RE: [asa] Creationism Conference (Book 1 and 2)

Bernie said: I think Ken Ham is revealing his mind- according to his
religious beliefs, his "Christianity" would be demolished if evolution were
true. which is true.

Most likely, but he knows he holds subjective ground, which allows the Tooth
Fairy room to work -- though far less plausible since no scripture supports
the Fairy.

Bernie Said: If "God's Word" (Book 1) says that man was made uniquely from
dust of the Earth, but "God's works" (Book 2) says the means of creation
was evolution from lower life-forms, I think we should go with Book #2
because it brings evidence with it. In that case, Book 2 has precedence, or
can help interpret, Book 1. YEC's focus on Book 1, and ignore anything from
Book 2 that is contradictory to Book 1.

There is, of course, the possibility that both are correct, as presented in
what I now call M-Genesis. Evolved mankind is plausible in Gen. 1 and
specially created man from dust is plausible as seen in Gen. 2. Evolution
certainly would have been not only a great tool to allow mankind's
adaptability to his environment but would also provide the genome data
necessary to base His work in the dust-to-Adam special creation, but for the
greater purpose of giving man the first "living soul".

This is the kind of discourse that should be available at the Creationism
Conference, but I'd bet the best ice cream Sundae it ain't-a-gonna-happen.

For those here desiring a little comic relief, try this satirical analogy
video that uses astrology as their strawman. It is pretty effective and
funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GENXQJu45ds

Coope

Ken Ham says he has nothing against science. he loves science. What he
dislikes is so-called "modern science." I guess what he likes is "creation
science."

Just my thoughts.

.Bernie

  _____

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Cooper
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 10:40 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference

It is especially disappointing for me to see the disingenuous, at best,
approach used by some advocates for YEC in teaching others. To avoid or
obfuscate the many lines of evidence that support BBT or evolution in a YEC
presentation is highly unfair to others, especially our youth. Further,
to claim, as Ken Ham does in his video, that to not accept the day as 24
hours will cause the "collapse of Christianity" is yet another disquieting
facet to their marketing.

Yesterday, I had lunch with my daughter, who's in college, and she has been
indoctrinated into the anti-evolution camp. When I began to calmly offer
the idea that God uses processes to accomplish His will and that evolution
is a very powerful and logical process, tears began to form in her eyes
because her Dad is, apparently, not the Christian soldier that she hoped he
would be.

Since many of my church friends are YECers, I know they are sincere about
their beliefs and don't deserve to be called liars. Yet some YECers are far
more knowledgeable about science and may deserve such harsh accusation. It
is wiser not to do so, as the reason has now been made obvious.

My personal request is to get more people here, and some seekers of truth
within the YEC camp, to tackle the literal claims of M-Genesis. My attempts
to get people interested in taking the ideas serious seems to fail, though I
still await arguments that are logical against those claims.

If Genesis was an eye-witness account, or a vision of what actually
happened, then it should be concordant with most of mainstream science,
especially the sciences that enjoy a confluence of evidence supporting their
theories.

A plausible literal view is all that is necessary to get many out of the YEC
rut, IMO.

Coope

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 23 15:17:30 2008