A friendly, relaxed thread (no micro aggressions) to continue the debate from here...
What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?
What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?
I contend that;
a) Bible skeptics who want to debate The Flood deserve sympathy because they really can't argue that its impossible for God to do miracles such as described in the Noachian Flood account. Folks like me have an unfair advantage because we aren't hamstrung by the need to apply strict naturalistic explanations for everything that happened. (Eg. animals cooperatively entering the Ark)
b) The bible itself doesn't declare an exact date for when the Flood event happened. So I'm willing to defend a recent Flood or an extremely ancient Flood. Either can be harmonized with my hermeneutics. Pick either and I'll defend which ever hypothetical date you prefer.
@Mr Laurier
@Ponderous Curmudgeon
@Speedwell
@Subduction Zone
@KomatiiteBIF
@Kylie
@VirOptimus
@Shemjaza
Please note that (in this thread) I'm only offering a defense of what the bible actually says about Noah and The Flood. It's not necessary for me refute claims based on what the bible doesn't say - arguments from silence. (Eg. The bible doesn't assert that all mountain tops were all simultaneously completely covered with water. Neither does it assert that the height of Mt Everest and the depth of the Marianas Trench were the same back then as they are today.)
I would politely ask that any counter-arguments from biology, geology and the fossil record etc be specifically tied to the bible verse which they purport to refute. I love science and the scientific method, but the claim that "abc" proves the flood never happened does not meet this test. You need to show how "abc" falsifies a specific bible passage/verse, not some meta narrative derived from your own exegesis/eisegesis.
Also, quote function. Please let us all try to engage in discussion with each other - not engage with claims made by anonymous straw people or folks who aren't even a part of the discussion. I believe the quote function is the best way to represent the opposing view which you want to critique.
By all means ask me if I agree with Ken Comfort or Ray Ham or Craig William Lane, but don't assume that I necessarily defend every single view held by all Flood Apologists. Likewise, I ought not and do not want to presume that all non-theist counter-apologetics against the bible are motivated by idolatrous adoration of Richard Hitchens or Christopher Dawkins.
What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?
What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?
I contend that;
a) Bible skeptics who want to debate The Flood deserve sympathy because they really can't argue that its impossible for God to do miracles such as described in the Noachian Flood account. Folks like me have an unfair advantage because we aren't hamstrung by the need to apply strict naturalistic explanations for everything that happened. (Eg. animals cooperatively entering the Ark)
b) The bible itself doesn't declare an exact date for when the Flood event happened. So I'm willing to defend a recent Flood or an extremely ancient Flood. Either can be harmonized with my hermeneutics. Pick either and I'll defend which ever hypothetical date you prefer.
@Mr Laurier
@Ponderous Curmudgeon
@Speedwell
@Subduction Zone
@KomatiiteBIF
@Kylie
@VirOptimus
@Shemjaza
Please note that (in this thread) I'm only offering a defense of what the bible actually says about Noah and The Flood. It's not necessary for me refute claims based on what the bible doesn't say - arguments from silence. (Eg. The bible doesn't assert that all mountain tops were all simultaneously completely covered with water. Neither does it assert that the height of Mt Everest and the depth of the Marianas Trench were the same back then as they are today.)
I would politely ask that any counter-arguments from biology, geology and the fossil record etc be specifically tied to the bible verse which they purport to refute. I love science and the scientific method, but the claim that "abc" proves the flood never happened does not meet this test. You need to show how "abc" falsifies a specific bible passage/verse, not some meta narrative derived from your own exegesis/eisegesis.
Also, quote function. Please let us all try to engage in discussion with each other - not engage with claims made by anonymous straw people or folks who aren't even a part of the discussion. I believe the quote function is the best way to represent the opposing view which you want to critique.
By all means ask me if I agree with Ken Comfort or Ray Ham or Craig William Lane, but don't assume that I necessarily defend every single view held by all Flood Apologists. Likewise, I ought not and do not want to presume that all non-theist counter-apologetics against the bible are motivated by idolatrous adoration of Richard Hitchens or Christopher Dawkins.