Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Statler Waldorf]

Example?

Also, I am quite surprised that no one has pointed out yet that the inability to present an alternative theory says nothing of the validity of your own.

Well a good example would be the uniformity of nature, it is impossible to justify inductive reasoning given an atheistic world; despite this the atheist still believes in the principle and uses it even though only the Christian worldview can justify it.

Appealing to some other worldview that has not yet been found that can justify the preconditions of knowledge is really just an appeal to ignorance and does nothing to justify the atheistic worldviews since they have been shown to all fail.

Seems that everyone missed the demonstration part but you. Ryft is more condescending (if one calvinist can be said to be more condescending than another), does that make his presentation less refined?

I don’t find Calvinists condescending at all. They are usually very philosophically and biblically astute but not condescending towards others.

Well you first said he explained it better, now you say it is more refined? I’ll give you that his explanation is more refined, but I try to keep mine fairly simple and straightforward for you.

You really missed the demonstration? One of them was even with you, I demonstrated the uniformity of nature can be justified given the Christian worldview; you have yet to provide a justification for it that is not logically fallacious using your atheistic worldview. That’s a pretty good demonstration right there.

---

Chapter 2 of Genesis says otherwise.

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
...
2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
...
2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Chapter 1: Plants, Sun, Animals, Man and Woman
Chapter 2: Man, Plants, Animals, Woman

All that on the first page.

---

You know the word contradiction has a specific meaning right? You can’t just call something a contradiction and it becomes one.
God creating plants and vegetation on day three and then turning around and creating more vegetation specifically designed for Adam on day six is in no way a contradiction. Show me where it says, “God only created vegetation on day three and created more vegetation on day six” and you might have something there.

I value his response, why else?

Why? Only because you like the answers he gives you better than someone who has actually studied the topic for years like Ryft?

This is actually only one of a couple different common explanations, and all of them have serious problems

Assertion that has not been demonstrated.

Interestingly, the article mentions the verse where Yahweh created the birds out of the ground in chapter 2, glossing over the fact that they were created from the water in chapter 1. For purpose of contrast, I will quote chapter 1 in red and 2 in blue:

Uh oh, someone didn’t do their homework, when I picked up my Bible and read those verses I see nothing about the birds being created out of water in verse 20.

“20And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds[a] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens." -ESV

1. Yahweh created the birds on day 5 in Gen 1, not day 6.

Again, not doing your homework, when I picked up my Bible and read verse 19 it clearly states that God “had formed” the birds out of the ground. Since it states in Chapter 1 that he did this on Day 5 this verse is not in contradiction to chapter 1 since it is clearly in past tense.

“19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed[a] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.” ESV (Emphasis added by SW)

2. Gen 2 spells out that plants didn't take root because man wasn't around to till the soil, but this wasn't a problem on day 3 in Gen 1 (when the freaking sun hadn't been invented yet).

Obviously the “plants of the field” in Genesis 2 are not the same kind of plants as in Genesis 1 since the ones in Genesis 2 require tilling. This really is not that hard you know; I am still waiting for that logical contradiction.

3. Gen 1 spells out that man and woman were created "together" and yet Gen 2 spells out that the creation of woman came later, only once the problem of companionship for man couldn't be solved otherwise.

They were created together on day 6, not a contradiction since the word together is relative to the time period being described.

(And so we go deeper into the rabbit hole where apologists pull out more flimsy rationalizations in an ever increasingly long list of ad hoc hypotheses to assure us that there are no contradictions in the Lord's Word, that it only "seems" that way to those hard hearted scoffers blah blah blah. I've been down this road many times.)

Then you should know better. Flimsy rationalizations? I have shown you very easily how these alleged contradictions are not even discrepancies in the text much less actual contradictions (x and not x in the same relationship and at the same time). I guess if the Bible really had logical contradictions you would have presented them since now would have been the perfect time, or are you saving them for later?

You won't mind providing a link to where you've demonstrated this, would you?

Well Rhythm's and my conversation about the principle of induction in the incredulous logic thread is a pretty good example. I demonstrated that scripture can justify the principle of induction and he has yet to provide a justification for it that is not logically fallacious. If you wish to give it a try you are more than welcome to.

I've made no such claims.

Whew!