Search results

You make good points that count against the ecology hypothesis. But, the particular kind of possible examples you cite does not begin to exhaust the kinds of possible examples that there are. Given that limitation, it is plausible that there are kinds that count in favor of the hypothesis. i...

A natural life-supporting ecology is far more involved than is a man-made engine. For one thing, the natural ecology is designed to begin to function with the very first parts of it that are assembled. Even atheistic 'cosmic evolution' ideas assume this. A man-made engine, on the other hand...

I agree that it is a match. Six days, six millenia. The match is not the issue I am asking about. The match is a match. The issue I am asking people to consider is why six days to create, plus a seventh DAY honored for ceasing to create? In my OP I offered my answer: because God designed...

is that a logically valid answer to the OP's question?

is that a logically valid answer to the OP's question?

I clicked there, and got nothing but a page that said, 'The requested thread could not be found.'

Why did God create in six days? Does it not have any relation to Life-affirming Design?

Prefection is relational, not a monadic 'brute fact' The Bible implicitly affirms or assumes many things that it does not explicitly affirm. In other words, the Bible is not a Complete Idiots Guide to everything it teaches, affirms, or presupposes. But one thing it does outright affirm is that...

The Bible implicitly affirms or assumes many things that it does not explicitly affirm. In other words, the Bible is not a Complete Idiots Guide to everything it teaches, affirms, or presupposes. But one thing it does outright affirm is that the whole Creation bears universal self-evidence of...

Why did God create in six days rather than in, say, ten days? Many Christians think the answer has nothing to do with the universal self-evidence of life-affirming Design. For, example, Ken Ham (1987) reasons, 'God is an infinite being. He has infinite power, infinite knowledge, infinite...

I source my argument against Ross in his short video, How long are the creation "days" in Genesis 1? (). More specifically, it is his logic beginning halfway through the video. He does not state anything like "Eve was dumb" compared to Adam. But it seems he logically allows it. For, what he does...

I don't assume that there was anything inferior about Eve. Nor, unlike Hugh Ross, do I believe that Adam was mateless-and-learning for weeks, or even for a year or more. My belief is that Adam and Eve each had been alive for only hours prior to when they first met. Ross, by assuming that Adam...

It can seem that Genesis 1 implies that God created Man and Woman at the exact same time. After all, regarding the creation of the male and female animals of sea (Day Five), and of land (Day Six), the account seems to imply that their creation must have been at the same exact time: both male and...

. Morris, 2000: Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches about Creation and the Flood, pgs. 16-18.

What? Did you not read the OP (the opening post of this thread)? I reject the CPH. But one's rejection of the CPH in no way necessitates that one rejects any and all literal views of the account. I'm a literal Calendar Day creationist. But the CPH is mainly the product of the literal...

I see no mutual exlusion between literal and figurative readings of Genesis 1. Rather, I see each of these two readings like a marriage. They each are distinct, but they each mutually imply the other. Like male and female.

...Maybe I did not make it clear as to just what the CPH is. Its advocates do (do) invoke time as a factor. They are not rejecting time from their equation. They just do not find that the account can be construed as spelling out time by any simple term. This is just like they do not find that...

I'm not sure what you mean. First, let's say that the statement, 'God made everything' has a universally normal interpretation, and that that universally normal interpretation is that God made only every proper life-affirming thing. Catching cold is not life-affirming, so we then could say...

Dead and dry religion is a poor substitute for spiritual things. Come, taste, and see that the Lord is good. - Psalm 34 Yes, and His goodness is not an abstraction. It is bound up with the Earth and us on it: Imagine a version of humanity that, from the beginning unto now, has lived bound...

Advocates of the CPH fully allow that time is implied in the text, just as is allowed by all Calendar Day creationists (myself am one). This is just like they allow that a wide range of basics of cosmic physic are merely implied (i.e. gravity, atomic subatomic particles). So I doubt they would...