tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post7054222368096717311..comments2023-09-27T05:04:37.119-04:00Comments on THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Are the Creation days 24 hours?Mike Felkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01974482615713418707noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-74080739677581104982011-03-26T14:52:52.447-04:002011-03-26T14:52:52.447-04:00@Anonymous, has anyone here "condemned" ...@Anonymous, has anyone here "condemned" or referred to anyone as a "moron" who holds to an old earth?Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-30873458934688876742011-03-26T05:32:20.173-04:002011-03-26T05:32:20.173-04:00The first few chapters of Genesis are poetic , the...The first few chapters of Genesis are poetic , they contain elements of truth wrapped in metophorical language . For me the days of creation are not literal as God exists outside of time and sapce as we know and understand it , the chapters are written from a human standpoint as though through time -lapse filmography ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-5484294683593976822011-03-26T05:22:14.713-04:002011-03-26T05:22:14.713-04:00Is God going to burn those "morons" who ...Is God going to burn those "morons" who hold to old earth theology in hell for all eternity ?Seems ya'll quick to stand in judgement and condemn those who hold to a different world view - one of the things I hate most about evangelicals - I think they have a secret agenda and would not trust them as far as I can throw them ,one reason I'm nolonger one , started to see through their veneer of manufactured spirituality,hypocrisy and pseudo intellectual debates...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-47079713419278527872011-01-03T21:47:59.437-05:002011-01-03T21:47:59.437-05:00Your link displays what the Creationist position i...Your link displays what the Creationist position is: we have "somewhat of a picture" as to what "kinds" are. Creationists have ruled out some things, but a precise definition or system is yet to be established. <br /><br />As to Dembski, the google books viewer won't let me view p. 150. But I would have to read his book for myself to see if there is a contradiction in his thought. But I wouldn't call that "lying." Given that way of thinking, you might as well call me and every other Creationist a liar too, since in your view, all our arguments have been debunked.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-92012909880952939842011-01-03T21:26:24.843-05:002011-01-03T21:26:24.843-05:00What's admitted? That the word "kinds&quo...What's admitted? That the word "kinds" as used by creationist is ambiguous?<br /><br />Here is an somewhat of a picture of what "kinds" may be as described by AiG<br /><br />http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n2/variety-within-kinds<br /><br />I'm not saying that Dembski has lied. I'm saying that it's of my opinion that he has, is, and will continue to do so every time he continues to push forth a theorem that has been demonstrated by others to be false.<br /><br />Dembski: "In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information." (pg 150 no free lunch) <br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=qCDp8MjkkLQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=no+free+lunch+dembski&source=bl&ots=3WUK27b4lQ&sig=A_74YW_41blyN2HBM4hDq3CRcHM&hl=en&ei=4YMiTe2CDY32tgOez-mwAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false<br /><br />Not sure how the above will show up, but you can view page 150 by scrolling through the book.<br /><br />Vs.<br /><br />Dembski:"I'm not and never have been in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity in the same way that no physicist is in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the conservation of energy. Mathematics certainly comes into the picture in both instances and is crucial in justifying these claims, but there are empirical and nonmathematical considerations that come into play as well and that make strict mathematical proof not feasible (and perhaps not even desirable)."<br /><br />http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.08.Erik_Response.htm<br /><br /><br />So, again, it's of my opinion that he knows the limits of his "theorem", but his true agenda is not to do science, it's to push his worldview.Vashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04070510642282589348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-73019484772329091882011-01-03T20:55:19.329-05:002011-01-03T20:55:19.329-05:00Its admitted by AIG and any Creation scientist wor...Its admitted by AIG and any Creation scientist worth his salt. You can check this out for yourself on their website. If they had a precise definition, they wouldn't be devoting themselves to major research projects in order to find out. <br /><br />If what you say about Dembski is true, then please show me an explicit instance where he "lied." This should be very easy to do for one who is bold enough to make such a charge.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-29762700209727086632011-01-03T20:48:02.261-05:002011-01-03T20:48:02.261-05:00What many might say of Dembski is that he's: d...What many might say of Dembski is that he's: dumb, ignorant, suffers from cognitive dissonance; but I'm of the opinion that he's a liar because he doesn't seem to suffer from any sort of disorder that I'm aware of.