...Peter: Dr. Morris jump started the creationist movement with his book "The Genesis Flood" with a co-author who was a theologian. In other words, he didn't presume theological expertise when he didn't have it. Further, Dr. Morris' textbook on hydrology was a standard text used at secular universities for their hydrology classes for many years. And to get a PhD, a "minor" is the equivalent of a master's degree in a second field, at least that was the case at the universities where I studied. I doubt your scientific qualifications come anywhere close to Dr. Morris'. The same is true of a majority of other scientists.
...Probably the scientists you have spoken to are not familiar with the latest advances in philosophy of science. But are you saying that Simpson, a noted evolutionary scientist, was personally working in contradiction to his own definition of science? That sounds like a personal slight to me.
However, when I looked at evolution, I found something within my field, namely logic. Evolution cannot be a scientific study because of the definition of science given in the same textbooks, never was and never will be. There is a logical contradiction at the heart of the claim that evolution can be a scientific study. When I ask scientists, evolutionists, if the definition for science has changed since I learned the definition from Dr. George Gaylord Simpson, they assure me that it has not.
I found that same logical contradiction at the heart of "creation science".I won't quarrel with this.
This is not in need of refinement of some details, the whole structure is flawed at its foundation.Possibly, but if it holds to a literal 6 day creation it is bad science. But I don't actually know enough about "intelligent design" to respond intelligently. If the point is that it accepts most of the general scientific evidence of what happens but gives different explanations for why, then I may not be that far away from it.
"Intelligent Design" is different from both evolution and "creation science" as it has been explained to me in that it stays within the realm of science.
Have you looked in a mirror recently?Those people I don't consider worthy to despise....The intellectual dishonesty which I despise is of those who think they know better than the experts in a field when they haven't even looked properly at the evidence on which the experts base their conclusions.
...What historical evidence?
there is ample historical evidence that the world was not created in 6 days 6000 years ago and so we need to interpret the biblical records in the light of that apparent fact.
Do you reject the historical evidence that genealogical records were kept by a number of peoples tracing their ancestry back to a certain Noah of big boat fame? ...
... Do you reject the historical records that dinosaurs (then called dragons), even large terrestrial ones, were still found in many parts of the world as little as a couple of thousands of years ago or much later?I consider this evidence interesting but not conclusive. But even if true this does not prove 6 day creation.
If by "historical evidence" you mean evolution, that is not historical, rather extrapolations based on modern religious beliefs.
No, I am not. I am claiming that there may be a counter example and rejecting your assumption that there is no counter example.
No, Karl. You don't know anything about logic, it seems.<<
Now you lecture me on logic???
As for your limited observations argument, all we can say is that from all the observations we have, we have a certain result. Only after and not before a counter example has been found can one work from the supposition that a counter example exists. One can note a pattern after a few observations, then 10k observations later if no counter examples are found, a scientist who assumed a counter example will look somewhat foolish.
Your reading assumes a counter example before the counter example is found.
what is poetic are you using when you write the above?<<It seems we have a fundamental disagreement here. What criteria of
Genesis 1:1 - 2:4 are written in a terse prose with few extraneous words, not unlike other prose sections in Tanakh. Having read the whole Tanakh numerous times in Hebrew, I have learned to equate poetry with meter (almost totally lacking in Genesis 1), repetition (again almost totally lacking here) and parallelism (almost totally lacking here). ...
...That is not what I meant by "semi-poetic".
An example of semi-poetic speech are the statements of the treaty quoted in Exodus 20 where poetic elements are inserted into strict prose.
...I have provided evidence that it is not a prose document. If you prefer to understand it as a prose record of events which in fact did not take place, that is your choice.
Now I am not asking you to accept this record as being a true history, rather all I ask is that you back up your claim that it is not by providing good linguistic reasons why this prose document should be read other than as it is written. So far you have not provided that evidence.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.