John Piper on Old Earth & Evolution
El contenido de la fe, para escuchar,
2m 56slongitud
Comentarios
-
Man is created in the image of God. You don't just evolve into that!
-
"they just represent the best explanation of the observable facts" or, even more cautiously, 'they are the most economical description of the observable facts'. Even in that wording a philosopher might baulk at the term 'observable FACTS'.
-
Again, gravity and the heliocentric Solar System haven't been "proven", they just represent the best explanation of the observable facts. I'm saying that some kind of "species diversification" represents the best explanation for observable facts from Anatomy, Geographical Zoology, Genetics, Cell Biology and the fossil record. In the 19th Century, many scientists twisting the Genesis story into ever-tightening knots in response to geological discoveries.. They changed tack when Darwin came along.
-
It is about more than just man's creation. And archaeology (although finds are random and rare) has in fact confirmed the historical accuracy of many facts written in the Bible. Archaeology has already erified many ancient sites (Jerusalem), civilizations (Hittites), and biblical characters(David) whose existence was questioned by the academic world and often dismissed as myths.BTW it was Dawkins who said that if you had a high view of the Bible you couldn't believe in evolution.He is correct.
-
Scientific theories in evolutionary biology present causal explanations for the observable and measurable phenomena of life on Earth. = evolution has NOT been proven. Also Dawkins says evolution does not answer the origins of the universe. Christians are not asking people to choose between the Bible and science. Atheists are telling christians to stop believing a book (the Bible) that they have no understanding of and have not read. The Bible has a narrative of man's redemption through God.
-
Gravity is a theory. "The Earth orbits the Sun" is a theory. And those are both theories that are considerably LESS well supported than the theory of evolution. And what I'm saying is that "throwing away the book" is exactly what people will do if you tell them they have to choose between the Bible and modern science. I know less about archeology, but archaeological evidence for, say, the fall of Jericho does not corroborate any of the Bible except the story of the fall of Jericho..
-
'seems unlikely' is a theory. Nothing has been proven. Throw away a book that is continually being proven accurate by archaeological discoveries and corroboration from other sources? That would be foolish.
-
The problem with that is you tell people that the Bible comes to naught if Adam was not a historical person and they say "but it seems to me unlikely he was a historical person, therefore the Bible does indeed come to naught, goodbye" and you lose them by your own logic..