Posted on 02/05/2014 9:40:42 AM PST by EveningStar
Streamed live on Feb 4, 2014
Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era? Leading creation apologist and bestselling Christian author Ken Ham is joined at the Creation Museum by Emmy Award-winning science educator and CEO of the Planetary Society Bill Nye.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Indeed, assumptions need to have a basis, ie, based on something objective and unchanging.
But I was actually referring to the “coherent reasoning” aspect when I said something to the effect of “following the same process”.
Two people can be the most rational and intelligent and logical people around, and both following flawless logic, reach different conclusions because they started from different assumptions.
Genesis 6 makes the creation story of the first 3 chapters come alive for me. It depicts outright interference by rogue “spiritual” elements which caused great violence and destruction upon the Earth. It really is a depiction of genomic interference from outside entities...the war of Satan’s seed against the seed of Eve. The first 3 chapters begin making a lot of sense when viewed thru the lens of Genesis 6.
I suspect secretly a lot of folks “in the know”(yes even the evil secret movers and shakers as well) all ready have grasped this. The movie of Noah(trailers available) which is coming out this spring, seems to depict a blossoming of this root of thinking. God is warning us, even thru indirect means via the media. We will have no excuse...we are entering the Day of the Coming of the Son of Man, which as fore told, would be like the Days of Noah.
“In the days of Pelegg was the world divided” Genesis. It doesn’t say the “people scattered” as in the Babel account. The pangea break up may have been a much more recent, rapid, and spiritually engineered geological event!
“I consider that a fallacy of false dichotomy. You either have to believe it’s literally true in every aspect, or that none of it is true at all. Those are not the only choices you have.”
I did not say that you have to believe it’s “literally true”. In fact, I would advise you not to believe that everything in Genesis, or any book of the Bible is “literally true”, without giving heed to the writing style or context. When Genesis says Ishmael was a wild ass, you should not read that to mean that Ishmael was literally a donkey.
Now, what I said was, either it is an accurate account of events that actually happened, or it isn’t. There is no “third option” there. If an account is “partially accurate”, it is the same as saying it is “inaccurate”. It also cannot be an “accurate account” of events that didn’t actually happen. That would also make it “inaccurate”.
If you think there is a third option, then what is it? Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the term “reliable”? Genesis is either a reliable record of actual events, or it isn’t. Do you have a problem with that statement, or see some third option available?
That may or may not be true and may be as much evidence of incremental design as some other kind of process. What it DOESN'T prove is transference which is essential to evolution as the explanation for the origin of all living things.
Nobody claimed it as proof.
Creation of the species by evolution isn't incompatible with the sequence of events, but it is incompatible with the claimed timeframe they occurred in.
“So you’re rather they be outright enemies than simply agreeing to disagree on the details.”
I’d rather that they be logically consistent, and if that makes them enemies, then so be it. If they want to believe that the Bible is an inaccurate account, and some other evidence they have dug up gives the accurate account, then they should just say that. It would be better than saying that this evidence helps “reconcile” the Bible, as if the Bible needs their help in order to be true.
Are you concerned about the Bible being true, or you being right?
Well I have always thought that there was something here before the fall of Satan and afterwards God had to reboot and that’s were we are now. But since that’s only an opinion I will not defend it to the death.
Well then you’re going to need more evidence that is clear and convincing or at a least a preponderance against the ID evidence to have a valid argument. Otherwise you don’t know if your stand is based on an illusion or if is refuted by a stronger argument (that of ID).
“Creation of the species by evolution isn’t incompatible with the sequence of events, but it is incompatible with the claimed timeframe they occurred in.”
I think I understand your gist, but to be clear, are you saying the order of the groups created matches their generally assigned order of appearance in the fossil record?
I’ve heard the argument before, but I think if you delve into it there are flaws in that idea. Regardless, you’re still left with the proposition of the account being not just inaccurate, but deceptive. I’m not sure why, besides emotional attachment, people seem so intent on insisting that they “believe” in an account when they actually think it is not truthful.
I mean, I might believe that there are some true details contained in the Koran, about Muhammed’s life, or some historical events, but on the whole, it’s not an accurate record, so I would never say I believed it, as I can say I believe in the Bible.
Why? Evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive. If life can be designed, then I don't see any reason it cannot be designed to evolve.
The world prior to the comet impact was much different - large bodies of water existed, but they were unconnected. So the world as known to the ancients was divided. For instance, Atlantis was east of the mid-Atlantic ridge, west of what we now call the Gibraltar Strait. There was a body of water to its east.
The ‘Pangea’ break-up is explained here (not yet ‘accepted’ geology):
http://www.threeimpacts-twoevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Geologic-Sensemaking-Simultaneous-Impacts-10May2013.pdf
I propose no deception. Just an inadequacy of the written language of the time to convey the idea perfectly.
Well the issue here is the ORIGIN of the species. There’s no debate about evolution (”adaption”) happening later within a basic animal group after creation.
And what are the consequences, hera and now, if one or the other of us gets it wrong in terms of how long it took and by what method?
“I propose no deception. Just an inadequacy of the written language of the time to convey the idea perfectly.”
The deception seems inherent, if Genesis is not relaying accurate information about actual events. Genesis presents itself to us as a historical account, indistinguishable by context from any other historical section of the Bible. If it’s not a historical account, but something else, then that is deceptive.
As to inadequacy of language, I think that is a very weak argument. Obviously, we wouldn’t expect Genesis to try to talk about dyoxyribonucleic acid, or complex concepts that nobody at the time would have understood. However, what you are saying is that an inadequacy of language led the Bible to describe one act of creation, followed by a long period of descent and adaptation, as multiple acts of creation in short succession. This doesn’t make sense. There is no known shortcoming in Hebrew that would force one to describe those things so inaccurately.
“Are you concerned about the Bible being true, or you being right?”
Actually, neither. I believe the Bible is true, but its truthfulness isn’t dependent on me, so I am not concerned with that. I also believe that I’m right, but I’m not very concerned about it.
What I am concerned about is people being inconsistent in their arguments, or not following them to their logical conclusions. When people do that, it leads to all manner of hypocrisy and just muddies the waters. This is why liberals love relativism, because it allows them to indulge in hypocrisies and jump to illogical conclusions, with no consequences. We should aspire to be better than that.
Creation is not nearly as important as redemption and salvation, but as a foundation for true scientific inquiry, truth, and a cultural awareness of a Creator God, it is important.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.