<br /><br /><br />You're right about there being no definition (from creationist) but I disagree with that being admitted aig, ray comfort almost always use the word "kind" ambiguously.Vashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04070510642282589348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-9957477364085631032011-01-03T20:39:10.004-05:002011-01-03T20:39:10.004-05:00You don't have to read all of Dawkins to know ...You don't have to read <i>all</i> of Dawkins to know where he is coming from. But it would be unfair for me to read a book about Dawkins and the conclude that what they are saying about him is true and accurate. This is why I sought to read "The God Delusion" for myself and see if all the refutations were accurate. And I think you should do the same for Dembski before calling him a liar. <br /><br /><i>"Creation-scientist have plenty to say about evolution, but your worldview does not"</i><br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by this. My worldview contains a revelation from the Creator. And certainly, it is completely reasonable for me to view any interpretation offered by evolutionists and judge it in accordance with what God has revealed. <br /><br />The reason you haven't gotten a clear answer on the definition of "kinds" is because there is none, and creationists have admitted such and are working on it. But whether or not the precise definition is determined does not phase what the Bible would have to say about evolution.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-42031084758971904822011-01-03T20:26:53.669-05:002011-01-03T20:26:53.669-05:00His theorem is out in the open for anyone to view....His theorem is out in the open for anyone to view. What evidence he can actually produce to substantiate his claim is important to me. I could care less about his theological bickering.<br /><br />Do you need to read Dawkins entire catalogue to form the opinion that he's ignorant when it comes to theology?No.<br /><br />Creation-scientist have plenty to say about evolution, but your worldview does not.<br /><br />Most creationist play semantic games, I've yet to get a clear answer (i.e., definition) from a creationist of what a "kind" is.Vashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04070510642282589348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-51323722279535065162011-01-03T20:08:08.373-05:002011-01-03T20:08:08.373-05:00You are "familiar" with his argument, bu...You are "familiar" with his argument, but have never read his works? And without doing so, you conclude that he is lying? <br /><br />"your worldview has nothing to say about it except to ignore it"<br /><br />My worldview has <i>nothing</i> to say about "evolutionary evidence?" Can you please show me an example where Creation scientists will have <i>nothing</i> to say about it?Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-14717863108219213922011-01-03T20:00:12.724-05:002011-01-03T20:00:12.724-05:00Specified complexity is Dembski's argument, so...<i>Specified complexity</i> is Dembski's argument, so that's why i felt he was worth mentioning.<br /><br />I'm familiar with Dembski's arguments, and have went over his "specified complexity" -- he's not stupid, so he leads me to believe that he is lying.<br /><br />I'm not asking you to interpret evolutionary evidence, I'm stating that your worldview has nothing to say about it except to ignore it which is why I felt it necessary to quote AiG's "if it contradicts our biblical interpretation it must be wrong".Vashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04070510642282589348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-50415187013854269922011-01-03T19:13:29.094-05:002011-01-03T19:13:29.094-05:00@Vas, i'm not sure why you're bringing Dem...@Vas, i'm not sure why you're bringing Dembski into this, given that I don't ever recall offering support for his position nor asserting that he is the authority in all things ID. I've listened to maybe a debate or two with him, but never read anything by him. Have you read Dembski's work to know whether the papers you referenced are an accurate depiction of his arguments?<br /><br />Of course my worldview doesn't "explain" evolution, because evolution is wrong according to my worldview, so i'm not sure why you're phrasing things the way you are. <br /><br />As for evidence, feel free to bring it forth and i'll tell you what I think about it within my worldview. But are you actually suggesting that I abandon my worldview by interpreting a piece of evidence with an evolutionary framework?Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-84226743953375784982011-01-03T18:57:40.791-05:002011-01-03T18:57:40.791-05:00Information theory in regards to ID has been butch...Information theory in regards to ID has been butchered by Dembski to support ID, some of the cookie-cut arguments (e.g., specified complexity) are his arguments.<br /><br />The Paper I shared with you gives an explanation of information theory as well as gives us examples of where Dembski has made some serious errors.<br /><br />Phrases like irreducible complexity and specified complexity tell us nothing about ID and are If anything exaggerated ways of saying "God dun it".<br /><br />Now as far as your worldview goes: it doesn't explain evolution. Making appeals to common ID phrases does not [1] give us a valid alternative to evolution [2] nor explain common descent. So, what I'm saying is that your worldview cannot account for common decent; nor the age of the earth. Both have mounds of evidence (peer-reviewed) and both contradict a strict YEC worldview that's only evidence seems to be a lack of evidence and to ignore all contradicting evidence i.e., "it contradicts scripture so it MUST be wrong".<br /><br />I don't know how to present any evidence in a way that you'll accept given that youve conceded that any evIdence that contradicts scripture has to be wrong or just another "interpretation"Vashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04070510642282589348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-18843188755471984582011-01-03T06:05:07.263-05:002011-01-03T06:05:07.263-05:00(cont'd)
