A friend linked me to this on Facebook. We were talking about the Creation account and how I think that from observations of the cosmos alone we can determine that 'billions of years' is the right time scale for most things.

This movie seems to seek a compromise between science and a reasonable take on creation.

Thoughts anyone?

What the hell is a reasonable take on creation? The world was created by god but also really wasn't?

(June 2, 2012 at 3:14 am)Chuck Wrote: What the hell is a reasonable take on creation? The world was created by god but also really wasn't?

"God pointed his finger over 6 literal days and things popped into existence" - not reasonable.

"We acknowledge the scientific facts and we believe the Bible account still reflects reality without contradiction" - reasonable.

The claim that bible account reflects without contradiction such reality as revealed by scientific fact is itself unreasonable.

One is not being reasonable by saying to mutually exclusive things are equally true.

I've been on a marathon posting spree tonight, so am begging off on the video.

The following is a five part Youtube video, but I would have to pose it as a hurdle to any proposed "middle-ground". (That, and new video drivers have borked VLC. )

Why Young Earth Creationists Must Deny Gravity, Part I (of V)

(June 2, 2012 at 3:27 am)Chuck Wrote: The claim that bible account reflects without contradiction such reality as revealed by scientific fact is itself unreasonable.

How so? Where's the flaw in the claim if the facts (science) and the account (the Bible) are in agreement?

Quote:One is not being reasonable by saying to mutually exclusive things are equally true.

Agreed that if that were the case then of course it would be a silly stance. But as I said above, where's the flaw? Or by what you're trying to say, where does mutual exclusivity actually come into play?

---

Thanks for linking me to that apophenia. I'll have a look at the 5 parts when I get the time.

I just watched the first 50 seconds of that one and I agree with what it's saying about the speed of light. The thing with the video my friend showed me is that their argument is that time wasn't constant in the beginning.

Because the simple explanation of why the universe is so old relies on the equation

time = distance/speed

it means that if time wasn't constant then that changes the outcome of the equation to a possibly wrong answer, just like if the speed of light wasn't always constant (which I think it always has). Either way I'll check out the 5 videos and see what their arguments are.

Science + Creation = Rubbish

(June 2, 2012 at 1:07 am)FallentoReason Wrote:



A friend linked me to this on Facebook. We were talking about the Creation account and how I think that from observations of the cosmos alone we can determine that 'billions of years' is the right time scale for most things.

This movie seems to seek a compromise between science and a reasonable take on creation.

Thoughts anyone?

There are no reasonable takes on creation. If you're going to use reason as a base for your beliefs, then why not just accept the science?

Apologetics should be carbon dated. It is really getting old.

HA HA HA H- oh, you're serious aren't you?