Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Origins Debate

A recent exchange that I thought worthy of your time:


"When it comes to evolution, if we are to make a choice between the Bible's interpretation and Scientist's, I think we would only be intellectually honest if we trusted the scientists.

The Bible says Adam named all the millions of species of creatures in Genesis 2, and that Noah fit them all in the ark.

Science has got us to the moon and cured diseases.

Seriously, who is more credible in this department?"

"No it (the Bible) does not say that Adam named millions of anything and nor does it say anything about millions of anything being on the Ark.

If you ask a secular geneticist about the origins of dogs, for instance, you will find that they all trace back to a wolf like ancestor. As such to have 'all' the dogs on the Ark would only have required 2 of these wolf like dogs.
This would apply in many other cases.
At the time of Adam there would probably only be hundreds at most.

Thus the Ark was more than capable of housing all the requisite 'kinds' from which all current species have arisen.

The science which you refer to having given us such 'progress' is the result of work done standing on the shoulders of Bible believing Christian scientists of the past.

None of the advances in medicine required a belief in an old earth or in 'molecules to man' evolution.

True 'intellectual honesty' would actually require believing Gods version of events, especially as He was there and truly knows what happened."

(HT: Justin Taylor's blog)

No comments: