Creationism

In my last post I looked at creationists' hypothesis that incest was the primary means of populating the earth in the early days. Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International offers a particularly detailed defense.

In my previous post I looked at the creationist explanation for where Cain found his wife. Marrying your relatives, it turns out, is not a sin in creationist land.

Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International takes it a step further.

The main point is: morality is defined by the law of our Creator, who owns us, and who makes the rules, for our good. For example:

Where did Cain get his wife? It's one of those questions that has bedeviled creationists since the dawn of young-earth creationism (early 1960s), questions that would never need an answer except for a modernist approach to biblical hermeneutics that insists all Bible stories must be treated as eyewitness history.

After summarizing the six problems and (very briefly) mentioning the ways scientists have met these challenges, Faulkner concludes,

In parts 1 and 2 I looked at Danny Faulkner's counterintuitive complaint that scientists are untrustworthy due to their willingness to revise their theories when new evidence warrants it. As an example, Faulkner lists six problems for Big Bang cosmology, then asks why scientists don't simply abandon this model.

In Part 1 I looked at Danny Faulkner's counterintuitive complaint that scientists are untrustworthy due to their willingness to revise their theories when new evidence warrants it. Faulkner lists six problems for Big Bang cosmology, then asks why scientists continue revising rather than simply abandoning this model.

Of all the creationist arguments against mainstream science, perhaps the most perplexing is the complaint that scientists are willing to modify their theories to account for new evidence. Danny Faulkner of Answers in Genesis, interviewed by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International, was blunt in describing his concerns with Big Bang cosmology.

A few weeks ago I wrote about theologian Marcus Borg's classification of four types of faith. One of these types, assensus, is a faith of the intellect only. It involves believing something to be true in the absence of evidence. The next two—fidelitas and fiducia—involve actions of the will. These can be summed up by the English words "faithfulness" and "trust", respectively. The last one, visio, is best understood as a new way of seeing.

Dr. Jason Lisle, who really should know better, claims the consensus age of the universe is based on circular reasoning.

In the previous post I looked at Jason Lisle's attempt to demonstrate how we could see old starlight in a young universe, appealing to arcane cosmological concepts such as gravitational time dilation and an anisotropic synchrony convention. How does Lisle tie this hypothesis to Genesis?