RE: Old-Earth Creationism

From: Adrian Teo (
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 - 12:26:30 EST

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"

    Hello Howard,

    Here are my responses:

    > > Assuming that God created all life forms in their own "kinds"....
    > What is the warrant for that assumption?

    Gen 20-25. All animals were created after their own kinds. Humans, on the
    other hand, were created, in a sense, after God's own kind (in HIs image).

    > > (however one
    > > chooses to define what this means, but it almost certainly
    > must be above the
    > > level of the species), ....
    > Why should the biblical "kinds" have anything whatsoever to
    > do with modern
    > classification categories?

    They don't have to correspond, but I'm sure scientists would still want to
    map those onto their calssfication scheme.
    > > .... either simultaneously, or at different times, it
    > > seems to me that this perspective is able to account for
    > all the scientific
    > > evidence that evolution can.
    > Biologists/paleontologists/geologists.... on this list are capable of
    > providing numerous counterexamples, but why would they want
    > to take the time
    > to do it once again?????

    I guess they don't have to, but they sure are spending a whole lot of energy
    (in this group anyway) providing counterexamples to YEC, and much of the
    stuff have been brought up several times over the years. At the very least,
    OEC doesn't have to deal with the age of earth issue.
    > > Microevolution is accepted, and accounts for a
    > > wide array of observations. Extinction is also allowed in
    > this view, which
    > > explains why we don't see many creatures that we find in
    > the fossil record.
    > Why allow extinction? Is that a Biblical concept?

    Perhaps not obviously, but I don't think extinction contradicts the Bible.
    Otherwise evolution would have the same problem for Christians as well.

    > > What we find in common across different species (physical
    > structures,
    > > genetic sequences, etc.) could be accounted for by the fact that God
    > > recycles basic building blocks in different types of creatures.
    > Where did that "fact" come from?????

    Fact was probably a poor choice of words. Assumption would have been more
    apt. And I would argue that the assumption is a reasonable one and in no way
    contradicts the Bible.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 12:27:24 EST