What Darwin Didn't Know

That was nearly a thousand years later. In earliest days, there would have been no corruption.

Bottom line: If Cain had not married a relative, there would have been no one to marry!

Baloney!

You’re claiming that Chuck Darwin saw Negroes as soon-to-be missing links??

He was speaking more towards civilization itself tending to eradicate, replace, or influence less civilized societies. He noted that as this continues, the apparent "gap" will grow larger.

"It must not, however, be supposed that groups of organic beings are always supplanted, and disappear as soon as they have given birth to other and more perfect groups. The latter, though victorious over their predecessors, may not have become better adapted for all places in the economy of nature. Some old forms appear to have survived from inhabiting protected sites?, where they have not been exposed to very severe competition; and these often aid us in constructing our genealogies, by giving us a fair idea of former and lost populations. But we must not fall into the error of looking at the existing members of any lowly-organised group as perfect representatives of their ancient predecessors." - Darwin, Descent of Man

He was simply recognizing that civilization was out competing and will eventually replace "savage societies". This doesn't require the eradication of the savages themselves... but the hints yielded from those societies used to construct genealogies would be lost, effectively widening evolutionary gaps.

Baloney!

Olive Loaf!

If you read those passages and get “young earth” then you are indeed “reinterpreting” the Bible, because, like most YECs, you ignore immediate context, Biblical context, the original languages, etc. All basic “straight forward reading” skills. Ross has answered his critics over and over. His written books about it, but YECs say “Don’t read the devil’s words!” They ignore his answers and spread fabrications about him. The YEC movement, what’s left of it, is so identical to the Darwinian/Atheist Fundies. Sad.

1. how can you not get young earth from those passages?
2. Ross has not answered his critics.
3. YEC'ers have never said don't read Ross. They simply caution believers about the errors in his thinking and teaching.
4. YEC'ers have written a number of books and articles, including a book called, Refuting Compromise, calling into question much of what Ross teaches. It is compelling...and has not been answered. One of his worst failings is a complete inability to properly interpret Hebrew. He displays an amazing ignorance of the language, and refuses to acknowledge same, despite having his errors clearly pointed out to him.

Your answer makes it appear you really have not researched the YEC position very carefully. And your ad hominem attacks are unworthy of intelligent debate. If you are indeed open to the truth, wherever that might lie, I would invite you to do a little more research.

It’s obvious you’ve never studied anything beyond what the YECs have allowed you to read. There’s virtually no YEC or OEC that I haven’t read. “Refuting Compromise” compelling?
It was about as compelling as something Richard Dawkins or Barack Obama wrote. One of the greatest flaws in YECism is that they think/act like Hugh Ross invented OEC and is the only one who believes it. Yet nearly of the design movment, the churches, and some of the most ardent defenders of the Bible have abandoned YECism. I know the YEC leaders ignore that and pretend Ross is the only one, but that’s the definition of fundamentalism: ignore everything except those who agree with you.

First, you assume I have studied nothing of what OEC teaches. In that you are absolutely wrong.
Second, you assume that somehow I slavishly follow whatever Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, John Morris, et al, allow me. That I am like like a sheep, and can’t read or study anything on my own. Again, in that you are absolutely wrong.
Third, have you actually read “Refuting Compromise?” I find that hard to believe.
Fourth, you act as if YEC is the minority position. I don’t think that is true, but if even it is, that doesn’t make OEC right. It is not a matter of majority rules. Many churches are buying in to the Emergent Church movement/conversation. That in no way makes them right. To cite one Bible scholar who is a YEC, John MacArthur has written extensively on this subject, and he is a YEC’er.
Fifth, I can only surmise from what you have written that you are more willing to throw stones at YEC’ers than discuss the relative merits of the two positions.
And so, for me, I will take the most obvious sense of Genesis 1 and Ex 20, and continue to assert that the “days” can only be 24 hour days, and that there is no evidence to the contrary anywhere in Scripture.

I have discussed at length the two positions here in the past, but from what I've heard from you, it at least sounds like you've already made up your mind.

Since you gave me the first two standard YEC talking points (Gen 1 and EX 20), I did assume that you followed them "like a sheep." Maybe I'm wrong on that, I hope so.

Exodus 20 (verse 11 in particular) is only YEC if you read it superficially, which some YECs seem to equate with "obvious" or "plain" reading. More:

"Exodus 20:11 is often held up as undeniable proof of 24-hour creation days. If that is true, what of Leviticus 25:1-4, which uses the creation week pattern in terms of years? Apparently the creation week is used as a pattern of “one out of seven” in both cases, not a real-time reference. A similar type of pattern is the eight day “Feast of the Tabernacles” in Leviticus 23:33-36. It celebrated God’s protection in the desert that lasted forty years — obviously eight days is not a one-to-one correlation with forty years."

YECs constantly ignore Hebrew patterns, here and with geneaologies, etc. You can't change the meaning or intent of the writers.

Genesis 1, plainly YE? Not even close. There is tons of refutations to this. To focus on the most basic: If the writer intended 24 hour days, why didn't he explicitly say so? Even hard core militant YECs like Ken Ham have had to admit that the Hebrew used for days in Gen 1 doesn't explicitly say 24 hr days. That undermines the whole YEC theory:

"The text only reads as day, so you have to look at the context. The New International Version (NIV) and some other translations set the days off differently, and more accurate to the Hebrew, than do other ranslations. The King James Version (KJV), or ones that over-simplify such as The Living Bible (TLB), are not as accurate to the Hebrew and make it sound as if these were 24-hour days. Compare and you will see the difference. KJV: “And the evening and morning were the first day.” NIV: “And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day.” The Hebrew matches the latter translation more precisely, which shows that a 24-hour day is not as obvious as some claim. If it were a 24-hour day, one would expect it to obviously say so. The text, however, seems to be indicating something else."

And they continue:

"The attaching of an ordinal (such as “first”) or other appendage (such as “long”) to day does not always indicate a 24-hour day. See Zechariah 14:7, which uses “one day” or “a day” depending on the translation and Hosea 6:2. Scholars have long interpreted the use of day in these prophetic verses as meaning years or longer periods. There is no good reason to dismiss these examples simply because they are considered prophecy."

and:

"Similarly, the Hebrew for the phrase “evening and morning” or “evening, and there was morning” has usages not limited to 24-hour days. In fact, there are numerous usages in the Bible that this phrase, or variants of it, refer to continuous processes or activities. Exodus 18:13, 27:21, Leviticus 24:2-3 and Daniel 8:14,26 all use this phrase in a context of something that occurs on a continual basis over more than one 24-hour day."

I quoted these from Is The Truth Out There? 2nd edition (2008), because there's no need for me to reinvent the wheel at this hour.

It was not my attention to offend you, but I've been down this road before and many YECs throw out the standard "proofs," don't listen to the response and move on to the next "proof."

The YEC has become, or is becoming, the minority position largely because of nonscholarly actions of some of their leaders like Ken Ham, who seems to want to be exempt from any review by other scholars. The focus on emotion instead of theology and science hasn't helped either.

No, inane means: lacking sense, silly.

I don’t mean to stereotype all YECs in the likes of Ken Ham. However, it is true that many of their best known, and most vocal leaders, act in a similar fashion. It least they have in the past. I will also admit that some recent events involving Ham and his group have cost him support and his previously untouchable position.

OEC, especially Ross’ view, is a strict literal view. YEC is not literal, it ignores Hebrew, context, etc. Literal defined as: What the Bible says when read with basic comprehension skills - not read superficially.

[He was simply recognizing that civilization was out competing and will eventually replace "savage societies".]

"Kill all the Brutes", ehh Mr. Kurtz?

Sometimes the process has a little "unnatural" help, ala folks like Margaret Sanger - and the current crop of transhumanist, transgenderist, ubermenchen wanna-bees.

Lets hope they have better luck with their creations than did Dr. Frankenstein:

"Devil," I exclaimed, "do you dare approach me? and do not you fear the fierce vengeance of my arm wreaked on your miserable head? Begone, vile insect! or rather, stay, that I may trample you to dust! and, oh! that I could, with the extinction of your miserable existence, restore those victims whom you have so diabolically murdered!"

"I expected this reception," said the daemon. "All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us. You purpose to kill me. How dare you sport thus with life? Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind. If you will comply with my conditions, I will leave them and you at peace; but if you refuse, I will glut the maw of death, until it be satiated with the blood of your remaining friends."
"Abhorred monster! fiend that thou art! the tortures of hell are too mild a vengeance for thy crimes. Wretched devil! you reproach me with your creation; come on, then, that I may extinguish the spark which I so negligently bestowed." My rage was without bounds; I sprang on him, impelled by all the feelings which can arm one being against the existence of another.
"He easily eluded me..."