tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7543440812184110134..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Rapid speciationRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88624492891252155592014-06-01T12:51:50.265-04:002014-06-01T12:51:50.265-04:00The reason is that God finished creation after Day...The reason is that God <i>finished</i> creation after Day 6. Of course God <i>could have</i> just caused the wicked people to vanish, or put a force field around Noah and the animals. The question is about what He revealed that He <i>did</i>.<br /><br />Indeed, general revelation from this fallen world can be understood only in the light of the unfallen perfect Special Revelation in Scripture. You will never get an OEC from Scripture, only from trying to read uniformitarian "science" into Scripture.<br /><br />God did not create with "appearance of age", simply because age has no appearance! People infer age from current features and processes that change over time, given certain assumptions. God did create with functional maturity. It's important to understand the difference. E.g. Genesis 1 reveals that God created trees already mature enough to bear fruit, and Adam and Eve as mature enough for reproduction. But it's most unlikely that the trees had growth rings or Adam and Eve had navels, since these are not necessary for mature function and instead reflect a history that the initial creations lacked.Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12530418085229071099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21756169708340352372014-02-09T00:41:36.988-05:002014-02-09T00:41:36.988-05:00It's true that the ark isn't strictly nece...It's true that the ark isn't strictly necessary. The concrete symbolism is key, just as Solomon's temple or the sacrificial system isn't strictly necessary. They exist for the concrete symbolism. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12846917376129032752014-02-07T17:50:11.803-05:002014-02-07T17:50:11.803-05:00I wonder if rapid speciation is even necessary giv...I wonder if rapid speciation is even necessary given YEC. I wonder why God couldn't have just created more species after the flood. An objection might be that it would make the Ark unnecessary. But not if the Ark had more than one purpose. From the perspective of redemptive history, the ultimate purpose was to be a prophetic type of the salvation found in Christ (i.e. the Ark) from the judgment of God (i.e. the flood). <br /><br />Another objection might be that the genetic data implies common ancestry. But why assume that we can infer anything actually true from genetic information. Isn't part of standard Christian theology (especially among the Reformed) that general revelation was never meant to be interpreted apart from special revelation? If God could created the past with an appearance of age, why couldn't God create species with apparent common ancestry? I don't think this is necessarily ad hoc.<br /><br />FYI: Because of Steve's blogs on YEC I'm open to YEC, though I currently lean strongly toward OEC. I have to admit that many of the objections to YEC by both secularists, OEC, theistic evolutionists (et cetera) aren't very persuasive philosophically.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com