Gen 2:4 kind of boggles me as to wh...(cont'd) <br /><br />Gen 2:4 kind of boggles me as to why it trips people up. Its not modified by a cardinal number, evening or morning; so therefore doesn't fit the criteria that a normal 24 hour day would have. This is especially the case here where the "period" is explicitly defined for us as referring to the amount of time the creation narrative lasted. <br /><br />Never-ending debate? Quite possibly. But I feel like OEC's grossly complicate it from the plain ordinary sense of the language; since no one is sitting around debating the meaning of "day" in about 99.9 percent of the places outside of Gen1. I'm sure OEC's gloss over almost every mention of "day" since ordinary language usage and common sense would tell them that most of the occurrences are just ordinary, 24 hour days. <br /><br />Anyway, no need to hash this out further. I appreciate your comments and hope you stop by again. Godbless!Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-84394823040043096922011-01-03T06:04:36.273-05:002011-01-03T06:04:36.273-05:00@Eldnar, I appreciate your charity towards me in s...@Eldnar, I appreciate your charity towards me in spite of our differences on this issue. Unfortunately, this controversy has sparked far more heat and emotions than necessary, as important of an issue that it might be. As with all things theological, it should be approached with respect and humility. <br /><br />With that being said, I might have been quick to dismiss because I have spent much time hashing through those arguments, as there wasn't really anything new. If there's any particular aspect of the article that you would have liked for me to address, please let me know. <br /><br />As for evidence that "Hebrews were sticklers for hours in a day," i'd like to ask: do you question the meaning of "day" in this manner in places outside Gen1? And i'm not talking about a few semi-trivial examples like Zech. 14:7-9. I'm talking about texts like, <br /><br />“For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made.”<br />(Genesis 7:4)<br /><br />24 hour days or indefinite periods of time? How do you know which?Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-88474525964301528602011-01-03T06:04:06.683-05:002011-01-03T06:04:06.683-05:00@Eldnar, I appreciate your charity towards me in s...@Eldnar, I appreciate your charity towards me in spite of our differences on this issue. Unfortunately, this controversy has sparked far more heat and emotions than necessary, as important of an issue that it might be. As with all things theological, it should be approached with respect and humility. <br /><br />With that being said, I might have been quick to dismiss because I have spent much time hashing through those arguments, as there wasn't really anything new. If there's any particular aspect of the article that you would have liked for me to address, please let me know. <br /><br />As for evidence that "Hebrews were sticklers for hours in a day," i'd like to ask: do you question the meaning of "day" in this manner in places outside Gen1? And i'm not talking about a few semi-trivial examples like Zech. 14:7-9. I'm talking about texts like, <br /><br />“For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made.”<br />(Genesis 7:4)<br /><br />24 hour days or indefinite periods of time? How do you know which?<br /><br />Gen 2:4 kind of boggles me as to why it trips people up. Its not modified by a cardinal number, evening or morning; so therefore doesn't fit the criteria that a normal 24 hour day would have. This is especially the case here where the "period" is explicitly defined for us as referring to the amount of time the creation narrative lasted. <br /><br />Never-ending debate? Quite possibly. But I feel like OEC's grossly complicate it from the plain ordinary sense of the language; since no one is sitting around debating the meaning of "day" in about 99.9 percent of the places outside of Gen1. I'm sure OEC's gloss over almost every mention of "day" since ordinary language usage and common sense would tell them that most of the occurrences are just ordinary, 24 hour days. <br /><br />Anyway, no need to hash this out further. I appreciate your comments and hope you stop by again. Godbless!Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-69456288336572276542011-01-02T23:27:07.759-05:002011-01-02T23:27:07.759-05:00I agree, I also don't like dismissals like, &q...I agree, I also don't like dismissals like, "Real Scholars" say this. Sometimes it's valid, but more often than not, "Real Scholars" means "Scholars who agree with me". Which is how I think he was using it. :)<br /><br />Although, I do think your dismissals of his arguments are a bit too broad and quick though.<br /><br />I began as YEC, but today I tend to lean towards the day-age view. I may come back, but I'll need evidence the the Hebrews were sticklers for hours in a day; in most cases they didn't seem to care about precision like we do today. The use of "day" in Genesis 2:4 was probably the single biggest verse to unseat me from my position of YEC. <br /><br />Anyways, it's a never-ending debate, and we can both ask Jesus in the kingdom. When He explains to you the superior exegesis of OEC scholars, we'll all have a good laugh and bathe in His glory!<br /><br />Take care my friend!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-86349546270056600792011-01-02T22:38:20.333-05:002011-01-02T22:38:20.333-05:00@Eldnar, thanks for the link. I read through it a...