It is clear enough that you have repeatedly asserted this. It is not clear at all that our opinions are falsehoods as you have proclaimed. So, if you are going to claim at 99.8% of us are putting forth falsehoods, you need to prove that as well. This does not prove it:
So nice for you. You have all the answers. But you are as guilty as I am. You have done nothing more than to make assertions and suggest that they are true. We all do this. We just believe that our assertions are based upon much more and better evidence. So don’t you accuse me of making falsehoods (or anyone else here for that matter.) Prove that what we are saying is false or keep your opinions to yourself.
Right… here’s my opinion. Call it a falsehood if you will. You are asked good questions. You respond by singling out a piece of minutiae from the post and turning it into the real issue (red herring style). Then, when the question is clarified, you ignore the question. Why?? I suppose it is because you have no answer. I don’t know for sure, but I have observed it again and again.
So, as I said above, kudos to you on your manipulation of the rhetoric. As you are prone to say so often here, you won that one!
It is an Omphalos type argument, so it really doesn’t need to be reversed. The natural processes we see acting right now are all that is needed to produce the observations we see, and in doing so we eliminate these convoluted supernatural processes through parsimony.
I am still waiting for the noise to die down. When it finally does and the dust settles, you and R Rauser are still left with my proposal.
You have two choices: 1. either turn back my proposal or invite a professional to do it, or 2. accept for what it says about YEC claims and live with the implications - implications that say, by the way, that evolutionists and biblical revisionists do not have all the answers like they claim to.
Not so. Even if your model is physically and mathematically allowable, that does necessitate that it is compelling. I find YEC claims just as scientifically spurious as previous to your backwards in time conjecture. Further, it enjoys no exegetical foundation.
No you haven’t. Once you have created deep time, the 6 calendar days exist within its timeline, not at the start as a plainly read Genesis says. Nor have you demonstrated why a day to God must be 24 hours when he exists outside of time and can’t be measured by human standards
Once again, you alone know the inner motivations of others. (You looked inside them and determined that their frustration with you is actually for a fact because your answers are so very good that it frustrates them.)
Please cite the examples where various of us have accused YECs of being “unintelligent idiots.”
As for myself, having once been part of the YEC community and continuing to have countless YEC associates and friends to this day, I would say that YECs are much like most other people groups: Some are very intelligent, some are average, and some are less so. I believe that my YEC friends are sincere in their beliefs. Many are uninformed on matters of science, just as are many millions of other Americans. Some are more driven by feelings than thought when it comes to some topics—just as other people groups can be. (And I include myself in that description. On some topics my first reaction is definitely driven by emotion.)
To put it concisely, I don’t think I have ever called Young Earth Creationists “unintelligent idiots.” And it is certainly not my belief.
Ditto. I’m still waiting for explanations of why they are falsehoods. @R_speir, do you understand that simply repeating your personal belief—and stating that it differs from your opponent— is not an explanation of why your opponents statements are falsehoods.
Meanwhile, I’ve considered starting a new thread to discuss basic hermeneutics and the fact that many texts (ancient and modern) must be read and interpreted in layers. Genesis 1 is a good example. To be clear:
(1) I agree with most YECs when I state that I favor the view that YOM is referring to the standard 24-hour day in the context of the descriptions of the six days of creation.
(2) I also agree that Genesis 1 is truthful in communicating what God wanted us to know about his sovereignty over every aspect of his creation. (I believe it does so through a skillful use of human language and genre that would be understood by its ancient audience.)
Even so, the above doesn’t settle the issue of answering a question like “How long did it take God to create the world we see today?” One can interpret the Hebrew word YOM in its most “literal” and simple sense without assuming that that ends the matter. [Also, I wince a bit when using the word because I know that most people don’t really understand what literal means in a linguistic context.] Texts must often be read in “layers”, going beyond just the “literal and simple” meaning on the surface in order to determine the higher-level purposes of the author.
Perhaps examples would help:
(1) CARL SAGAN’S COSMIC YEAR
Carl Sagan liked to talk about “The Cosmic Calendar” and what is often called “the cosmic year.” He knew that his audience would interpret the word year as that conventional concept of time measurement which consists of 365 days. So if one reads about this in Sagan’s book based on the Cosmos TV series, that first layer of interpretation of his text is that the word year brings to mind a literal calendar of twelve literal months which starts, literally, at midnight on January 1. More importantly, the second layer of interpretation of his text requires the understanding that his cosmic year is an analogy meant to help humans conceptualize the vast 13.7 billion year timespan of the history of our universe through major milestones in that “year”. The calendar year starts with the Big Bang. Our Milky Way galaxy formed on May 11. (Of course, it is not literally true that our galaxy formed on May 11. Yet it is demonstrably true to describe the formation of our galaxy as happening 131/365 along Sagan’s year-analogy timeline.) Our literal sun formed on September 1. Photosynthetic plans appeared on October 12. Mammals appeared on December 26, birds on December 27, flowers on December 28. Humans appeared at 10:24pm on December 31.
