Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: CarolinaGuitarman
"Most Christian geologists had already discarded a literal reading of Genesis decades before Darwin published."

What "Christian Geologists"? Anyway Darwin published before the treasure trove of artifacts in Palestine proving the historicity of the Bible were discovered. Kenyon sr. et all.
889 posted on 02/14/2006 2:24:23 PM PST by Californiajones ("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies ]


To: Californiajones
" What "Christian Geologists"?"

Sedgwick, Lyell, Hutton.

"Anyway Darwin published before the treasure trove of artifacts in Palestine proving the historicity of the Bible were discovered. Kenyon sr. et all."

What *treasure trove*?
899 posted on 02/14/2006 2:34:22 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 889 | View Replies ]

To: Californiajones
What "Christian Geologists"?

Lyell, amongst others

Anyway Darwin published before the treasure trove of artifacts in Palestine proving the historicity of the Bible were discovered. Kenyon sr. et all.

The theory of evolution rests on rather more than "OoS". It is supported by 150 years of confirming observations since then. A veritable avalanche of confirming data, beyond anything Darwin could have dreamed of. How can artifacts "prove" the historicity of the bible? Even if the historicity of certain biblical books were proven how would this disprove evolution?

901 posted on 02/14/2006 2:36:47 PM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive blackguard than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 889 | View Replies ]

To: Californiajones
["Most Christian geologists had already discarded a literal reading of Genesis decades before Darwin published."]

What "Christian Geologists"?

For example, in 1857 (before Darwin published anything, you'll note) Hugh Miller -- a creationist geologist -- wrote of his conclusions that at most, the Biblical flood was the embellished record of a local flood in the Mideast, since geology showed no signs of a global flood. On page 327 of his book, "The Testimony of the Rocks", he wrote:

"No man acquainted with the general outlines of Palaeontology, or the true succession of the sedimentary formations, has been able to believe, during the last half century, that any proof of a general deluge can be derived from the older geologic systems, -- Palaeozoic, Secondary [Mesozoic], or Tertiary."

Anyway Darwin published before the treasure trove of artifacts in Palestine proving the historicity of the Bible were discovered. Kenyon sr. et all.

This is irrelevant to the question of what the geologic record says about whether a global flood ever occurred or not. It's also irrelevant to the question of whether Genesis in particular or the Bible on the whole is inerrant, because it's no surprise that many portions of the Bible deal with earthly events, places, and people. Finding archaeological traces of those events, places, and people doesn't, however, indicate that *everything* is necessarily true, however, just as the fact that Greek mythology discussing the involvement of the Greek gods in actual wars and events, in the reigns of actual rulers, etc., proves that Zeus must actually exist and actually flung lightning bolts etc. Nor does the reality of the burning of Atlanta, General Grant, and the Civil War, help to prove that all people mentioned in "Gone With the Wind" actually existed too.

917 posted on 02/14/2006 2:53:59 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 889 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson