From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Subject: Re: YOUNG EARTHERS _AND_ BIBLE CRITICS WATCH OUT! (huh?)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 02:57:01 GMT

In article <BzIvu0.Fo8.2@cs.cmu.edu> kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:
>> the heavens, looking down on the earth.  Yet, the second verse of
>> Genesis 1 places the point of view under the cloud cover, on the
>> surface of the waters.  It says, "The Spirit of God was hovering over
>> the surface of the waters." 
>
>What cloud cover? We've gotten through Genesis 1:1 to 1:2, and now all of a
>sudden there's this cloud cover that I don't recall seeing in Genesis 1:1.
>Oh, that's right, the cloud cover needed to support Ross's reading of
>Genesis 1.

The cloud cover that modern science tells us was there, and which does
clarify things a bit, I must say...  Are you going to tell me that he
invented this cloud cover?  You can't reject science and hold to the fact
that scripture isn't enough in itself to satisfactorily explain everything.
It wasn't meant to explain everything, merely set the stage for God's
relationship with man.  It is enough, therefore, to show that what is there
is consistent, which it is.  If you have evidence to the contrary, lets see
it.
>
>> We are told, too, that the earth's atmosphere (and/or
>> interplanetary debris) blocked out the light that exists throughout
>> the universe.  Light could not pass through to the surface.
>
>We are told no such thing. Ross is making the common Fundamentalist mistake
>of conflating his reading of the text with the text itself. 

No, he is making the UNmistake of responsibly integrating science and
scripture.  Genesis says it was dark even though we know the stars existed,
and we also know with some certainty that there _was_ such a cloud cover
through science, and scripture _does_ say that God was hovering over the
_surface_ of the waters, which places the point of view under the cloud
cover, and _responsibly_ explains the seeming contradiction.  He is not
grasping at straws, but rather presenting truths that are easily seen in both
the realms of science and scripture interpretation.

>
>> Order of Creation Events
>> ------------------------
>> The following table lists the eleven major milestones in order, giving
>> suitable English equivalents for those verbs. 
>
>For "major milestones" read "the events whose order happens to work out".
>I have, for instance, a list of 41 items (anonymous, but "Based on the
>initial work of Richard Nielssen as contained in THE CREATION RESEARCH
>SOCIETY QUARTERLY, March 1980, pp. 220-221") which states in its
>introduction, "Listed below is a close examination and comparison of the
>supposed evolutionary sequence with that of the Biblical record. This
>comparison reveals numerous contradictions which such reinterpretation
>attempts are unable to harmonize." 

Don't keep me in suspense!  Lets see 'em!!
>
>> The odds that Moses could have guessed the correct order even if he
>> were given the events are 1 chance in 40 million.
>
>Sorry, but if you have a list of N events, you can't pick a subset of 11
>that happen to be in the right order, compute the odds of getting the order
>of those 11 right, and ignore the ones that are wrong.

You have yet to tell me which ones are wrong.

>> Deep thought:  the seventh day is not closed out in the Genesis
>> account...  Hmmm...  Funny how the extinction of species and the
>> "completion" of biblical creation coincide, and the arrival
>> of anything _new_ has fallen off sharply.  Maybe in God's rest chaos
>> is once again getting its say...
>
>Let's see...70% of all forms of algae go extinct at the end of the
>Precambrian, 90%+ of all marine species go extinct at the end of the Permian,
>and all the dinosaurs + >50% of all invertebrate marine species go extinct
>at the end of the Cretaceous, and you think *we're* in the middle of a big
>extinction event?
>
>I suppose you have equally good evidence that the emergence of new species
>has fallen off?

   "According to the fossil record, more and more species of life came into
   existence through the millennia before modern man.  Through time, the
   number of extinctions nearly balanced the number of introductions, but
   introductions remained slightly more numerous.  Then came mankind.  In the
   years of human history, the extinction rate has remained high while the
   introduction rate measures a virtual zero.  Though estimates of the
   current extinction rate vary widely, from a low of one species per day to
   a high of five species per hour, and though man's influence upon that rate
   is significant, even without man's impact at least one species per year
   goes extinct.  At the same time, as biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich
   report, "the production of a new animal species in nature has yet to be
   documented."  Furthermore, "...in the vast majority of cases, the rate of
   change is so slow that it has not even been possible to detect an increase
   in the amount of differentiation."

Only a theory...  I don't think it really matters, but it is something to
think about.  At least give me that "day" does not mean a 24 hour period.
This is simply a feature of the Hebrew word yowm, which can mean any
unspecified length of time.

John M.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23822 alt.atheism:23637