I just watched what I began to look for after seeing Hovind get mashed by Ross. Lisle and Ross.

Lisle came out a lot better, taking on the subject from the biblical exegetic standpoint.

In my view the snakes first line in the bible "Has God then said...?" is  a signifier of a wrong mindset. It should take a lot to question Gods word for many reasons. One being that without an absolute standard what is right and wrong is up for discussion, something the snake would like and no follower of God can afford to allow himself onto.

While Lisle is well qualified to discuss the cosmology subject I believe he was right to start from interpretation/understanding of Gods word. One gets into trouble very quick if one approaches the word of God from ones understanding of nature, since a good part of the "understanding" part is delivered by secular sources, some of them incredibly biased, such as Richard dawkins. (Eg if something appears to be created he feels the need to stress the word "appearance" to compensate for the obvious. His use of findings from biology to interpret human behaviour diminishes humans and so on).

Lisle stressed that the simple and straightforward reading of "day"/"yom" is "day" and the simple straightforward reading of a flood that covered "the earth" is possibly a flood that covered the "Earth".His third statement was about there being only one creation narrative, the statement in Job is not a creation narrative and the referred psalm is a poetic treatment of creation. (Don't be scared the word "myth" and "poetic" are only ever used disrespectfully by people who do not understand a lot, never by anyone with reasonable understanding.)

With that he helped map out the diffences and he added that the divide in understandings, while serious, is not a salvation issue. It seems he has identified that Ross has God as Lord and does not question gods word, just our understanding of it.

 

The actual cosmology discussion is subordinate to the order it approached from. If you come from naturalistic values to the bible you might become a Christian (which is painful as you will understand a bit about the nakedness of man and the figleaves of our current state, which is just as big a truth that those without God, ignore.It, unlike historical creation, is there in there every move we make) or take the easy way out.

Ross reconciles cosmology with creation by relying on 2nd and 3rd interpretations of the words of the text. Lisle does the same job by relying on the 1st interpretation. I respect Lisles stand. However since the subject is not an everyday one (most of us, I trust, are not astronomers and physicists) one would expext that any discussion about the subject where an everyday word was used it would be with a meaning specific to the subject, so that which of a number of meanings, that is within reverent interpretation, might be the right one.

(By reverent I mean that interpretation need to assume God is not lying, wrong or misleading, the word is from God, it is intended for teaching and so on)

Views: 60

Comment

You need to be a member of Creation Conversations to add comments!

Join Creation Conversations

Comment by Lou Hamby on March 12, 2014 at 12:25pm

Sorry, you misunderstood me?  That is not the book, I am in the process of writing the book, but it does reflect some of my thinking.  That was all.  I do hope in my book to solidly pin down some of the inferences in some science views that have no foundation. I believe the evidences are so overwhelming that I feel compelled to write about this subject, and the lizard platform is a super platform to write from because of the examples are so clearly defined...  Cheers!!! Thanks for the exchange and Lord Bless you brother.

Comment by Carl Carlsson on March 12, 2014 at 11:14am

Good stuff, though I can not imagine that was a book condensed in that interview. Publish and be laughed at if that is the price. Never be afraid to do the right thing, Lou. One of the things with atheists is their explanations tend to be  A is only an animal with trousers/fish without gills, earth is just one of thousand planets, life only carbon compounds reacting. Everything is "only" or "just" something lower and simpler. Sometimes they catch themselves and instead of percieve the glory of creation, claim to watch the night sky in awe which is very likely a lie. They go "oh that is only a lot of hydrogen, actually", more likelly. A bit of everyday awe keeps life from being boring.

