Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:Bart, I can't help but ask, are all these videos leading up to something?

RickD, no I'm not leading up to something. This is just a resource list of clips that in my opinion are worthy of a view for any interested in the overall topic of creationism that will provide different elements and perspectives that will help ground someone in the broad subject. If anyone wants to leapfrog off of any one of them for further discussion, then a new thread can be started to do so. If others want to include clips of their own, that's fine too.

Canuckster,

Dr. Denis Alexander again, in a short 4 minute video speaking about the fall of man and noting the significance of the use of the word "yom" noting its proximity to the creation narrative and clearly if the death spoken of was to be on the "day they ate of the fruit" (yom used here) then either the death spoken of is not physical by spiritual because obviously that 24 hour day they didn't physically die. Or you have to accept too, that yom is used in the 2rd chapter where the warning is given is a period of time outside of 24 hours. Both situations are difficulties to answer and to maintain consistent hermeneutics for many typical YEC positions.

As an old-earther, I would caution against using this as evidence for long yom.

This is the Hebrew (transliterated) of Genesis 2:17:
Beyom (in the day) acholcha (you eat) mimenu (from it) mot (die) tamut (you die)

The back-to-back uses of mut (die) emphasize the certainty of the result. That is why most translations translate the two words as "surely die." The more I have looked at the sentence, the more I believe it was referring to when the outcome would become certain, not when the outcome would take place. "In the day you eat from it your dying shall be certain." In Genesis 3:4 the Serpent does not argue about the timing, he just denies the result. Also, God brings up the fact that Adam would not die immediately (Genesis 3:17), but that his dying was certain (Genesis 3:19). We see how God made Adam's future death certain (Genesis 3:22-24) and this was done immediately (that day).

This is very similar to what we see in 1 Kings 2:37, 42:
Beyom (in the day) [you leave Jerusalem] yadoa (know) teda (you know) ki (that) mot (die) tamut (you die). "In the day [you leave Jerusalem] you will know for sure that your dying is certain." Shimei's journey took at least 2 days and probably more like 3 or 4. Gath was at least 30 miles away and a day's journey was about 20-30 miles, plus he had to find his servants.

In both cases the meaning was something like "once you do this, you can be sure that you will die." The phrase referred to the certainty of the result, not its timing.

dayage wrote:Canuckster,

Dr. Denis Alexander again, in a short 4 minute video speaking about the fall of man and noting the significance of the use of the word "yom" noting its proximity to the creation narrative and clearly if the death spoken of was to be on the "day they ate of the fruit" (yom used here) then either the death spoken of is not physical by spiritual because obviously that 24 hour day they didn't physically die. Or you have to accept too, that yom is used in the 2rd chapter where the warning is given is a period of time outside of 24 hours. Both situations are difficulties to answer and to maintain consistent hermeneutics for many typical YEC positions.

As an old-earther, I would caution against using this as evidence for long yom.

This is the Hebrew (transliterated) of Genesis 2:17:
Beyom (in the day) acholcha (you eat) mimenu (from it) mot (die) tamut (you die)

The back-to-back uses of mut (die) emphasize the certainty of the result. That is why most translations translate the two words as "surely die." The more I have looked at the sentence, the more I believe it was referring to when the outcome would become certain, not when the outcome would take place. "In the day you eat from it your dying shall be certain." In Genesis 3:4 the Serpent does not argue about the timing, he just denies the result. Also, God brings up the fact that Adam would not die immediately (Genesis 3:17), but that his dying was certain (Genesis 3:19). We see how God made Adam's future death certain (Genesis 3:22-24).

This is very similar to what we see in 1 Kings 2:37, 42:
Beyom (in the day) [you leave Jerusalem] yadoa (know) teda (you know) ki (that) mot (die) tamut (you die). "In the day [you leave Jerusalem] you will know for sure that your dying is certain." Shimei's journey took at least 2 days and probably more like 3 or 4. Gath was at least 30 miles away and a day's journey was about 20-30 miles, plus he had to find his servants.

In both cases the meaning was something like "once you do this, you can be sure that you will die." The phrase referred to the certainty of the result, not its timing.

Thanks dayage, that's a good rejoinder and caution. I tend to put more credence on examining it in it's immediate content within Genesis and readily compared to the previous uses of the word in the immediate text preceeding it. I think even then with those elements you bring out that the question is strongly raised and not quite so easily dismissed by appeals to other books written in different eras. We on the OEC side too, often make similar appeals to other such passages to help make our points and that's legitimate. The immediate context of the passage however would appear to give strength to the question and it's one worth asking and being aware and people of good will and intent toward one another can reach honest differing opinions.

I believe the general statement I've made is true that it's an issue that requires a strong YEC response. I respect your objectivity as an OEC in giving a plausible answer and no doubt you draw your position from other elements outside of this if you don't see it in and of itself as telling. I don't consider this a make or break argument. I simply think it's an important thing to consider and for a relatively short clip I think it's presented well enough to spur conversation on it.

