They cannot, as described in the earlier diagram. There definitions make them mutually exclusive, however they can have shared conclusions as you pointed out. Hence the conclusion circle to rectify that very problem.
Okay, I follow - yes I was thinking more along the line of
conclusions from secular and creation science.
The bias still exists... and is still the same problem... as demonstrated.
I would suggest that a bias is needed, a bias towards the truth... if we want scientific assertions to arrive at the truth. If I am 'agnostic' or indifferent, in a sense, and accept any plausible explanation as truth, then what ends up reigning as 'truth', in the end, is only that which that has been most logically/extensively/convincingly presented (according to my personal standards of that which is logical/thorough/convincing). Of the 7 billion people on the planet, approx. 5 billion don't believe in Christianity... not a very convincing statistic for "onboarding new believers", yet you and I believe that Christianity is the one true faith in the one true God despite the 5/7 of the world that would otherwise argue it is less logical, less convincing, or simply just a multi-faceted layering of myths.
My point here is that the bias demonstrated in the smurf argument does not allow for identifying where in Genesis dinosaurs were created. I gave all the scripture as to how a secular science driven reevaluation of mans understanding of the Bible text translations might be worth while. I gave many biblical translations and the original Hebrew. Creation science bias precludes being able to ask this question because of its bias.
So again: "and·he-is-creating, Elohim, the·monsters, the·great-ones..." If we knew nothing else but these biblical words and have the dinosaur fossil record, could dinosaurs be biblical accounted for and agree with secular science, as being made in the 5th "day" of creation?
I think I follow... the Bible does not give a specific account of dinosaurs (and many life forms), nor the fossil record. This is an opportunity for science to get to work understanding what the creatures are and where they fit into the Biblical account of creation... right? Not invent some alternate story of creation... if we truly believe the Bible is true regarding the creation account. Many don't
really accept it as truth. It's not our creation to define the story, and God has already told the story (though He has graciously allowed us to discover some of the finer points).
The Bible is true and the English translations are not materially incorrect - I believe there is only a very small fraction that is incorrect and what little minor discrepancies may exist, the overall message is not lost. If we could travel back in time and be with the early philosophers and founding fathers of what has shaped (not necessarily founded) modern science today, I wonder how they viewed the created universe with the discovery of new things. Did they look at a bird and think, "Ah, there goes a fine specimen of God's creation, confirming what I know about from reading the Bible." Or, did they think of God at all, I wonder? Did they review and judge their conclusions against reality (truths they would have known from reading their Bible)? If the scientific conclusion did not reconcile with biblical truths, did they assume their interpretation from the Bible must be wrong, rather than their scientific conclusion? I have a hard time buying the idea the most influential of science were very seriously devout Christians that held the Bible to be of highest authority and saw it as historical and accurate. This doesn't mean they cannot craft a good story or cannot make logical, reasonable, convincing observations and arguments.
The fact that correlations and relationships can be drawn at all between life is evidence alone that God created life. Because God is logical, efficient, and intelligent, we'll naturally see evidence of this in ourselves as well as all life. The most amusing argument I read here in this forum in favor of evolution is that the fossil record, specifically the faunal succession, is "predictable." Correlations and logic can only be applied, because underlying these assumptions is the truth of God's creation (as told in the Bible). Illogical assumptions and false facts can be wrapped around truth and sound right, be reconcilable, even though they are incorrect in and of themselves. For example, you may know that Islam actually shares the same books found in the Pentateuch along with the Bible. You and I don't believe Islam is true, but about 1.6 billion people are convinced it is because at the core of Islam there
are some threads of truth.
Like Islam, I believe the same thing is happening within secular science where ideas about our origins are promoted even though they are not consistent with even the fundamental truths of the Bible; however, they do not come across as blatantly wrong because at their core they are ultimately supported by various threads of truth from God's creation. Reading on in 2 Peter 3:5-7, we read that the world was deluged with water and perished. The truth is, the flood of Noah's time did destroy the world (all creatures on the land and birds of the air as we are told) and this explains why we have billions of fossils all over the world. We don't really get fossils happening here in the present anymore do we - it's the rare exception, not the rule. There is also a bias in secular science and that bias states that things in the present are how things were in the past (uniformitarianism, also see 2 Peter 3:4). To be clear, I'm not saying science is Islamic, just using this example to illustrate how anything wrapped around the truth can appear holistically 'true' even when it is not.
I find God's word most convincing, not because His word is more extensive in volume than that of say Hawking and Dawkins, but because of
who the author is (God is the author, though I recognize penned by men). That said, God's creation account is logical and reasonable (and it would be because it is true). Jesus said we (humans) were created male and female from the
beginning (Matthew 19:4), that His second coming will be just like in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:39), just as we are told in Genesis; and He said that the Bible is correct, every character, every mark and all of it will be fulfilled (Matthew 5:18).
Warm regards, GBTG
You thoughts are always appreciated even if we do not agree
!
Likewise brother, please keep writing as time permits! What do you think the biggest challenge is to believing the biblical creation account? Does secular science tell a better story; is there a lack of faith; is there a rejection of God in these end times?
