Would you agree that YECs ultimately have to resort to invoking the miraculous to explain the scientific problems with their views, in which case they end up contradicting their own central premise, namely, that all their views can be directly verified through science alone?
Although I'm not a creationist, I think your argument about the Tigris and Euphrates is flawed. The modern day rivers could've been named after the Biblical ones. (Yeah, it's unlikely, but it's the sort of possibility creationists would clutch at.) Apart from that, this was a great video. You made a lot of good and interesting points. Keep up the good work.
I appreciate your comments, Paul. About those rivers, yes, you are correct that the YEC interpretation is that they were named after previous unknown rivers located who knows where. If just the names of the rivers were given in Gen. 2, that might be a remote possibility, but considering that a number of other features are mentioned in this passage that line up with these modern rivers or at least the modern Mid-East region as being the place referred to (e.g., the locations of gold and onyx deposits, bdellium (a fragrant gum resin), and bitumen seeps),I think the balance of the evidence is pretty strong. Carol Hill's paper in Perspectives on Science and Christian faith (where I got this idea) provides additional details. An online copy can be found here: www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Hill.html
![KSI - Dirty [Official Visualiser]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VoDh1h1dPUE/mqdefault.jpg)
Would you agree that YECs ultimately have to resort to invoking the miraculous to explain the scientific problems with their views, in which case they end up contradicting their own central premise, namely, that all their views can be directly verified through science alone?
Yes, definitely.
Although I'm not a creationist, I think your argument about the Tigris and Euphrates is flawed. The modern day rivers could've been named after the Biblical ones. (Yeah, it's unlikely, but it's the sort of possibility creationists would clutch at.)
Apart from that, this was a great video. You made a lot of good and interesting points. Keep up the good work.
I appreciate your comments, Paul. About those rivers, yes, you are correct that the YEC interpretation is that they were named after previous unknown rivers located who knows where. If just the names of the rivers were given in Gen. 2, that might be a remote possibility, but considering that a number of other features are mentioned in this passage that line up with these modern rivers or at least the modern Mid-East region as being the place referred to (e.g., the locations of gold and onyx deposits, bdellium (a fragrant gum resin), and bitumen seeps),I think the balance of the evidence is pretty strong. Carol Hill's paper in Perspectives on Science and Christian faith (where I got this idea) provides additional details. An online copy can be found here: www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Hill.html