Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth

[AV1611VET]

You can’t possibly believe the things you write.

How would you know the difference?

If I died for what I wrote, would that convince you?

 

[Bradskii]

Actually, Hitch, how many times have you seen me say this?

Were you testing me? thinking I would make a mistake or something?

You think I don't believe what I write? or write things on the fly?

I'm sure you do. But the things you believe stand in isolation to the rest of reality. So sometimes it's interesting to saddle up and run with whatever the proposal is and see where it can take us. And in this case, it's undoubtedly the case that following the path you have pointed out ('The truth is thataway!') we stumble across these little nuggets of information en route. Such as 'Adam had a reasonable Saxon vocabulary'. Which I'll bet came as much of a huge surprise to you as it did to me.

Now that was worth the ride, don't you reckon? And I'm sure there's much more we can deduce from your position which is yet to be discovered.

 

[HitchSlap]

How would you know the difference?

If I died for what I wrote, would that convince you?

Ha, no. I would pity you and empathize for your families loss.

 

[pitabread]

Only Genesis chapters 1-10 were written in Jacobean English by the original [human] authors.

 

[pitabread]

I'm sure you do. But the things you believe stand in isolation to the rest of reality.

I get the feeling that reality and AV1611VET went through a very messy breakup long ago.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Please notice that I have stated my positions, and have given reasons why I hold to these positions, without attempting to convince anyone that they must also hold these positions.

If you read the words I have to share and the Holy Spirit enables you to believe them, so be it. I can't, on my own, convince you of anything related to spiritual matters.

 

[Bradskii]

Please notice that I have stated my positions, and have given reasons why I hold to these positions, without attempting to convince anyone that they must also hold these positions.

If you read the words I have to share and the Holy Spirit enables you to believe them, so be it. I can't, on my own, convince you of anything related to spiritual matters.

Which is fine, HD. I hope that you can find a way to maintain your faith. But...

...don't try to mix science, such as Mitochondrial Eve, and spiritual matters. Because it makes it look like you are basing your faith on a misunderstanding of science. Or you're trying to convince us that science and the bible are in lock-step regarding scripture. Neither is a good idea.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a winning GIF if I ever saw one!

 

[AV1611VET]

I get the feeling that reality and AV1611VET went through a very messy breakup long ago.

Guess what else I believe?

1. Jesus walked on water.
2. Jesus rose from the dead.

Does that qualify me for the rubber room?

 

[HitchSlap]

Guess what else I believe?

1. Jesus walked on water.
2. Jesus rose from the dead.

Does that qualify me for the rubber room?

Maybe. Do you believe Chump is still president?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you believe Chump is still president?

Yes.

And he got in office the same way Pluto got demoted.

Science can be contagious, can't it?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

You guys are masters of ad hoc explanations. In my head I tack on the phrase, ‘yeah, that’s the ticket,’ every time I read a post of yours.

Cheers!

You might also notice that all of his posts are accompanied by a smiley face, though not in the body of text.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

...don't try to mix science, such as Mitochondrial Eve, and spiritual matters.

Science and scripture need not be in conflict. The founders of western science were Christians who believed that, because there is one unchanging God, we could study the unchanging laws of nature. There's nothing wrong with looking for scientific evidence to support Biblical monogenism, but that evidence will be interpreted differently by those committed to a materialist worldview.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

There are two primary concerns that I have regarding the Book of Genesis, logical consistency and obedience.

It would be logically inconsistent for Adam to be a mythical character, given the New Testament's repeated reference to Adam as the historical father of all humanity, by whom we inherit sin and death.

Also, it would be disobedient if God intended Genesis to be read as literal history, and we decided that we know better than God does.

A literal reading of Genesis, however, doesn't require that we believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, which is why I recommend the book Genesis Unbound by Old Testament scholar John H. Sailhamer:
Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account by John H. Sailhamer

 

[Humble_Disciple]

You guys are masters of ad hoc explanations. In my head I tack on the phrase, ‘yeah, that’s the ticket,’ every time I read a post of yours.

Cheers!

Evolutionists are masters of ad hoc explanations. When the transitional fossils weren't found to support Darwinian evolution, we were given the ad hoc explanation of punctuated equilibrium.

Stephen Jay Gould was required reading in my anthropology course, and I don't consider him a particularly gifted thinker. Gould's belief in sudden, revolutionary change in the biological world was inspired more by his belief in Marxism than by the actual evidence.

 

[HitchSlap]

Evolutionists are masters of ad hoc explanations. When the transitional fossils weren't found to support Darwinian evolution, we were given the ad hoc explanation of punctuated equilibrium.

Stephen Jay Gould was required reading in my anthropology course, and I don't consider him a particularly gifted thinker. Gould's belief in sudden, revolutionary change in the biological world was inspired more by his belief in Marxism than by the actual evidence.

You didn’t read SJG. Nice try. Lol

 

[Humble_Disciple]

You didn’t read SJG. Nice try. Lol

Yes, we did.

https://www.amazon.com/Ever-Since-Darwin-Reflections-Natural/dp/0393308189

If you don't know about the influence of Marxism on Gould's thinking, that's your problem.

By the way, my instructor was a committed philosophical materialist who routinely made fun of Christianity.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes.

And he got in office the same way Pluto got demoted.

Science can be contagious, can't it?

You’re delusional. Stupidity is also contagious.

 

[AV1611VET]

You’re delusional.

Do you know how psychologists are trained to score those who see Christian symbols on a Rorschach test?

 

[pitabread]

Evolutionists are masters of ad hoc explanations. When the transitional fossils weren't found to support Darwinian evolution, we were given the ad hoc explanation of punctuated equilibrium.

Well no, "punk eek" wasn't explicitly a result of lack of transitional fossils. Gould fully acknowledged the existence of transitional fossils.

Rather, it had to do with the patterns of evolution in the fossil record didn't follow strict gradualism.

Punctuated equilibrium is something that I don't think I've ever seen creationists get right.