
> local flood, as the NT
> writers seem to think it was global. The only
> reason for thinking it
> was local is because they are trying to reconcile it
> with science. Why
> not just go all the way and recognize it as
> scientifically proven to be
> a fictional event? There is still spiritual meaning
> in it... that God
> will judge the world because of sin. It's like
> referring to the story of
> "the boy who cried wolf" to illustrate that lying
> will mess-up your life
> and relationships. Only the ancients thought the
> story was actually
> true (for both the creation story and the flood
> story).
>
> This can seem dis-heartening... must feel like how
> those who believed in
> a geocentric system were disappointed in the Bible
> when it was
> discovered we actually have a heliocentric position.
> "The earth is set
> on a firm foundation." Really? Spinning 67,000 mph
> and circling the
> sun at 1,000 mph? If science has a position, it has
> to be considered.
> There are two books from God: God's Word and God's
> work's. I think we
> have to choose "God's works" over "God's Word" when
> there is a
> disagreement over science, and there's nothing wrong
> with that (they are
> both from God!). I think God used evolution as a
> process of design, and
> we are trying to discover that from the book of
> "God's works."
>
> This can turn into an argument over fossils, and
> carbon dating. That
> can get highly technical. That's why I'd say let's
> shift the argument
> to the evidence of evolution from biological
> pseudogenes. Once that is
> acknowledged, then the mind can be prepared to
> accept the mainstream
> scientific interpretation of the fossil record,
> carbon dating, etc.
>
> Just my opinion... I'm no expert in this stuff.
> Feel free to set me
> straight ;-)
>
> ...Bernie
> www.sciligion.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of gordon brown
> Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 7:49 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of
> Adams?) pseudogenes are
> overwhelming evidence for evolution...?
>
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
> > I'm leaning to the TE side, and trying to decipher
> the Adam and Eve
> > story in light of it. I hope to have a first
> draft by the end of the
> > year. Yes, I tend to think that if evolution were
> true, then there is
> > no unique Adam and Eve. Evolution works on
> groups. Also, there was
> no
> > global flood, but OEC's already have that
> position... only instead of
> > saying it was local, I would say there was no such
> flood at all. I
> > think the reason for the flood and creation in
> Scripture is to teach a
> > spiritual lesson, but they (creation with Adam
> and eve, and the
> flood)
> > are not historical events. Yes, I'm not claiming
> the bible is
> inerrant,
> > but I think I can still say it is "authorative."
> >
>
> Bernie,
>
> The Bible's account of the Flood is not the only one
> that exists. The
> Babylonians, for example, had a flood story also. If
> no such flood
> really
> happened, what reason would the ancients have had to
> invent one?
>
> Gordon Brown (ASA member)
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 4 23:54:47 2007