Of course, my statement is that I haven't heard a sufficient explanation on this that convinces me. That's a pesonal statement and opinion. I can still say that as I've seen similar points made to what you've very capably done here. Others should examine it and come to their own conclusions.

http://bit.ly/GBIHue

A 45 minute debate between Richard Dawkins partnered with Richard Dennett. These are two of the most militant "New Atheists" and popular authors fueling that movement. They are on a panel with Francis Collins, (now head of the NIH, lead of the Human Genome Project) who is an evangelical christian and theistic evolutionist and Benjamin Carson, lead neurosurgeon at John's Hopkins (he did the first successful siamese twins separation) and also a devout Seventh Day Adventist.

The sound is poor in places and it's more audio than video. Worth a listen though to hear Collins and Carson incorporating and sythesizing their scientific training with their personal faith.

http://bit.ly/GCXJCt

5 minute audio clip of Francis Collins (theistic evolutionist, president of the NIH, and evangelical Christian) speaking negatively of Intelligent design and criticizing irreducable complexity as another "God of the Gaps" argument.

Interesting to contrast with the earlier video of Antony Flew who cites some of this as the basis for his moving from Atheism to Theistic Deism.

http://bit.ly/GCx7Dn

10 minute interview of Francis Collins on the Charlie Rose Show. Ties some of his book The Language of God and gives his testimony of conversion from atheism in his early 20s.

http://bit.ly/GFw584

John MacArthur, a Young Earth Creationist, explaining why Theistic evolution and progressive creationism in his opinion is unecessary compromise. He starts with the premise that "science knows nothing and science proves nothing that contradicts a 6 day creation."

MacArthur appears to believe that any or most Christians who believe in an old earth are only doing so as a desire to compromise with evolution. Is this a true and fair representation? He then goes to the popular argument of physical death not being possible before sin.

That's all for now. Of course it just scratches the surface and of course my own perspective as an OEC, open to Theistic Evolution in principle, no doubt impacts my selection.

YouTube and video is becoming more and more normative as a means to spur discussion and bypass reading and wrestling with difficult concepts. Maybe this can be a resource thread that can be added too and discussed where necessary and serve as a convenient location for those new to the subject or wanting to understand some of the different elements of the discussions.

Canuckster1127 wrote:http://bit.ly/GFw584

John MacArthur, a Young Earth Creationist, explaining why Theistic evolution and progressive creationism in his opinion is unecessary compromise. He starts with the premise that "science knows nothing and science proves nothing that contradicts a 6 day creation."

MacArthur appears to believe that any or most Christians who believe in an old earth are only doing so as a desire to compromise with evolution. Is this a true and fair representation? He then goes to the popular argument of physical death not being possible before sin.

http://bit.ly/GDIvwT

This is the first of 10 videos, (which will popup with the video on youtube) which are 10 episodes on the John Ankerberg Show. It features debate and explanation by, Dr, Hugh Ross and Dr. Walter Kaiser on the Old Earth Position and Ken Ham (I don't use the Dr. title for him because he has no earned Doctorate) and Dr. Jason Lisle.

Hugh Ross and Jason Lisle are both trained experts in Astronomy and Astrophysics. Ken Ham is the head of Answers in Genesis and leading proponent for the YEC position, he has a BS in applied Science and a teaching certificate and served as a High School science teacher. He has an honorary Doctorate from Liberty University. Walter Kaiser is President of Gordon-Conwell Seminary and former Chair of the Old Testament department and is considered by many to be one of the leading Old Testament Scholars in the world today.

This video is actually taken from material put together of this series by AIG and so it can be considered something that leading YEC proponents endorse as something they desire to be representative of their views. This is more friendly toward YEC in that regard than some of the other materials.

Mohler is one of the leaders in the neo-Calvanist movement. A group I am very suspicious of. Can't watch the video from here, will have to wait.

Thanks for the links Bart.

jlay wrote:Mohler is one of the leaders in the neo-Calvanist movement. A group I am very suspicious of. Can't watch the video from here, will have to wait.

Thanks for the links Bart.

I have concerns about that too obviously and I'm not a big fan of Al Mohler. This video however is pretty independent of that. It's a video taken during a question and answer period at a church and so to be fair to him, it's not a prepared presentation but an off the cuff response.

A very quick video, of William Lane Craig, and where he stands on the creation belief spectrum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSc92EDm ... ata_player

And another quickie from Craig:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IQoLg7w ... ata_player

http://bit.ly/GEfLnM

Gerald Schroeder has been mentioned a bit lately and this is a 10 minute video of him addressing his reconciliation of modern peer reviewed science (in physics which is one of his two PhDs) and Jewish Rabbinical Literature from before the modern science era. By this he attempts to avoid the influence of one upon the other. He concludes that OEC is more consistent overall doing this.

There are parts following that you can link to from YouTube itself.