Comment by Lou Hamby on March 12, 2014 at 7:55am

Carl don't know if you read my article that I did recently but this is a condensed version but I actually received a few comments from secular individuals involved on herpetology and they said they thought this has a fresh view and enjoyed the article which sort of shocked me.  But here's the link:

http://www.undergroundparadigm.com/evidence-speaks/

SOme of observations "I" believe is evidence of GOds work in nature is:

First of all design, lizards have certain design features that are used over and over and those specific designs infer specific requirements and every animal with a certain design uses its eco-niche pretty much in the same way.  For instance desert lizard designs are employed across the platform, and one finds these very close similarities through out.

While I believe hybridization's rare in nature but may contribute to some variations in lizard species, lizards do have variation within their species, no issue at all.  BUt where I diverge from YE is I do believe that one cannot get any reference from the "bible" other than fixity of species.  ALso from what I know of DNA this backs up the view.  Scripture itself employs a male and female and offspring that are the same.  With in a kind or specie there can be variation, but this in no way can contribute to a "new body plan" as assumed by some of my creationist brethren.  

The procreative genes is responsible for body plan changes, and part of my observation "has to be" that GOd originally created and set in place our fauna and flora.  THe "evidences" of design is so clear and strong that no non-guided mechanism could be responsible for what is observed. It is no accident that certain species reside in certain habitats.  MY sort of big word I came up with was this--"self-determination". Some of our ideas in YE employ a paradigm that includes some level of self-determination with respect to habitats and eco-niches.  THis includes other natural history issues that run up against one another.  It has been clearly found that DNA influences the whole living product including the food sorts and other specific requirements need to survive.  Gods hand, design, and employ within the realm of nature is so much more intricate than what my bothers are talking about.  HWo for instance is speaking of symbiotic relationships as it applies to Ark dispersion.  What is observable and known--is that all animals have sort of a max-min with in their makeup.  So when the environment or others change or some new development comes into the picture animals are challenged beyond their GOD given DNA requirements and they often go extinct.  Take a fish like the snake head and put him in a river system with no predators like they have here is the US and they thrive and begin taking over the eco-system, or mice inAustralia, or rabbits in other countries.  THe balance of nature is no accident, when man or some catastrophe affects an eco-system, there are consequences to the animals that live in these eco-systems.

Again I am somewhat perplexed by the inferences of certain views employed by creationists that miss all the richness of Gods work in the world that is observable and known and seems like it is disregarded and/or no known evidences of actual speciation taking place through one pair has ever been observed outside of hybridization, nor has there been a mechanism within the known confines of DNA research that is or could be responsible for such. In all facets of research whether that be the fossil record or amber encased fossils etc. we only observe one line of ascendancy in any animal species including our 1000,000's living fossil species that have shown no change what so ever. So I hope to employ what I know and what is observable and hopefully give a better picture of what is using what I observe as GODs design down to the smallest details that have every bearing on distributions and eco-niche to body plan, food sorts, and other important parts of the whole -- I am planning on going through secular peer review with it, and while I know I am going to be a laughing stock out front, I also know something has to be put out there which infers the truth of Gods work, and as we study DNA whole God issue is staring the evolutionary inferences in the preverbal face.  I want to be one of the first to employ these observable and most clearly design issues that the evolutionary world connects to a non-guided mechanism which is devoid of the most important ingredient...that would be the Designer.  DNA information was not made by nature and pre-dated creation, as it was in the bosom of Almighty GOd, and when he began to create all that we know and observe this information contained in the smallest cell is so advanced and so complex and no evolutionist has any explanation for where this information comes form (i.e. Dawkins and aliens).  Cheers!!  

Comment by Carl Carlsson on March 12, 2014 at 4:35am

Lou;

30 and 40 years work on lizards is a lot of work and frustrating when one puts in lots of effort into an investigation or an argument and it does not convince or Lisle takes the presuppositional view that the whole picture makes sense only from a Christian viewpoint and otherwise the pieces can be ordered any way one pleases.

I do not think work in itself is a punishment and that there are rewards in itself, when one does an investigation and arrives at better certainties, even if the conclusions are not accepted. The thomistic faith is that you can investigate in any direction and Gods creation will hold up. To me your years of work are evidence in themselves and I am looking forward to hear when your book is finished.

