If you are refering to my questions, Shane, i want to assure you that my questions were not intended to be trick questions. I do not want to insult you. You have every right to your belief that the Genesis creation account is to be interpreted literally. I hold the opinion that it is poetic.

I'm going to try to discover if i should have expressed my questions in a different manner, or if maybe i should have followed the apostle Paul's counsel and kept what i think about these things to myself. What do you think? If people are going to be hurt, i will certainly be quiet. (for a while, anyway. )
~d.allan

This is simply not true.

Let us have a quick review of the scientific method.


You build measuring instruments (e.g. a tape measure and a clock) and apply them using experiments (e.g. you go to the White Cliffs of Dover and you measure them with your tape measure, you go to the beach and you measure the number of shell fish currently there and you measure their size and lifespan).

You invent some rule (e.g. enough shell fish die each year to deposit an xyz inch layer of crushed shell per year).

You repeat your earlier experiments in many different ways (e.g. many different beaches and cliffs).

You disprove or fail to disprove your rule. If disprove, repeat with a different rule, if fail to disprove continue using it for more experiments.

Publish your experiments and your rule so others can re-do them.


When the above process is repeated by thousands of people for hundreds of years, the result is many rules that have been tested by many many experiments. Rules and experiments that interact in ways that cross-check each others.

The Theory of Evolution is many such rules that have successfully predicted the results of a huge range of experiments.

These rules include hypotheses such as "the same physical laws we see around us today have acted in the past to produce what we see around us today". Such a hypotheses does NOT preclude miracles.

The big problem facing Creation Scientists is a really easy one.

Why did God create a world that matches these rules, and yet want us to believe that the world was formed by a completely different method (only-recent-life, global Flood) and yet NOT match what these rules would predict such a world would look like?

or, as I prefer to phrase it

Why would a loving God create a huge lie and then punish people for believing it?

And then, as a Creation Science Evangelist, how do you answer these obvious questions?

/Bevin

No, I was not referring to your questions, D. Allan. I was referring to the "ace in the hole" questions. The White Cliffs is a good example. Information was asked for and when it was provided those providing it were attacked. These attacks are vicious to the point of claiming evangelists are lying to children.

Are there any Hebrew scholars that view the creation story as poetic? That is, do they believe Moses' intent was not for others to intrepret it literally?

These questions have been answered and those answering them have been attacked and insulted. Sorry, I don't play with bullies. I discuss things with mature men and women but not with those that play games.

If I was going to stand in front of a crowd of strangers and tell them something, I would want to make extremely sure that my material was correct.

If I was going to stand in front of that crowd, and disparage a deeply and widely studied science, I would want to make extremely sure that my material was correct.

If an organisation is going to put their name and reputation behind such speakers, it should make sure those speakers are doing their homework.

Otherwise its risks having its reputation severely damaged.

It has happened in the past, and (sadly) it will continue to happen - well-intentioned people can do serious damage, and (worse still) unscrupulous people exploit organisations that let them.

/Bevin

Okay, Dr. Kennedy's material was correct, the evidence of what she observed discredited the long-age theory for the chalk deposits, and she did her homework. But, if you had questions about what she observed, then it would be appropriate for you to raise those questions, rather than what you did do, which was to personally demean her science and her motives. That is of particular interest since you are not a scientist.

But, I agree with Shane. I see no point in engaging in a 'discussion' with someone who resorts to ridicule and bullying--particularly when the moderator excuses and defends such behavior. Once again, perhaps you and bravus can start a 'defense of evolution' society right here on C/A. Enjoy.

Here is what i found at the frequently-asked-questions page of http://www.ancient-hebrew.org The have other excellent 'stuff' also.


"Are there two different creation stories in Genesis one and two?"

"What many are noticing about the sequence of events in creation is a very genuine question and often overlooked by many people. Many attempt to put the creation story into a chronological timeline. As Western Greco-Roman thinkers, this is very natural for us as we think in the sense of time, past present and future. The Hebrews did not think this way, time was irrelevent to them, they instead focused on action, no matter what the sequence of events were. The verb tenses in English and Hebrew will demonstrate this difference. While our verbs are all time based, past present and future, all hebrew verbs are action based; completed or incomplete action.
The days of creation do not follow a chronoligical order, in fact you will also notice that God separates light and darkness in day one, but in day 4 he separates light and darkness. Days 1 and 4 are actually the same day, where God separates light and darkeness and fills the light with the sun and the darkness with the moon. Day 2 and 5 are the same, God separates water from sky and fills them with the fish and the birds. Day 3 and 6 are the same where the land is separated from the water and is filled with plants, animals and man. This does not imply that the world was created in three days for the text clearly states that it was created in six days, this is simply a poetic view of creation and not meant to be a scientific chronology of events.
The whole creation story is actually one story told several different times. Genesis 1:1-3 is one creation story and is repeated again through the rest of chapter one. Chapter two begins another account of the same story. This is common Hebrew poetry where one idea is expressed in two or more different ways. This type of poetry is found throughout the Bible." http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/1_faqs.html

This appears to be a very interesting site with an ancient Hebrew Lexicon, manuscripts, and many other resources.

Check out the Home Page at http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/index.html on the left side of the page under ‘Language’ click on ‘Poetry.’ You will find an excellent article.
~d.allan

All this can be found at
http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/80665/page/0/fpart/5

This page quotes a letter from Dr Kennedy to David Koot saying
" He (the Lord) never laid a burden on my heart to make the White Cliffs a project"

Dr Kennedy made some observations to David that did not explain the origin of the Cliffs. These observations were private correspondence, not from a published peer-reviewed source. David and Shane are making claims about these observations that she did not make.

Dr Kennedy was upset by what David Koot emailed her about what I said. David Koot never posted to CA the email that he sent to Dr Kennedy, and so we do not know exactly what he said.

It is clear that, in this forum, he misrepresented my remarks when he claimed that I "appeared to speak authoritatively about Dr. Kennedy, about her career and some of her personal issues", whereas my actual post said "I think it is reasonable to assume" and "and apparently she"

/Bevin

This comment was made after she was attacked. In context, I read it to mean she wasn't going to play games with a bully. I'm sure she could go into much more detail about the subject but why do so when some bully just wants to beat her up over it.

Seems very interesting although it doesn't do much for those that want to reconcile evolution and creation. It may explain the age of the rock layers but that ins't a major problem for creationists anyway since God could have created a mature planet.

The creationists biggest problem is the order of the fossil layer which makes it appear there was death taking place in the animal and plant kingdom long before men started to die. Even if the flood caused rapid rock formations, humans should be buried along side of dinosaurs and other such creatures.