Comment on The Basis of Biblical Credibility by Bob Helm.
@pauluc: That Kent Hovind is a slick charlatan is a fact. And the other Ph.D. trained scientists you mentioned would agree with me. The nonsense that Kent has spouted has no bearing on this subject, and your argument about guilt by association doesn’t work. Remember, there was also a slick Darwinist charlatan who constructed Piltdown Man from a medieval human skull and the jaw of an orangutan. But even though many doctoral dissertations were written on that ridiculous fake, I will not slur modern Darwinists with it! But Paul, everyone who has a serious hypothesis about the formation of the Grand Canyon has formulated it using certain presuppositions – which means that everyone has a vested interest, not just the creationists. When you look at the Grand Canyon through your uniformitarian glasses, their “story” does not seem credible. However, when I look at the Grand Canyon, it practically screams catastrophe, but I am looking at it through different glasses than you are.
Table of Contents
Bob Helm Also Commented
The Basis of Biblical Credibility
@Gene Fortner: Gene, thanks again for your insights. I would suggest that the Great Unconformity probably represents the onset of the Genesis Flood.
The Basis of Biblical Credibility
@pauluc: Paul, I just want to interject that yes, I believe population genetics is a fully legitimate scientific exercise. However, while I find genetics fascinating, my knowledge of it is very limited, so I’m going to remain quiet as far as blogging is concerned and allow you and Sean to battle it out. I’m reading your comments, but not interjecting mine.
The Basis of Biblical Credibility
@pauluc: Paul, be aware that there really has been debate about the origin of the Coconino Sandstone. Here is a good peer-reviewed article that Leonard Brand wrote on the underwater origin of the Coconino Sandstone – geology.gsapubs.org/content/19/12/1201.abstract
Recent Comments by Bob Helm
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
What is wrong with conceding that many claims of scripture can only be accepted on faith?
I fully realize that 21st century scientists cannot perform X rays of Mary’s womb or insert instruments into her womb to determine exactly what took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Of course, I accept the virgin birth on faith! My point was that we now have examples of virgin births occuring as a result of modern scientific technology, and since science has now produced virgin births in mammals, if God is real, we have an analogy for how He could have done the same thing. @Professor Kent:
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Darwinist is just short for Neo-Darwinist. While the majority of biologists subscribe to Neo-Darwinism, I would contest your statement that Darwinist=biologist. I prefer “Darwinist” to “evolutionist” because the latter is a slippery term. Even creationists believe in micro-evolution.@pauluc:
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Sean Pitman: Sean, it’s interesting and ironic how churches repeatedly try to become more relevant by accepting Darwinism and other forms of liberalism, but in the end, they always die, while churches that maintain their creationist stance and conservative values continue to grow.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@pauluc: I wondered if you would bring up alchemy. Just because Newton was wrong about alchemy, why try to slur him over it? Even though he was a great physicist, he was human, and he did make mistakes!
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Pauluc: Actually, there is one extrabiblical reference to Jesus’ Resurrection. In his “Antiquities of the Jews,” we have this from Flavius Josephus: “When the principal men among us had condemned Him [Jesus] to the cross, those who loved Him at first did not forsake Him. For He appeared to them alive again the third day. . .” This so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” has provoked fierce debate, with critics calling it an interpolation. However, it is written in the style of Josephus and appears in all the extant Greek manuscripts of “The Antiquities of the Jews.”