@Eldnar, thanks for the link. I read through it and found its arguments to be unsound and problematic. For instance, the author gives the impression "real" Hebrew scholars know that the days in Genesis 1 aren't 24 hr. days. Yet, I cited two of the most current and scholarly Hebrew lexicons available which explicitly reference Genesis 1:5 as a 24 hr. day. In fact, no lexicon that i'm aware of cites the days in Genesis 1 as long periods of time. <br /><br />The only real exception that the author poses as an argument is Zechariah 14:7-9. Interestingly, he alludes to Sarfati but fails to actually address his argument. Instead, he calls his argument "impressive," but simply concludes that <br /><br />a) Hebrew scholars do not recognize this fabricated rule (which is patently false)<br /><br />b) Sarfati is "creating rules that support his own agenda."<br /><br />Neither is an actual refutation of the Creationist view nor does it provide an actual example in Scripture where there is exception to the rule.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-29888326560864093692011-01-02T22:23:47.344-05:002011-01-02T22:23:47.344-05:00My apologies Mike, I was going off of memory. Whe...My apologies Mike, I was going off of memory. When I actually consulted my notes I realized made a mistake. <br /><br />I had this site in my bookmarks on the Yom discussion, it may assist.<br /><br />http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm<br /><br />God Bless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-75454640910498459052011-01-02T21:19:49.576-05:002011-01-02T21:19:49.576-05:00@Eldnar, what verse are you speaking of?@Eldnar, what verse are you speaking of?Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-36736147278104932882011-01-02T20:45:45.311-05:002011-01-02T20:45:45.311-05:00Are there other passages in Scripture where 24 hou...<b>Are there other passages in Scripture where 24 hour days are explicitly used to represent a long period of time?</b><br /><br />Yes, weeks (which are seven 24 hour days collected together) are explicitly referred to as seven years in Genesis. In that case, day one of the week would equal year one. The author of Genesis wrote to an audience that understood days and weeks to mean longer periods of time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-21644290165922652222011-01-02T17:15:57.223-05:002011-01-02T17:15:57.223-05:00@Vas, also keep in mind that I don't recall ev...@Vas, also keep in mind that I don't recall ever reading any books by Dembski, so the paper you referenced (which I did download) may not be the best thing to read unless i've read Dembski first. I'd be much more interested in reading something in critique of Meyer or Gitt since I am more familiar with their work.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-1710038820804577032011-01-02T17:00:48.618-05:002011-01-02T17:00:48.618-05:00@Vas
I appreciate the links your posted but just ...@Vas<br /><br />I appreciate the links your posted but just haven't had the time to get to them. My reading list is stacked pretty high right now. If I took the time to read them, would you take the time to read Meyer's "Signature in the Cell?"<br /><br />As i've stated many times before, the argument is <i>not</i> "DNA is just so complex that it requires a designer." I can dump a pile of rocks out in my backyard which would form something complex, but this would not require the action of a designer. In other words, there is complexity and there is <i>specified informational complexity</i>. <br /><br />Of course millions of years and evolution aren't consistent with my worldview. But I don't think that's what you're asking. I think what you're asking is, how is evidences x, y, and z consistent with my worldview. You'd have to be specific with what evidence you are talking about. <br /><br />As to the AIG quote, I agree with it only with qualification. Its not that you can put a fossil in from of them and they'd say, "I disagree with the existence of that fossil." But what they would say is, "I disagree with how evolutionists would interpret this fossil." <br /><br />So yes, no interpretation is correct if it contradicts Scripture. All facts exist because God made them so. He is the Creator and the sole basis by which we can have any grounds for doing science in the first place. So in that regard, I submit to His authority in all areas, whether science, philosophy, history, or morality.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-32249952327548968752011-01-02T16:19:46.789-05:002011-01-02T16:19:46.789-05:00The last time I went over this with you I dropped ...The last time I went over this with you I dropped a link to a review of Dembki's CSI.<br /><br />This argument of "DNA is just so complex it requires a designer" is weak and not evidence.<br /><br />Things like: The age of the earth and evolution don't seem to be consistent with your strict biblical worldview, how does your worldview explains these things?<br /><br />This is taken from AiG (below), and I think it speaks volumes on what "evidence" means to those who follow such a worldview.<br /><br /><b>"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. " </b>Vashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04070510642282589348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-85312366175967714962011-01-02T08:19:29.786-05:002011-01-02T08:19:29.786-05:00@Vas,
The evidence for an Intelligent Designer ha...@Vas,<br /><br />The evidence for an Intelligent Designer has already been stated: the existence of complex information systems in biology. And this has to do with Information Theory because Information Theory would determine whether things like the DNA come from an intelligent source. And yes, this is just a restatement of ID arguments. <br /><br />But my point was not proving or disproving. It was to show which worldview can best account for this piece of evidence. <br /><br />As far as an alternative framework; the Bible. The Bible is my ultimate presupposition and starting point and needs nothing further than God's own testimony to authenticate it. But things like the information found in DNA seem to be very consistent with the framework.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.com