Comment by Lou Hamby on March 10, 2014 at 6:48pm

-Thanks for your response--I screwed up--my contention even though I am aYE that Psalm 104 is clearly a creation psalm and not a flood Psalm regardless of either of their views. So I said that wrong below, and many creationist use Psalm 104 as a flood psalm.  I am not contentious in any way here, I just believe as one of our good posters once said here on the site there are two books one is the observable work of GOd in nature, the other is his Word, in all cases both of these should always homogenize. THe revelation in nature "is" evidence. I have spent 40 + years studying reptiles and the last 30 specifically lizards, I am writing a book on lizards and design, and the whole creation of Gods mighty work comes to bear in my thinking.  One only needs to look at body plan to eco-niche design, to get real evidences and observable design is all through the lizard platform, and makes for an excellent way to present this.  When I do discuss erets, I think of the whole bible in context, and also the issues and nuances outside of just the "land" there is enough unanswered questions for me to not at this time take any position on the flood, we still have a lot of major work to do...  And so I am little fringe and unorthodox with some of my views, but I would rather say I don't know than to push something I can't seem to rectify as correct. There are so many things that have been discussed but what of those issues outside of the obvious?  Thanks for your post!!!

Comment by Carl Carlsson on March 10, 2014 at 12:15pm

Thanks Lou for having patience with my english and way of expressing myself. That and your feedback is apreciated.

You got my opinion right that one has to be very selective on sources, since a lot of them are working from secular bias and they are in the absolute majority even on your side of the atlantic. Their conclusions are wrong because they have the naturalistic assumption, which means their lines of reasoning are not allowed to end up with God, due to their definition of science.  (I noted Dawkins talking about aliens planting life on earth- that is not good science from his definition even, if he really thinks his explanations cover all signs of creation then he has no need to bring aliens into the beginning of life question).

Lisles view on evidence from nature is that there is always bias and has this model from modern philosophy about theory and countertheory and argument defeaters and savers. He is able to provide such arguments and talks about his "don't answer/answer" technique of arguing, while not accepting the opponents worldview. Both of them can provide argument from nature for creation. 

It seems Lisles experience is that the facts are not enough to convince. They fit with his worldview, they fit with Ross' and they fit with the seculars worldview. So he comes back to scripture and presuppositional theologics saying it is impossible to argue any worldview without christian presumptions. Then he argues about the fitting of facts (reconciliation). 

I understand that you hold a classical view of convince with arguments and they will come to your interpretation, view? I am not sure that any of our communication theories are correct here. There are other forces at work in these discussions.

I interposed the "possibly" in flood covering the Earth. I believe Lisle is still a good guy. yom and erets are worth a study. From a strict textual point it seems to me that yom = a standard day length is most likely with the other reading "age" still open, for erets both readings "land" and "the Earth" are open. In the contexts a literal 6 days and a limited flood seems to require more reconciliation than the alternatives. 

It seems I will need to read up on psalm 104 mainly and refresh my Job before claiming an understanding of those text in connection with creation.

Both Ross like Lisle are interesting have honest debating techniques and seem genuine.

Comment by Lou Hamby on March 10, 2014 at 8:50am

One gets into trouble very quick if one approaches the word of God from ones understanding of nature, since a good part of the "understanding" part is delivered by secular sources, some of them incredibly biased, such as Richard Dawkins.

While this may be “your” view or opinion, AIG is full of articles that refer to nature.  Nature is the evidences of Gods work in this world as well.  And while we have the Word of God we also have the evidences of Gods work as well.  So “information’ in the wrong hands is certainly deleterious to our YE view.  But to conclude there is only one evidence resource that is reliable I believe is mistaken.  There is observable evidences right in front of our noses and that evidence speaks the truth of Gods Word in a practical most humbly evidential manner.  Where the issue takes a parting is the assumption that a non-guided mechanism is responsible for nature.  When anyone (Dawkins or whom ever) espouse aliens, or evolutions or other baseless innuendo's Some of the greatest arguments for a creator is from nature my friend, information in the hands of a bad expositor is a problem no matter what its basis.

