Replies

I take it as axiomatic that the biblical texts were authored by the Creator as a means to communicate the bigger picture of where all things come from and where they are headed.

Why do you make this assumption?

In fact they are quite the opposite, declaring these things in ordinary language even a child can understand.

This is not evidence of accuracy.

The biblical texts, like God Himself, are natural.

You again are assuming your conclusion.

The texts themselves are sufficient evidence of God's existence and intentions, just as your own words testify to some extent not only of your existence but also your intentions.

Circular reasoning. You are using the assumption that God wrote the Bible as evidence that God wrote the Bible.

Am I assuming my conclusion when I conclude from your words that you exist and have intentions?

Actually, yes. You demonstrate this assumption when referring to them as "my words".

But you are not convinced the biblical texts were authored by anyone other than a collection of human authors, who themselves were inspired by nothing other than their own imaginations as they reacted to the physical world about them.

Do you have reason that I should believe otherwise about the "biblical texts" and not any other religious text?

Actually, those kinds of authors are the ones who fabricate Darwinism with all its esoteric spillage. You're not alone in this assessment.

Please support this claim with evidence. Show that "Darwinism" is a "fabrication".

For personal reasons you've chosen to reject what the biblical texts say, and what they say of themselves.

The "personal reasons" to which you refer are the lack of evidence for the validity of the claims of the biblical texts.

Why did ordinary human authors arrive at a creation taking six days?

As has been previously explained to you, there exist multiple creation stories and "six days" is not a universal theme. The "six days" accounts that do exist were likely influenced by culture; a possibility is that a seven-day work week was already convention and the creation account written based upon that. An almighty God could just poof everything into existence in an instant. That makes for stronger drama, and is more consistent with an Almighty being.

I do not see how this supports your claims. At any rate, the texts say of themselves they were authored by the Creator Himself. I'll take their word for it.

Why do you accept such a claim of the "biblical texts" but not such a claim from any other religious text?

Why do you make this assumption?

For the same reason I am inclined to believe a telephone book contains accurate information. Whenever one accepts an axiom he thereby assumes a conclusion. Positive statements do the same thing. To say "most birds are flying creatures" is to assume a conclusion. So what?

I happen to find the evidence for an orderly planet to be compelling. I also find the capacity to apprehend and contemplate this planet as compelling evidence of intelligent design. Without information and language to express information, there would be no science, to be sure.

Both information and language may serve as evidence of intelligent design. Neither is mysterious, superstitious, supernatural, mystical, unscientific or even religious. The biblical texts bear out that it was with the tools of language (Word) that the heavens and the earth were brought into being, and are likewise sustained to this very moment. This is just part of the normal course the Creator has established. So are thought, emotions, and intentions, all of which bring themselves into science no matter how much the observer might wish otherwise.

Can you supply an example of science that does not make use of language?