Biblical Problems with Theistic Evolution

Well, first, not true: allegory is not the "only other option."  Second, look up the definition of allegory.  Third, Genesis 1 doesn't actually say anything about the fossil record.  Fourth, progressive creationism makes no claims about ages, not that I know of (perhaps some progressive creationists do).  Fifth, again the fossil record's the fossil record and marine community succession-extinction turnovers are what we see, so we can't pretend otherwise.

“Btw, not to get picky, but we have both the evidence of nature/creation (general revelation Romans 1) and the Holy Spirit, as well as Scripture (special revelation))”

   I 100% agree with your point here, but would add that these three will never contradict, to which I’m sure you agree also. So my point is that modern scientist’s reading of the natural record is incorrect, not traditional reading of Scripture. And if you choke on that thought because of all the thought and effort put into modern scientific thought, I will remind you that it pales in comparison to the effort throughout the millennia that has gone into proper interpretation of Scripture, fringe detractors on the edges of both disciplines not withstanding.

OK, but again none of that has anything to do with progressive creationism, nor does Genesis 1 make any statements or claims about the fossil record, and modern science rejects progressive creationism.  We're also not talking about any "reading" of the natural record, but simply what we see.  Are you saying that when we go out and physically look at the fossil record that we don't see Ediacaran marine fossils in layers that are then replaced by Cambrian marine fossils in layers above that, that are then replaced by Ordovician marine fossils in layers above that and so on and so on and so on?   What do we see then?

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I’m saying you see hydro sorting. I’m no expert on the subject, not even enough to fake it to children, but I know there was a worldwide flood, despite what is said to the contrary.

When we look at the *fossil record* we don't see *hydrologic sorting*, we see *fossils*.  Hydrologic sorting is not a description of the fossil record, it's an explanation that attempts to explain why we see what we see in the fossil record.  Unfortunately, hydrologic sorting doesn't work, starting with the fact that when we look at the fossil record we see Ediacaran MARINE fossils being replaced by Cambrian MARINE fossils that are then replaced by Ordovician MARINE fossils and so on and so on and so forth.  Again, when we look at the fossil record, what we see (NOT what we "read" or interpret, but what we actually see) is one marine community after another appearing then going extinct and being replaced by a new marine community that appears and then goes extinct, and we see this pattern repeating over and over and over again.

How do you see large communities of fossils at all without an upheaval causing their burial?

That's a really great question.  We certainly do see catastrophic burial in both the terrestrial and marine fossil records, and the marine fossil record includes rapid deposition and burial by underwater landslides that leave distinctive sedimentary deposits called *turbidites*.

However, we also see a lot of non-catastrophic deposition that was not formed by "upheaval" as you say.

For example, the world famous Green River fish fossils all formed in a freshwater lake.  Such fossils don't require rapid burial but can exist for long periods in anoxic conditions on lake bottoms.

Most marine fossils consist of calcium carbonate shells that also don't require rapid burial.  Consider, for example, how long sea shells can exist on beaches before they're weathered and broken down into tiny bits.

Most of the marine community succession-extinction turnovers of which I speak show little if any evidence of catastrophic burial.  One of the ways (but not the only way) we know is that these marine communities include coral reefs and stromatolites (sedimentary structures made by photosynthetic cyanobacteria).  Stromatolites in particular can be extremely fragile and their delicate structure recording successive layers of growth would be destroyed instead of perserved if there was catastrophic burial/upheaval.

*So these marine community succession-extinction turnovers that we see over and over again in the fossil record, include marine reefs and stromatolites that appear and that are then replaced by new types of marine reefs and stromatolites that are then replaced by new types of marine reefs....and so on and so on and so forth.  

(Here's some photos of living and fossil stromatolites)

So those stromatolites stood upright for millions of years until they were buried in sediment?

No, and not relevant.  Whether you're a young earth or old earth creationist the repeated marine community succession-extinction turnovers we see are the same.  It's simply what we physically see when we look at the fossil record.

Ok

Excellent talk by Wayne Grudem on how Theistic Evolution undermines Scripture.

Wayne Grudem's the man :-)

I honestly don't think there are any consistently valid reconciliations between theistic evolution and the various creation accounts of the Bible. One of the major critiques of it has already been mentioned in that if man evolved, one Adam and one Eve are not likely; they also aren't hand-formed by God from the dust in His image, rather being slowly molded through many, many ancestors.

You also have the various critiques of Darwinistic evolution coming into play that tend to disprove theistic evolution as well. For example, it is very difficult to explain the Cambrian Explosion via evolutionary theory.

Now, one theory I find much more tenable (much to the chagrin of many here I'm sure, ha ha) is Old Earth Creationism; it rejects evolution aside from microevolution, which we have observed unlike macroevolution, instead arguing that God indeed spoke creatures into existence. It does recognize the timeline of evolutionary theory in how things came together (except that God, not chance, was guiding it all).

Thanks,

KoA

First of all, God doesn't have time limit. It means God is the time. Secondly, we will never able to measure God with our little brain. So, just trust him. That's it. God is way beyond Man's understanding.

Very true. However, that doesn't mean we can't seek to understand what God has made through scientific discovery. God could have created a universe that would have been much simpler so that we didn't have to discover things and/or ask questions, but I think God delights in our curiosity, exploration, and discovery of his beautiful world and universe.

Thanks,

KoA

Yes, I agree with you. Do you know why God created a universe much bigger to our understanding?

If our universe was smaller, we would have been bored of it easily. Since this universe is so big, there are so many things to explore. So, we are not bored at all. We keep on exploring and see God's image everywhere.

We see the power of God even in Charles Darwin's theory too. We see God's image in every fossil we get. God is such an amazing person. We wonder everyday seeing His creation.