If nature and science is “evidence” then it certainly correlates and stands with scripture as a basis for discussion.  We go tot he bible first, but there are many subjects that YE views are based on that have little or no expression in the bible but the evidence is observable and known quantitative knowledge, that is reliable and accepted by all factions.

His third statement was about there being only one creation narrative, the statement in Job is not a creation narrative and the referred psalm is a poetic treatment of creation.

I have argued Psalms 104 for 3 years on this site, 20 different bibles make reference to this Psalm and it is not a creation verse.  Some of our well meaning YEC brothers take this out of context and apply a creation narrative because they don’t like what it says.  The straight forward reading of the passages are clearly not a creation narrative, and the great thing about that, it doesn’t affect our YE view or Gods work in creation, or any other thing.  It does give us a light and look at aspects of creation that YE should be discussing, but are not?
Kudos to Lisle.

With that he helped map out the differences and he added that the divide in understandings, while serious, is not a salvation issue. It seems he has identified that Ross has God as Lord and does not question gods word, just our understanding of it.

While agreed that Ross has some ideas that don’t fit with my own view of Gods work and the bible, he is no less a Christian brother.  Since a huge contingent of Christian thinkers support some or all of his Views I think its in bad taste to just disregard him, I have seen some very nasty things written about him by well meaning brothers. Since I don’t follow Ross I have no clue about his personality, I have watched many videos of him with Ken Ham and others, not once have I ever seen him be anything but curious, but I am saying that based only on what I have seen....  Again Kudos to Lisle.

Lastly:
Lisle stressed that the simple and straightforward reading of "day"/"yom" is "day" and the simple straightforward reading of a flood that covered "the earth" is possibly a flood that covered the "Earth"

It seems to me if God is who he is then day is day and he is mighty and powerful and resourceful enough to create in a day, and while the first day may have a longer time signature as some suppose, God is able— when we think of the size of the Universe and it is immeasurable by man even today, that is pretty huge, and we are one micro dot in the middle of that whole.  Perfectly placed and spaced on purpose and moved form void and without purpose to purpose and creation by the power of Christ who holds all things together.

the simple straightforward reading of a flood that covered "the earth" is possibly (?) a flood that covered the "Earth"

I find that statement (in blue) interesting because my own view is no view at all.  The word “erets” (earth) can take on many forms my own study of the word and its context makes me leave the subject open.  I can only say I honestly don’t know.
There are so many issues wrapped up into the flood and my discussions on this forum have brought up some of the questions I believe all of us as Christians should be speaking about.  I am concerned about how pertinent information is often not discussed by YE authors or for that matter Ye brothers.  When that information “is” brought up or an example challenge or other informational definition in actual practice, this is seen as outside the stream or flow if you will of YEC literature and views.  But I tell you, “we” should be talking about some of these issues and we do not...  Some of the inferences about the authority of Gods Word is challenged by what sticks out like a sore thumb is just another way of controlling the dialogue and my point is that if we as brothers and sisters in Christ have a firm foundation and understanding that all things were created by our almighty God, then we should be looking to come together to bring a fully robust testable systematic and interpretation (hermeneutics) to the table, that means in 2014 with all we know we still are ignorant in many areas, and the need to explore just like the Barean’s did in the NT is exactly what needs to take place.  There is a difference between peer review and rubber stamp, I most humbly submit some of our ideas are going to come back and bite us because the nuance issues surrounding some of our views is less than homogonous with the information and observation and even scripture (i.e. Pslams104) that is a real problem.... What we know we know.

If that was Lisle’s comment above in blue that I highlighted, then Kudos again for him...   

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service