Thank you for your thoughtful responses.
I do not necessarily subscribe to the 6000 years. I think that was first postulated by Usher based upon genealogies in the Bible that may not be a complete list of ancestry. However, I do not believe that it is much more than 10k-15k years.
As to the single cell, then that would require a series of accidents that I still do not believe is plausible.
I have read about the amino acid theories but they are yet above my head. I am still trying to grasp the issues (and keep a full time job and support the Memphis Tigers!). I will get there at some time, Lord Willing (I still study the book of Revelation but it continues to elude me).
Mako, I am familiar with those that would tell a sixth grader and his family that they will go to Hell if they do not believe certain precepts. Those people will have to account for their actions some day. If a child coming of age cannot ask questions, how will they ever be able to discern Truth? I heard one time that we will be surprised who is in Heaven and who is not. I think that is a true statement.
Mako, I do not think that a creationist must assume that the laws of nature were different in times past than today except to say that the laws were not put into place until the creation and then they became immutable. For instance, when God spoke, the laws of nature took form at that point. Until then, and this goes to my premise stated earlier that when God created "Heaven and Earth", it was created in an "Old World" state, thus appearing, as I wrote earlier, in perfect symmetry and appearance, just as if it had been in place for many, many years.
I ask this question seriously, assuming that this premise is true, would not the speed of light that reflects from galaxies millions of miles away be visable today and appear to be from long ago? Would not continental shifts appear to be over millions of years in development even though it was made that way from the beginning? Could not God have shifted the continents in His manner of creation and this is what we observe now?
I know nothing of the "pole shifting" so I will have to look to read sources for that.
I have conceded that evolution within species is observable (the wolf/Labordor Retriever analogy). I accept micro-evolution. As to the "vestigial legs", I think you know that this is a debated point in the argument and that many scientists do not believe that these are "vestigial", just as much recent research suggests that human organs, such as the appendix and tonsils, are not vestigial after all. For instance, the so called "vestigial legs" in whales are only found in one whale and is thought to be a muscle that aids in procreation (do whales have "G-Spots?".
I also agree that miracles are not extant today, in the sense that we read of them in Scripture. Miracles were for a time and place to add evidence and credibilty to God's messengers (See John 10:38; 20:30-31, II Corinthians 12:12). Today, we have God's written word, the Bible, as evidence of His message. I do believe in God's Providence and its daily influence on our lives.
With respect to this, I am very fond of a book by Lee Strobel called "The Case for Faith". This was one of the resources that I read when I was trying to make sense of some of the things going on in our lives that I mentioned in the earlier post. It is a companion book to "The Case For Christ". I recommend these two books as well written, well thought out defenses of some of the things that we are discussing.
As to the "Day-Age" debate, I believe the 24 hour day creation is justified by the use of the original Hebrew. From my readings, the word "yom" along with a specific number indicates a literal meaning. I am not a Hebrew scholar but I work with the son of a retired rabbi that studied in the Yeshiva school. He verified this understanding for me. Coupled with the phrase "evening and morning", the context of Genesis One leads me to think it is a literal day. I also commend the writings of Henry Morris, in particular, "The Genesis Record". His writings are generally derided in some scientific circles but I find their criticism more personal than scientific in nature. Even if you walk away from his book unbelieving, I think it is important to pondor his position.
Where this thing finally boils down is that on either side of the debate, one must make assumptions and accept unknowns on faith. No, I do not know every jot and tittle of each issue but I am persuaded that the weight of the evidence falls on the side of faith in the revealed Word of God. I continue to search for answers and I suspect that I will know very little more, in context, than I know today when my way on this earth is done. That is one of things that I look forward to in the hereafter.
Mako, I understand from a post on the C-USA board that you were just in Memphis this past weekend and had a good time. I would have liked to have met you. If you come back, please let me know.
|
/
Question for the "young earth society"