Was Sagan referring to literal days, hours, and minutes? In terms of the first layer of the text, yes. He wanted his audience to think about literal days, hours, and minutes because otherwise they would not grasp the value of his analogy. Yet, if the reader stops at that first layer, they will entirely misunderstand Sagan’s meaning. Indeed, Sagan was NOT stating that the universe was only one year old! Only when the reader appreciates the second layer of Sagan’s text does he or she grasp the message Sagan communicated so powerfully!
Likewise, most Bible scholars who disagree with Young Earth Creationist interpretations of Genesis 1 would emphasize the importance of not beginning and ending one’s exegesis with looking up the lexicon entry for the Hebrew word YOM.
I read Genesis 1 as a “hymnic tribute” genre, a statement of God’s sovereignty over every sphere of his creation—because he designed and made that creation. (Contrast that with the neighboring cultures where each domain which is described in each YOM description in Genesis 1 is presided over by some god or goddess.) And just as Sagan chose to use a Cosmic Year as a analogy, Genesis 1 uses a literary structure based on something everyone can understand: a seven day week. The text is saying God is so powerful that in a puny man’s workweek, God can created an entire world!
Entire books have been written about the abundant literary structures in Genesis 1 (e.g., many levels of chiasm and parallelism.) I’ll not attempt even a summary of that topic on this subthread.
(2) A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME
Going beyond what words Shakespeare put into the mouth of Juliet, “a rose by another name” has become a popular phrase in English. When people speak of “a rose by another name” or even label people with that phrase, they are not communicating botanical truths about a particular type of flower. No, that would be misconstruing the first layer of interpretation. It’s an analogy as well as an illusion to Shakespeare’s view of Juliet’s regard for Romeo and the conflict and frustration she faced.
By the way, this posts is relatively long because several people have recently asked for my view on Genesis 1 and I hadn’t posted this much depth in a while. I realize that @r_speir may not read this post but others have asked for my views and this summary is overdue.
I appreciate your honesty. And I freely agree that you are not interested in many of the arguments and the details of evidence presented on this thread. It is indeed easy to say “Me: 1; You: 0.” This will keep frustrating your readers. A second layer of interpretation of your statements is likely to be: “R_speir covers his ears when he doesn’t like opposing arguments.”
Indeed, I remember you refusing to engage an entire list of evidence and arguments I gave you. You posted a simplistic dismissal. You claimed that I was allegedly “too emotional” and therefore that somehow gave you a pass to ignore me. Very convenient. Of course, it is also a logic fallacy. That is, even if I were the most emotional person on the planet, it would not in the least require that my evidence-based arguments were invalid. That’s another version of what is called the Genetic Fallacy or Guilt by Association fallacy.
I will loudly concur with this statement. I don’t think YEC’s are dumb or lack intelligence. I think they are wrong, but intelligent people are wrong all of the time. We all have our intellectual and emotional blindspots.
On the flip side, I have run across scientists who have gone down the deep end of “alternative” medicines and the like. I found out a while back that an old colleague of mine is pursuing research on magnetism as a cure-all, and I have to say that I am a bit disappointed in him.
Both scientists and creationists are wonderfully flawed in the most human sense.
For those who’ve asked, I tend to view the six-day creation pericope in Genesis 1 as a reweaving of a very ancient oral tradition which suited God’s purposes as a beautiful opening to the BARASHIT scroll. I liken it to modern day authors who choose to open their book (whether that it be about science, history, art, or philosophy) with a quotable quote, a classic oration, a song lyric, or a familiar poem. It sets a wonderful tone while also communicating very important truths about God and his creation.
Are there any English translations for which this is not true? If not, delete “most”. Are there any translations into other languages for which this is not true? If not, delete “English”. Is this true in Hebrew? If so, delete “translations of”.
I wrote that I “tend to view” Genesis 1 in that way because it is my present inclination based on many years of my studies of the available evidence. As more evidence becomes available to me, it is very possible that my view may change. That is the nature of sound scholarship, whether one is a science professor or a humanities professor.
I might wish that I wouldn’t have to emphasize this point but when explaining scholarship and peer review to the general public, it is often necessary and is also our personal responsibility as educators. Dogmatism and tribalism is not the foundation of good scholarship and it is not the foundation of Biblical faith and integrity.
Your friends here have echoed your sentiments in various ways. So here I post the wrap-up by R Rauser in his article
“For all these reasons and more, it is deeply misguided to read Genesis 1 as a flat-footed literal account of origins. No doubt, Ken Ham means well, but his errant and naïve reading of the biblical text does a grave disservice to Christians as it inclines people to read a faulty young earth creationist theology back onto the text. And this, in turn, does nothing more than discredit Christians and the church before a skeptical world. For these reasons, I don’t believe that Ham is on the side of the angels. Indeed, I must conclude that if any angels take pleasure in Ham’s misbegotten textual reading, they are likely of the fallen sort.”
Tell me, and all here, that you do not agree with what he is saying. You claim that I am making up accusations against you. Now is your chance to prove you are clean in this matter. Simply deny what Rauser has claimed above. Do not be verbose. You will only incriminate yourself in the deed. Be succinct in your comments to clear yourself of wrongdoing.